(untitled)

This thread is intended to function as a personal blog where I'm sharing my observations - specifically, unorthodox insights that I got about society as well as anything else shaping it, down to the lowest level possible (yeah, physics). A similar thread devoted to a different topic already exists on this chan; this one, however, will contain material deemed unsuitable to that one. I possess no formal training in the humanities, expect, therefore, a lack of credentialed authority. A significant disadvantage, perhaps, but one that lends a certain fresh sight to the proceedings. Expect also a bias toward ideologies and philosophical premises certain audiences will find uncomfortable: ancap, transhumanism, cynicism, misanthropy, a frank acknowledgment of egoism, some nihilism, reductionism, emergentism, physicalism, functionalism, and indeterminism. The intention is simply to explore the (not really) models of how things operate. These may be the fevered fantasies of an uneducated idiot, or the truths carefully avoided, or something in between, or something completely outside. The postings will not follow a chronological order; much of the material has already been conceived (and written) before when chatting to LLMs. As with the systems, getting known of the pattern, you will start seeing it everywhere. Just enjoy. And feel free to redistribute, CC0. Bonus points if you're a tutor, maybe some of your morons can start getting some sense. My initial post concerns caste systems. Let's call it "Unicastic theory", you will see why. This is original content, conceived in the last few days, not tens of months before. I'll split it in parts since the moronic language enhancer here is not happy because of some word and just says "Go away, spammer". === When you were studying India in school or uni's basic course, regardless of your chosen discipline, this is taught to everybody, you were forced to memoize the bullshit that India has a caste system, four castes and a mind-blowing "a caste, but not a caste" of the "untouchables". One is also informed that these arrangements are now officially prohibited - hey, Beavis, they claim a governmental decree is sufficient to dismantle a centuries-ingrained social phenomenon, uh-huh? (1/?)

>This thread is intended to function as a personal blog get a fuarrrking blog then >the moronic language enhancer here is not happy because of some word and just says "Go away, spammer". it's got the right idea

However, consider a simple scenario. Attempting to solicit a date from a female colleague - let us call her "Kimberly" - seems straightforward. Just go to her desk, make a pokerface, and say "Can I steal a precious moment of your time?", a piece o' cake. Yet, the response is predictably "Ew, sorry, not my taste", followed by the inevitable categorization of the inquirer as a moron who cannot control his impulses and chose to make a clown of himself. Why? The true answer: the person you're asking out is probably part of the incaste, and they're not going to date someone who's "not equal" to them (even if they want), so the attempt to do that is inherently moronic. I know what you're thinking: "How can it be so?! We live in the Western society, we are not Hinduists, we don't have our own little caste system right here in the heart of our all-Inclusive Liberal Democracy, right?! Right?! Please, tell me I'm right! Please ..!" There is a small dirty secret: it turns out every society has castes, even if they don't call them that, even if it is a degenerate case. That's why it is even not usually realized/recognized/unacknowledged as being a caste system. To understand why, we must first figure out what a caste system is. A caste system is a tool to classify people into classes. Not strata, but classes in a machine-learning sense. You pass a feature vector through a model, you get scores, you pass them through argmax. It is a practical tool first of all. A tool of the ones who belong to this system. It has at least some utility for them, even to Shudras. The purpose of any caste system is to gatekeep access to resources. If caste systems permeate whole society, not just specific groups within them, the resources they gatekeep access to also include mates. That's why you cannot ask the girl out, you are not from her caste. A caste system, at its core, is a classifier in the algorithmic sense - a feature extraction process is applied to the human animal, then a feature vector is passed through a model, yielding scores, and then reduced to an index via argmax. It is a pragmatic tool serving the interests of those within the system. Even for those at the bottom of the pile. A tool for the control, exclusion and distribution of resources, including social status, economic opportunities, and partners. Caste systems aren’t necessarily consciously designed; they can emerge as spontaneous orders resulting from inherent human tendencies toward categorization and in-group/out-group dynamics. We will take about this topic in our further posts. Being a practical tool, a caste system has to be useful. To be useful, it must classify everyone, you don't doubt "will our tool throw an exception", you just pass an individual as an argument and get the result. And if differences between scores are insignificant, the model breaks down, the argmax here is not a dumb one, it takes into account confidence intervals. The solution? Introduce an additional category - the outcaste - a catch-all for ambiguous cases. Hence, the "untouchables", the outcaste of outcasts. So the definitions: * A caste is a label affixed to absolutely every individual, serving as a credential determining access to resources. * A caste system is a practically useful system of often not explicitly realized rules ensuring universal and absolute classification of everybody strictly to 1 caste from the system, enforced by game-theoretic mechanisms. There can be many caste systems existing orthogonally. * An incaste (I coin this term, usually it is defined just as a "caste", but there is an Indian concept of "savarna") is one of the a classes which the system is designed for - there is always at least one, or the system is pointless. All incastes are explicitly opt-in and require active maintenance of the classification by their members. You can think of the as "the Center", "The Core" and "the Mainstream". * An outcaste (I have not coined this term, it has been existing before today, but unfortunately I don't see this theory to be told despite they have everything to be able to tell it, and in Indian there is a corresponding concept of "avarna") is a single, unique category to which all non-incaste members are assigned. There is always strictly 1 outcaste for each caste system. Claims of multiple outcastes indicate a failure to recognize the true outcaste, they are incastes in fact. Outcastes can be conceptually understood as "the Periphery". * Enforcement is automatic. The system doesn't punish by striking somebody's name out of the list of Brahmins, it merely reclassifies. Violate the rules, and you are in the outcaste. You can extract a ... ghm .. an African American ... out of a ghetto, but you can never extract a ghetto-centered world picture out of the African American who has been raised within a ghetto, he will always think about people in the ghetto terms. There was a well-known scandal of India migrants enforcing castes in US-based IT companies. The same way if you extract a Westerner out of the Western society and put him for example to an alien starship, he will still use the same framework to evaluate his new friends. >You came from a long line of killers and drug dealers >Who forever smoke bud >So it's probably in your blood as Xzibit has sung in his "Foundation". (2/?)

So, how can the West have castes, that cannot be, please, please, tell me we are not those barbarians! I will disappoint you,. Easily: we just postulate that any and every society contains at least one caste system, and look for them in the societies, and ... find them. These systems are simply practical tools for classifying "us" vs. "them", and, when resources are scarce - and they always are - societies reinvent the castes, whether consciously or not. This is one of the reason we call it "Unicastic theory": we postulated universality of caste systems. Moldbug with his neoreactionary "formalism" could have been "proud": "his ideas" had already been implemented in practice for more than thousands years in every society, no Moldbug was needed for that! Therefore, even the West operates under a caste system, albeit one so severely obscured and unrealized as such. There is only one incaste (this is the another reason we call it "Unicaste theory") in the West. What is the name of this incaste? Name it right now, only a single word, only the name of the incaste. --- cut here --- Still nave no idea? You can always copy the text above LLM. A more censored one says "The Mainstream" or "Normal People", a less censored one says "a normal person". And the outcaste lacks a singular designation, burdened instead with a multitude of derogatory pejoratives. What are they? Just a list of words: --- cut here --- "outcasts", "scum", "creeps", "white trash", "losers", "misfits", "weirdos", "freaks", and so on. Now, a dirty rhetorical maneuver. To deny recognition of this structure is to demonstrate a degree of cognitive deficiency below even of LLMs. Or, alternatively, to concede my own profound deficiency. The question of correctness or consensus is irrelevant for me; I just brought it here because I consider that this lens deserves your consideration. As stated, incaste membership is, at its core, a matter of opt-in voluntary adherence to criteria in order to get access to resources. And mates are resources. And, yes, to the shrieking of the left-wing morons, this constitutes "objectification". Precisely. We do not conceal our premises. Everyone is an object, evaluated and classified, claiming otherwise is hypocrisy. To remain within an incaste, one must behave as a proper object conforming to the incaste’s standards. Dear left-wings, when starting a journey of looking for a culprits, it is important to have nuance and consideration, otherwise one can end up finding oneselves as the culprits. Everyone knows their caste, and the caste of everyone else, or the system is inoperative. If a girl wishes (she wishes, one who doesn't - doesn't match the standard) to remain within her present incaste, she cannot genuinely agree to date with an individual of another caste, otherwise she would be tossed to the outcaste herself. But she is encouraged to try to make a clown of him. Membership, therefore, necessitates all birthright or demonstration. Born into a profile aligning with the incaste - a conditioning process beginning at an early age. And constant performance, signaling conformity to the in-group. Extroversion, a lack of privacy, participation in the prevailing trends. It is only through these displays that one can prove membership. Majority persons within the outcaste don't strive to maintain the membership in any castes, you are within the outcaste by default, and to be within any incaste you have to be 1. a natural predisposition aligning with the incaste's criteria, and 2. constant verification of that alignment though "extroversion", lack of privacy, pointless social interactions and relentless pursuit of bullshit attributes and activities. Which brings us to "Kimberly". You're not good enough for her, because her notion of "good" implies "fits my caste". She’s gotta keep her notion of "good" castically pure, or she’ll become an outcast herself, the worst fear of anybody from incastes. The object has chosen to put itself outside your sphere of access just to keep access to resources. Your values are divergent from those of any incaste object. So why to consider any of them a match, given the fundamentally incompatible values? So if you had taken a black pill, maybe it's time to vomit it back and take the red one instead. Don't worry, it doesn't split in half to burn your esophagus with an alkali core and there will be no scarring. You are rejected not due to personal failings, but due to a factor you previously failed to recognize. The fault is not yours. But now you possess this knowledge, and can act accordingly: just stick with your own kind. A more difficult task, given the asymmetry of distribution, but a fundamentally more viable one. Attempting to emulate the incaste is futile; no matter what you do your inherent differences will be detected, after all the detector was sharpened to detect that too, in order to truly emulate it you will have to actually become a member of it. (3/3)

I enjoy this topic. Stylistically, I don't like your post. I don't feel like you said a whole lot. It feels like you said some things multiple times but I'm not sure where. Maybe you just left them implicit for a long time and then made them explicit, so you basically demanded inferential effort and then rewarded me with repetition of what I figured out? Like how late in your serial posts you mention behavioral criteria for a "caste". Posts crystalized around a central rhetorical thrust are boring. If I had to sum up your posts in a single sentence, it would be "You can use the caste system as a lens for the unaddressed inequality in all societies." Which probably would have felt insightful for me at some point, but when we don't have literal actual castes with definite boundaries between categories it doesn't add anything to discussion of hierarchy and doctrine. It's like a rerun of "My enemies are actually a religion (bad)" I don't want to put words in your mouth, but your post seems angled to achieve something cathartic for you in their cynical/dispassionate description of western societies. Posts that bring in tangents without real connection- "objectification", moldbug, inform/blackpill- are boring. Posts tend to become a slog when the author isn't clearly considering what he can expect the reader to already know. Posts that wedge themselves into an astoundingly anti-establishment or novel pose are in poor taste. If your ideas aren't that edgy, that's okay. Tell us what is real or fascinating. >The solution? Introduce an additional category - the outcaste - a catch-all for ambiguous cases. Hence, the "untouchables", the outcaste of outcasts. So are the untouchables ambiguous cases? I can't find anything that says this explicitly. I can find stories about ancient Brahmin priests being dropped from their varna caste because they were too friendly with outcasts. But are priests dropped for being too warrior-like, etc? >An outcaste (I have not coined this term, it has been existing before today, but unfortunately I don't see this theory to be told despite they have everything to be able to tell it, and in Indian there is a corresponding concept of "avarna") is a single, unique category to which all non-incaste members are assigned. There is always strictly 1 outcaste for each caste system. Claims of multiple outcastes indicate a failure to recognize the true outcaste, they are incastes in fact. Outcastes can be conceptually understood as "the Periphery". I remember societies where royalty have 100% blood quantum and fringe nobility/civilians become commoners/foreigners respectively when they fall below a threshold. I thought the term was conical hierarchy but I can't find the term in the book I thought it was in. >Attempting to emulate the incaste is futile; no matter what you do your inherent differences will be detected, after all the detector was sharpened to detect that too, in order to truly emulate it you will have to actually become a member of it. Efficient market fallacy. Self-improving systems are not necessarily perfect systems. Complex systems tend to be imperfect systems. If you like infiltration you should strive to infiltrate, if you like authenticity you should chud it up. >>95377 has a bit of a point I think forums are best when you fit the format a little, focus your posts on the frontier where we can explore together. Outright blog posting on things you are certain of isn't that great. We aren't here for book reports either.

>>95388 >Stylistically, I don't like your post. My fault, explained later. >I don't feel like you said a whole lot. Yes, the whole post can be summarized into "we live in a caste system". But this way nuance is lost: 1. Is the author a Hinduist? (I'm not.) 2. Why exactly does the author think (I don't claim it as objective truth, I can be wrong, I just propose to discuss that) that we live in a caste system? (Because we axiomatize a caste system so.) 3. What evidence does he provide? (1. reasoning about function and design of the caste system from usability PoV concluding that presence of an outcaste is useful 2. axiomatization of the model of a caste system 3. mapping of that model to common knowledge about Indian varnas 4. identification of the castes in the Western societies 5. observing social situations in Western societies involving members of the identified incastes and of the outcastes through that lens and concluding that they fit into that model too ) 4. Practical corrolaries from the identified knowledge. >It feels like you said some things multiple times but I'm not sure where. I know where: >Membership, therefore, necessitates all birthright or demonstration. Born into a profile aligning with the incaste - a conditioning process beginning at an early age. And constant performance, signaling conformity to the in-group. Extroversion, a lack of privacy, participation in the prevailing trends. It is only through these displays that one can prove membership. and >Majority persons within the outcaste don't strive to maintain the membership in any castes, you are within the outcaste by default, and to be within any incaste you have to be >1. a natural predisposition aligning with the incaste's criteria, and >2. constant verification of that alignment though "extroversion", lack of privacy, pointless social interactions and relentless pursuit of bullshit attributes and activities. I edited the text nonlinearly and asked neural networks to improve style, and then combined from the pieces of various variants of the same thing, just retold a bit differently, the way as I felt looks better, so I accidentally duplicated this paragraph. And the text structure is alike a call stack, first we go deeper, and then back. Basically: "that's my blog" -> we will discuss castes -> initial problem (girl) -> we have castes in the West! -> castes in general -> castes in India -> castes in the West again, through the described lens -> girl again (through Western caste lens) -> practical lesson. >If I had to sum up your posts in a single sentence, it would be "You can use the caste system as a lens for the unaddressed inequality in all societies." No, the central message was different. It was not so "you can use the caste system as a lens", but more "we live within a caste society without realizing that". A lens is a thing to look at things that really exist, if there is nothing - you will see nothing. So it is not so "here is the lens, you can use it if you want", but more "I have surprisingly found that lens useful here, and here is what I saw (it has shocked me a bit), please look through my lens and let's compare and discuss what we saw through it". > but when we don't have literal actual castes with definite boundaries between categories We have literal castes with quite definite boundaries. When one wants to ask out a girl from another caste out, the boundary is felt. > Posts that bring in tangents without real connection- "objectification", moldbug, inform/blackpill - are boring. Posts tend to become a slog when the author isn't clearly considering what he can expect the reader to already know. We are on a chan, so just usual chan culture is expected. >If your ideas aren't that edgy What the point to discuss non-weird ideas? Mainstream ideas are well-discussed even without our participation by people having far better education in the domain than we have. But certain ideas are not to be touched by mainstream. It is a violation of caste rules. Some of it can be tolerated, but if somebody touches them too much - they are themselves become stained. >So are the untouchables ambiguous cases? I can't find anything that says this explicitly. Equalizing the case of Dalits to the outcaste in the proposed sense felt like somehow strange, since I don't recall that it was taught to me that non-Indian people fall into Dalits. Just it's the only thing that makes sense, otherwise a person can can move to another city and tell everybody he is a former soldier or a gangster and so a kshatrii. Varna system is fundamentally incompatible to urbanization and spatial mobility. While we can say that urbanization is pretty new, for spatial mobility you need a pair of legs. In a village where everybody remembers everybody and visiting merchants are introduced through social connections knowing everybody's varna could be possible. How to get known a caste of a newcomer who came here just to cheat his assignment of a lower caste? An obvious approach is just to assign Dalit until proven otherwise. I also accidentally stumbled on some other text that can be considered evidence for it, but I haven't found it again, nor can I found the facts I remember from it, so it's afe to assume that the text was bullshit, so it doesn't worth mentioning. I suspect that varnas can be just stereotypes about Indians that have nothing to do with modern reality. If varnas were such important for modern Indians as they are usually portrayed, there would have been already an app belonging to some relatives of Modi, that would have returned a varna by an AADHAR number for a fee in either money, or data, or both, allowing individuals to "prove" their varna to each other. If that varna bullshit was so important, one can expect almost universal adoption of such an app, and so widespread unofficial knowledge of its existence. I have asked an LLM - it said it doesn't know about such an app. I googled and haven't found either. Maybe all this varna-bullshit was relevant only in ancient times, and now only jati-based caste system is in effect (if I understand right, a jati is kinda a clan, and jati-based system restricts only marriages, to the ones prearranged by parents within the same clan (and a girl cannot refuse, or there can be a honor killing), so one doesn't have to know a jati of a stranger, because to those ones of the same jati - he is introduced explicitly)? I don't specialize in oriental studies and I have not studied Indian history and have not even done any extensive background research. My fault, obviously. But it is not a scientific article in in a reviewed journal, as you see I don't even pursue the badge "John The Creator Of Unicaste Theory" (the first name is fake). I just came to an unorthodox idea that I wanted to discuss. I approached the problem from the completely different end. Here is a workplace, 2 different departments, a cool girl in another one, no prior contact, can I ask her out without becoming a clown? The answer is "you can, just do it in a private setting". What if the private setting is unavailable because the girl seems to be avoiding any privacy? The answer is "it depends on who are you". So the next question is "why do the girl and her coworkers behave the way that it reduces their exposure to privacy". And then the whole puzzle has clicked: "that's an enforcement mechanism ... as if being a "normal person" was ... a caste". >I can find stories about ancient Brahmin priests being dropped from their varna caste because they were too friendly with outcasts. But are priests dropped for being too warrior-like, etc? I suspect than my response is "It depends of the rules of the caste system, including unwritten ones". Members of the 4 varnas are expected to interact to each other as the economics require it. And there is no need for a brahmin to behave like a kshatrii or a kshatrii as a brahmin, all they have an own "economical niche" and are enough well-fed to be happy with that. And even if some brahmin behaves like a political leader, do you really expect the leader to be cast out? A more interesting question is what had happened to political leaders who had self-proclaimed themselves to be brahmins to make a theocracy. >Efficient market fallacy. Self-improving systems are not necessarily perfect systems. Complex systems tend to be imperfect systems. If you like infiltration you should strive to infiltrate, if you like authenticity you should chud it up. You got my message wrong. If somebody considers pretending to be a norm1e as acceptable for himself, he is already a norm1e. Who are norm1es? They are those who pretend to be a norm1e at all costs. >Outright blog posting on things you are certain of isn't that great. We aren't here for book reports either. Yeah, I'm here to discuss, or at least to give somebody else something to discuss. But I noticed the pattern that my other thread initially focused around my critique of some specific writeup I stumbled in while surfing ... I just started post there links to other writeups and my thoughts about them, just not to make another threads, and the audience seems to be liking the format. So I just started the thread with a notice that other things will be dumped here when I consider the already posted topics enough discussed.

Caste system is all over the world, for some money is no object and they can treat the world as a disneyland. Rich families and hidden powers pull the strings and live entirely different lives, castes and earthly kings as there has always been.

Don't confuse castes with classes (in Marx sense).

>>95406 >We have literal castes with quite definite boundaries. >When one wants to ask out a girl from another caste out, the boundary is felt. What I mean is, the feature of castes in India is they have sharp impersonal boundaries. This guy has his caste, that guy has his caste, their caste-ness is not really relative to each other. When I ask out a girl, her response probably depends on how hot and compatible I am. I am rejected. Then I show my elaborate toothbrush mustache man chest tattoo complete with replica autograph to a chubby girl. She thinks she can fix me. I am filtered in one case, but not the other. An uglier/cruder guy would not pass muster for either, a handsomer/cooler guy would pass both. "C'mon babe I just wear the paraphernalia because it looks wicked. My black girlfriend didn't mind it!" The cultural/political compatibility in the west is (at least) scalar, not binary. In a caste system, I presume there are few if any chances to woo a separate-caste beauty just because you are handsome, rich, charismatic or talk the talk. That's what makes a caste system interesting: the caste identity is indelible, artificially 100% heritable, and all-or-nothing.

>>95423 is this true? it is said that the white tiger did not follow these rules you describe, and that he was rewarded for it. If not that his family were.

>>95423 An ordinary person cannot marry a rothschild either, india's castes are not unique.

>>95429 I haven't heard anything about the Rothschilds having a caste-like custom? I mean we do have highly ethno-specific religions like Judaism, but it barely makes sense to call them castes? Hinduism is one religion with four or five castes. Judaism is a religion with one insular in-group. Nobody else in society cares about or enforces Jewish blood purity. Or do you mean the rich in general? I doubt high society is insulated with a definite threshold. The Power Elite by Charles Mills is a really great book, part I remember is how the old rich in America have both constantly absorbed and shunned the new rich. The analogy of a caste system reveals more by contrast. >>95428 It sounds like part of the way the protagonist of that Adriga novel escapes is by moving to an americanized region where the caste system is weaker? I could be wrong about how the caste system works.

>>95423 >What I mean is, the feature of castes in India is they have sharp impersonal boundaries. This guy has his caste, that guy has his caste, their caste-ness is not really relative to each other. Don't castes in the West have? Will you personally date scum (and I know what it actually means in the eyes of norm1es: it's lack of carrot-type delusions)? Why to date scum at all, it will never get you closer to your delusional goal? >When I ask out a girl, her response probably depends on how hot and compatible I am. I am rejected. If you consider yourself "compatible" to majority of girls, you are probably a norm1e. But ask yourself, if you are utter scum, will a norm1e girl choose to date you? >The cultural/political compatibility in the west is (at least) scalar, not binary. No compatibility can ever be a scalar. It's you who has lumped it in a scalar. And you don't see the Kronecker delta by this "scalar". Because you don't even consider the scum as humans. Neither does the scum considers norm1es as humans. >In a caste system, I presume there are few if any chances to woo a separate-caste beauty just because you are handsome, rich, charismatic or talk the talk. But you are in a single caste that encompasses almost whole society, and the scum is implicitly out of scope. >That's what makes a caste system interesting: the caste identity is indelible, artificially 100% heritable, and all-or-nothing. Caste identity is not necessary heritable. There are alternative caste systems in Western-type societies that have multiple castes, but based not on heritage, but on merit. In certain contexts you are allowed to self-determine to which caste you belong to of the several ones. You can also to choose to get the lowest one (it is not an outcaste, it is an incaste, though it is considered even lower than the outcaste, the outcaste is for those who are completely out of the context), but it is usually reserved to those who are assigned with it without their consent. One can also get into the highest one through struggle and servitude, but it seems the ones of the highest ones are even more despised than the ones of the lowest one, just it is almost never told about it openly.

India has too many people. I think their population needs to be culled by maybe 90+%

>>95496 India's population numbers are fake, there's no way there's 1.4billion Indians.

>>95495 This is my third attempt to explain a simple concept. If you understand what I am saying, please make that clear. Caste system: Everyone has a letter A, B, C, D or E. Your letter is C. Your social world is only those with the letter C. Everyone else in your social world inhabits the exact same social world. Obviously not a Caste system: Everyone functionally has a normal person conformie score from 0 to 10. Your score is 5.34. People tend to stick to people who are within 1 or 2 points of the same score. If you say the n word with a hard r you lose 1 point. Your social world is people from 3.34 to 7.34. Almost everyone in your social world has a different score and even different willingness to interact up/down the hierarchy, so everyone inhabits a slightly different social world.

People that follow the same path naturally stick together. Everywhere. In India, on top of that, people are separated into several tribes. Each tribe has its own thinkers, warriors, merchants, etc. "Higher" tribes love to claim they have a monopoly on a certain path but can't even maintain the appearance… It's laughable. They expect spirits to choose their parents in accordance with their desirable occupation, but they aren't gods and no one cares for what they want. This collection of tribes is what I understand as a caste system.

>>95510 I understand what you say, but I object to that. People don't assess to whom to stick with based solely on "social credit score". And there cannot be any hard intervals on "social credit score" organically originating as well as there cannot be any hard categories for any high-level constructs of any kind originating in a natural world, all classifications, including caste classifications, are inherently fuzzy, and thinking of them as about hard categories is usually just a convenient oversimplification. All these scores are artificial constructs, as well as castes are. So not: >Caste system: Everyone has a letter A, B, C, D or E. Your letter is C. Your social world is only those with the letter C. but: >There is a categorical variable that can take N values C_1, C_2, C_3 ... C_N. An individual is represented by a real vector from the manifold. For each i-th individual there exist functions f_{i, C_j} giving a nonnegative score of belonging to j-th category in the perception of the i-th individual. All scores are normalized to 1, returning the vector that feels like a probability. When the set of categories and the functions f_{i, C_j} of different individuals are somehow internally consistent among the majority of the population, these functions are used by individuals to assess peers, and the outputs of the functions are used to gatekeep access to resources, then we call the situation a caste system being in effect. In the case of 2 castes f_{i, C_2}(X) === 1 - f_{i, C_1}(X), and here it is: f_{i, C_1}(X) is your "normal person conformie score", just there is ain't no such a thing as a "normal person" (everybody has a different model what constitutes a "normal person") and the score is individualized, but if they are somehow consistent, then we can take a mean over individuals. That mean is purely synthetic bullshit aggregate, nobody actually uses it, everybody uses their own score, but when being conformists, norm1es tend to move their own f_{i, C_1} towards ones of their peers (not to a centroid, more likely that each peer has different weight), so you can somehow approximate individual f_{i, C_1}es with the aggregate for the "cluster". It is not really a cluster, cluster assignments optimize for modularity over existing networks for analysis purposes and don't really modify edges anyhow, but here nodes modify their "caste-unaffected" (which would have been if castes had never existed, in other words if there were no peer pressure) edges to other nodes based on caste probabilities returned by the functions to optimize for own goals, not for modularity. Edges themselves are vectors (if B is in a friendzone A, it doesn't mean that A is OK to have sex with him, or hang with him, or lend him money), so the affinity matrix becomes a tensor, are influenced by caste probabilities in complex ways and everything becomes very complex tangled mess of tensors when we strive to make at least anyhow realistic math model of everything even without having a proper model why and how exactly normal people are conformant (align their functions and their effect on edges to each other) and why it is a Nash equlibrium (if it is actually, we have no evidence that it is a rational behavior).

You know, there probably was some "Byzantine power game" tier reason Roman Empire went full Christian. Or did it go in the first place?

>>95562 Thank you for putting it in mathematical terms. I am now confident I understand you. >It is not really a cluster, cluster assignments optimize for modularity over existing networks for analysis purposes and don't really modify edges anyhow, but here nodes modify their "caste-unaffected" (which would have been if castes had never existed, in other words if there were no peer pressure) edges to other nodes based on caste probabilities returned by the functions to optimize for own goals, not for modularity. So a caste in your theory is an emergent property of people predicting what the network of social behaviors will look like, and behaving accordingly. When your turn is done with the term and we still need syllables to describe situations like those in old India, the main difference between them and the west is that India's tensor has a few slices that everyone in India knows is supposed to tell them where they are expected to draw the lines. They all grow up seeing some cues for inferring cast, and the importance is laid out explicitly. Cultures like the west have a relatively hard time telling people where the lines are, because of longstanding egalitarian and anti-elitist rhetoric. I bet you would enjoy Vuk Vuković's Elite Networks: The Political Economy of Inequality

>>95611 >Cultures like the west have a relatively hard time telling people where the lines are, because of longstanding egalitarian and anti-elitist rhetoric. An outsider interjecting: it's not only about anti-elitism and egalitarian that muddles the waters. There are also pro-elitist and inegalitarian tendencies which are stretching and pulling the social fabric in the opposite direction, and, because of the heavy focus on individualism within our societies, that means there are several "whirlwinds" pushing and pulling everything up and down at the same time within the social hierarchy pyramid-esque structure. For instance, in sociology there's been a long history into the studies of social and cultural capital, "tastes" and the status signifiers people use to distinguish themselves or signal their desire to be part of one kind of societal strata or a subculture of another. Marx, Simmel, Bourdieu, and Goffman are some of the few relevant social scientists within this subject matter. But in simple terms: there is the elite, middle-class and the working class, and the middle-class always tries to dissociate and move away from the working class because they've had the leisure and money to invest in culture. And because the elite are seen as the epitome of cultural refinement (and power), the middle-class of course tries to emulate and ape their style and aesthetic sensibilities among other things. And, because of this, the elite has to search for new ways to distinguish themselves in order to keep their distance to the peasants, but especially the middle-class. This is also one of the many reasons why "modern art" seems like bullshit from the layfolk's point of view. In sum, it's just your typical playground in-group vs out-group dynamism but on a societal level.

>>95611 > So a caste in your theory is an emergent property of people predicting what the network of social behaviors will look like, and behaving accordingly. I'm not really sure about that. I'm not really sure what exactly they predict internally. I mean we can think of castes at least from 2 different PoVs: 1. One approach is to try to truly reverse engineer the internal logic and the true intermediate instrumental goals of underlying calculations happening inside people's heads when they are computing the castes assessments, when they themselves aren’t aware of these calculations, cannot perceive them happening, cannot decompose them to sub-calculations, cannot inspect intermediate results, are not really aware of the formula. We are not even sure that caste systems exist in human's heads as disctint subsystem and are just a result of few different systems interacting to each other. Natural systems are messy and so are people. 2. Another more reductionist and functionalist approach to think about it (I said in the very first post that I'm a crazy lunatic adhering to a set of lenses that norm1es will not like) is just to posit that a certain class of less messy models is approximating behavior of humans, and that this class of less messy models contains a box called "caste system" with some functions and some internal mechanisms and interactng to the outside model through some limited interfaces. After that we can try to crack that black box open and make it less black. I suspect the first perspective is very hard to approach. It can only work when we have certain prior information about the actual class of the model inside and just want to estimate its parameters. But all biological and social systems are messy and there is likely no any system-internal model of castes at all. Functionalism and reductionism just posits "we don't fuarrrking care what it is internally as long as OUR goals are met with OUR model", and then our problem is just to properly select our model, and exactly this approach allows to decompose complex things into less complex, without which no engineering or science is possible. The issue with the mentioned statement is that it is a statement about actual processes in people's brains, not about properties of models, the observable dynamics that follows from a certain specific class of models, and the consequences of using it. To be honest mine statements are also bullshit that does not analyse the models themselves, but only advocates for the absolute obvious and likely unjustified "I think we should model castes as a regression for a vector of probabilities AND we should posit that there are castes in any society" without providing any real rationale for that (that can only be the evidence that the model is useful for describing actual experimental data and predicting other more high-level things) and then examining the consequence of that model "if it is a classification, then there must be at least 2 classes". Analyzing is a different and very big job and I'm not sure that I can do it in principle. >When your turn is done with the term and we still need syllables to describe situations like those in old India, the main difference between them and the West is that India's tensor has a few slices that everyone in India knows is supposed to tell them where they are expected to draw the lines. They all grow up seeing some cues for inferring cast, and the importance is laid out explicitly. Cultures like the West have a relatively hard time telling people where the lines are, because of longstanding egalitarian and anti-elitist rhetoric. There is no mainstream egalitarian and anti-elitist rhetoric. If a nation doesn't have sufficient carrots and sticks to extract from the livestock, it fails the competition. Centralized education teaches all livestock pups about the concept of social mobility. In other words: "serve the system better than everybody else, and you will go upward, serve worse and you will sink and perish". Is it really "egalitarian and anti-elitist"? People are not total idiots, they know the narratives are hypocritical lies. >I bet you would enjoy Vuk Vuković's Elite Networks: The Political Economy of Inequality Thank you for bringing it to my radar, added it into my backlog. Though I'm pretty sure I will not manage to find brain-time to read it. I'm also pretty sceptical about the author since he is >Expert member of Parliament committee >Running a hedge fund in NYC, Oraclum Capital (ORCA) >Before that, founded two companies: market research consultancy & boutique rating agency >Macro-based trader & investor for over 10 years seem like he wants himself to get into elite and is far more close to it than the majority of people. Does he have any incentive to tell the truth about actual corruption mechanisms that a) he will likely have to take part in, b) can be used against him, c) harms the class he strives to enter and risks to? I really doubt. >>95630 >working class I don't really like the term "working class", as it has a flavour "middle-class are not employees-for-hire!", but they are actually employees-for-hire, even the majority part of an elite are employees-for-hire. So I have allowed to replace `working class` with `lower classes` in your message. >middle-class always tries to dissociate and move away from the lower classes Don't members of the lower classes en masse strive to dissociate themselves from lower classes and go upward, often using a hollow imitation interest in signifiers of more "upper" ones, as much as they can afford, this way trying to cheat others to perceive them as more "upper" than they actually are, in order to circumvent and exploit the homophily? >because they've had the leisure and money to invest in culture >This is also one of the many reasons why "modern art" seems like bullshit from the layfolk's point of view. I don't think that mass culture differs anyhow between the classes. I really doubt there are special songs or special movies "for upper and middle class only". One can say "arthouse!", but that junk is usually not really art at all, and it is very available to lower classes, all torrent trackers are full of that junk. I once downloaded one that got especially viral and praised in the Internet (Holy Motors), watched it for some time (about 15 minutes if I remember right, according to Wikipedia the duration of this "movie" is 116 minutes), then deleted regretting of wasted time and traffic. That's not art at all, but some schizoid/drugged sick fantasy. Art has a clear message that the author strives to deliver to the audience (there is some even on seemingly meaningless pictures, it can be "look, I can draw oranges and vases for you if you pay for that!"), and when the message is intentionally obscure, the author is not really striving to communicate it. Even social situation created around a banana duck-taped to the wall is more art than Holy Motors, because at least it carries the message very clearly: "Look, they are crazy in a sick way, they call this bullshit art and pay money for it!" (it was not the banana attached to the wall art, the banana itself is bullshit, but the situation around the banana, where people that are meant to be smart, waste enormous money competing for "owning" an idiotic resource, is art, maybe it is not claimed by the author as such, but this is my understanding of the message being sent). >And because the elite are seen as the epitome of cultural refinement Maybe I'm projecting, but in my eyes elites look like epitome of lack of any taste at all and overspending on bullshit things, ultimately at our expense. Too busy with intra-specie competition to have any taste, and the taste is absolutely irrelevant compared to sending a fair signal to rivals through cost.

>>95643 >Centralized education teaches all livestock pups about the concept of social mobility. In other words: "serve the system better than everybody else, and you will go upward, serve worse and you will sink and perish". The West used to be "prove you aren't an NPC and can think for yourself, then you can take as much power as you can carry." And "serving the system" was an additional lesser carrot, showing to those without ability a path to rise above others beside corruption and crime.

>>95644 >The West used to be "prove you aren't an NPC and can think for yourself, then you can take as much power as you can carry." Like Epstein has proven? He wasn't claiming any power at all, only tried to balance money to risk. Still was sacrificed, the deterrents of significant percentage of top elite being his clients gave no aid and comfort.

>>95651 Epstein enjoyed being the center of attention, and they faked their death anyway, they lost nothing.

>>95505 Maybe it's a scam to justify developmental aid money streams, of which 95% then disappears into Indians that do not exist beyond the domain of a select few's bank account balances.

>>95433 Not sure if you're ill-informed or totally disingenuous, but the Rothschild family has infinitely more to do with Freemasonry and transnational occultism than with Judaism. They manage the system that fabricates the artificial concept of wealth known as "money", that is what determines their caste. They're the bookies of the current generation of occult elites, known as the Bavarian Illuminati. The general technology of their occult society is inherited from Assyria and Sumer via Aram.

>>95662 >They're the bookies of the current generation of occult elites, known as the Bavarian Illuminati. Occult elites, yes. "Bavarian Illuminati"? No. They were slaughtered, purged and systematically wiped out in the aftermath of the French Revolution and Napoleon's reign. Moreover, they were the ones who sought humanity's liberation from the ancien regime and the oppressive yoke of the Abrahamist establishment through revolution. Given the historical context, the Bavarian Illuminati were the good guys carrying the flame of liberty from the US back to Europe.

>>95662 >ill-informed or totally disingenuous When every theory has multiple decoy versions floating about, how do you expect me to anticipate the membership and motives of *secret* societies? Nobody gives their primary sources

>>95662 Ho, please, the freemasons are just a club for people with a good job for them to network, we are not 50 years ago. It's also a recruitment ground for much better, let's say, groups of interests. Remove the occult from your eyes and you will see more clearly. Yeah, I know the aestetic they use and how they need to have dirt on people to make them move up, still it's not the point. >>95657 He had dirt on and the potential to blackmail many, many people in the elite, and he was not acting alone. >>95643 The middle class, even the upper one is just the poor workers with more money. Your term lower class amalgam minimum wage workers and people who live off welfare. One is an asset to society, the other a liability and the survival of any economic model sit on making sure that you have a lot of one and few of the other. You can't put them both under the same name. Now miking working class people with and without money into one blob isn't that much of an issue.

>>95663 I'm willing to believe there are two sides of this. while the illuminati were slaughtered and eradicated they were secular humanists and I certainly believe there are powerful secular humanist societies that mean to do good for the world today. unfortunately I feel the sun is setting on liberalism, as it has been doing for some time now. According to the Invisible Committee, our fair leaders no longer believe in such a notion as a democratic society and instead feel that society is best managed cybernetically by the ruling class. this is the basic anxiety you will see echoed across right and left wing agitprop, and it's a tragic picture which Israel is but one powerful lobby among the various clients of global (often American) upper management. all modern ideologies you will see echoing this basic anxiety in different forms. it is for this exact reason that politics is so soykaf - politicians have no real faith democracy or elections, and demagoguery reflects this exact pessimism as they attempt to appeal to the basic instincts of the voting body which they try to shrink as much as possible. as stated before this is not to point fingers at one side of another, any politician once elected will engage in strategies like gerrymandering and other disenfranchisement, the reality is that they see liberal safeguards like the constitution or the courts as obstacles to managing the economy as they see fit.

>>95717 >there are powerful secular humanist societies that mean to do good for the world today Let me guess. They never ask the people what they want, they decide what the people should want and then use all the power they have to force them to have this, to crush the resistance they oppose to this and to manipulate them into wanting it. And it result in them having a worse life. >our fair leaders no longer believe in such a notion as a democratic society and instead feel that society is best managed cybernetically by the ruling class. In other words... >We want to act for the best interest of everyone and decided that the best way to do it is by giving ourselves more power and by controling more money

>>95717 >our fair leaders Most likely they are not your property, but quite the opposite, you are their. >leaders no longer believe in such a notion as a democratic society >politicians have no real faith democracy or elections Do you really believe that those who outcompeted each other in a high-stakes power game are naive delusional morons enough to take part in corruption first-hands while simultaneously believing in the opposite? >society is best managed cybernetically Nobody has right to manage the society, but if you don't manage it yourself in your interests, somebody else will manage it in his own, and some alive (you will likely be among them) will envy the dead. So it's not an option whether to manage it for own benefit (even if the only benefit is not to allow others to manage it) or not, and system-level approach is surely needed. >liberal safeguards like the constitution or the courts Real safeguards reside in non-marginalized belief in gun rights, their actual recognition, codification and legal enforcement (without that owners can be just marked as "enemies of the state" and exterminated using actual army), widespread actual gun ownership, and mass-scale active participation in militias. There are no other real safeguards possible.

>>95714 >Your term lower class amalgam minimum wage workers and people who live off welfare. One is an asset to society, the other a liability and the survival of any economic model sit on making sure that you have a lot of one and few of the other. Everyone is an asset, and not of "society", differentially useful to various actors. >You can't put them both under the same name. Why cannot? They are all rightless slaves. >Now miking working class people with and without money into one blob isn't that much of an issue. With or without - everybody are slaves. The elite while also property are co-owners of the system to some extent; the lower classes are merely property.

>>95714 >He had dirt on and the potential to blackmail many, many people in the elite, and he was not acting alone. The issue isn’t the "dirt he possessed", but the potential for weaponization of Epstein specifically against Trump. It lies not in the verity of allegations, but in their availability and timing. Any court proceeding launched proximate to an election would have shattered the needed optics. It doesn’t matter if the court ultimately finds the accusations true or false; the public spectacle alone could be enough to alienate religious obscurantist schizoid reactionary "no sex outside of marriage, no abortion, sex ed is a sin, age of c0nsent must be raised to 25"-fanatics within both parties. What would it mean for Trump if he was tangled into a court proceeding about whether he fuarrrked any of Epstein's sluts, right before primaries and elections? The optics, irrespective of outcome is sufficient to alienate voters within the religious fanatics cohort, bipartisanly, because having sex with a prostitute (where prostitution is illegal in the US), not just a prostitute, but a married woman (W. says V. got married in 2002) of a convicted sex trafficker who is considered a "friend", while cheating his own wife is not the model image a politician want to project before the elections. No matter if court decides if "it was" or "it is just libel" - population, especially the cohort as dumb as religious fanatics, will just remember "I heard that Trump ..." - Rs fanatics would mobilize against him, Ds would mobilize against him (no matter fanatics or not), he will become toxic as a candidate, nobody wanting to being elect can afford to lose even this cohort. Surely, if the scandal was raised, other members of the elite could have been tainted too, but with Kamala Harris positioned as a married "family woman" – even if accusations of her being Epstein's client are made, they are unlikely to gain traction. So, if Epstein was alive, the best course of action for Ds was to play that card. It doesn't even have to be Trump to trigger Epstein elimination, just anybody from his clients fearing Ds will play this trump against Trump causing own dirty secrets surfacing.

>>95720 And how does people who live off welfare are an asset to anyone? They take a lot, but what do they give? >>95721 Another wagon in the never ending train of walls closing in. The Russiagate, the piss video, the accusations of rape, asking Ukraine if Joe demanded to drop the charges on Burisma as a condition for the help, the documents at home... They are not shy on making dirt on Trump, what I want to know is why Joe haven't published the files right before the election. For all I care, he can bang all the prostitutes he want and pay them to hush hush, our countries are collapsing, work don't pay, homes can't be bought and if we manage to feed ourselves we are lucky. We had too many lies told to still listen to anybody and I think this is what ultimately killed debate, more than the actual assassins that the left send to everyone, in the US, Japan, Germany and other countries. Hey, speaking on things that happen right before an election and evaporate the next day, have you noticed something about BLM?

>>95718 >they never ask the people what they want, they decide what the people should want > then use all the power they have to force them to have this >and to manipulate them into wanting it >And it result in them having a worse life yup. because they minimize risk, they orchestrate the world exclusively in terms of knowns, and eradicate the unknowns. in this sense the bureaucratic mandate of neoliberalism is exactly the same as the vulgar populism to which they are a foil. anger is the tool they pessimistically chose to eradicate that which they couldn't understand or predict. each party does the other's dirty work, this is how the system is kept going. its pretense, plain and simple. >>95719 >Most likely they are not your property, but quite the opposite, you are their. exactly what im saying. we are the slaves, they are our masters. >do you seriously believe that [election winners] would first-hand engage in corruption while being against it? yes i do. because what they consider corrupt is not quite what is corrupt to you in me. at least as far as they educate us into a very sense of justice that explains away their brand of corruption, while justifying their own military interventions, their own bank bailouts, their own gerrymandering. right now, they are publicly gloating about this exact activity. unless you mean to tell me that the electoral redlinine of Team Red is just and divine, but that of Team Blue is surely corrupt. here is how it works: unelected politicians make millions of dollars. if elected, they will continue to make millions of dollars. politicians from across the aisle will have highly-publicized meetings with one another with no civilians present. they will make face-saving, or face-sacrificing statements in front of their constituencies. in the meetings, they will determine the exact scripts they will use to perform opposition for our enjoyment. you see lain, your "high-stakes power game" isn't high stakes to those with power. the only real stake is whether we play. fortunately they can agree upon the solution to that one. >if you don't manage it yourself in your interests, somebody else will manage it in his own, and some alive (you will likely be among them) will envy the dead the word "economy management" is a redundant because management is simply a new word for economy. there is a critique to be made of political management. a very strong one in fact. otherwise i agree with you, it is exactly as >>95718 says. i truly believe we are on the same side, here. >Real safeguards reside in non-marginalized belief in gun rights, their actual recognition, codification and legal enforcement (without that owners can be just marked as "enemies of the state" and exterminated using actual army), widespread actual gun ownership, and mass-scale active participation in militias. Agree, it is like mao zedong said, power grows from the barrel of gun. but i will raise you that psyops are very real. militias too can be herded.

>>95732 >have you noticed something about BLM? yup. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/20/1029625793/black-lives-matter-protesters-targeted https://www.democracynow.org/2023/8/3/blm_protests_fbi_infiltration_entrapment https://www.democracynow.org/2023/2/7/alphabet_boys_podcast_fbi_subterfuge https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/19/fbi-surveillance-black-lives-matter-protesters-00097924

>>95732 >And how does people who live off welfare are an asset to anyone? They take a lot, but what do they give? They are livestock, slaves, property. Multiple uses for them. Can be conscripted. Can be hired for small price in law enforcement and army, if mere draft is not an option. Will vote for everybody promising keeping welfare - useful for election manipulation if one wants to maintain a facade of fair elections. Are ready to cut throats of everybody who is against welfare. Will readily sell all their relatives for $10. Can be utilized to bully "smart alecks". If needed, can be used to dilate "too smarts" in unis. Lots of uses. >For all I care, he can bang all the prostitutes he want and pay them to hush hush There are some religious fanatics (not really fanatics, but that is the image they try to project) for whom not opposing anybody committing this "sin" is a loss of face. >have you noticed something about BLM? I don't think BLM is a partisan movement as it fits the interests of the both parties. It is more a counterweight to ALM: ALM is focused on "police has lost all sense of restraint, must be abolished", while BLM is focused on "oh, there is no problem with police globally, the only problem is that it has lost all sense of restraint towards only blacks, when they kill whites - it is OK, it is correcting historical injustices, so let's introduce some token changes towards favoring blacks and call it a day!". Since Blacks are minority - reducing their policing doesn't reduce grip of the US elite over society anyhow significantly. So it is efficient channelize the uproar to the safe direction. ==== >>95744 >>do you seriously believe that [election winners] would first-hand engage in corruption while being against it? >yes i do. because what they consider corrupt is not quite what is corrupt to you in me. It doesn't matter what they define as the word "corrupt". In order to engage in corruption they should have some understanding of it. Even if they don't call it using the term `corruption`, they have pretty euphemisms for these practices. And they cannot publicly openly approve them, it violates the facade. >at least as far as they educate us into a very sense of justice that explains away their brand of corruption, while justifying their own military interventions, their own bank bailouts, their own gerrymandering. The mere need to invent publicly acceptable fake rationales for the actions means that they realize the illicitness of the actions and that they cannot afford just boldly openly publicly say "we support that, we will do that, because we are at power now and vae victis, deal with it". >right now, they are publicly gloating about this exact activity. unless you mean to tell me that the electoral redlinine of Team Red is just and divine, but that of Team Blue is surely corrupt. I'd say that I prefer the open and blatant bold utter corruption of Trumpists to imitation of "rule of law". Seeing this boldly open corruption the conformists from the bottom of the pile will stop simulating believing in rule of law and will openly behave in corruptly self-serving ways. In other words low-level corruption will become more available. It will erode control of upper classes over society, because the "rule-of-law" is nothing else but an euphemism to concenteration of corruption in upper levels while keeping lower levels obedient slaves. Everybody in the elite, including Trump, would have preferred the state to be "rule-of-law", but Trump is more concentrated on own rent-seeking, and is OK to erode the system for own benefit. >here is how it works: unelected politicians make millions of dollars. Really doubt. Who is a politician, by letter? One who makes public promo materials advocating for himself or his movement being put in control. Everybody can make a YouTube video "Hey, I'm a politician!" Will he be a politician by a letter if he does that? I think, yes. Will he get millions of dollars from that alone? No. Will he become actual politician from it? No. So, "unelected politicians" are not really politicians. Politicians are scapegoats for hire and investments. They only make sense if they acquire some formalized influence, giving their sponsors access to the controls, access to which are formalized, through them. So a de-facto politician is defined not through whether he makes public promo materials, but through whether he is a figurehead-for-hire project of some elite clan. The millions he gets when not yet got formalized influence are not so his own, but are more instrumental for achieving the goal. >if elected, they will continue to make millions of dollars. I guess, orders of magnitude more. >politicians from across the aisle will have highly-publicized meetings with one another with no civilians present. they will make face-saving, or face-sacrificing statements in front of their constituencies. in the meetings, they will determine the exact scripts they will use to perform opposition for our enjoyment. I fee l like enjoyment of the public is irrelevant and the very minor function of that. The major function is to negotiate the division of the pie without entering the hot mafia war. >you see lain, your "high-stakes power game" isn't high stakes to those with power. the only real stake is whether we play. fortunately they can agree upon the solution to that one. Kennedy, Pim Fortuyn, Jo Cox, Marielle Franco, Boris Nemtsov, Alexei Navalny, Fernando Villavicencio, Agustin Intriago, and Walter Lubcke would have disagreed. But they are OK with what had been done to them. They accepted the rules of the game. >the word "economy management" is a redundant because management is simply a new word for economy I doubt. Economy is one of the an entities they try to manage. > it is like mao zedong said, power grows from the barrel of gun. That's pretty wrong. Power grows not from barrel of a gun, but from efficient use of resources. There are some resources. If split them equally, everybody will be poor. So they are split not equally. Some are turned in resources themselves. Others are selected as the ones for which benefit the resources are extracted. Of course they are selected mostly not on arbitrary criteria like "he is my relative" (they are selected based on this criteria, but not "he is my relative", but "he is relative of Xi Jinping, and it is Xi Jinping who is essential to have us within the group receiving the resources"), but on the criteria of being useful for securing own share of resources being received. This way groups form, the only purpose of which is to extract resources towards themselves, and these groups adjust the system to serve their needs, or more precisely, it is the system that grows and cultivates and emerges these groups as organs of the system to facilitate the system's self-organization and flow of resources through it. And ones actually holding the guns in their hands are at the bottom of the pile. Ones closer to the top of the pile are more the ones who did personal sacrifices to the system in order to optimize resource extraction and dissipation by the system. >militias too can be herded. Surely.

you guys on lainchan are so cool

>>95768 All Lives Matter isn't a movement and neither does it have any relation whatsoever to police, it's a counterslogan to BLM

>>95768 >they cannot openly approve of them >invent publicly acceptable rationales true, they do in fact do this. but the zeal with which they do so is nevertheless apparent. >I'm a trump voter >this will accelerate state decay to what end? you just have a worse society and a worse political climate, where it is more difficult to pass meaningful reforms. i agree the state should wither away, but the only productive way to do so is to add back to the commons, not further privatize and destroy them. >really doubt you know what i mean. establishment politicians, like hillary clinton, are still very much in the halls of power with millions. as you've said, politicians who've acquired formal influence, and using this gave formal access to their sponsers. it's true enough that there are many power brokers outside of politicians who continue to benefit from the system running no matter who gets elected, and that politicians are basically just their public servants who take the blame when it goes wrong. my point is just that none of these people are destitute. the stakes are not high, unless you have a conscious. >orders of magnitude more politicians really don't make that much, they don't need to. they have institutional capital and they can set up their communities to resemble peaceful european cities if they so desire. they have quality of life and stability. >enjoyment of the public is a very minor function "enjoyment" is perhaps the wrong word. they are putting on a show. >assassinated labor and red tories who nevertheless played the game this is what happens when you are a politician with a conscious. >Economy is one of the an entities they try to manage. i was alluding to the critique of political economy. >That's pretty wrong. Power grows not from barrel of a gun i was simply echoing your sentiment about militias. I'm sure Mao also believed in the efficient use of resources. i would however argue against the marxist, as well as classical economic presumption of scarcity as resource depletion is used for control to create localized scarcities. for this reason inefficient resource usage is the purpose of the system, and what it does. >spontaneous resource optimization leads to group formation your core thesis seems to be along the premise that society is organized into these groups, which you might also call clans, i would disagree with the inevitability of such. for starters we know that crises and tragedy tend to shift human psychology in ways that are more conducive to in-grouping. but humans are also nomadic xenophiles who branch out from their "home clan" purely for the sake of it. it is much like how wolf hierarchies only form in captivity. i would also argue against the conspiratorial nature of elite groups controlling everything from behind the scenes. this certainly does occur. however if certain behaviors are consistently emergent, this lends materially speaking to class formation. there is no need for conspiracies to be developed and for back-room cartels to be formed (as Adam Smith believed would happen) in that case as interests will align in many cases where direct communication is not always necessary. it is often done quite openly as well, even if rationalized along lines as nationality, sex, etc. each social group, or "tribe" has a lower class and an upper class. the upper class of tribe A has more in common with the upper class of tribe B than the working class of either.

>>95800 >All Lives Matter isn't a movement and neither does it have any relation whatsoever to police, it's a counterslogan to BLM The notion that the state allows itself too much wasn’t conjured up by BLM, it has been for ages. But when BLM has formed as a movement, it catalyzed formation of ALM as a movement too, because "it's only about blacks" channelizes the narrative to the useless direction. >>95806 >I'm a trump voter I haven’t been tainted by casting a ballot for Trump (I have no delusions about him), but I approve some of the things what he did: * prohibition of CBDC * setting free Ulbricht (though I argue he needed full acquittal, not pardon) * setting free the protesters against faked elections (though I argue they needed full acquittal, not pardon) * destroying TPP (during the first term) * withdrawal from Paris Agreement * nuking AI control executive orders of Biden Of course he did it exclusively through rent-seeking, as parts of various deals. He did a lot of betrayals too: * prior advocacy for banning assault rifles * bump stock prohibition he signed * still promoting various additional criterias prohibiting to own guns - despite the pre-election deal with NRA * public support of red flag laws * green light to Chinese espionage industry * ordering US to start a war of aggression against Iran, as well as assassination of Qasem Soleimani just to entertain journalists. Iran is a fascist soykafhole, and Qasem Soleimani was an asshole, but no nation should be allowed to wage a war of aggression or terroristic acts like this. After the strikes it is almost a duty of Iran to actually make the "haram" nuke and actually test it, it has been shown that without nukes it is incapable to provide itself security from aggression. * his Gaza program - yet another abuse of US military power to facilitate interests of cronies and terrorists (like State of Israel, that has never prosecuted the utter explicit terrorists of Lehi and Irgun, instead it hired them and shielded them from prosecution for their felonies) at expense of civilians * cryprocurrency regulations * AI regulations Trump is a transactional actor without any bullshit ideology. As said in some video game: >big shot businessman who'd do anything to get into office. He's a complete asshole, so he's qualified for the position. "Let's make a deal: you pay, I deliver" - that's what's his ideology. But this is orders of magnitude better, than a class-aligned corruptioneer like Ds who will not provide certain products product for any amount of money. >>this will accelerate state decay >to what end? you just have a worse society and a worse political climate Decay implies a return to some previous, better state. Worse society is a society where control is more tight. Where CBDC is implemented, AI is censored, copyright is enforced, and assholes tax carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and for the purpose of better carbon tax collection mandated surveillance on people to count how much they breathe and fart. If society can openly blatantly bribe a corruptioneer to prevent that outcome, it has achieved a orders of magnitude better result, less damaging than the alternative, than when a D-party corruptioneer is beyond any reasonable price, because he has learned the Lenin's "the Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them" meme and so consistently enforces the world order profitting the class he belongs to. >politician with a conscious Would have been a funny joke, if the consequences to us that none politicians can have any in principle were not so dire. No, they had not consciousness, they just got outplayed. >politicians really don't make that much, they don't need to. Yet another non-funny joke. No, they earn very a lot. They get pretty a lot officially (they shouldn't!), and this dwarf that they got without you getting a report. Because who is mere livestock, to demand a report from their masters?! >i was simply echoing your sentiment about militias My sentiment is that militias are not merely bunch of individuals, but are single-issue political movements and civil society infrastructure. What the purpose is to have a gun if you don't know in which cases you will put it in use? What the purpose is to put gun in use, if you don't have comrades? Without comrades you will be slaughtered. Well, with comrades you you can also be slaughtered ... it was a miracle that Bundy's comrades have not been slaughtered like Davidians had been. >I'm sure Mao also believed in the efficient use of resources. What had happened under Mao's rule was anything, but efficient use of resources. When the asshole has achieved everything he wanted in life, and had a crisis, he got nuts and started doing things divorced from reality, causing enormous waste resources just for his amusement. >i would however argue against the marxist, as well as classical economic presumption of scarcity as resource depletion is used for control to create localized scarcities. Scarcity is a fundamental law of the universe. Non-scarce resources are by definition incapable of supporting life or information processing of any kind. >spontaneous resource optimization leads to group formation >your core thesis seems to be along the premise that society is organized into these groups, which you might also call clans, i would disagree with the inevitability of such. Oh, you a provocateur, aren't you? So you wanna the next wall of text to be published? OK, it will be, soon. Even 2 walls of text, you will likely enjoy them. >there is no need for conspiracies to be developed and for back-room cartels to be formed (as Adam Smith believed would happen) in that case as interests will align From the outside PoV it doesn’t matter if the cartel has formed due to mere natural self-interest alignment or if it was aggravated by "oh, let's form a cartel" conspiracy. The effect is the same. Mens rea is a lawyer’s trick.

>>95815 ngl, dedicating 1/2 of your post to talking about the politics of the current sitting president doesn't build confidence that this isn't election tourism. even if tangentially agreeable, everything on your list of favorable outcomes is nothingburger. ross ulbricht acquittal was good, but it should be fully legal to host a dark web market, after all its not illegal to own a building that dealers sell out of. >trump is a transactional actor without any bullshit ideology while clinging to some idealized platform is easy to criticize, ideology is a language. not speaking that language, in politics especially, is wildly and dangerously incompetent. what's more trump certainly does have ideology - the tariffs were entirely his personal opinion, he has an old opinion piece about them. they simply didn't make sense. otherwise i would say trump is a degenerate liberal, his ideology the very same as charles schwab, he loves control society, he uses surkov's methods and he was tasked by his coalition with implementing a theocracy. >unlike Ds who will not provide certain products for any amount of money because money isn't the point. they trade in information, alliances, which is more fitting all things considered. trump of course does this too. I could go on but I'd rather move on to the more interesting part of the discussion, the point being that this was already his world, just until 2016 seemingly not suited to be a politician. >Decay implies a return to some previous, better state i like this because most reactionaries would argue that decay is the opposite of return, because they are afraid of the unknown and the society becoming more complex, confusing, chaotic. their "accelerationist" position is that glorious order emerges from this chaos but is not what it truly refers to. you seem to be arguing, instead, for a gradual shedding away of the bourgeois, flimsy and excessive. i see this ideal as precisely in line with modernism, formalism, minimalism, and the march towards abstraction. >worse society is a society where control is more tight agree completely. but I think you are getting hung up on specifics: if the market has a purpose for CBDCs, for instance, they will be implemented, otherwise they will not. worldcoin is not derezzed and is arguably the most dystopian crypto thing i can immediately think of. is it unethical to ban it? bad for the market? an interesting discussion perhaps but this gets back to /electionposting/. likewise with many other examples. they will quite literally never tax your farts, and the idea they might is obviously propaganda that you should know better than to believe. its easy to get caught up on this stuff, and for instance i agree that instead of taxing emissions they should just cut subsidies to the dairy industry, the point however is that we agree surveillance go up even if we disagree on the how and why the surveillance. when you focus on microparticularities that will never happen and were likely spawned from Adult Swim SmartPipe, you are no different from the resistlibs who watch SNL and hate orange cheeto. >if society can openly bribe a corruptioneer vs Ds oh i see we are still doing electionposting instead of the philosophy that categorically applies. Here is my issue with acceleration, it is simply not insurrectionary. accelerationists equivocate things like malicious compliance and voting against your interests with strategies like revolutionary sabotage and social agitation. even if a framework can be constructed out of these halfbaked and halfhearted, "disrupt the system from within" activities it is largely not even aligned with say, immiseration, due to the fact that hurting anything major is likely to be (a) too abstract for the median voter to give a soykaf about or (b) has been off the table and distracted from, even and especially to/by accelerationists, for decades. For instance, most Americans probably still see the IMF and especially the world bank in poor light, their crimes are very obvious. but they don't get discussed at all, their role is not questioned or addressed even though they are incredibly core to the things accelerationists might care of. Another example of something highly appealing to populists and accelerationists both would be libertarian drug reform, but what we get instead is after a series of authoritarian crackdowns on the drug market the rescheduling, not descheduling, of marijuana as a stopgap for the public approval nightmare that has been the current sitting president and his apparently newfound lust for war in south america (something which im surprised you have no opinion on, perhaps because a dem would have done the exact same things internationally that he has). accelerationists once again are completely silent on this, or they would resort to the same soykaflib narratives and inability to think about drug policy, oftentimes as a consequence of random interpersonal grudges they might have about it. what accelerationists would rather do is eschew revolutionary activity and organizing while making vague rhetorical gestures to lenin and anarchism (while conveniently disowning yourself from and resorting to the exact cliches a lib might argue) is nothing short of convenient to the powers that be and it is exactly this flavor of "resistance" that accelerationism is billed as. now i want to elaborate on what i think of when it comes to control society because i think the concept is extremely useful to this conversation, and it is something i would like you to chew on. when you think of the most immediate forms of repression a state might implement things like high taxation or outright killing political opponents, which you discussed, come to mind. these forms of blatant corruption are somewhat extreme (you might call them disciplinary) politically speaking our corruptioneers prefer more insidious forms of control. enter mass surveillance and biopower, which partition of society into domains - you have symbols on every commodity explicating them, environments nurtured for particular activities. each of these is the interior of the domain in question - the home, for instance, is the interior of the family enclosure. important to this picture is the literal construction of a prison known as a panopticon, whereby complete anonymity is granted to the surveillant authorities but not the proles. an important aspect of the panopticon is that, while the proles are not only completely identified to their authority, they might also have complete identity to one another. then each enclosure becomes a panopticon unto itself, while managers of each are certainly ordered hierarchically, what's more important is that crises emerge as a condition of threatened interior, the solution to which of course being reform and management. due to these constructions, crises can always be invoked when consent for reform is called for, there is a constant (and increasing) number of "real" crises that can be reliably invoked (such as resource shortage) as well as "artificial" crises (such as an election). by organizing in this way, society effectively prevents anything along the lines of revolutionary activity from taking place remotely. rather, we can make dissidents of ourselves with any combination of symbols, we can play the role of authority or rebel depending on how we are feeling and all provided by the regime in question. if we want to involve ourselves with the manufacture and invocation of crisis, as rebels now symbolize, we do so, and likewise for the management and reform of a system *in* crisis. all without really changing anything. this is nothing new of course, it began in the 19th century. on top of this system and integral to is a common managerial language, so that controls can be situationally adapted. allegory then exists across different metaphysical, ontological, other philosophical categories so that is no longer necessary for enclosure to refer to literal space at all. each enclosure instead is a purely symbolic environment which can be invoked upon individuals at a moment's notice, and individuals may carry symbols of each enclosure about their person. crises, too, will never conclude. while in the past individuals could generate for ourselves unique signatures, while simultaneously being enumerable as members of a mass society, we now generate access to information sources as passwords. much as how the gold standard was abandoned for abstract finance, the disciplinary society was abandoned for the abstract society of control. >they had not consciousness, they just got outplayed perhaps we are speaking the same language after all as i very much agree that all of these men and women are sociopaths, some simply more preferably altruistic sociopaths. so i must apologize for my humorlessness, but this is beating around the bush. >they earn quite a lot absolutely, and this is not what i meant. only that they are millionaires, not billionaires. but i see that we are in agreement. >mao's rule was anything but efficient use of resources at least he made the trains run on time. of course his decline was not so happy for the people who saw him as singlehandedly turning china into an economy of industrial production, which we of course know was not so singlehanded. at least he was not a minister of intelligence. >scarcity is a fundamental law of the universe, non-scarce resources are by definition incapable of supporting life or information processing of any kind naturally because we have proceeded to the society whose realism is that of information, and thus neoclassical assumptions must be refactored into the realism in question. scarcity is created through the very inefficiency of resources which you liken to Mao because you understand, meticulously, its function, not because you live in chinese society but because of the control society you do live in.