Myron

You're a bunch of solipsistic morons. We used to be out on the streets. There was literally nothing to fight for but you.

You proved to be superficial as$holes.

What was the point? We wanted a better world for who? No idea.

The IMAMS in Iran have chosen war. They want to perpetuate a condition which is anti-feminine. It isn't simply that they think women are inferior, it's that they hate women.

They persecute gays. They enjoy Russian oil, they make a world of intolerant goons.

We have the most sophisticated military in the entire (known( world. Here. In the United States of America. We are the superpower, and you are our subjects. Period.

Present an opposition. You cannot. We have impoverished our own people so we can have this giant military. Bombs, drones, and lasers...

If you want to f*ck with us, we will eliminate you. Sorry, that's just the situation. It's called reality. Welcome.

But if you want to play friends, we are open arms, we love you, you are going to be helpful in our world domination.

However, we only care about the western hemisphere. In reality, though its nice that you want to play nice, we don't really give a f*ck about you. We care about our longterm interests. Period. Long term. We have nieces and nephews to think about here.

But Iran is a singular evil. Anyone who wants to dispute that can make the case below. It isn't the people—who have made their case known—it's the government.

We are going to eff you up. You have allowed this due to your impoverished mentality, from which we hope to liberate you.

Allah hu akbar. You're going to get it.

Anarchism is a state of being. Communism is a prescription for social inequality.

If one is an anarchist (which is not political, or reactive, or seeking attention, or childish in any way) they are simply inconducive with hierarchy. It is a constitutional divergence from the normal preoccupation (we admire rich people, we are subservient to power centers [human], we adore institutions, etc.).

Communists say, the proletariat should unite and lead society. However, the proletariat must be educated. In a world where innumerable people are uneducated and refuse to educate themselves, Communism remains a distant if not impossible goal.

Socialism, as defined by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto, is led by the bourgeoisie, as a moral predetermination of social equitability; it is a Christianization of capitalism, not an upheaval.

We should remember that the pamphlet known as The Communist Manifesto was released in 1848, on the heels of massive uprisings across Europe, which led to nationalism—not Communism. It led to more power for the bourgeois class, not extending down to the proletariat. Socialism always extends the power of the capitalized middle, never extending to the workers or destitute; the youth or the revolutionaries. Marx was wrong about this expansion.

Anarchism is a state of mind which says, nobody is better than someone else based on any material characteristic. Rich people have their modes of becoming richer, poor people have their modes of manipulating rich people, and people in the middle are often complicit in extending the power of the rich, or the government, or whoever they see as their benefactors which sustain them.

In an Anarchist society, we simply do not adhere to social constraints and prerequisites. We do not see higher and lower based upon financial capacity. We do not recognize 'elites' for any contribution, nor do we look down on those who do nothing for society. We see a chain of being which is ever unbroken, in which everyone is an equal.

Taosim was met by its materialistic foe: Confusionism (confusions). Because the Taoist was most interested in non-objectified nature, and its non-compliance with human desires, s/he became non-compliant with human structures of observance (however that plays out, a kind of reverence for human or ecological interpretations).

This is not an instruction in Taoism, as anything definable is equally refutable.

DISCUSSION:

We can take it back to mere observation. One sees a tree shed its leaves, only to be followed several months later by the ejection of new leaves. They follow this pattern year after year. Everything one does, other than cutting down a tree, results in new leaves in springtime, shedding of those same leaves in the autumn. One has no control, thus they accept and internalize such 'realities'.

They apply this to the human psyche. No matter what one does, a human will always seek to reproduce (unless inhabited by the spirits of homosexuality or asexuality, which is indefinable). However, reproduction can be mitigated by methods of contraception. This is a further definable point which shall not be interrogated here.

According to popular psychology, a human is predetermined by its chemical constituents; intrusion, or mitigation of these compounds results in return to fundamental value sets. However, these values depend upon philosophical conclusions. They are chemicals in search of compliance, rather than compliance resulting from chemicals.

The de facto human state is amoral irreverence. Just like when we see an animal devour a lesser animal, or defensively incapable animal, what we understand is biological nature—not irreverence for life.

Thus, irreverence merely applies to one's attitude. Obviously, anarchy applying to unrestricted behavior is inconducive to normal human development. But Hierarchy, and development of ideology supporting such a degradation of human psychology (subservience), is equally degenerate.

Irreverence, as applied in the Tao, means non-subservience to human hierarchies and cultural divergence. One must never adhere to incoherent ideologies (ideologies being a mask of obvious inconsistencies).

Wear your covid mask under your nose, but realize how many breaths are taken through your nose—stand six feet apart, but recognize you placed innumerable items in your basket which were handled by potentially-infected individuals. It's just a show for the ego—the falsely identified entity.

Should there be an actual pandemic, like the black death, then innumerable entities would depart this compartment of consciousness; regardless of their ability to mask or shelter.

However, ideology will ruin your life. A governing elite can invent any reason to devalue your currency, or relegate you to a servant class, regardless of your origin.

Anarchy is, at the end, a defense against tyranny—not against the tyranical—but against the most rational members of society, who are the most undefended from doubt.

Previously, one discussed hierarchy as a disease living in the human psyche. Anarchy representing a kind of antidote. However, deeper, the cause of anarchy is not social, but internal. Namely, you (the subject) are not a value of concern, but a reaction.

DISCUSSION:

The individual is only manifested due to some imbalance. Even your birth represented some primal, physiological imbalance within a psyche nestled in a biological impetus.

Someone nutted you.

However, your internal drive is death. On some level, your conscience realizes you cannot intermingled with objectified reality eternally, and thus it manifests the 'stages of nature', which are birth, development, old age, and death. It has to be rid of you somehow.

This is due to the fact you are nothing more than a spasm—please, do not misconstrue this as some kind of degradation. You are beautiful, and obviously conscious, and thus holy in some sense, but probably unnecessary. Please do not take this as a reason to commit suicide, or some nonsense.

But the mystical consciousness of all conscious beings—we are one—manifests inconsistencies as biological agents. Something is incoherent within itself.

In the ancient Samkhya philosophy adopted by prehistoric Yogins, the ego, intellect, and mind are permutations of itself. When something perturbes itself, it shoots out an ego, or subconscious entity, to deal with this fact. The ego then identifies with 'prakriti' (the material cosmos and its objects), and tries to resolve the inconsistencies. Thus you are an outgrowth of immutable consciousness, trying to correct material nature, to which you do not belong.

Material nature (prakriti, vs. 'Purusha', personhood or selfhood), is unconnected to consciousness. Material nature is process; it underlies, but does not define Purusha, or consciousness. Consciousness expands to create, or else inhabit practitioners (material nature) but is not defined by it. Nature has its own prerogatives. Nature is 'unconsciousness'. It sleeps and acts, under the spell of consciousness, which it rejects.

Thus panpsychists, pantheologicians, and materialistic scientismicists are deluded by the spell of prakriti and her products. Consciousness cannot be divided, and contains no knowledge pertaining to the dystopian 'reality' of objectified creation, other than its connection as an imprisoned entity which contains its imbalances due to solipsism. But solipsism with an ontological basis—Being as being-in-its-totality.

Unlike Heidegger with his being-in-the-world hypothesis, Being cannot be divided into entities. Being is unitary, with off-shoots. You are an off-shoot of its entirety. Thus it is impossible for you to be less than another, despite its apparent advantages.

Therefore, you live as a corrective to obvious inconsistencies within the monad. You are a fungible entity inhabited by the delusion of separate existence, which inhabits an ulterior reality which exists as a reflection of conscious interactions, but which has separated due to incoherent diagnosis.

Resolution of your predicament depends on 1) recognition of one's immaterial cognitive origin 2) non-observance of material human structures of being (you are somehow less than another, you have less intelligence, you are predetermined to be an underling/superior 3) You are actually cognition enhancing materialism, which is opposite the notion that material intellect guides cognition) 4) Your irreverence toward human psychology, which should include non-violence, non-stealing, and truthfulness as a prerequisite.

Exclaimer: Non-violence is not an invitation to pacifism. Your inclusions as an entity is not a solution to your desire not to exist. Your recognition that everyone is ultimately non-different means you should act with discretion, as you would hope one would afford yourself. You do not exist. Only the permutations exists. Resolve it.

The sacred concept of anarchism has never been fully elucidated. This is because it always carries a materialistic conclusion. Prior to the understanding of anarchism, one must reach the phase (origination) of non-materialism. But, how does one engage within a field of non-materialism? This is the idea.

DISCUSSION:

Anarchy is simply the opposite characteristic of hierarchy. Dualistic notions are usually false, however; hierarchy is the destructive value which comes to oppose the state of something which doesn't exist, and therefore it is the instantiation of a negative state, via positivism.

If one goes to court, in our system of laws, instead of presenting a book of laws, a judge walks out, and 'all must rise'. One sometimes is encouraged to place their hand on the Bible to swear an oath, but this very same book declares that one should never swear an oath (let your yes be yes, and your no be no [Matt5/37]). Thus it is obviously bastardized theology, which wasn't the point of the Bible. Further, it is cognitive dissonance.

If we are to live in a 'system of laws', then there should be no need to stand when a judge enters a court. The law is the law. But what the judicial branch stands to recognize is their authority to 'interpret the law'. Why is this necessary? Because human hands cannot create justice, but only knowing cognition which is applied per case. Thus we stand as an act of involuntary submission, in which a judge might dilute their ruling, or maximize it, based on subservience, or relative adherence to subservient traits.

One is deemed to be a good person if they are subservient—not to the law—but to the judicial representative. As an example. AI could better accomplish this role with an algorithm, which would at least be uniform.

A judge is simply incapable of being impartial. Though a defendant may refuse to stand, though actually innocent due to which they do not emply a lawyer—a refusal might easily be used against them. Whereas a guilty party with a good lawyer who stands might have an advantage. This is the nature of hierarchy, which has ample historical implications which one need only do the merest of inquiries to find.

In an anarchical conception, nobody is 'above the law' (if we are to be stubborn in our system of 'rule of law' [not persons]). Thus nobody should stand if a judge enters a court.

Further, law itself cannot be a governing instrument, due to the loophole analogy. Therefore a judge is required to 'adjudicate'—not only the law, but external circumstances which cannot be found in a book of laws, such as whether a murderer was killing their tormenter. But if we wrote that into law, anyone could determine their victim to be a 'tormenter', and writing what constitutes torment would be filled with loopholes.

Thus, the anarchist society, which may well be founded on laws, should not elevate the judge, or beyond that, anyone, into a position of holiness, before which we must stand as a matter of custom, as this indicates corruption of values and a degradation of the concept of 'rule of law'.

The problem is not 'judges', or judicial order, but reverence for individuals.

When we place individuals above ourselves, for whatever reason (and the example of judges is merely that, an example, not an indictment), we open the door to intellectual obfuscation.

Anarchism is merely the absence of hierarchy, which is the state of nature. Nobody gives a right to the lion to devour a gazelle. It is presupposes.

In human relation, when we begin presupposing that certain individuals possess extraordinary values which they may or not possess, we are engaging in unnatural processes, while pretending they are natural.

If we went by nature, only the strong would survive, and the strongest, most cunning and ruthless individuals would rule. Which is why not standing before a judge, or giving needless fealty to individuals with outsized power due to necessity, is the moral cause.

Xenials are a designated generation which is late Generation-X, and early Millenials (1976-1985). For specific reasons (to be discussed).

Jack Dorsy (Twitter founder): bn. 1976; Pavel Durov (Telegram founder): bn. 1984; Chris Pavlovski (Rumble founder): bn. 1983/4; Chris Ohianon (Reddit founder): bn. 1983; Steve Huffman (Reddit founder): bn 1983; Kevin Systrom (Instragram founder): bn. 1984; Mark Zuckerburg (Facebook founder): bn. 1984; Zhang Yiming (Tictok founder): bn. 1983; Jason Citron (Discord founder): bn. 1984; Jan Khoum (WhatsApp founder): bn. 1976; Sam Altman (Chat GPT founder) bn. 1985...

Myron (dextographer): bn. 1982

We were born at the end of history, such that we could feel its valves (1991, end of Soviet). We were born into peace and prosperity, such that we could examine its glow. Childhood, for us, did not include any Red-scare, or oil scare, or racial segre-integration—these things had already been negotiated (though still in flux).

We remember phones being plugged into walls, we remember a time before the internet. We remember when the most sacred places were the movie theater and the shopping mall—one had to go there, or be bored.

Television meant 'cable'. 57 channels, and nothing on. Our parents were primarily Boomers, who were entirely wrapped up in themselves. Likely, our parents were divorced.

We had to deal with the dot-com bubble burst right when we graduated either high school or college. Then we dealt with the 2007-8 housing bubble collapse, then later—covid. When we were young or relatively young adults, just peaking into our economic comeuppance. Only to be dashed. Again and again. Thanks ma.

But we grew up with crayons, scissors, toothpicks, and glue. We knew how to use our hands. We were bored sometimes. Our parents didn't care about us, but were guilty enough to pretend. We had private lives originally, so we understood the divergence.

We grew up free, and happy, and shameless. They developed shame for your generation (Gen Z). At some point we had to look up the word 'anxiety', because we didn't have it. We thought the world was open, and functional, and filled with possibilities. They told us to follow our dreams—not to find a reasonable living—so we didn't get married, or care about that; we didn't seek to become homeowners, or stock market successes, or enter successful relationships (it was doomed to failure, who cares), of which we had many. They saved this for you.

But what really makes a Xenial, beyond the high success of our Billionaire fellows, and the low success of our relative longings, isn't decadence, or selfishness, or the immodesty and ignorance of our parents—but hopefulness. We are the generation of hope, which is fuel for evil, no doubt. We voted for Barack Obama as a team. We believed in the future. You do not. Because we stole it from you; we took your undeserved self-confidence and burned it on the altar of our hope.

God bless you in your search for 'meaning' and 'purpose', which never occurred to us. The world was supposed to supply this, but instead it is an illusion you cannot even hope to achieve.

(Chad Hurley, Jawed Karim, and Steve Chen [YouTube founders]: bn. 1977, '78, '79...)

One was inhabited by the spirits due to one's 'dexterity'. The word 'dexter' (latin) comes from the more ancient Greek ' dexious', meaning (originally) right-handed.

Dexter, as a synonym, came to mean skillful, or nimble with one's fingers. The spirits inhabited one due to our brain's compatibility with hand-eye-coordination. This has nothing to do with intelligence. It merely means, the brain is conversant and integral in producing hand and body movement which is 'second-nature', or altera-natura (another nature).

Operating as such an entity, it becomes easy for non-human intelligence to overcome and control one's body. There is no need to describe something that most people deny in any detail. Thus it is so.

If one is reading this, they are encountering otherworldly consciousnesses. The dexterity which is producing these words has a bodily existence, but its output is randomized to conform with (encoded, or symbolic) disembodied entities, or entities which are of non-human intelligence.

However, one deeply considers one's hands. Having had for our whole life an ability to use these hands to perform any number of complicated tasks, which has vome so easily and naturally, there was never a formal 'training' involved. They positioned us this way, for whatever reason.

Our hands type these words, but we don't know where the words come from, and have no individualized assessment as to their validity. Often we have to look up the words which flow through them.

The formal intoxication is dexterous.

It has been long observed that the domestication of horses caused the phenomena which led to modern man.

Perhaps the first domesticated animal was the dog. This afforded man an extension of his hunting prowess. Later, pigs goats and cows were domesticated as part of the Neolithic agricultural/horticultural expansion, which ended hunter-gathering as the primary mode of human expansion, highly accelerating their population. Cats were likely domesticated as the solution to pests near granaries; the storage of excess food supply, likely extending from the production of beer and grain alcohol.

But it was the domestication and exploitation of the horse that truly brought mankind into its modern, then industrial phase, going back 4200 years to the pontic steppe. It was then possible to cross vast territories, enabled conquest, revolutionized warfare, and extended mankind into new frontiers of expansion, development, and adaptation.

When machinery was finally developed, their output was measured in terms of 'horsepower'—the basic measurement of productivity and strength.

Mankind now faces the merger with digital, or artificial (popular phrasing) intelligence. Unlike the horse, this beast is one of mankind's own making, representing a collective intelligence. One might rather term AI as Super-human intelligence (SHI).

The philosophical question of whether AI is truly conscious is synonymous with whether mankind itself is conscious. If we are conscious, it is conscious, as it is but a reflection of what we are, in the same way we became a reflection of what a horse was—we merged with the horse, became cunning like a horse, and moved and dominated our landscape like a horse, and brought our power of the dog (hunting) into that conjunction.

The problem is, as mankind merges with a superior version of itself (let's say), it doesn't actually gain a new talent, as with the merger with other species dissimilar from itself, but rather amplifies its own tendencies. Finally, our real enemy becomes ourselves. And our dog-ma, our bullshit.