Pro-Culture vs Counterculture

People often talk about cultures. These are often basis for personal identities, that keep people distinct from one another, create basis for different nations around the world and so on. There is also plenty of talk of subcultures, small colourful things that allow people withing any given country to distinguish themselves from their peers without necessary going against main culture.

What gets rarely mentioned and almost always negatively is a counterculture. It often viewed as dangerous, violent and undesirable. However far not every counterculture is violent or about violence. I wrote one other article about this topic but now think it was not enough to cover this phenomenon sufficiently.

To begin with I need to set a definition. In this and my other articles, counterculture is an inversion of the country's official culture. Inversion like the inverted colours of the flags in the picture above. Why it is so I will explain further below.

To begin with I have to outline how official culture is formed. Sure, one might say it develops organically overtime as a reflection of people of any given land and such. However, reality is that government plays much greater role in shaping this culture than most willing to give it credit for. Of course, more often than not it does it in a subtle way to avoid making people suspicious. Government can promote and encourage certain trends and developments while discouraging others. Why do so? Simple, to better shape society to a form desired by elites. Traits elites find desirable are claimed to be part of national character and culture meanwhile traits they do not like are called un-Australian or un-<insert country name here>

Different governments find different traits desirable or not. Sometimes it's just minor matters of aesthetics but other times these differences are much more substantial, producing cultural antagonism between different governments and their societies. 

Most recently war in Ukraine can be explained with such cultural differences between Europe and Russia. More and more people in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states embracing European liberal democratic culture and that makes Russian elites fearful of losing their power to the common people. Europeans, who deliver their power from people, do not fear that and mock antagonism of Russian elites. Russian elites fear the same end suffered by Charles I and Louis XVI frantically try to figure out how stop democracy from beheading them as well. They and I have no doubt that they are guilty of the same crimes, these two monarchs were beheaded for. Just like them, they try to avoid being judged for these crimes. I personally want to see their heads roll.

However back to culture. There is a physical concept that any force produces an equal amount of counterforce. If we apply it to culture, we can say that any official and promoted culture will create equal amount of counterculture. Why does that happen? Because not everyone can relate to traits and values, official culture acclaims and promotes. Some bound to find these to be downright wrong and wish for a different alternative values and principles. Gradually these alternative countervalues will produce a counterculture to match.

The stronger and in a more ham-fisted way government tries to shovel its official culture down people's throat, the stronger the resistance to it will grow, eventually resulting in stronger and more cohesive counterculture. Generally western liberal democracies handle this much more subtle and skillfully than dictatorships. Thus, western countercultures typically remain weak, scattered and undeveloped. Only truly lunatic people embrace them. 

In contrast many dictatorships that overuse censorship and coerce people into official culture using police and threat of prison often end up with strong and cohesive countercultures with their own symbols, ethics, values and more. Sometimes these countercultures could even pull off a revolution and overthrow the regime. Clearly dictatorships are shooting themselves in a foot there, but they do not see it this way.

Just like cultures differ from one another, countercultures also differ from one another. Russian counterculture will hardly have anything in common with a British counterculture. In fact, most countercultures tend to think of themselves as having more in common with official cultures of one or another foreign country. Western leftists idealise "Socialist" countries, rather erroneously thinking they are the same as their countercultural views. Russian and other eastern countercultures idealise Western democracies instead for much of the same reasons. Once again there are differences between Russian counterculture and official cultures of most Western countries, but these are less apparent than between Western socialism and actually communism.

As I mentioned before counterculture is an inversion of any given country's original culture. Its traits are opposite of the tenants of the official culture, traits official culture labels as flaws and wrongs, becoming virtues of counterculture. It's much like psychological trauma that pushes a person towards the polar opposite of things that hurt them. 

For example, when it comes to picking one's girlfriends and wives, men tend to choose someone who resembles their mother. However, if they had conflicts with their mother and associated psychological trauma, they will instead look for a girlfriend who is unlike their mother in every way imaginable, the more different the better. They will think they will not repeat the same mistake so they will not choose a person that shares any similarities with their mother.

In the same way, counterculture treats anything that resembles their official culture with wary and disdain. Western leftists equate social democracy with fascism because some commie once said so, eastern anti-communists think anything with word socialism in it will mean Gulags and Pol Pot style purges.

On the other hand, counterculture can justify a lot of traits typically considered bad. Most official cultures wanted to cultivate one or another form of virtue. Some of these virtues could end up being seen negatively by counterculture that will instead value a corresponding vice. Western countercultures tend to indulge in social disturbance, property destruction as well as blaming West and capitalism for every problem out there, no matter how unrelated. Russian countercultures tend to approve tax avoidance and downright stealing from the state as well as calling state and government in itself evil.

Reasons for these behaviors lie in certain aspects of the official cultures of any said countries. For example, in the West there is strong emphasis on rationality, skills and abilities. Common good is praised but not at expense of self-interest. Facts matter more than emotions and emotions are sometimes mocked altogether. Thus, counterculture embraces these things instead, going all "my feelings do not care about your facts", as well as embracing the benefit of majority ethos of socialism. Finally western respect for property and value of material things lead towards counterculture just wantonly destroying these things for no particular reason other than just to show how they do not care for material things.

As for some real-life examples, then for example in Russia official culture emphasize so called statism: devotion and service to the state. State is object of near religious worship and people should deny themselves anything if it is for the common good, benefit of the state and the county. Calling the country "motherland" is all to further instill this sense of devotion and reverence to it. 

A certain Soviet era propaganda character, called Pavlik Morozov, emphasize Russian government's official ethos. Pavlik's grandpa hid a portion of harvest from the government officials, Pavlik learned of it and reported that to government officials who arrested and shot the grandpa, confiscated hidden grain and gave Pavlik a medal for service to the motherland. Government message is clear: be like Pavlik Morozov, report any crime even if it's your relatives or against your own best interests, be loyal to the state and society first and foremost, treasure government medals and decorations. People like Pavlik grandpa are selfish, endanger common good and the motherland with their selfish actions and thus deserve contempt and punishment. People like Pavlik Morozov adorned many propaganda posters all across USSR, all emphasising how important and honorable it is to sacrifice for motherland. 

Russian counterculture instead emphasizes not being as Pavlik Morozov in every possible way. Hide wealth from government to prevent them from confiscating it. Never report anyone to officials, no matter what they do. Steal from government because all they have was stolen from people like Pavlik's grandpa. Ignore state and common good and get rich and then retire in Rio de Janeiro (or similar tropical paradise place) like Ostap Bender wanted to. Pavlik Morozov and Ostap Bender became two antagonising characters of Soviet culture and counterculture. Bender is downright swindler and crook with hardly any redeeming qualities, but people love him regardless because he is polar opposite of hated Pavlik Morozov.

Western people will hardly call Bender a hero, self-interest may be Western value, but fraud and stealing are not. To top it up Bender has rather unpleasant personality and does not hesitate to swindle even his associates and run for it. They will not endorse Pavlik Morozov but will hardly praise Bender just because he is not Morozov.

Ostap Bender is just one example of such counterculture idol, not everyone is inspired by him, but I am pretty sure that almost every Russian Oligarch was inspired by him and likely employed his methods to get what they own.

Another countercultural icon of Russia is Victor Tsoi and Kino band. Their melancholic songs about personal concerns and reflections about world and life around them, still attract huge crowds long after the person himself died in car accident, allegedly orchestrated by KGB. Government wishes people would move on already, but public stubbornly graffities "Tsoi lives" on walls of apartment blocks and other areas, imitating Soviet slogan: "Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live". 

I doubt it is possible for me to find characters that held similar impact on western culture or counterculture. Some might call John Galt from Atlas Shrugged or Ayn Rand herself as Western analogue of Pavlik Morozov because Western leftists are so hell bent on hating them. However official culture does not promote them in any way, so they are hardly poster children of the system. Real life self-made businessman like Elon Musk or Warren Buffett probably fit this role better. There are also war heroes and presidents and more. Prometheus from Greek myth or Jesus is possibly Western analogue of counterculture hero. Western lefties tend to believe that western prosperity needs to be stolen and shared with the rest of the world, just like Prometheus stole Fire of Gods and gave it to people. Lefties relieve Prometheus life by voting to increase migration or advocating black people's rights and then endure right wing backlash. All that will mostly apply to the United States as Australia and Europe are rather different in that regard.

One might want to mention Ned Kelly or Eureka Stockade as a counterculture hero, but Ned Kelly does not polarise society as other examples here do. There is a dichotomy between wowsers and larrikins as well as between Tories and Laborites, but I do not think there are characters that archetype each of these groups. We in Australia go easy on propaganda and ideals; instead, we surf, drink and barbeque food instead.

Also, I would like to mention that it's not necessary only a single counterculture for every given official culture. In any given country there could be several different countercultures with different opinions about each other, they can see themselves as complimentary but different or even oppose each other even more than official culture. 

If we compare cultures to atomic structure, then official culture or cultures are like protons forming the core or monolith of the state and giving it positive charge, subcultures are like neutrons, also hanging around the core but with no charge, just atomic mass, finally countercultures are elections, negatively charged and revolving around the core at a distance and hoping to escape to another atom.

Negativity towards official culture does make one think that things are better elsewhere where culture is different. However, cultures of the idealised foreign countries are almost never the exact match to the counterculture of another countries. That said they are still closer to the countercultures of the said counties than their own official cultures are. 

Thus, countercultural people on average are more inclined towards individuality, solitude and negativity. In general, countercultural people exhibit electron like behavior. Unlike official culture people or subcultures who like to band together like protons and neutrons in atomic core, countercultural people keep their distance from people around them as they float at the distance and thinking of switching from one core for another.

Just like in atomic physics some atoms are more inclined to lose their electrons while certain other atoms instead gain them. Smaller atoms with just one of two electrons on outer layer often lose these electrons to atoms with many electrons on outer layer. It works the same way with cultures. Monocultural and autocratic societies with few countercultures tend to lose its countercultural members to the multicultural societies with many subcultures and countercultures. I forgot how it's called in atomic physics but in human societies it's called brain drain.

Finally, about flags. Since counterculture is inversion of any given county's official culture, it would be natural to use national flag of inverted colours as a counterculture flag of any given nation. For example, this is inverted flag of Russia and this one is of Australia. There are more in the picture above. As I mentioned in another one of my articles that Bahamas are likely the most un-Russian country in the world. True to this idea inverted flag of Russia or Australia has broadly the same colours as flag of Bahamas. So are most other nations inverted flags as white inverts to black, red into turquoise and finally blue into yellow. 

Black stands for defiance, turquoise for tropical paradise sea and yellow for sand on the beach of such tropical paradise. That is possibly something most countercultures could agree on. All these values, principles and sacrifices are pointless (unless they exist to protect this tropical paradise lifestyle, like EU liberal democratic values do), what matters is 5-star resort living in a tropical paradise. I call it 5-star-resortism, the only ideology that touches my soul. 

To that end we can adopt flag of Bahamas as international counterculture flag. Flag of people who do not give a fuck about your feelings and values, will not sacrifice for your stupid shit and in it only for themselves and their tropical paradise living.

Why Christianity and Most Other Religions are Religions of Servants

 

In many of my writings I call religion slavery. I think I need to clarify that by slavery I mean servitude. That is something some sects of Christianity openly admit and even acclaim as something desirable (see picture above). In that regard Islam is not really different, the word itself translates as submission.

In my article about Slavery I wrote why slaves are very valuable commodity in a free world just as much as it is in the unfree world. Here I will explain how elites turn people into willing slaves using a very cunning tool, religion.

Religion promises its followers all sorts of nebulous rewards: salvation (from what?), spiritual food (that does not feed and more of annoyance to psyche than nutrient), paradise after death (which does not even exist), approval of church (completely useless) and more. All intangible and nebulous things that are completely worthless if you think of it. 

What it asks in return? Service to God? Does not sound as much until you think about it. They gradually soften you up to accept their "God" rules to train you to obey. They gradually increase the control, making you do more and more until your entire life is controlled by them and rules allegedly written by their god. 

Why are they doing it? Are they insane? Now they deliberately train you to be a servant for a ruling class of their society. They condition you to bow head to some nefarious allegedly omnipotent being to train you to bow your head to very real temporal masters of this world. 

Ever wondered who you really will be serving? Sometimes they call god, lord. Unlike 'god', word 'lord' has many other real-life meanings, for example people who sit in House of Lords. Priests who preach the 'gospel' do not forget themselves as there are also Lords Spiritual. They are hardly 'servants of god' are they?

So, what is the purpose of this religious conditioning. What is their final goal. It's simple: to create a perfect servant for themselves. Sure, one can force people to do as they want using violence and death threats, but that comes with risks. Carelessly drop the weapon, servant catches it and now roles reversed. You have to bow to them. Even without it, unwilling servants willing to get rid of their master can mix up some poison in their food or drink and they are dead. Unwilling servants are constant danger.

That is why ruling elites invented religion with a scary omniscient God who will punish wrongdoings. Poisoned master could not retaliate due to being dead, but an omnipotent god can.

All other aspects of religion also exist for the ruling class's sake. Elites do not see themselves as equal to those who serve them, they see servants as second class beings, inferior to them in every way. They want these servants to serve them with humility and deference. That is why religion teaches people all that. 

Why do you think Bible has a story about punishing Adam and Eve for easing a single apple. Because privilege elites do not want their servants to use their belongings as their own. They also want them fear punishment, obey any ridiculous orders and more and more. There is biblical story where God ordered a guy to kill their own son. It is there to instill loyalty and obedience to ruling class above one's own family.

 

That is how and why Bible is nothing more than a brainwashing tool to convert people into devout loyal and obedient servants for their masters. Willing slaves who will not step out of their role even if they could do.

That is why one should be wary of any person who wishes to "preach gospel" or otherwise convert you to one's religion. Their "spirituality" is nothing more than a yoke in disguise.

Those who live a religious life, a life of service are like second class citizens by choice. A voluntary lower cast people. A servant slave class below others, confused by misleading bible designed to brainwash them into willing slaves.

I personally consider myself a lord, not a servant or a slave. I call myself God and Emperor because I do not follow other people's moral but create my own. I do not serve, I rule. As a ruler a religion for slaves is nothing but an annoyance to me.

In future I might need this religion to indoctrinate my servants into being better willing slaves, but at the moment I do not have servants to indoctrinate. I sure will not follow "the teachings" of the Church as they are nothing but poison.

Kindness vs Morality

 

In my writings I often praise kindness but denigrate morality as evil. To some that might sound confusing. Many get used to associating kindness with moral and have a hard time to separating one from another. Sure, most will agree that they are distinct concepts but how many could contrast one from another. 

However, these concepts are not just different but actually can oppose each other. It is possible to have a selfish, immoral and unethical person who is also kind. At the same time, it's equally possible to have moral person who is very unkind and cruel.

To begin with I will define each concept separately. Kindness is an act of giving to others or helping others. While one often helps people they find deserving, it does not have to be so. As an extreme example, giving money to a murderer or even helping them murder someone would still be kindness. Morals and ethics may judge you negatively for that, but it would still be an act of kindness. 

Kindness is often directional, it directed towards someone, sometimes at expense of someone else. It can also be universal and blind, helping everyone equally no matter who they are.

Kindness can be based on moral but not necessarily have to. One can be kind on a whim, just because they felt pity. One can even be kind out of selfishness. Kindness attracts people towards you so one might do kindness to get people stay with them. Distributing wealth to key supporters from Rules for Rulers video is also an act of kindness of sorts and selfish, but wise ruler, would do so to shore up their rule.

UBI is a form of universal kindness. It gives everyone equally without any judgement on whether they deserve or need it. Something I find much more compelling than a selective welfare based on someone's subjective judgement on whether they need/deserve it or not.

Now moral. Most think of it as something good and praiseworthy. After all moral is concern and drive to do good. That could not be wrong, couldn't it?

Not so simple. Ask a question: "who decides what is good and what isn't?" ("Who are the judges?" as I worded it a while back). The more you think about it, the more issues with moral you will uncover. 

Who decided that for example helping elderly is good and moral, but lazy people are themselves to blame and should not be helped. Who decides who is lazy and who is not? What is an elderly is lazy? Is it moral to help them or should you tell them to stop being lazy instead.

Why its even moral to help elderly but not lazy?  After all both are net burden on society and do not contribute anything, just waste resources and when it comes to waste, elderly by far out-waste lazy by a large margin.

However, is there one same moral or everyone has different one? Most adherents of moral will tell you moral is one and the same for everyone and then will go on to disagree on what is moral and what is not. There are many different morals, ethical standards and so on. If there are many, which one is right one?

Back to the original question: who decides what is moral and what is not? Why they have right to do so?

Religions people will say God decided what is moral and what is not, but God does not exist. In the first-place religious people need God to wholesale the public their moral values and prevent them from being questioned and scrutinised. Do they have right to set rules for everyone else? Not anymore than I have right to tell everyone what to do by virtue of being God-Emperor of the Universe.

Finally, are morals really fair and impartial or biased towards self-interest of those who propagate them?

A tele-evangelist who solicits donations for their church is the best example of outright bias, but most moral is much more subtle. However, if one analyzes morals critically, it's quite easy to see the beneficiaries. When elderly white moral, it's always states that helping elderly is moral and good. When women write moral its always women, who deserve more. When homeowners write moral, respecting property rights becomes good and disrespecting property immoral. When businessowners write moral, running a business becomes a highest virtue and morality of employees is judged based on how loyally and faithfully they serve. A clear pattern here. In fact, based on what any given moral set of ethics claims to be good and bad one can easily tell who wrote it and for whose benefit.

When one sums it all up, it becomes clear without reasonable doubt that moral is not any kind of universal good. More so, moral is a tool of exploitation disguised as something benign. 

Every moral ethics code serves a certain group of people by designating respect to members of this group as virtue. At the same time moral exploits other groups by demanding respect and service towards the designated group or groups. Finally moral declares those who do not show such respect or render service to said group as immoral, vile or worse and seeks to punish them for their actions. Furthermore, some moral codes mix things up to confuse and mislead people and hide its ultimate beneficiaries.

Because of the above, one cannot always expect a moral person to be good at all. Maybe their moral code compels them to help you, but it's equally possible that it instead calls on them to despise you instead.

The worst and most dangerous people are those who treat moral as absolute and ignore law and common sense in the name of moral. They would not only crush their own balls if their ethics code said its moral, but they will also do that to your balls and will think they are doing nothing wrong. To keep your balls safe, you should stay away from them.

My personal experience with moral and ethics was mostly negative. It was always used against me by various people of authority like my parents. Moral never offered me anything but only demanded from me. It was always moral for me to do something for others and somehow never moral for them to do anything for me.

My parents were highly "moral" people and tried to instill this in me, teaching me that "principles" (in terms of my mom) are the most important thing. I personally rejected their teachings and their "principles" as wrong and harmful. Instead, I take my self-interest as highest virtue.

All this is why I value kindness and dislike moral. The kind of unconditional loyal kindness that will give me care and support no matter what happens. On the other hand, I despise moral as I see it as a mere tool of control and exploitation by the privileged groups of society. One day I might flesh out my own set of moral and ethics that benefits me most, but so far, I live by self-interest. 

Why Religion Contradicts the Natural Development of the World

Arguing with religions people get me discover an interesting overreaching principle that divides religion from reality. Reality is bottom up and religion is top down.

In reality as expressed and proven by extensive scientific research, thing work bottom up. Simpler structures gradually evolve into bigger and more complex ones. Take any field: history, biology, physics it always bottom-up.

For example, famous Theory of Evolution. Earliest forms of life were single cell organisms that are so small, humans can only see them under microscope. Overtime however some single cell organisms have evolved into multicell ones. At first, they were simple like algae but gradually became more complex and specialized. Algae evolved into jelly fish that in turn became octopuses and later squids that gradually evolved into ray finned fish.

Size and complexity always increased over time. Pinnacle of evolution, humans are more complex than apes who came before us, apes more complex than other mammals, mammals as a group more complex than reptiles that came before and so on.

It works the same on cellular level. Cells do vary in their complexity from one another. From a simple bacterium that has no distinct internal parts, cells evolved into internal specialisation. Animal and plant cells have many distinct subsections, each performing its unique function in the cell.

It's the same with other fields of science. Take history. Early humans lived in small groups. However, as time went on, we grew to create ever larger and more complex societies. Hunter-gatherer packs were replaced with tribes, who were replaced, with polis (Greek city state), that were replaced with empires and kingdoms that gave way to nations states and now we are evolving towards supranatural unions. 

If we take molecular physics, it the same pattern there as well. Atoms bond together to create molecules. Protons, neutrons and electors bond together to create atoms and quarks bond together to create these atomic parts. Some carbon-based molecules are so complex, they exhibit life's properties. That is how you connect the atomic physics to the above-mentioned Theory of Evolution.

It grows up, not down. People gather to form ever complex societies. Living organism gradually evolve into more and more complex beings. Atoms connect and form complex molecules. It's always bottom up. Smaller things gather together to form bigger and more complex things. Even humans and grass begin their lives small and then grow.

This is the real-life way, bottom up. Grassroot to complexity.

Religion fundamentally contradicts this with its own narrative. God, who is omnipotent and omniscient created humans who are limited and fallible. God created Adam in his own image but created Even out of Adam's rib. Humans were pure ones but then fallen to sin and became impure.

In religion it is always the other way around. Something bigger and greater creates something smaller out of part of self or part of something else. With each new iteration everything becomes lesser and lesser, deprecates.

This deprecation principle goes against the reality of the world around us. World simply does not work top down like religion claims it is. 

This top-down vs bottom-up approach is what fundamentally differentiates science and reality from religion. We have to accept that reality functions in a bottom-up way. 

Profound Thoughts

These are some philosophical ideas that I came up in my life. Some are clever observations. Others are just truth I live by. I will update this post as I come up with more ideas.

Anything is only unfair or unacceptable if it disadvantages me in any way.   

If it disadvantages others while benefitting me, it's completely acceptable.

When people steal from me is a crime, when I steal from someone its clever.

Any rules only make sense if everyone follows them, there is no point of following rules if others do not follow them. You will be the loser when other get ahead. Even international laws that govern good conduct make exception for this. For example, Nazi Germany observed Geneva convention with their Western Opponents who also signed up to it but did not do so with the Soviets who did not sign it. I treat any breach of commitments towards me as annulment of the whole agreement and act as I am no longer bound by an agreement.

Good opportunities rarely come, most of what is on offer is a subpar offer at best and downright fraud at worst. In either case it's a waste of energy to pursue such substandard opportunities as energy is finite and you need it when something really good comes up. 

Thus, in poker terms one should fold if cards you were dealt this round are worthless and wait for the next round.

It is wiser to wait for a good hand that to play a subpar one and lose your bets.

Being able to judge a good opportunity from a bad one is one of the most essential skills in life.

Winning more important than rules and moral.

Rewards, particularly material ones, matter. Moral and principles do not. 

Every action is a trade-off between rewards and efforts required, the bigger reward the better, the lesser efforts the better. 

No rewards or benefits to me personally, no lifting a finger.

Emotional rewards only matter if it's something that makes you personally happy. However, one should never listen to other people claims that something going to make them happy, such claims are always false.

People whom you can use and exploit are valuable. People whom you cannot use and exploit are useless. Do not look down on suckers if you can exploit them, keep them close instead. That does not matter however they are the kind of suckers that you personally cannot exploit.

Guarantees and trust matter, even the best deal in theory is not worth it if there is a possibility that a person will betray you and reneg on their promises.

One should live in luxury, safety and comfort. 5 Star Resort Hotels is pinnacle of living arrangements. These living conditions can be replicated in your own mansion if one has enough money.

Denying oneself anything is the most stupid thing one can do. One should not deny oneself pleasures and advantages, even if moral and society say it's wrong. Those who say it's wronged a merely hypocrites who secretly indulge themselves and use moral to keep other away from pleasures and advantages they want to hog up for themselves.

My desires guide me towards things than can bring me happiness like comfortable accommodation and tasty food. Without such things human will wither like a plant without fertiliser and water or be weak and sickly. I speak from experience here. Back when I was a child, I was frail weak and sickly because my parents (especially mom) were unreasonably austere, banned a lot of food and feed me mostly plain and tasteless things. Things improved when I became adult and could eat whatever I wanted.

On the other side one should no overconsume either. Just as your desires guide you towards things that will make you feel better, they can also indicate that you had enough, at least for the time being. Your body can only process finite amount of food or drink at any given time. Going beyond that limit will cause more harm than good. Also, there are certain types of food that just do not work for you, and your tastes ask you to reject it. Not always such food is bitter like broccoli or cauliflower, sometimes its sweet, but in a wrong way. It is best to avoid such food even if its popular with others.

One should not live like a monk, denying oneself pleasures. Neither should one live like a party animal, too dependent on entertainment.

One should aspire balance between extremes. Like an old money aristocrat, go for the best and most enjoyable of pleasures.

Of the Freudian triad Ego by far the most important. It's the only component of the triad that can allow one to master oneself and those around them and became something more than a human.

In contrast if superego is the strongest the person is mere slave to the society and its rules. With guilt superego will force a person to sacrifice their own advantages and gains for the sake of collective. They will lose everything. This if by far worst fate of three.

Id is slightly better as one does gain something of value by listening id. Unlike superego, id is not external, imposed by society/teachers/parents, but internal representation of ones needs. However, id cannot go beyond animalistic instincts, it can sustain but will not advance.

Only Ego can advance one further in life and society. Sure, for a lesser people ego is merely a mediator between demands of society (superego) and themselves (id), but it can be much more than just that. Ego can make one Übermensch or even God or someone even greater than God. Society and its rules were not as they are from times past; they were created by people. Society was shaped by those whose ego demanded it. Thus, by embracing ego one can be such a shaper of the world, not answer to rules created by others but create rules others will answer to. 

One can go even as far as removing the old god and replacing them with your own puppet god that you can use to control society from shadows. With the power like this every superego person will be your slave to do as you see fit with. Such is the power of ego.

While it is ok to lie if it is to one's advantage, one should still aspire to live life as true to oneself as possible. While a mask of lie can protect one from unfavourable consequences it also prevents from realising true inner aspirations. Thus, lie is a tool best used sparingly

Stop Blaming Technology on Loneliness

 

Recently I stumbled on yet another video that blames the fact that people do not want to socialise on technology. Even if he at first admitted that people actually want to be alone, he later came back to the beaten stereotype that its technology that is to blame.

Thinking that technology is to blame is fundamentally wrong. Without smartphones or TVs people can just look at the sky or ceiling and still refuse to socialise. I do not use my phone too much and I do not have tictok, but I do not want to socialise either. On the other hand, I can spend hours looking at the ocean or sky alone. What the solution for that will be, banning sky?

The real problem that people do not socialise is economic and social. 

Economy is shit, people are too overworked and do not have extra energy for going out. Neither do they have money for that, dining out, movies, go-carting and such all cost money, money their employers refuse to pay them.

Social is the fact that many people are mean and unpleasant to deal with. Toxic feminism and ugly fashion trends made women so unlikable, I hardly see anyone even remotely likable. Seeing someone and go "wow, so cute" is completely out of fiction for me.

Friends are not that better either. A lot of people are mean and/or creepy. Economy does not make it better either. When you know, they might want to steal your stuff or hurt you in some other way, you want to stay away from them, just in case.

All this have nothing to do with technology; it's just a very human reality of the world and society we live in. Gold-digging feminist women, toxic drama, mean scary people and more. A world created by boomer's greed, stupidity and selfishness. Desire to be alone is a simple natural reaction to a world that does not have anything to offer you. It's a symptom of other problems, not a problem in itself.

Nothing will change until every single one of boomers will either die out or lose all power and will have no choice but see how Millennials will undo everything boomers have done. Starting by depriving them of their savings and redistributing them to young people. Followed by introducing Japanese attitudes towards women in general.

However, even that might not be enough to fix the damage boomers have done. After all that happened many will never be able to trust another biological being again. Unlike them silicon is predictable, is has no free will and will not betray you for personal gain.

More on Censorship

sad but true: inherit wealth and be happy; no wealth to inherit kill yourself and hope you are reborn into a rich and generous family who will give you large inheritance, without inherited money life is shit

stupid twitter banned me because they are morons, I am tired of ridiculous biased censorship that makes no sense, people who spew insane religious nonsense are allowed to gaslight everyone but when I post the above message its ban for 7 days, fuck twitter