Birds are not real

The only person who benefits from choosing to pursue truth than eat up propagandized unsourced theories is the self. I’ve taken some time to put pretty simple and evident, verifiable information right up there, if you wish to ignore it, you’re the only one affected by it, I win nothing else than the pleasure of sharing and explaining information that I think is representative of things as they exist in our world.

I have chosen the path of academic information such as books and papers to back up my beliefs, and not of oversimplified information with no source. Do you really believe that world politics and diplomatical relationships of the biggest superpowers layered on top of an information war that spans more than a century opposing the colonial post-colonial western states to the anti-colonial and anti-imperial global south can really be summed up to “It’s pretty obvious what has happened really”? It almost sound like satire when I read it again.

First, we do not know this, even the weather channel provides the odds of something happening alongside a reminder that future outcomes cannot be predicted with certainty. Second, they are fundamentally different:

American capitalism: Maximization of individual economic freedom and utility. The system is designed to facilitate capital accumulation, innovation, and consumer choice through decentralized decision-making. The individual (consumer, investor, entrepreneur) is the primary unit of analysis which in turn is often a source of criticism due to the individualist nature of the social doctrine. The “invisible arbitrator (state)” of the market is trusted to aggregate individual choices into the best possible social outcomes but as seen recently, this trust has no incentive and can be taken advantage of leading to internal corruption and instance of accumulation of powers. Process is paramount: free choice, free competition, and profit motive are both the means and the implicit ends. It was also a direct response by John Locke to the issues caused by mercantilism and was created in the 1689 if I remember correctly.

Chinese socialism: National rejuvenation and the perpetuation of the ruling party’s governance (let us remember that this is a country that is still less than 100 years old). Economic development is a critical tool for ensuring state sovereignty, social stability, and the legitimacy of the Peoples republic of China, which in turn is governed by a marxist-leninist influenced communist party. The economy is a subsystem of the state, not a separate sphere. It draws from Confucian traditions of a meritocratic, guiding state (similar to marx’s conclusion “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs” on the flaws of the 19th century german socialist democracy present in his last volume, Kritik Des Gothaer Programs). The collective (nation, party, society) is the primary unit of analysis. Economic growth is a means to power, stability, and civilizational restoration. The system is teleological oriented toward a specific end-state (a “modern socialist,” strong nation, correcting the post-modern false narrative that communism does not work which is a complete generalization and misdirected association on why certain states failed, yet cuba remains and has been for over a century even with the american embargo still being present). Efficiency matters, but only insofar as it serves the ultimate political goals.

The competition between them is not just economic so we can be clear; it is a competition between two fundamentally different logics of social organization: one rooted in individual autonomy and decentralized choice, the other in collective goals and centralized coordination. The 21st century will be a live test of their relative performance and resilience and I think of it as amazing that we get front row seats to see this.

China is actually a socialist democratic state, that is the political doctrine, their party was formed by marxists and communists but this applies to all current socialist states when looking at the origins of their governing bodies and the creation of those states. For the economic doctrine, they just really used their head and created a very well executed model that is relatively new in economy.

It’s usually called a social market economy and it uses the best traits capitalism can offer for growth and scale whilst containing it so it remains innovative and improves the economic situation of it’s citizens. It’s well secured to not allow internal corruption (see what happened when Jack Ma thought he was as polically powerful as US billionaires) and structures like state councils to approve or refuse mergers if they deem it attempts at building monopolies. Wether it will fail or not, all economic models have always had one thing in common; they are born, change through time, evolve and die eventually. That is their only common trait aside from their fundamental nature in being ideological systems to manage ressources. Capitalism may die within the next 100 years if the trends of what has happened in the last 20 years keep themselves up but yeah, it should not be dismissed because of the historical chinese/western frictions.

Your point reminds me of the logic behind certain religious psychologies that see this world not as an end in itself, but as a proving ground or a purgatorial space. Its morality is sometimes inverted for a higher, otherworldly purpose.

Take public execution in medieval Christian Europe. While a spectacle of deterrence, some theologians (like Nicholas of Cusa aka who I picture rubbing my rod at night) grappled with a darker rationale: that the intense physical pain of burning could serve as a form of accelerated penance. The idea was that this suffering might pay the temporal debt of sin before death, potentially sparing the soul a longer, more severe punishment in the afterlife. The executioner, in this context, was performing an act of supposed spiritual charity, which is actually why executioners were often clergy or faith oriented men.

This mirrors,the core doctrine of Frankism, an 18th-century Jewish heretical movement. Frankists believed in ‘redemption through sin.’ Their goal was at times personal regret, but a cosmological acquisition of a higher knowledge. The pleasure or suffering of the sinner was incidental to this divine path to regret and penance.

We see a third variant in groups like ISIS. When they stoned Muslims for adultery, it was framed as enacting divine law to purify the community and offer the sinner ritual atonement. When they cut the throats of Western captives, the logic switched entirely to theater of terror, a spectacle for global distancing (stay in your country, as a result of the frequent invasions of countries from west asia), but also because in Islam, the act of cutting through the neck artery is seen as a quick and painless death. It causes death quickly because oxygen output runs out very fast and is why it is the mandatory way of making meat halal, part of it is to use a quick, simple and relatively painless death.

The unifying, and strangely rational, thread is this: when reality is viewed through an eschatological or cosmological lens, worldly concepts of pleasure, pain, and even morality become secondary. Acts are judged not by their immediate human cost, but by their function in a grand narrative of spiritual war, purification, or redemption. It’s a logic that operates on a plane completely separate from humanist rationale because humans are not the end all be all.

I advise you do and it may get a bit more difficult to follow but your comment is partly right yes. The only aspect of it that differs is that it is a form of acquiring knowledge, because knowledge of god means knowledge of the sins. Through sinning you acquire understanding of why sins are wrong and the more you sin, the more valid your faith is unlike the faith of someone who has never sinned and therefore has no innate understanding of why sinning is wrong. It is a very strange cult but it is the only one that explains logically why powerful entities choose to commit things like the ones epstein did and there is a lot of goddamn powerful maniacs that have been proven to be true frankist and believe the nonsense it is.

Well isn’t this funny when you think about how Bill and Hilary refused to show up to court and had the court find them in contempt? I think it is very funny that a former president and first lady refused to testify to a court investigating a pedophile who previously worked as an israeli soldier and had ties to israeli secret services.

The only logical explanation I have found about it is by learning about Frankism from Professor Jiang and his youtube channel Predictive history.