ChAnging thE woRld

Protests, civil disobedience, hacktivism, even terrorism. Does any of that do anything at all to bring any significative changes to how the world goes? In my interpretation the answer is no. Snowden, Assange and so many others have done so much for us and yet they are ignored by most. It's very frustrating but would it be a correct assessment to say that they accomplished nothing? And if even great men such as these couldn't bring about any kind of change, then what will? It seems like the population is completely powerless at this point. I initially saw the internet as a fully free realm from which even regular people can do anything, but even great feats feel useless in my eyes nowdays. Am I wrong on this?

>>36847 What kind of change do you want? The world is actually changing, and things people are doing effect that change. The trouble is that knowing what the broader impact of your actions will be, and what that impact actually means, is hard, because the world is complicated. People like to believe their actions will bring the world closer to an ideal they have in their head, but that often fails in practice, especially for grand dramatic gestures. I think the best you can do is probably, find something you can authentically understand, and then use that understanding to improve it in whatever small way you can. That's just our current circumstances though, things will be different once we're ruled by dictators propped up by AI powered killbots, or similar; a final end to any meaningful human agency is possible.

It's funny, in the 60s and 70s there was great hope for change. Young people believed they could transform the world and make it a better place, but the revolution never came and the radicals of the 80s and 90s became more and more nihilistic and cynical. It was pretty clear to everyone, from Baudrillard to Bin Laden, that a better future wasn't happening because most people do not want it. Their too content, complacent, and fearful of doing anything outside of officially sanctioned forms of opposition. The Unabomber and 9/11 are extreme examples of "the people are to blame" attitude. The methods which the US government and the big corpos have developed to manipulate people is insane. What was so frightening about Ukraine was the way one opinion was established as fact, all other discounted as "misinformation" and how one single narrative was being parroted by pretty much everyone with any dissenting opinion, no matter how minor, crushed. A lot of young people today don't aspire to change the world, their too passive for that. Instead they worship guys like Elon Musk, aspire to be tech entrepreneurs or influencers and worship brands. Truly generation sell out. Breaking that mental conditioning is the first step, it's also the hardest. Terrorism is a whole can of worms, whereas hacktivism is limited by the fact that cracking modern software and networks is really difficult, few people have those kids of skills and increased cybersec means the skiddies who know enough to be dangerous never really mature. Plus, whereas hackers were romanticized in the 90s (e.g. The Matrix), today their more and more detested, seen as assholes ruining the wonderful tech paradise Apple or Google are making for us or blamed for electing Trump. Eventually, the government will do something extremely fuarrrked up and people's attitudes will change, like the bailouts are what caused the Occupy movement. But we need to find new ways of resisting authority loving discourse and woke/alt right controlled opposition as well as deal with an insane surveillance state.

>>36857 You talk about propaganda like it's a new thing. The evolution of nation-state a few centuries ago requires the mass-mobilization of populations behind single ideologies and facts for crises. The propaganda movements from governments today over Ukraine and other events are almost identical to various efforts by governments in the past centuries to control their populations. It's my belief that technology, whether it be the printing press or the internet, will have little effect on human nature and people will still be very susceptible to propaganda and government control.

>>36860 Something is definitely different. In the past, you could only be subject to propaganda if you went to a state or pro-state institution, like a school or public transport, or if you tuned in on TV, radio or read certain newspapers. With social media, people are subjected to a constant stream of propaganda that doesn't really end. In the old days, there was always a dissident underground press, but now unpopular opinions can be removed from circulation if a federal agency requests it or pushed down by the algorithm and a huge army of bots flood social networks with whatever the government wants you to hear. Social media is where most people socialize, make friends, network, and have general conversations with each other, so now propaganda pushes into our most intimate areas of life. Information gathered through social media and big tech products is fed back into the system, so they can calibrate and perfect the dissemination of propaganda, tailoring it to specific demographics, modifying it so it always appears perfect. What this enables is a mass standardization of culture unlike anything seen before.

>>36847 Im sorry to say frien but I agree. My politics at this point is to not interfere, just let whatever is happening happen, if anything accelerate it. The only way things will ever change is if the majority agree on something, and they will only agree on change if it gets very bad very quickly, otherwise the average person doesn't want to know. Why risk your own hide for people that almost act like they WANT whats happening and coming? why bother risking your future for people that don't care? Save up and move off grid or get a cheapo yacht and cut loose from the system is what I say to it all. I refuse to take part in the game any longer, and it will have none of my life force or energy.

>>36861 >but now unpopular opinions can be removed from circulation if a federal agency requests it or pushed down by the algorithm and a huge army of bots flood social networks with whatever the government wants you to hear. I think it's the opposite today. In the past, the press was controlled exclusively by large private news enterprises. These organizations could control the public narrative because only they could significantly gather the resources to print newspapers in mass or build radio towers. It was through this power that the mainstream press was able to use yellow journalism to control the American public and generate massive support for the Mexican-American War and Spanish-American War. While there was always dissident underground press, it couldn't field no where near as much resources as the mainstream press and if the dissident press was radical enough, the dissident press wouldn't be allowed to propagate itself in public. Today unpopular opinions are allowed to be circulated to a much greater extent. Through the internet, anyone who charismatic enough can voice their opinions uncensored through a podcast or social media account. Even if what they're saying is complete nonsense to most people, social media algorithms are good at finding an audience that agrees with them. Social media, while occasionally ideologically driven, is mostly capitalistically driven to tie right-wing demographics to right-wing influencers and tie left-wing demographics to left-wing influencers in order to maximize ad revenue and data collection. Social media incubates unpopular opinions until they're not so unpopular. I think what you were referring to in your post, of total state control of social media and public opinion, is on the horizon but is not here yet. In the west, social media is still mostly driven by the private interest to make money, but I don't know what the situation is like in China and maybe it's similar to what you describe. In the United States, the FCC only has jurisdiction and ability to censor TV and radio, but not the internet. I believe the internet is too complex and extensive for the federal government to commit resources to regulate it in it's entirety like they do with television and radio. I think only a dramatic event such as World War 3 or something on a massive scale that would require a truly incredible mobilization of the American public behind one ideology would have the government attempt what you describe in your post.

Tomorrow's revolution will look nothing like yesterday's by design. If all the same tricks worked twice we'd have found Utopia in Uruk, no, the Rift Valley. Especially at this point even the concept of "revolution" has lost its weight and point. Everything is some sort of "revolution" now, look at academic art, look at the tech world. Definitionally it has to be directed against a specific institution and the Empire is forged from countless (by design). It consumes and repurposes explicit subversion almost immediately, e.g. BLM started off as a highly radical protest against America's police state hinging off of the obvious and disproportionate brutality faced by black men. Yet, where did it end? With DC painting the very streets (MLK blvd. or the like) where so many had been brutalized by their monopoly of violence before with their slogan. The founders were bought off because ultimately such a revolt matters first and foremost to people and their immediate circle. (Who could expect them not to want to provide for others? Isn't that the whole point?) Do I have any idea what the solution is? Obviously not. But looking at the past for answers will not help us today; too much has changed too fast and the Empire will eat everything you love unless you can find its poison in the future.

>>36861 >>36866 I believe that the internet makes it much easier for the big players to disseminate their ideology and shut up political opponents. Unpopular opinions in mainstream platforms don't ever survive long, see the recent example with the Ukrainian war, anyone speaking out against the Ukrainian side of the story is quickly derezzed. I think that the internet did make it easier to spread unpopular opinions through lesser known platforms i.e. Telegram, imageboards, smaller forums, but as soon as such ideas leave the tiny bubble and start to be shared in mainstream platforms, the user to do so will be quickly derezzed and therefore it wont reach many normal people, and even when it does people are often so. ..dismissive of new information. It feels as if a lot of people don't come to the internet with a learning mindset anymore, they just want to reaffirm their own pre established beliefs.

>>36866 In China and the Soviet Union, there was no private press or any independents. There existed boards of censorship to ban content and an army of party and state controlled media designed to create content. This is all very 19th century, and mirrors what the Prussians or Napoleon III did with newspapers. In China, there's increasing leeway for private media but with party oversight and censorship. This old model is all about editing content directly while disseminating your own propaganda and throwing people in jail if they openly say something you don't like. It's very direct. By contrast, in the West, instead of censoring content, the US focused on creating context. Sure, you can have your underground anarchist newspaper, but how many people are going to read it? What makes media conglomerates and wealthy businessmen powerful is that they control access to audiences. You can have great ideas, but nobody is obliged to read them. With social media, there's a stronger focus on controlling the flow of information rather than censoring it directly. You make sure certain voices or journalists don't get to keep their columns by leveraging political correctness, you centralize the internet and get big tech to police it for you, encourage government employees to tweet favorable stuff, set up a revolving door between fed law enforcement and tech companies, you use dummy accounts run by agents or bots to create the illusion that your preferred opinion is popular and at that point people's innate herd mentality will kick in. Instead of stamping out opposition, you contain it and limit access. I'd say censorship is in someways worse in the West because it's so subtly manipulative and effective, whereas the CCP can only really put a lid on the cauldron and hope it stays down. One of the things I learned from my time in China is, when you get past the official line, you realize political attitudes are amazingly diverse and survive despite harsh censorship and hard repression, whereas in America most people pretty much believe the same thing. Even 4chon alt right maniacs and neo-Marxists recognize the same basic constitution and political ideas we've been handed down since the dictatorship of the founding fathers.

>>36847 disheartening for sure to see that efforts to preserve civil liberty are largely in vain. people who think that defacing some websites or leaking sql databases or doxing makes any actual difference in the grand scheme of things are sorely immature in my opinion. i think the only real way to make change is to forcibly remove those in power (corrupt politicians, corporations that bribe them, the lobbyists they hire etc) to be forcibly removed from their positions via one way or another. the issue is that kind of approach easily adopted by freaks like qanon, and just tends to ensue more chaos and destruction to the world. honestly i try not to think about it too much anymore becuz i have enough anxiety to deal with. social media reminding me that the world is going to soykaf doesnt help either so i avoid it.

>>36870 >forcibly remove those in power Even then, in a democracy chances are that someone as bad if not worse will get elected to take their place. I realized this recently, but there really doesn't seem to be a 'good' side at least in my country. From what I have seen, it's the same in the US. Slightly different interests, but both sides want to screw the population.

>>36866 >I believe the internet is too complex and extensive for the federal government to commit resources to regulate it in it's entirety like they do with television and radio Uhh? The Western governments have a near total control of the internet. Have you missed the last few years, let alone the last few weeks? They (illegally) force tech companies to censor or ban anything they don't like and they absolutely do send storm troopers to murder or gulag people they really don't like. There are only a tiny handful of sites left they don't outright control.

>>36878 Source on this? What happened in the last few weeks?

>>36879 https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald

>>36879 Check out the Twitter files reporting by Matt Taibibi and the Intercept. They've even been using metadata to kill people. Here are a bunch of articles you can also check out: https://theintercept.com/2022/12/20/twitter-dod-us-military-accounts/ https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/twitter-executive-also-part-time-officer-uk-army-psychological-warfare-unit https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-kill-list-five-times-bilal-abdul-kareem-narrowly-escaped-death

>>36879 They call it the war against disinformation. The WEF said the new priority was to be sure there will be no more infodemic. Fake news, you see is why people went to believe the mask did little to save people from the covid and the vaccine wasn't safe or effective. The fact that they were inadvertently right isn't pertinent. They were right for the wrong reason: using common sense rather than a blind faith in the voice of authority. So, now it's a moral duty for every politician to tell the corpos how to regulate free speech. You don't want anyone to have the wrong ideas, do you?

>>36857 We are preocuupied with the good life, and step by step are working toward a better life. What we do, as a consious species, is set markers for ourselves. Once we reach one marker, we advance to the next, as if we were playing a board game we think will never end, despite the fact that it will. And if you are too conscious of not liking it, then you may conceive of yourself as a biological paradox that cannot leave with its consciousness and cannot live without it. And in so living, you take your place with the undead and the human puppet. Consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unself-conscious of what we are : hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones. Consciousness has overreached the point of being a sufferable property of our species, and to minimize this problem we must minimize our consciousness. Specifically, to keep our minds unreflexive of a world of horrors, we distract them with a world of trifling or momentous trash. The most operant method for furthering this conspiracy, it is in the continuous employ and demands only that peopme keep their eyed on the ball, or their television sets, their government's foreign policy, their science projects, their careers, their place in the society.

>>36884 Skimmed through the articles. The Twitter thing doesn't surprise me at all, but it's a little weird to me that Musk decided to release that information... i don't understand why he would do that. Regarding the story on the journalist, I wonder how they got that information. Maybe an insider, or maybe someone hacked them? Likely an insider, right? >>36885 I think that there was a bit of Streisand effect when it came to the pandemic. The censorship only resulted in people getting even more skeptical about it, I think. If they weren't trying so hard to censor opposing information, I don't think things would have gotten to the level that it did. Note that I do believe in the covid vaccines and in the research behind it, it's just that the way governments handled the pandemic was awful. Purposely awful. They didn't care whether people would take the vaccine or not, but rather it was about controlling the population in a more justifiable way that wouldn't cause massive backlash, after all it is a pandemic so drastic measures were somewhat more understandable.

>>36849 >What kind of change do you want? There is a general consensus that life today is like kicking dead whales down the beach. Yet, as dissatisfied and unhappy as we are, for some reason we can't actually imagine a better world or some alternative. The real horror of the system is how it's made us so mentally dependent we can't think past it. We're like inmates in a Siberian gulag "leave if you like" says the guard "but good luck surviving out there" he snaps pointing to the vast and inhospitable Arctic tundra. So we stay entombed and imprisoned, because what else is there? Like inmates we rebel, we break the rules, sometimes maybe assault a guard or smuggle contraband, but we don't leave. We fantasize about it, but the rational side of our brain kicks in and we choose to stay. It's not like we don't have a good reason, the French, Russian, and Iranian revolutions were total failures. And everyday, we are told that there is no alternative, that this is "the end of history." We've been robbed of our most powerful weapon, imagination, fantasy, our ability to dream.

>>36912 >The real horror of the system is how it's made us so mentally dependent we can't think past it. So you want to think past it. What are people mentally dependent on? Financial validation?

>>36910 >I think that there was a bit of Streisand effect when it came to the pandemic. I was considering the state of propaganda in the current milieu and I can't help but to think that much of culture, particularly internet culture and alt-media, is unwittingly taking part of some deep augmented reality game. The rational reaction leads to a kind of tail chasing that keeps the iron of society malleable, falling into a predictable dialectic. Even on a sociological level, a conflict usually resolves in compromise between the two opposing forces. Further, in that we inform ourselves about the world at large through the lens of media (tv/online news, entertainment, social networks) but are otherwise lacking of any personal interaction with the feed of information. We are no matter how aware of the mechanisms conforming to the social dialectics put forward to us (news top down controlled AP/Reuters and govt, entertainment informs cultural and social trends/mores, social networks modulate exposure and is filled with bots). Also yet, there is an extreme detachment of any means of power for a grassroots interaction, obvious that any typical means moves far slower than the leviathan itself, causing those most willing to participate to crudely shout as loud as their artificial ecosystem will allow -- irony that online activism seems to provide the most feedback to any sense of change, or get caught up in fed-ridden campaigns of which occupies (as it long has) any relevant side of the dialectic. All while the world events continue to portray a deluge of scandal, conflict, existential threat, and flat out strange illiciting a confusion and helplessness that compels the mark society to (and much like TikTok does in its own microcosm) never leave the reaction stage, energetically charged for the reaction and too distracted and tired to properly take in and act upon the seemingly real samsara that begs to be fixed. Think of each individual cultural phenomenon, each bombastic political scandal, the eerie foretellings in media fiction, categorize them chronologically -- you don't need a lot, but enough to fit a dozen or so in each -- the pattern of the chaos emerges, the stage world has consistently gives a warning rumble for the earthquake to follow... it's easy to see in hindsight, but so easy to dismiss you and I as alien.

>>36918 Ugh sorry if this is tough to read but I hate spending too much time on writing a post. Hopefully the point still comes across.

>>36917 People are institutionalized. Everybody is too afraid of losing their first world comforts and little privileges. Change doesn't happen because the vast majority of people are mentally domesticated.

>>36920 We've been mentally domesticated for thousands of years though, and change has been happening across all of it, even if that change is not satisfying to you. What do you believe can be gained in exchange for giving up first world comforts? Becoming as mentally untethered as our distant ancestors is impossible, there's too many of us and the world has become too small, our basic survival now depends on structures enabling large scale cooperation.

We live in a Deleuzian control society. It retains all the hallmarks of the old disciplinary system, but instead of locking people into institutions for repetitive drilling and psychological manipulation, we’re now living in a world that seems open and free. It’s like a big highway system, we can move anywhere but we can’t leave the enclosed network. We’re constantly tracked and monitored as we move around and given brownie points for socially acceptable or desirable behavior, but if we do stuff the authorities don’t like we get locked off from certain areas. Just look at Twitter, do whatever you like on it, but as soon as you voice an opinion your b& and you don’t get to broadcast your message anymore. The question is, how do we subvert this system? With any system, there’s bound to be gaps and weak points, faulty CCTV etc. but the hard part is getting people on board. True revolutionary change only happens when a big enough number of people are willing to cross the red lines that the authorities have laid down for us. But change doesn’t have to be political, it can also come from sweeping technological changes too. You need a mixed strategy, essentially breaking people off from the state/corporations and creating new kinds of public spaces outside their control. The Muslim Brotherhood was very good at this in Egypt and some of the old European communist parties. They’d create volunteer clinics and schools in poor neighborhoods, then sports teams, hiking clubs, reading groups. They kept people outside of state influence. You can look at how the Linux people have this for the community, fuarrrk the man in the high tower attitude. If you do this in enough sectors, you can render the state and big corpos impotent and irrelevant. Make everything free and open source.

It's not that people don't care, it's that people realize that change is largely impossible. A lot of people cry censorship, that's not really it, but rather co-opt than reused to enforce the current system. From Chan's and internet forums to twitter and facebook. All got devoured. I'd recommend the book "It came from Something Awful"

>>36967 >it's that people realize that change is largely impossibe Pretty much. As lainons said in this thread, the internet is fine tuned by governments and technological monoliths to effectively filter out dissident opinions. This is done through algorithms allowing only accepted opinions to get any exposure, through the censorship of competing sites, and worst of all, through internalizing conformist attitudes in the average user. What make change impossible however, is that there is no escape. With the advent of shadow profiles, forced registrations for everything from travel to bank accounts, and ever increasing social pressure to connect everything to social media monoliths, the line between real life and the internet has been completely broken.

>>36847 >Protests, civil disobedience, hacktivism, even terrorism Considering that most of those activities are perpetrated or encouraged by the State, it is small wonder they do not change anything. I will change the world by not doing these things. I will say "No." I will not hurt people, I will not hurt myself, I will not hate, I will not listen to the media, I will not do what they say, I will not believe lies, I will not comply with stupid crap. I think this is the most potent thing anyone can do to affect change: No.

idk anon we live in a capitalist society, which I dislike, and instead of engaging in anti-capitalist soykaf (that ultimately falls under capitalism as well, cf. Capitalist Realism) I just chose to be as much as possible outside of capitalism. I do soykaf (mostly music and writing) for free and ask nothing in return. I don't use proprietary software, or if I do I pirate it. The only thing I buy is basically food and repairs for my bike. But all that being said, I think stuff like protests or hacktivism or terorism does work too. Maybe not in a strong, immediately visible way, but it can definitely make entities (people, companies,...) change their behavior if they think about it. For exemple some protest/strike movements get results before they even start because the companies are ultimately afraid of it.

>>37646 The problem with terrorism is it just makes governments stronger in the long run. They demonize the people that do it and pass new security laws. Bin Laden was able to destabilize the system in a massive way but AQ did fuarrrked up soykaf like killing innocents. If you look at the Middle East things are even worse off now than before and all dissent is now illegal. Even hipster tabloids like Vice are paid off to make the Saudis look good. People are thrown in prison for tweets that aren't even about politics and "fighting terrorism" is the justification. Even America is totalitarian dystopia now.

>>36847 I routinely make the world a worse place via telepathy and a broader self destruct process.

Both Snowden and Assange moved the unmovable.

>>37647 My brother in Christ, Al Qaeda was created by CIA, no wonder they killed the innocent. >>37645 To defend someone you have to hurt. To fight for something you have to hate your enemies. When there are no enemies around, the state creates them. Population must be kept scared and terrorized. State creates new horrors to pretend it protects you from them. Otherwise you will start asking questions why do you even need the state. Today they will pass, tomorrow they will make you their new enemy.

>>37645 I fully agree. Doing this and spreading these behaviours around is our only way forward. Maybe if society spiralled into anarchy I'd change my mind, but I don't really see that happening any time soon.

I think the problem is the algorithms of social media need to be done away with but while they exist they should be taken advantage of to spread truth but present it in the same compelling ways lies are told because people are too stupid for anything else.

>>36866 >In the past, the press was controlled exclusively by large private news enterprises Wrong. The big newpapers were owned by 20 different guys while it's only 5 today for all the MSM, and we used to have a lot of smaller newspapers. Your local group of activist had its news, your town had 40 different newspaper competing with each other, you had specialized press, newspapers with only a small number of n° every year... Everything moved to the internet, so now they don't exist anymore. >>36867 Just saying, when adjusted by the number of crimes, police brutality in the US isn't a racial problem. Making it one ensure the problem won't be solved. BLM is controlled opposition. I mean, look at how they are only active right before an election and evaporate one week after. Look how the grassroot leaders pocket millions that magically appear, how they got good new coverage and support from half of the politicians who told the cops to let them riot. The system know why occupy have failed and they know how to prevent the people from organizing in a way that question them. This is an excellent example of how they can control a narrative. >>36868 It used to be a conspiracy theory. The Twitter files proved it was real. >>36885 That's why the ESG score exist. Tell your algorithm to show the right things or you won't be able to do business. This is why so many companies don't want their add on X. Not because someone here say the N word, but because if they give money to X, then their own ESG score suffer.

>>36877 What democracy? There are no truly democractic governments in existence as of this moment. What you're probably thinking of is a federal republic. A federal republic is not a democracy. A democracy is a government run by the people. In ancient Athens they would randomly select 500 people to serve in the government for a year. There's never been a government like that since then. The people do not run any existing governments right now, federal republic or not. In the case of most first world countries, they all basically have federal republics or something similar to one. In essence, the people elect statesmen to run the government for them. The idea behind this concept would be that it takes a special person to be a politician, a normal person would be incapable of being a politician. So then I wonder how people get into government since it takes such a special person to rule. A gradual acclimation through legal counseling for entities relating to the government is one way people can enter into positions that I've observed. A large amount of American politicians are born into their positions. They are of a higher strata in American society. They're born into wealthy families, they are put through private schools, and go off to private universities where they join secret societies to be inculcated with the ideology of their future compatriots in government. They do not work for the people, they work to further their ideology, and their ideology is not in favor of the people. Normal people never get into important government positions. When they do it's always through a stroke of luck, and they're morally bankrupt. If they weren't morally bankrupt they wouldn't be allowed to be where they are in the world. A normal person will never win an election in the U.S. The amount of funding required to compete against the DNC and GOP is steep enough to ensure that a normal person will absolutely never make it into office. These two institutions which are manipulated by external forces within the U.S government itself and corporations around the world have monopolized the American electoral process. They ensure that only a selection of approved figureheads are allowed to compete for office.

>>39104 what do you think of Edward Durr ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Durr seems normal enough. Of course he lost reelection, and perhaps a single representative isn't that important, anyway.

>>39104 There is one democracy in this world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_initiative_in_Switzerland The best exemple of fake democracy is the EU. The EU have a president. Can you name him? You don't have to. It's someone who already have a job, he is the president of a country. His power in the EU is limited to speeches and show. There is a parliament in the EU. Of all the parliaments in the world, this one is the weakest. It's power is basically limited at choosing the best way to apply the law of the commission. Ha, the commission. Can you name the people who are in it? You don't have to because you don't vote for them. They are chosen by the elite of the political class. Vote for one party or another, you will only choose which persons of the club will name the members of the commission. They control everything, decide everything and everyone have to obey. Yes, including the national governments. >They're born into wealthy families Ask about the young global leaders. Pretty much all members of the elite of every country in the west come from here.

>>39106 Many of the states have initiatives. How has that helped them?

>>36847 The problem is not that people are tired, it is that they genuinely do not care. A long as they have grub and a soft bed to sleep on most will put up with anything, the worship of weakness in the guise of justice that is intrinsical to western culture does not help with this, people feel justified in, proud of their laziness. Look at a country like Albania for example, the governing seat has been passed around like a whore between many dictators for hundreds of years after the turkish invaders were removed, do you think the people did anything, ever? Absolutely not. Why? Because Albania is a (really) free market and most people pass by just fine. Go back one or two lines in my post < after the turkish invaders were kicked out Turks had made Christianity illegal, martyrizing those who did not convert to islam. Albanians no longer could no longer let life move them like the wind does a leaf, the wind cut them and so they needed to take a stand. This will never happen because the people who use us do a good job at keeping people complacent. The life of an egoist is a sad one, you have in you the hunger to walk up to heaven and take God's seat but at the same time you were born in a world where the individual holds no power, no matter how bright your soul may burn your body can only do so much and guess what? The only way for you to be as mighty on the physical plane as you are on the spiritual plane is to ally with (manipulate) other people but funnily enough almost nobody else on earth cares and those who do would murder you like the threat to their own ambition that you are. Nonetheless, we stand up everyday, driven by whatever cope, a dream, lest our minds become brittle and with time more brittle until they crumble. You cant escape it, no matter what you try, the strongest chain on man placed by nature, family, might distract you for a while but you will come to a breaking point: >why am I here? < to raise the kids >why do I care about the kids <because you were wired to, because everybody else does And no matter how much you try to explain away this hunger that is rooted in defiance you will never get past it because that hunger is you. And why would you even want to leave that passion behind? Be happy satisfied? A husk of your former self who quenched his thirst with poison, satisfied with it? The intelligence to recognize your obvious faults is an even bigger curse, still we delude ourselves because that is the only way to not be eroded by this rain of adversities. The atomization of society is nature pulling humanity back together, one day (((they))) will stop feeding people as well, thin the walls of their apartments and increase their working hours, watch everybody come out of their cave to take back the lifestyle that they have been conditioned to consider "proper". That is when the egoist strikes. Pray because you will need it, there will be thousands like us.

One person can change the physical world a little bit. One person can lead by example, and that affects a few people. One person with the ability to inspire others can change the world a lot.

I think even if you do make change in the world you don't know if that change really will be a good one, or what that movement would evolve into and wether or not it would stay good. To me, I'm happy with where I live. I could complain about this or that but I have a home and food and water so really I'm good. I know babylon will fall and the world will burn some day, and I anxiously await that day, but I don't think any man can cause it or stop it. But really, the condition of the physical world around you doesn't need to dictate your mental state.

>>36912 Extremely based Christian Orthodox monk.

The first your need know. Is! The normal people never andstand the facts. In the moment of you say your worlds, your don't know. but maybe your kill people for only words. If you can use the machine tecnics for pragramming language, your can use this same type for controll other personalitys. 1-Lissen 2-Take a reason of people to live or love 3-If you have it, your can make a algorits about the person, and controll every about this person. The reason of men is a reason o lives. The reason of woman is a reason of future and lovely. Discovery, in every single man or every single woman. And make algoritims for manipulated. If she she like it and belive in it, {i'm not convece she i'm like} You told about other thinks for ilusion she. A man belive in this reason. = A can use this man for every about this reason. Is not more diference about humans and machine. And programated imagination of people and she or him life. And yes, your words kill and your never know about this.

if someone can explain useless of taxes for others and that's no need to pay them. 1 year without taxes, and all will be change. But nobody cares.