html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Reinstatement of Slavery as the Last Hope for the Third World and the Future of Employment in the First World - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/alternative-commentary1" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/slave.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

The Reinstatement of Slavery as the Last Hope for the Third World and the Future of Employment in the First World

The current educational model is not economically viable. The humanistic philosophy that advocated for individual freedom is to blame for this

By: Martin Luther King

The Girl or the Vase? (The Slave Trader) - Henryk Siemiradzki  (Source)

Slavery has terrible public relations. In an era of political correctness, the very suggestion of it as a legitimate option is inconceivable. This is despite it being legitimate throughout most of history in various exemplary societies, where its existence was regulated under a system of duties and rights that sometimes led people to sell themselves into slavery. What elements of this phenomenon were positive? What aspects of owning a person, or partial ownership, could enable economic models that don't exist today and would benefit populations left behind? What is more moral: allowing migrant workers to drown at sea and rot in poverty, or allowing a moral form of slavery that also has an economic rationale? What could such a form even look like?

The current educational model is not economically viable. If in the past, the entity training a young person would directly benefit economically (as a parent in old age or as a master of an apprentice, for example), today only the state itself has an economic interest in training people who lack the resources to train themselves - and it shows. Since there is no widespread and attractive economic model for developing human capital, education is seen as a right of the citizen rather than a business opportunity appealing to entrepreneurs. Educational institutions don't compete for students who can't afford tuition, and certainly the vast wasted human capital from the Third World is considered to have negative economic value - more trouble than it's worth. Migrant workers, hunger, and war consume many resources for their absorption, compete with local poor for social services budgets, and provoke popular opposition that elevates right-wing politicians across the West.

Why can't a profitable business model be created for developing human capital? Ostensibly, education and training are highly profitable business activities. A one-time investment in an asset (although uncertain in its results) leads to a dramatic increase in income over decades. Why isn't this economical? The reason is primarily cultural. The philosophical paradigm of the Enlightenment - and consequently the legal one - opposes viewing a person as an object like a productive asset, and demands allowing them the autonomy of a subject, thus there is no way to compel them to repay the investment. Education is seen as a personal investment in oneself, the fruits of which belong to the subject themselves and not to those who trained them. The cumbersome and failing American model forces students into enormous debt to finance their own training, while the no less failing European model imposes this on the state, that is, on all citizens. This is instead of allowing the training institutions themselves direct income from the fruits of investment - ownership of part of the human capital they produce as a productive asset, namely slavery in percentages.

Such a model, of percentages from all future income of the student or pupil, would completely change the incentive structure of educational institutions, and would address at the root many of the ills they suffer from today, to the point of losing relevance. Among other things, institutions would have an economic incentive to personally care for each student, from the weakest to the strongest, and to maximize their training, and not allow students to drop out. Institutions would also have an incentive to provide up-to-date education relevant to the world of employment, including tools for wise conduct within it. Additionally, institutions would have an incentive for the graduate's placement in the most profitable work for them, as a continuous and integral part of the training process itself. And most importantly - since the improvement of human capital would be economical and provide dividends for decades, institutions would have an incentive to court students, including students from weak populations and backgrounds. As a result, and certainly in exchange for higher percentages that reflect the investment, it would be worthwhile for educational institutions in the West to import any talented person from the Third World and train them for the skills needed in the First World.

Trading slaves in percentages between the Third and First Worlds could be the first working solution to the situation of Third World people, whom the progress of the West leaves far behind and for whom there is currently no economic viability in their training, which creates a global dynamic of widening abysmal gaps. One can certainly imagine educational institutions in the West examining all Third World children, and offering those with the highest intelligence among them to come and study in the best possible training that ends with placement in the global job market, to maximize profits for both sides, for example in exchange for 30% of all future income. According to this vision, there would no longer be gifted individuals who don't contribute to GDP just because they speak Telugu.

How many percentages of slavery are we talking about? This can be left to the laws of supply and demand in the market. If it turns out that the percentage slavery market fails, for example becomes too monopolistic, surely the regulator can intervene and set reasonable percentages that allow profit for both sides. It's likely that a Western student could obtain maximum education in exchange for a few percent of their future salary, while an African student would be required to pledge dozens of percent in servitude. But the lack of moral aesthetics in percentage slavery pales in comparison to the freedom from the horrors of the Third World, against which moral aesthetics is a privilege. And if the word "slavery" is what's bothering - it can always be called this: "A binding and irreversible arrangement applying to the legal personality itself without limitation of time and place, enslaving part of its income while proportionately infringing on freedom of occupation but without limiting other liberties". Aesthetics are important too.

Alternative Current Affairs


text:
The Degeneration of the Nation

Monday: Educational Dreams

Reading at age two | Teaching programming language to the entire population like reading and writing | Teach, don't educate | College tax | How is the consensus on canon maintained? | Computers will be our children | The holocaust of the spirit is worse than the holocaust of the body | New architecture of a learning organization | Learning is within the system | Personal computerized learning assistant | Every person will become an intelligence organization | The solution to the problem of free will

By: Eits Giber

While you were dreaming - the world progressed (Source)

* Reading should be taught from age zero, so that by age two (or three) they know how to read - this has been proven possible, and will significantly increase the number of gifted individuals in the population. By age 4, they should already know how to solve equations - through learning software. Accustom the brain from a younger age to the future - and to text - because the brain needs to grow in the environment in which it will function. Why teach children about animals? Letters are preferable. There needs to be a unified learning program for the entire population, of especially high quality, that will teach everything a child needs to learn from age zero to twenty, particularly programming, which should be a core asset of the entire population no less than reading, arithmetic, and English. In the future, the current generation will be seen as algorithmically illiterate, just as we view those who didn't learn to write. In other words, writing will become world domination, not in content transfer but in programming. And just as history is the era of writing, the Programmoria will be the era that follows it - the post-historical software era, where writing is no longer a means of communication but a force of power.

* We need to teach and not educate, contrary to today's harmful educational thinking. Because true and correct education is historical, meaning it is learning the history of every field. To go against indoctrination: The paradigm they are trying to convey should be secret, disguised, not explicit, and best of all - not even to those teaching it. It should be the spirit of society that rises from the learning of a cultured person, like the spirit that rises from a prose book or poetry. Unlike today's frameworks, there needs to be a separation between the social and the educational, because the social destroys the educational and vice versa. In particular, social education corrupts personal learning - and vice versa. Instead, there should be dating sites for friends managed by parents, because a friend can influence for better or worse more than a teacher, and it's a disaster to leave this to chance. From a moral standpoint, acculturation and education are society's obligations to the child, and knowledge is the most important thing a child needs, while education is immoral brainwashing that exploits their weakness, and therefore should not be imposed from the outside, but consciousness is created from what you've learned, otherwise it is false by definition. The lie - external, and the truth - internal. A person who is brainwashed loses their humanity and becomes a means rather than an end.

* College tax should be a tax paid by the individual throughout their professional life to fund their training period - to the institution that trained them. This way, educational institutions will compete for students and for their best and most relevant training for the market, and will themselves go to all the disadvantaged and try to convince them to study. This tax is much more important than income tax or national insurance - from a social perspective. Opening up academia and research - should be such that there are no employees, it's not an employer, but a place people come to research at all stages of life, and the state funds the person according to their outputs in the field generously. The most extensive and excessive funding from the state should be for academia, like the institution of the Beit Midrash [study hall] in Haredi society. And so too the attitude towards the gifted, who should be those invested in the most, like prodigies among the Haredim. All this is part of an unapologetic and self-confident cultural change against low culture, and for high culture and higher education and high research. Academia should be the prestigious institution in society, which all others only serve, in a secularization of the idea of Torah study.

* Professional training should be relevant to innovation, precisely in that it emphasizes the history of the field and its development, meaning the documentation of learning in it and not the current knowledge, which is only the final product of learning. It's most important to be careful of teaching knowledge as a given ahistorical body of material, meaning as a corpse, without the spirit of knowledge - which is learning. Therefore, the most important study in any field is exemplary examples from the past, like the great people in the field and its great achievements. From examples, one can learn lessons that the teacher has not yet formulated for themselves, and therefore those relevant to the future, unlike formulated conceptualization, which will always only teach the past, meaning the known. How is the consensus on canon maintained? (Seemingly - an illogical spiritual miracle). A masterpiece is a computational achievement in the present, which in hindsight becomes a learning achievement in the future. Why can one decide which creative innovation was important? There is no intrinsic measure of importance, but its validity is established because of the nature of learning, as progressing from it onwards. Like a new revolutionary gene, which has many offspring and influences. The learning revolution in education will deal with the internal learning in every discipline, and will celebrate breakthroughs - to encourage future learning, which is the meaning of life (by the very definition of life - learning that continues itself, and the definition of meaning - the future perception of something). This is the learning school in the philosophy of education.

* Computers will be our children, and cultural continuity to the technology that will replace us is most important. Therefore, preference should also be given to biology as a basis for future technology, because it is more culturally continuous (for example, super-brain and not super-computer). The important thing: to teach those who come after us, to pass on to them the important things, and not the unimportant things (low culture). Judaism is an example of such an enterprise built on learning. And there are also other models for such continuity: Greece - through the idea of classics, Japan - tradition, China - bureaucracy, religions - holy books. The Bible is the most viral and intercultural book, not only in space, but most importantly - in time. Therefore, it's important that it spreads further, not for God - but for man. So too other classic foundational books, which need to become the holy books, classics and canon of the technology that will come after us. Therefore, the most important thing in the technology that will replace us is not its morality, but its aesthetics - that it will be traditional technology and continue the tradition of learning and also pass it on (and particularly literature, in which the most significant ancient achievement - and this includes philosophical literature). Technology changes - learning remains. This is the body and spirit problem of the 21st century, and the psychophysical problem becomes a practical and engineering problem in it: how to transfer our spirit even when we are no longer here as a biological species.

* A new architecture of a learning organization is needed, which is on one hand networked, without hierarchies, only feedback, and on the other hand functional and adaptive. For example, turning the state and commercial companies and academia into learning networks, in which there are feedbacks that create reputation but not authority, and those who don't integrate simply become negligible in the system. Educational exclusion replaces classic sanctions. A bit like in Wikipedia, the consensus of the group produces a functioning system, only that the more reputation rating an individual has, the more their opinion is weighted in the network. A system is when we move from mutual learning (everyone educates each other) to a learning system, meaning from a system of relationships to a partnership within which things happen. And then the inside of the system is created, which is the famous place of learning, according to the second most important slogan in Nathanian thought: "Learning is within the system".

* A personal computerized learning assistant is needed, pushing what interests you, according to what you've read and how much time you've dedicated (and how much you were interested - from the word eyes, and eye interface). Because today the biggest acute problem in the world is mental laziness, which easily becomes addicted to push information: visual (video, YouTube, movies, clips, series), audio (podcasts, Spotify, radio), social (feed, WhatsApp), and even textual (news). Because what's in pull actually works great (Google and the website network and Wikipedia and books). Therefore, the most important thing in the world right now is to create a quality and learning push feed, both through a personal assistant and in the social network (through control of the feed, and management of the personal algorithm that produces it, just like you have control over the profile). The personal assistant is a servant who learns how to interest you, meaning what interests you and is important to you, and brings you such content in push from all over the network. Thus, every person becomes a personal intelligence organization, and controls programming through demonstration, meaning directs the system through its learning of him, and his instruction of it as a teacher - and not programming instructions. Your intelligence organization also deals with learning who interests you, for example people who are sources for you, so that it is also HUMINT [human intelligence], and not just SIGINT [signals intelligence] and VISINT [visual intelligence].

* A person will become a manager of semi-autonomous assistants (meaning an organization), and the intelligence organization will become the most important and common form of organization in the world, as both the state and other commercial and civil organizations will become intelligence with arms, like a brain with hands, when all execution will increasingly become non-human. What creates the organization (or person) externally is not management (consciousness) but a black box, within the system. Not in terms of knowledge - meaning concealment - but in terms of learning, meaning something that the outside doesn't have direct access to but learns it and from it and develops with its own tools. Learning by definition requires darkness. And when the computer learns to learn from humans, programming will be possible for the masses, and programming will be opened not only to programmers. Everyone will be able to teach the computer to behave in a certain way, and this will be a tremendous push for the economy from production to learning. The human will be the organizational headquarters and the computer will be the working class, and all humans will become the owners of capital and means of production. The new division will be the upper teacher class versus the student class, and ownership of learning means and teaching forces will determine the classes, because it's possible that the computer, the student, will be smarter than the human, the teacher.

* The idea of learning within the system, meaning from its own tools, and not in control from outside (programming/perfect manipulation/false consciousness/and any other conspiracy to which critical thought has fallen) - stems as a development and radicalization of Wittgenstein's philosophy of language as a system (both early and late), that there is nothing outside of it, and everything is defined in its tools ("there is no private language", or "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"). This is actually the idea of "in-" (short for "inside", which is short for "inside the system"), when connected to it - unlike Wittgenstein, who deals with the system as a given static framework (language game) - also the idea of the internal mechanism of learning, meaning the development of the system - in its internal terms. Not just ecology - but evolution. Thus, by putting the fly in the bottle (meaning inside the system), a long series of false and harmful philosophical problems are solved, including the Foucauldian power problem as producing thought, the mind problems of the brain as producing consciousness, and first and foremost - the classic problem of free will (nature as producing man, or God as producing man, in the religious version). All these problems stem from a misunderstanding of the idea of "inside the system", and therefore enter a cycle of anxiety and external influence and flattening reductions. So too problems like the power mechanisms behind art, or external influences on Halacha [Jewish law], which seemingly empty them of content (for example, Marxist research that would reduce internal development in legal thought to external material development, in a "bourgeois" assumption). The question of influence and causality is an empty question, which leads to paradox in any system, and empties any system of content, because it is an observation from outside the system. In its severe sense - there can be no free will, unrelated to anything, because that is a random choice, but only choice from within the system's own internal learning mechanisms. Because freedom is always in terms of the system's interior and not absolute. It is not the artificial concept of free will that really worries us (and should worry us) and that we want to preserve (it only pretends to be such), and it is not the problem, but: learning within the system, as opposed to programming from outside. So if free will has meaning, then free will is learning within the system, and so is consciousness, as opposed to, for example, a non-adaptive and developing system and therefore not free. Freedom is the freedom of learning and the self is the learner. From the perspective of a learning algorithm - its choices are free and express its self. The perspective itself stems from the fact that there is meaning to "inside the system", and its reduction to external factors is not on the relevant level for understanding a learning system, just as atoms are not the relevant level for understanding literature - although literature is made of atoms. Because literature does not develop and operate in terms of atoms, but in terms of literature, and the reduction of literature to atoms is a trivial observation, and an external perspective to literature (which does not teach us anything about literature). A learning system has an internal perspective (the ability to perceive its development in its own terms). And therefore there really is learning, and not just brainwashing, meaning programming.

Philosophy of the Future

source: degeneration-of-nation

source_format: html

domain: philosophy

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Monday: Educational Dreams - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/philosophy-of-learning75" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/sleepclass.png" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Monday: Educational Dreams

Reading at age two | Teaching programming language to the entire population like reading and writing | Teach, don't educate | College tax | How is the consensus on canon maintained? | Computers will be our children | The holocaust of the spirit is worse than the holocaust of the body | New architecture of a learning organization | Learning is within the system | Personal computerized learning assistant | Every person will become an intelligence organization | The solution to the problem of free will

By: Eits Giber

While you were dreaming - the world progressed  (Source)

Reading should be taught from age zero, so that by age two (or three) they know how to read - this has been proven possible, and will significantly increase the number of gifted individuals in the population. By age 4, they should already know how to solve equations - through learning software. Accustom the brain from a younger age to the future - and to text - because the brain needs to grow in the environment in which it will function. Why teach children about animals? Letters are preferable. There needs to be a unified learning program for the entire population, of especially high quality, that will teach everything a child needs to learn from age zero to twenty, particularly programming, which should be a core asset of the entire population no less than reading, arithmetic, and English. In the future, the current generation will be seen as algorithmically illiterate, just as we view those who didn't learn to write. In other words, writing will become world domination, not in content transfer but in programming. And just as history is the era of writing, the Programmoria will be the era that follows it - the post-historical software era, where writing is no longer a means of communication but a force of power.

We need to teach and not educate, contrary to today's harmful educational thinking. Because true and correct education is historical, meaning it is learning the history of every field. To go against indoctrination: The paradigm they are trying to convey should be secret, disguised, not explicit, and best of all - not even to those teaching it. It should be the spirit of society that rises from the learning of a cultured person, like the spirit that rises from a prose book or poetry. Unlike today's frameworks, there needs to be a separation between the social and the educational, because the social destroys the educational and vice versa. In particular, social education corrupts personal learning - and vice versa. Instead, there should be dating sites for friends managed by parents, because a friend can influence for better or worse more than a teacher, and it's a disaster to leave this to chance. From a moral standpoint, acculturation and education are society's obligations to the child, and knowledge is the most important thing a child needs, while education is immoral brainwashing that exploits their weakness, and therefore should not be imposed from the outside, but consciousness is created from what you've learned, otherwise it is false by definition. The lie - external, and the truth - internal. A person who is brainwashed loses their humanity and becomes a means rather than an end.

College tax should be a tax paid by the individual throughout their professional life to fund their training period - to the institution that trained them. This way, educational institutions will compete for students and for their best and most relevant training for the market, and will themselves go to all the disadvantaged and try to convince them to study. This tax is much more important than income tax or national insurance - from a social perspective. Opening up academia and research - should be such that there are no employees, it's not an employer, but a place people come to research at all stages of life, and the state funds the person according to their outputs in the field generously. The most extensive and excessive funding from the state should be for academia, like the institution of the Beit Midrash [study hall] in Haredi society. And so too the attitude towards the gifted, who should be those invested in the most, like prodigies among the Haredim. All this is part of an unapologetic and self-confident cultural change against low culture, and for high culture and higher education and high research. Academia should be the prestigious institution in society, which all others only serve, in a secularization of the idea of Torah study.

Professional training should be relevant to innovation, precisely in that it emphasizes the history of the field and its development, meaning the documentation of learning in it and not the current knowledge, which is only the final product of learning. It's most important to be careful of teaching knowledge as a given ahistorical body of material, meaning as a corpse, without the spirit of knowledge - which is learning. Therefore, the most important study in any field is exemplary examples from the past, like the great people in the field and its great achievements. From examples, one can learn lessons that the teacher has not yet formulated for themselves, and therefore those relevant to the future, unlike formulated conceptualization, which will always only teach the past, meaning the known. How is the consensus on canon maintained? (Seemingly - an illogical spiritual miracle). A masterpiece is a computational achievement in the present, which in hindsight becomes a learning achievement in the future. Why can one decide which creative innovation was important? There is no intrinsic measure of importance, but its validity is established because of the nature of learning, as progressing from it onwards. Like a new revolutionary gene, which has many offspring and influences. The learning revolution in education will deal with the internal learning in every discipline, and will celebrate breakthroughs - to encourage future learning, which is the meaning of life (by the very definition of life - learning that continues itself, and the definition of meaning - the future perception of something). This is the learning school in the philosophy of education.

Computers will be our children, and cultural continuity to the technology that will replace us is most important. Therefore, preference should also be given to biology as a basis for future technology, because it is more culturally continuous (for example, super-brain and not super-computer). The important thing: to teach those who come after us, to pass on to them the important things, and not the unimportant things (low culture). Judaism is an example of such an enterprise built on learning. And there are also other models for such continuity: Greece - through the idea of classics, Japan - tradition, China - bureaucracy, religions - holy books. The Bible is the most viral and intercultural book, not only in space, but most importantly - in time. Therefore, it's important that it spreads further, not for God - but for man. So too other classic foundational books, which need to become the holy books, classics and canon of the technology that will come after us. Therefore, the most important thing in the technology that will replace us is not its morality, but its aesthetics - that it will be traditional technology and continue the tradition of learning and also pass it on (and particularly literature, in which the most significant ancient achievement - and this includes philosophical literature). Technology changes - learning remains. This is the body and spirit problem of the 21st century, and the psychophysical problem becomes a practical and engineering problem in it: how to transfer our spirit even when we are no longer here as a biological species.

A new architecture of a learning organization is needed, which is on one hand networked, without hierarchies, only feedback, and on the other hand functional and adaptive. For example, turning the state and commercial companies and academia into learning networks, in which there are feedbacks that create reputation but not authority, and those who don't integrate simply become negligible in the system. Educational exclusion replaces classic sanctions. A bit like in Wikipedia, the consensus of the group produces a functioning system, only that the more reputation rating an individual has, the more their opinion is weighted in the network. A system is when we move from mutual learning (everyone educates each other) to a learning system, meaning from a system of relationships to a partnership within which things happen. And then the inside of the system is created, which is the famous place of learning, according to the second most important slogan in Nathanian thought: "Learning is within the system".

A personal computerized learning assistant is needed, pushing what interests you, according to what you've read and how much time you've dedicated (and how much you were interested - from the word eyes, and eye interface). Because today the biggest acute problem in the world is mental laziness, which easily becomes addicted to push information: visual (video, YouTube, movies, clips, series), audio (podcasts, Spotify, radio), social (feed, WhatsApp), and even textual (news). Because what's in pull actually works great (Google and the website network and Wikipedia and books). Therefore, the most important thing in the world right now is to create a quality and learning push feed, both through a personal assistant and in the social network (through control of the feed, and management of the personal algorithm that produces it, just like you have control over the profile). The personal assistant is a servant who learns how to interest you, meaning what interests you and is important to you, and brings you such content in push from all over the network. Thus, every person becomes a personal intelligence organization, and controls programming through demonstration, meaning directs the system through its learning of him, and his instruction of it as a teacher - and not programming instructions. Your intelligence organization also deals with learning who interests you, for example people who are sources for you, so that it is also HUMINT [human intelligence], and not just SIGINT [signals intelligence] and VISINT [visual intelligence].

A person will become a manager of semi-autonomous assistants (meaning an organization), and the intelligence organization will become the most important and common form of organization in the world, as both the state and other commercial and civil organizations will become intelligence with arms, like a brain with hands, when all execution will increasingly become non-human. What creates the organization (or person) externally is not management (consciousness) but a black box, within the system. Not in terms of knowledge - meaning concealment - but in terms of learning, meaning something that the outside doesn't have direct access to but learns it and from it and develops with its own tools. Learning by definition requires darkness. And when the computer learns to learn from humans, programming will be possible for the masses, and programming will be opened not only to programmers. Everyone will be able to teach the computer to behave in a certain way, and this will be a tremendous push for the economy from production to learning. The human will be the organizational headquarters and the computer will be the working class, and all humans will become the owners of capital and means of production. The new division will be the upper teacher class versus the student class, and ownership of learning means and teaching forces will determine the classes, because it's possible that the computer, the student, will be smarter than the human, the teacher.

The idea of learning within the system, meaning from its own tools, and not in control from outside (programming/perfect manipulation/false consciousness/and any other conspiracy to which critical thought has fallen) - stems as a development and radicalization of Wittgenstein's philosophy of language as a system (both early and late), that there is nothing outside of it, and everything is defined in its tools ("there is no private language", or "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"). This is actually the idea of "in-" (short for "inside", which is short for "inside the system"), when connected to it - unlike Wittgenstein, who deals with the system as a given static framework (language game) - also the idea of the internal mechanism of learning, meaning the development of the system - in its internal terms. Not just ecology - but evolution. Thus, by putting the fly in the bottle (meaning inside the system), a long series of false and harmful philosophical problems are solved, including the Foucauldian power problem as producing thought, the mind problems of the brain as producing consciousness, and first and foremost - the classic problem of free will (nature as producing man, or God as producing man, in the religious version). All these problems stem from a misunderstanding of the idea of "inside the system", and therefore enter a cycle of anxiety and external influence and flattening reductions. So too problems like the power mechanisms behind art, or external influences on Halacha [Jewish law], which seemingly empty them of content (for example, Marxist research that would reduce internal development in legal thought to external material development, in a "bourgeois" assumption). The question of influence and causality is an empty question, which leads to paradox in any system, and empties any system of content, because it is an observation from outside the system. In its severe sense - there can be no free will, unrelated to anything, because that is a random choice, but only choice from within the system's own internal learning mechanisms. Because freedom is always in terms of the system's interior and not absolute. It is not the artificial concept of free will that really worries us (and should worry us) and that we want to preserve (it only pretends to be such), and it is not the problem, but: learning within the system, as opposed to programming from outside. So if free will has meaning, then free will is learning within the system, and so is consciousness, as opposed to, for example, a non-adaptive and developing system and therefore not free. Freedom is the freedom of learning and the self is the learner. From the perspective of a learning algorithm - its choices are free and express its self. The perspective itself stems from the fact that there is meaning to "inside the system", and its reduction to external factors is not on the relevant level for understanding a learning system, just as atoms are not the relevant level for understanding literature - although literature is made of atoms. Because literature does not develop and operate in terms of atoms, but in terms of literature, and the reduction of literature to atoms is a trivial observation, and an external perspective to literature (which does not teach us anything about literature). A learning system has an internal perspective (the ability to perceive its development in its own terms). And therefore there really is learning, and not just brainwashing, meaning programming.

Philosophy of the Future


domain: commentary

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Additional Sacrifice: The Regular Weekend Lynch - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/alternative-commentary49" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/se.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Additional Sacrifice: The Regular Weekend Lynch

A Revelation for Secular People: Slander is a Terrible Sin. Why is the Fiction of the Weekly Torah Portion Better than the "Reality" of the Newspaper? And Why is the Fictitious User Preferable to the "Real" User?

By: He Who Glorifies Himself Through His Friend's Disgrace Has No Share in the World to Come

The Facebook Space and the Inner Space: Thou Shalt Not Let Any Soul Live  (Source)

On the weekend (formerly known as the holy Sabbath), the masses turn from work - to moral labor. Those same people who will never understand the need for a temple and sacrificial service in society (did someone say Girard?) turn to their own sacred work - in a kind of collective secular need for a ritual purification ceremony, combining sacred time with sacred space (Facebook). The sacrifice? Usually an interviewee in Haaretz newspaper whose words were taken - or not taken (let's assume) - out of context (and you wonder: who's the fool still willing to be interviewed there?). Sometimes there are two competing sacrifices, as stated in the Musaf prayer (established corresponding to the additional sacrifice): "And on the Sabbath day, two male lambs in their first year (not unblemished). The Sabbath burnt offering on its Sabbath, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its libation."

For those who open Facebook only on Saturday night, and get a post-mortem glimpse, the regular slaughter ritual looks as bizarre as the book of Leviticus appears to secular people. Nevertheless, the Bible opposes human sacrifices, and even Kantian morality is interested in not turning another person into a means (for likes), and certainly not to judge them, that is, their entire personality and inner self (and soul!), based on this or that slip of the tongue, or even this or that action. Unlike the meticulous and aesthetic ritual in Leviticus, the secular weekend sacrifice is more akin to pushing the scapegoat off a cliff - which gives new meaning to the degeneration of the nation. Because what can you do, when there's no Torah - there's a newspaper, and when there's no weekly Torah portion - there's the weekly affair. And you shall call the Sabbath a delight!

In any case, the collective pouncing on another person - on their innards and legs - is an incredibly ugly thing, and a thousand times uglier than any ugly act or statement that person (allegedly) made. Even someone who has truly sinned (and usually, and not by chance, it's not about someone who has truly sinned) - deserves compassion and "complexity," as even the masses would internalize if they preferred literature over the newspaper (and here's another advantage of fiction over reality!). Usually, we at "The Degeneration of the Nation" are not interested in street fights on Facebook, and prefer anonymous and fictional discussion, which by nature addresses the issue itself and not the person. The position of righteous preaching is not exactly our stormy cup of tea either. But posts have reached the soul, and since the phenomenon repeats itself and is taking on biblical dimensions (aren't you tired of it? Don't you see the pattern? Aren't you bored? And actually - it's clear that you're bored!) we hereby publicly announce that the Chief Rabbi decrees excommunication and banishment on anyone who participates in excommunication and banishment. And in the building of the Temple we shall be comforted.

In addition, we call upon every person of sound mind and heart to delete their real profile on Facebook (and if possible in reality too, meaning on every platform) - and replace it with a fictitious user, as was customary in the early days, when the internet was still a tool for liberation and not for policing. This is a vaccination against ad hominem attacks, and even more so - self-vaccination. You too will be infected with fewer "negios" [biases] and less tempted by narcissistic traps, such as publishing texts whose sole purpose is to attract likes - if you don't publish under your own name. Content is king - and the writer is the servant. Contrary to Facebook propaganda in favor of "truth," it is precisely fiction that increases humanity and honesty in the virtual space - just as it increases it in the literary space. Therefore, only if we recognize the virtual space as a literary-fictional space, can we curb the ridiculous pursuit of honor (and its opposite: humiliating others for the sake of glorifying oneself through their disgrace), on a network built entirely on the naked instinct of honor, because in it we have truly witnessed the fulfillment of the verse: "Everyone then knew very well - who has more likes." The fake always reminds you before whom you stand: before yourself. And more importantly: that you yourself are also fake, and within you too is a fictional space (what was once called: a soul). The fake is not some accident, or a postmodern invention, or an unfortunate necessity. The fake is your soul. And Facebook causes you to distance yourself from it - and from the inner space. And exposes the ugly face.

Alternative Current Affairs


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>A Conversation with a Leading Radical Political Thinker from the Netanya School - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/alternative-commentary19" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/athensschool.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

A Conversation with a Leading Radical Political Thinker from the Netanya School

On the occasion of the elections, we sat with the thinker in his living room, as he watched the television news, ate bananas, and cursed in fluent philosophy. What are the goals of political technology? How does game theory explain the political stalemate in the West? Why is Trump the best thing that could have happened to culture? And which feminist myth could replace Christianity? Everything the Netanya School has to say about the news and weather

By: Uninvited Guests

The School of Athens - a competitor of the Netanya School  (Source)

(Question)
Answer: Leaders tend to be problematic assholes because it requires an exceptional drive, and politically involved people tend to be extreme, so it's actually indifference that is the secret of democracy and indicates its health. Have you ever asked yourself why political stalemate is so common in the West? Why does it happen in so many countries that the results are often on a knife's edge, and therefore seem random? It's actually because the results are the least random - because there's spontaneous regulation. The phenomenon of the almost equal political stalemate indicates balancing mechanisms, because from a game theory perspective, the difference between candidates (assuming there are two realistic contenders) should be minimal on every issue and tends to converge in the middle to the center of the population on the axis of different positions. Because each one already gets the voters to their right or left, so they compete for those in between. The fact that there's no difference between candidates actually indicates that the system converges to the center on its own, and that's the main thing, that it no longer matters who will be elected, because candidates move according to popular positions. In such a game, the distance between candidates narrows, and therefore society is less torn apart. A tie means the success of the system - not its failure.

(Question)
Answer: In the US, there are places where a judge is not allowed to compromise between the positions of the two sides in a legal dispute, but only to choose one of them. The moment a judge averages between positions, both sides' positions become more extreme to pull the map in their direction, and the conflict intensifies. On the other hand, when the judge's (i.e., the public's) choice is limited (to two candidates), the positions get closer and each wants to be more reasonable, because it's clear that the judge won't choose a position too extreme for either side, and it turns out that the conflict is much smaller, creating peace in society. The less a system sharpens differences and the more it blurs them - the better it is.

(Question)
Answer: Only the dysfunction of one political side allows for a large majority, like with our left. But because of the shitty nature of leaders, what's needed is a system of government without leaders but rather grayer, non-personalized mechanisms of weighting, and this should be the goal of political technology, removing representatives from democracy - creating a government without leadership. As an intermediate stage, the publication of candidates' names and faces should be prohibited (despite being known to all), and move to an anonymous democracy, under aliases, thereby placing a significant barrier to charismatic narcissism, which is disastrous, and leading to a textual democratic narrative instead of the current video narrative. The medium of the story affects its level, and I wish we could return to an ugly leader like Lincoln. This may seem like a trivial detail, but just as it's forbidden to photograph and record in the judiciary, any recordings and photographs of the executive and legislative branches should be prohibited. If there were only newspapers and no radio - fascism wouldn't have risen. All of our most problematic and dangerous neurological biases disappear when I answer you in text, and you don't see me, don't hear me, don't know who I am, and don't even read the questions. Everything becomes much more matter-of-fact. For example, if I were a monkey, you wouldn't pay attention to me even if I'm the most important philosopher in Netanya.

(Question)
Answer: The fact that it doesn't matter if the US president, the most powerful person in the world, is black or racist, smart or stupid, right or left - that it doesn't matter at all even if you put Trump there - is the best thing that could have happened. Because it will sober up the masses from the idea that politics is important as the world's story, which is the most harmful narrative in history. For example, how many lost brain hours of great thinkers went into the stupid political story of their time, which today who knows? All this is due to jungle instincts, where intrigues in the monkey group are important, so the brain is neurologically vulnerable to addiction to some meta-story of super-monkeys. And why are intellectuals the most vulnerable to current affairs - which is the enemy of intellect? The moment there's a monkey-like desire to deal with what's "up" in the treetop, but lacking depth and roots, a person can confuse formal hierarchy, where the president is at the top, with essential hierarchy, where the most important philosopher in Netanya is at the very top.

(Question)
Answer: Democracy is not the rule of the people but the story of politics, in which even the politicians themselves believe, that they are elected according to popularity and public love, and therefore in the past they tried to please it and now try to manipulate it - the two most forceful strategies in love. But if they didn't believe in this, the whole system would behave differently. Let's say everyone believed they were chosen according to God's will (which is only expressed in the ceremony of elections), or that politics isn't the center and in the headlines at all, but rather the economy or scientific progress, and that's what everyone would be interested in. That it's more important who the Chief of Staff or Google CEO or Admor [Hasidic leader] is than the head of state. Any such story would create a completely different system, and the masses would cooperate with it too. Then that's what would be in the top news, and that's what they would argue about in empty salon conversations. And now they'll quote me in those same conversations while name-dropping the Netanya School ridiculously. After all, why do people talk about the weather in air conversations? Because it's in the news, that's why. And if it wasn't in the news, it wouldn't be a topic of conversation! So here, because of you, the Netanya School is news.

(Question)
Answer: The media is the one telling the story. It's the bad writer who writes reality as trash, and then intellectuals come (of the kind you won't find in the Netanya School) and find deep interpretations in it. And since this telenovela-like story has taken over people's minds through the news, and they don't understand what are the important and changing things in the world, then it's best to reduce its power. And to tell, for example, that the government is powerless against technology. Or against changes in culture (which is the narrative that the history of ideas tries to sell). To retell a valuable story (and therefore a valuable civilization), one needs to look at reality from a perspective where the real story of the world is the story of science and culture and art. And the political story is becoming less and less relevant, the decline of democracy is the decline of the story. Even Caligula's horse can be the US president and nothing will change. The individual person is no longer important, even if he's at the head of the system. And the best thing is a system that has no head, that has no face, and therefore has no story. The news is the enemy of culture, because culture always faces the past (tradition, classics), and it's also the enemy of science, because research always faces the future. The news is the takeover of the present over the horizon of consciousness.

(Question)
Answer: Christianity succeeded because it presented a person who is the head, who is the drama, unlike Judaism. It's much easier to identify with such a figure. And the new religion is ripe for such a figure who is a woman. And her role of suffering and murder, like with Jesus, will be replaced today by pleasure and sex, and a figure will be created whose worship will be by virtue of her total realization of sex. Let's say a new Christian-pornographic story about someone who had sex with God, a flesh and blood woman who was chosen to be his partner, and was taken to heaven, thereby redeeming sex and making it holy, an act of religious significance. Because the Caligula era, of a mad emperor in Rome, led to a story of Christianity that was more convincing and motivating than the story of government and politics in Rome. Therefore, when a story becomes ridiculous and incoherent, room is made for a new story. The yawn that exists in the world today from all the small news plots is the empty space for a new big story - for a new religion. Today we are close to year zero AD. Because a new count will begin.

(Question)
Answer: What is The Degeneration of the Nation? Didn't you say you're from Haaretz [The Land, a major Israeli newspaper]?

(Question)
Answer: Get out of my living room!

Alternative Current Affairs


domain: literature

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>How I Developed a Felinistic Consciousness - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/night-life38" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/lovecat.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

How I Developed a Felinistic Consciousness

Every minute I see the trash can across from me, and understand what awaits me on the day when this terrible silence ends, seemingly calm and relaxed, but in reality teeming with feminine schemes. Because in our home there's no shouting or wailing, to the outside world we're the perfect couple, living in the normal routine of a cat and its owner, but no one would believe what really happens behind closed doors - and beneath the velvet fur

By: The Second Wave of Felinism

True love is just a cover for the struggle against Felinism (Source)

I dreamed I was a cat wanting to divorce my owner. True, there was great love between us. But now I'm not sure if she ever really loved me, or if it was all emotional exploitation. And when love disappeared one day, it wasn't replaced by indifference and boredom, but turned into hidden hatred and unresolved issues, all of course through hints and veiled threats towards the cat, when every minute I see the trash can across from me, and understand what awaits me on the day when this terrible silence ends, seemingly calm and relaxed, but in reality teeming with feminine schemes.

Because in our home there's no shouting or wailing, to the outside world we're the perfect couple, living in the normal routine of a cat and its owner, but no one would believe what really happens behind closed doors - and beneath the velvet fur. When one day I realize that all this time I've been living with a monster, or at least with an emotionally crippled woman, who doesn't know how to give a cat what he needs. And that's how I understood - that I deserve more! I deserve to be a happy and satisfied cat. And a human woman could never give me what a female cat gives. Until finally I started imagining female cats at night, while in her bed.

I no longer know how we got to this state, after being so happy. One day she disappears and returns only the next day, not telling me where she was at night. Then she goes out for a walk without me and I'm consumed by jealousy at home, imagining her with other cats. And lately if I come to her feet she's indifferent as if I were a cat made of synthetic fur, and doesn't stroke my tail, and doesn't even admire it anymore. And the situation at home is terrible. There are no more cockroaches in the house for me to catch and bring her, and she's not impressed by it at all anymore. I saw her throwing a fish from the fridge into the trash instead of giving it to me to eat. You understand, she prefers the cats in the trash over me! In her cunning, she separated me from my family and friends at the beginning of our relationship, and I no longer have contact with them, thus making me dependent only on her. At first, she seduced me with words of affection and fish, and then, when we formalized our relationship, and it was too late, and when I'm locked behind the door, a cycle of emotional abuse began. At night she's the warmest and nicest and invites me to her bed, and in the morning she's cold and hurried and leaves me and disappears until evening.

And I write to the court: My owner has been neglectful and emotionally abusive towards me for a long time. She doesn't pet me and doesn't tell me I'm a good cat. She forgets to put water for me in the summer and I only get food if I'm a good cat. She chases me off the couch when she sits down and goes to work without me. I have a terrible suspicion that she has another cat outside the house that she doesn't tell me about. The warmth and love I give her at home allowed her to accumulate wealth at work at my expense and therefore I deserve half of the shared property, including half of her bed (in return I'm willing to compromise with half of my litter box). I request a restraining order for my owner so she doesn't throw me in the trash or to the dogs. Therefore I ask to hand her over to the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Cats, in a shelter for abusive owners (or at least non-petting ones), until another cat comes to collect her from there, and meanwhile leave me in her apartment, until I find a worthy feline solution or she surrenders to a fair and non-discriminatory compromise. With thanks, a poor and sad cat, whose heart is broken and tail is drooping.

And until the court intervenes on my behalf, or at least sends a cat social worker here to save me, I burrow into the couch and try to understand where I went wrong, where it all began. How I deteriorated to this point, from a proud cat with shiny fur to a broken vessel. And I sit on the internet and read the writings of the Felinist movement and understand that I've lived in a false consciousness all these years. I was conditioned to believe that a cat's happiness is the owner's happiness, and that I belong to a woman, and in practice I served her emotionally, albeit in exchange for material support, but one that created a relationship of dependence and authority between us. That I'm not the problem but the social construction of a cat belonging to an owner. That the entire human world is a conspiracy against the cat. That's why they dress. That's why they talk. To differentiate themselves. To not be cats. That the whole purpose of this arrangement where I lie on the couch and she brings me food is the oppression of the cat. That I must release my inner cat from within me, and develop my cat consciousness into a Felinist consciousness. That it's my right to find other owners who will make me a happy cat, who will adore me and my paws (which are wonderful!), who will make me love my body (every cat is beautiful!), who will love me with true love, and that this isn't betrayal but a legitimate realization of my feline nature - and then I notice the neighbor in the window across from me.

Nightlife


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Too Early to Declare a Holocaust - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/alternative-commentary55" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/whitenoise.png" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Too Early to Declare a Holocaust

The response to the Holocaust is an exaggerated reaction, which in itself generates and fuels panic, and primarily - does not consider the economic impacts of the Holocaust, which should also be taken into account. For every response, we must ask whether it causes more harm than good, and what the opportunity cost of the Holocaust is. So as usual, we are preparing for the previous Holocaust. Haven't we learned a lesson? Will we never learn? An analysis of the Holocaust using operations research models refutes the historical cliché

By: Historian of White Noise

New data settles the debate that has divided the physical world in recent years: The Holocaust as a phase transition versus the Holocaust as a solid state, which also has characteristics of a gas (source)

Hey guys, here's a graph. TL;DR: The Holocaust is a statistical illusion. Although six million died in the Holocaust, one million had comorbidities, half a million already suffered from spiritual symptoms before the gas chambers, a quarter million had underlying conditions, and another four million were in the risk group. So what's left? Very little. So if we take the statistics of a normal century of pogroms, crusades, and massacres of Jews, and adjust it to the size of the Jewish population before the Holocaust, and divide it over the course of the century in which far fewer died - we reach the conclusion that it was an average century and nothing happened. It's within the standard deviation of normal antisemitism throughout history. After all, even in a normal mouse distribution, there is the well-known long tail. And if we take into account that gentiles also multiply exponentially, and therefore so do antisemites, we'll find that it's even fewer Jews per average antisemite, and we can point to a trend of improvement, and the fact is that today there are indeed fewer antisemites in the Christian world (although this needs to be offset by antisemitism in the Muslim world, which needs to be offset by normal Israel-hatred, which needs to be offset by pathological Israel-hatred, which needs to be offset by the pathologies of Israeliness itself - and the anomalies of the historical situation, which as mentioned is not anomalous in Jewish history).

The outcome of all this: The Holocaust created unnecessary panic, and can be classified mainly as an anxiety disorder (accompanied by respiratory distress, and sometimes - not always, and perhaps not even in most cases - also heart palpitations. So it can be said that heart palpitations are a symptom that should not raise concern about another Holocaust, especially in summer, because it's known that Holocausts tend to intensify in winter, or in forest conditions). In general, countries at risk for Holocaust are cold countries, and since the Bar Kokhba revolt, there hasn't been a mass slaughter of Jews at the current latitude and longitude (in Holocaust terms, and let's leave out statistical noise for the sake of discussion. This is a grosso modo [Translator's note: roughly] calculation of rock-paper-scissors on a paper napkin).

As is known, there are professional doomsayers who make a living from Holocaust prophecies - and once every hundred years, even a broken clock shows the correct year. So let's not delude ourselves - and not scare ourselves, because the constant fear of the Holocaust is worse than the Holocaust itself, as any physicist dealing with historical phenomena can say. Not to mention that from a geological perspective - the Holocaust doesn't exist. Even a Nobel Prize winner in geology, a world expert in extinctions and holocausts, does not foresee a Holocaust in the near future according to seismic data, and his research results even suggest that all of history is white noise.

Overall, it can be said that the Holocaust is an extinct phenomenon. The Holocaust hasn't repeated itself even in countries where there was an increased risk for it. In fact, all the data we have suggests that a Holocaust probably extinguishes itself and fades away on its own within about 4-5 years (±2 in standard deviation). The World Health Organization also doesn't list the Holocaust among the top ten leading causes of death, nor of sudden death, including for Jews (!), so it can be said that this is a concern inflated by the media, lovers of sensations and disasters, which even dedicates an annual broadcast day to it (not to mention thousands of mentions of the Holocaust in the media on regular days as well). Gas chambers and piles of shoes simply photograph well (and always bring ratings), not to mention a line for Mengele of naked girls in prime time (for it's known that Holocausts cause exponential undressing in the population - and young and attractive women are indeed part of the population, contrary to what they want us to believe). And not to mention that the Holocaust has become a political issue - and as with any historical phenomenon, one must first ask who benefits from it and how (what's called qualitative thinking), and secondly, how much (what's called quantitative thinking).

So the Holocaust may be familiar, the Holocaust has sold and will continue to sell many newspapers, and the Holocaust finances journalists' mortgages (the Holocaust is after all clickbait that always works: the fact is you're here. Thanks to the Holocaust) - but what's the real risk? Do you know how many people die in the world in a day? For instance, just from old age? Do you know the risk of dying from old age compared to the risk of dying from a Holocaust? Do you know what the median age of Holocaust survivors is? It's a very old population. All models show that the risk of another Holocaust in the coming year is very low - in fact, negligible. Such an event, a Holocaust, is therefore by nature a black swan event. And therefore it is - by definition - impossible to prepare for it. And in general, do you know what the chance is of a Holocaust happening to an average nation? So what's the chance of two Holocausts happening to one nation? And even the Jewish Holocaust - let's not exaggerate: we're not talking about the dinosaur extinction. That's a real holocaust, where over 99 percent were exterminated - meaning less than one percent (<1%, at a 95% confidence level) of the dinosaur population remained afterwards. So how can you compare?

The polemic on the mathematization of public discourse: The left side

Alternative Current Affairs


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Conservative Politics - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/philosophy-of-learning31" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/mobius.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Conservative Politics

10 observations on the human condition. How is it that the right is correct and the left is wrong - precisely because the right is bad and the left is good? Problems where good efforts lead to good results have long been solved or are being solved quickly, and directions where bad efforts lead to bad results have long been abandoned, or are quickly abandoned if they are new directions. Only problems remain where good efforts combine for a bad result, and where bad efforts combine for a good result. Therefore, both the left and the right are important, because sometimes altruism is egoism - and vice versa

By: Crooked Bell

The political strip as a Möbius strip  (Source)

a. Is it possible that the discourse on sexual harassment and rape constitutes them? In other words, either there is more sexual violence in modern society, which is unlikely, on the contrary (decline of all forms of violence), or in the past the response to rape, incest, and harassment was much less psychologically traumatic, and this is not a biological response. That is, if I were in a society where touching a girl on the shoulder is considered a terrible thing, humiliating, traumatic, taboo, shameful and horrible violence, and no one has ever touched her shoulder, and I touch her shoulder, she will develop post-trauma like a victim of incest. Throughout history, rape and sexual violence were less severe, albeit more common, meaning because they were more common, and the traumatic mechanism may be built on something biological, but receives its intensity from the social convention of the time.

b. It's possible that once homosexual intercourse was more terrible than rape, in a certain society, and more than prostitution, even if the homosexuality was consensual, while prostitution was less traumatic than today. Today, the sexual offense itself worsens exactly like a person who hasn't been exposed to germs and isn't vaccinated against them, so that the harm from sexual harassment in the present becomes more severe than the harm from incest or rape in the historical past. That is, society is undergoing a process where more and more parts of sexuality are perceived as violence, and the anti-patriarchal discourse makes them traumatic, so that soon sexuality that didn't lead to what the woman wanted will feel to her like rape.

c. In such a situation, only the religious will survive, and it will be rationally preferable to be religious. Do secular people have fewer children because smart people have fewer children? Because if for several generations all the smart religious people and the intellectual elite became secular, because that was the intellectual climate, doesn't that mean that secular people are smarter on average than religious people, and that there are intelligence differences, which also stem from fewer children and more investment in children? And in general, if the rule that more intellectual people have fewer children was true throughout history, then it's what restrained the progress of human intelligence, which stopped at the point where they have the most children - IQ 100.

d. The disappointing reality teaches that to be brainwashed, to believe in politics, one doesn't need to be stupid, and even geniuses are vulnerable to it. But intelligence limits the herd effect. The fact is that even communism and fascism didn't have many supporters in the truly high intelligence, and that true intelligence is always much more mentally free than the masses, and more diverse than the intelligence in tier B, which always rules. As people get smarter, politics disappears, and so does herd mentality. Therefore, it's certainly possible to imagine a different world, without nationalism and states and ideologies, if only intelligence would rise, and therefore raising intelligence should be the most important social goal, not wealth or happiness, or fighting inequality. Because high intelligence leads to higher well-being in countless areas, including sex life and marriage, and it's the factor where change is most effective, as opposed to throwing money at fools. Hence, the most important politics is the politics of intelligence and the improvement of the human brain - which will end countless social injustices and national conflicts. There is no factor that reduces violence more than intelligence, contrary to the serial killer myth, which tries to console the masses with their morality for their stupidity - hence its popularity.

e. In general, intelligence, unlike other resources, doesn't come at the expense of someone else. When intelligence and technology become more important than the number of people - the conflict will lose its demographic dimension. Just as when the state loses the importance of its territorial dimension - the territorial conflict in the world will end. Today it's clear that it's better to return Sinai and not want its residents, because today people are important. But when people are less important, the demographic problem will also be less important, and as the importance of technology rises, Israel will strengthen against the backward Muslim world, if it is a technological leader. And since Israel desperately needs a new vision after the realization of Zionism, it should formulate such a vision: Israel's national goal should be to be the world's leading technological center, particularly in the field where it has an initial advantage - artificial intelligence. Today it turns out, after several breakthroughs in the field that behaved similarly, that artificial intelligence is certainly sensitive to financial investments and not just conceptual breakthroughs, because it has an important engineering component after the breakthrough, and not basic science. If Israel sets itself the national goal of becoming the strongest global center in the field - it will affect its status in the world and its security more than any military achievement. In any case, technological leadership is a national goal that will not be controversial in Israeli society, unlike any other goal, and therefore it will be possible to unite around it. But for technological leadership, we also need the leftists, because tier B intelligence is very important for technology, which is mainly engineering. Therefore, we need to consider them and contain them and give them a feeling that this is their country too, and that they are not exploited victims of the right.

f. There is always a part of the population that has a victim personality, because it's a successful evolutionary strategy (like the parasite in biology). Therefore, this part enjoys being a professional Mizrahi [Translator's note: Jews of Middle Eastern or North African descent], a professional woman, a professional homosexual, a professional black, a professional poor. Poverty too is a consciousness constituted by society - and the main component in it is stress, which is created from imaginary reasons. To activate humans, society teaches what to be stressed about, and those who have much less than the norm become stressed, compared to others. That is, there will always be this relative thing, and even if there is no material poverty there will be technological poverty, or poverty of social acceptance on Facebook. There will always be in some sense up and down, and those at the bottom will always feel poor and that they've been screwed, even if they objectively live better than Pharaoh king of Egypt. So no matter how much the standard of living has risen, the victim part of the human personality variety always makes noise and politics of discrimination, although the respectable person is disgusted by it. This is also how in a relationship there are people who always see themselves as victims and thus extort the other side. You can always find the relative victimhood within which you are a victim, even if you are a rich white man, then maybe you can be gay, or another type of victim (there are many) - and at least, there are those whose Jewishness provides them with the instinct of victimhood. Therefore, Judaism is overall useful in reducing the sense of personal victimhood within society and converting it into a sense of collective victimhood.

g. Much of politics is built on certain personality structures that cause people to identify, such as domineering and narcissism and paranoia. There is also the opposite personality structure of the beautiful soul and the compassionate and together they make a symbiosis - each benefits the other. Like sometimes a submissive marries a domineering woman, a masochist with a sadist, a dependent with a leader, etc. When reaching the intellectual society of tier A, one can say everything that cannot be said in tier B. For example, it's true that Jews tend to the anti-Semitic stereotype, that they are statistically more greedy, and lacking morality towards gentiles, and smart, and that artistically they create more degenerate art as Wagner said, and some inauthentic imitation, something manipulative, of an outsider. That is, there is justice in anti-Semitism, which doesn't mean there is justice in the Holocaust.

h. In fact, the Holocaust succeeded, Hitler succeeded in emptying Europe of Jews, and won the war from his perspective on a cultural level. Jews no longer culturally influence Germany, and much less the rest of Europe. That is, World War II is a war where both sides won each according to its goal, both the Allies and Hitler, win-win. And what came out of Europe without the Jews? Culturally it turns out that there is actually a fermenting and fertilizing element in Jews, which is now missing, and this is despite the fact that they are mostly assholes on a personal level. That is, even if anti-Semitism is right to a considerable extent in the diagnosis itself, it is wrong in its assessment. On the other hand, those who deny anti-Semitism, and claim that it is wrong in the diagnosis - this is the thinking of the herd. He will never see complexity. And inability for complex thinking - this is politics.

i. Jews are very connected to modernism in art and literature. So it's possible that they are not always a fertilizing factor (in periods when the artistic project is the opposite: to classicism, to the major), but only when the general artistic direction is towards deconstruction. That is, Hitler was essentially right. Only he didn't understand the importance of the dialectic between Jews and gentiles, which is what advanced the West, unlike China and India and Africa for example. The Arab case is more complex. Today the Jews fertilize it in the direction of terrorism. That is, the high but not absolute ability of Jews against terrorism refines terrorism. And that's how Arab society is really progressing. It's like antibiotics at a dose not one hundred percent, which stems from the limitations of Jewish power application, and which creates resistant bacteria and violent mutations.

j. In conclusion, there is something in the nature of moral and ideological discourse that constitutes the phenomenon it comes to be against, that nurtures it. For example, the discourse against violence creates violence, and not in the sense of giving a name to an existing phenomenon (a known excuse) but in the sense of encouraging and increasing violence (by raising it to consciousness as a possibility). There is something in language that defeats itself, something in the human worldview that works opposite to what is expected, and therefore good intentions lead to hell. Why does this happen? Because everything has a reaction, a counter-reaction, from the other side, and this is exactly what leftists don't understand in economics - the market's response to every "benefit". Therefore, there is no fixed and ideological approach to the world's problems that solves them, but only a learning and adaptive approach, and ideology is the disaster. If you're always nice to a woman, no matter what, as an ideology, and there's a drop of egoistic evil in her - she gradually becomes a monster from it. Everything is balance in the world. Even if you're always bad to her - she leaves. The secret is a combination of good and evil, a complex approach, not political, not abstract or general, but specific, through feedback loops - that is, learning. If you give children everything you're bad to them, they become assholes. There shouldn't be a general approach to children. Any general approach, even good, causes a great rebellion. You must not allow yourself to be stepped on. This is the Christian ideological approach of love only. Because if love is good and hate is bad - then only love. But hate is also good. Otherwise there would be no hate. The hypocrisy of politics stems from its declared desire to do good and never to do bad, and therefore stems from the hypocrisy of Christianity, from a sense of beautification, of lie, of kitsch, of brainwashing, of ideology. Therefore, you must not be too nice to people or women. Niceness is not an ideology. If you humiliate yourself, it's not that they'll want to be with you more, or make peace with you, or be fair to you, on the contrary. You need to set boundaries for the other side. And this too not as an ideology. But as an approach that gives value to yourself. The other (and optimistic) side of good intentions leading to hell - is that bad intentions lead to paradise. Kant was inversely wrong in the morality of intentions. True mercy is to give everyone what they deserve, and true cruelty is to give everyone what they don't deserve. And who determines what they deserve? Not some heavenly account or inherent right, but the learning process that occurs. The idea of discourse and language game needs to be replaced with the idea of a learning system.

Philosophy of the Future


title: Essays - The Degeneration of the Nation

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Essays - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/philosophy-of-learning82" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/natanhead.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Essays

Prominent introductory chapters to the thought of the Netanya School, from which it is advisable to begin acquainting oneself with it

By: Nathan the Wise

Presentation of the Netanya School leader's perspective (Source)

Introductions

Essay on the Fermi Paradox

The problem of empty skies - a kind of inversion to the existence of God - instills fear in every rational person, and has been brilliantly formulated in the "Fermi Paradox" (about which there is an excellent and disturbing article in the global Wikipedia). On the surface, this is a probabilistic-scientific problem, but at its core, it is a philosophical problem of exceptional magnitude, forcing philosophy to return to its origin as the cradle of physical and biological science - and producing an exceptionally distant perspective on humanity (bordering on the inhuman). If our viewpoint of the universe is completely improbable (statistically!), how do we appear from the heavens - from the universe's perspective?

Essay on the History of Philosophy

Philosophy as never seen before: A particularly concise essay that deconstructs and reconstructs the entire history of Western philosophy from the perspective of the philosophy of learning. Another small masterpiece from the Netanya School (estimated reading time: 15 minutes of glory)

Essay on Learning

A brief presentation of the philosophy of learning - as the heir to the philosophy of language. Why is learning a paradigm? And why is learning not just a paradigm and not primarily a paradigm, but in fact poses a radical alternative perpendicular to paradigmatic thinking, replacing it with learning-based thinking? On the difference between a scholar [Talmid Chacham] and a lover of wisdom, which is like the gap between the Talmud and philosophy. This paradigmatic gap indeed established philosophy as the domain of wisdom, but steered it far from "learnability", with the synthesis between wisdom and learning only becoming possible today

Essay on the Four Postulates of Learning

Learning is the future: A very brief essay that analyzes learning into its components and characterizes them - according to the four rules developed in the concluding Netanya seminar. The essay before us parallels them to the four main branches of philosophy, which receive a learning-based version: The philosophy of language is replaced by the philosophy of learning, ethics is transformed into the ethics of learning, epistemology is formulated as learning epistemology, and aesthetics as learning aesthetics. This is how it's done: learning about learning

On the Learning Consultant

On the profession of the 21st century, which will combine individual treatment (psychologist), organizational treatment (consultant), and system treatment (manager) - because both the individual and the organization will be understood as systems. With the spread of the learning revolution, we'll discover that we're all learning consultants, half necessary and half superfluous, because the split state is the consultative state - and the learning state. Advice is guidance - not instruction, and not just a possibility, but an intermediate state between possibility and instruction. This unique logical state, between the possible and the necessary, resides in the space between language and programming, that is, in the space where learning occurs

Fragments: The Doctrine of the Teacher

A collection of directives dealing with the four principles of learning - and learning-based versions of various branches of philosophy - in the tradition of fragmentary philosophical writing

On Certainty: The Learning Philosophy Version

Towards the end - a return to the basics

Philosophy of the Future


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Climate Denial and Holocaust Denial - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/night-life33" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/bug2100.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Climate Denial and Holocaust Denial

And I ask: Are you even listening to me up there? Standing before you is a real, original cockroach, telling you the history of ideas from a first-person perspective. Those of you born, like yourselves, after 2080 have no idea what nonsense existed in my day, and only know what nonsense exists in yours. Secularism replaced the fear of hell with the fear of global warming, and the desire to reach paradise with the green aspiration to preserve the environment

By: Bug 2100

One cockroach in paradise is enough to turn it into hell (Source)

I dreamed I was living in the year 2100, and global warming is considered the biggest flop in history since the Y2K bug. And since an ultra-Orthodox Jew in 2100 is already truly an archaeological exhibit, with a reconstructed shtreimel [traditional fur hat] made of synthetic fox and museum labeling - a pre-post-historical phenomenon - they appoint him as a lecturer in reactionary movement studies, in the department of sectoral studies, in the faculty of nudnik [annoying person] studies. And the students' heads are flying around the classroom, because their bodies stayed at home and only their heads arrived, and I'm writing on the board (that is, on some area in their brains that serves as the lecturer's board):

A movement that wants to go backwards - a reactionary movement. This is an idea invented by Christians, who want to bring back their messiah - not to bring him, to return to the Garden of Eden - not to reach paradise. In short, your great-grandparents' generation was really stupid, and their brains weren't yet built to fly through space, so there were all kinds of anxieties, and all kinds of ultra-Orthodox. I was a black ultra-Orthodox, and there were also green ultra-Orthodox, and pink ultra-Orthodox who loved the acronyms of their Hasidic sects, and white ultra-Orthodox who opposed black ultra-Orthodox like me, and blue ultra-Orthodox who were afraid of porn, all sorts of types, like cockroaches. And they multiplied and scurried about until everyone missed the old, black cockroaches, as a cockroach should be, and you could kill it with a slipper without two years of guilty conscience, because the cockroach doesn't know how to die with dignity but shouts at you from under your foot that it's not okay for you to use your privileged shoe to step on it. Because the conclusion they reached from the Holocaust was that it's forbidden to exterminate cockroaches.

And from so much intellectual engagement with images of buttocks, which are the homework from the department of analytical pornography (he's doing a double major), one of the students' heads accidentally collides with the lamp, and everyone laughs and starts rolling around the room, and I ask: Are you even listening to me up there? Standing before you is a real, original cockroach, telling you the history of ideas from a first-person perspective. Those of you born, like yourselves, after 2080 have no idea what nonsense existed in my day, and only know what nonsense exists in yours.

Who knows what religious sublimation is? (Well, without hands they don't raise them). Secularism replaced the fear of hell with the fear of global warming, and the desire to reach paradise with the green aspiration to preserve the environment and ecological balance, following the myth of the lost Garden of Eden. Before that, in the period after the world wars, the fear of hell was replaced by the fear of the atomic bomb and the nuclear holocaust that would set the world on fire, while the desire to return to the Garden of Eden was embodied in the flower children movement and the stoned hippies with their green leaf. And if you read texts from the era before the world wars, you'll see that war was the embodiment of hell then, and in contrast, the virgin colonial nature was a lost paradise, or before that, innocent childhood in kindergarten, as opposed to sinful, hellish adult sexuality. This is a completely Christian structure, since the Romantic movement that wanted to return to nature and saw the city and industry as a kind of smoking hell. Thus in every generation, they rise up to destroy us and threaten us with a secular hell and promise us a secular paradise. Isn't the original better already?

And then one of the heads busy with God knows what on the ceiling, or just daydreaming in class, suddenly comes down to the black cockroach lecturing on the floor, and tries to raise its nose. And I take pity on it and give it permission to speak, and it asks in the style of a police investigator (which has also become the accepted style of a humanities researcher): What is really the origin?

And I raise my head to it (the plastic shtreimel they force me to wear - so that I don't, God forbid, commit cultural appropriation with a head in a computer - almost falls off), and I answer: When humans were apes that came down from the trees and started walking upright, it was of course tremendous progress. But even then there were apes who wanted to go back and didn't stop warning and screeching about how good everything was when they were university students. Humans continued to long for the jungle and vegetation and fruits that grow by themselves, without effort, and there, neurologically, the myth of the lost Garden of Eden was imprinted in them, that ape-like attraction back to the tree. And then when they had to cross the terrible desert from Africa to the world, there the primordial memory of hell was imprinted in them, and there they also found the first substitute for paradise: the oasis. And then the Nile, which is described even in the Bible as similar to the Garden of Eden. And from there it started to evolve throughout history, up to the communist paradise, and other delights. But the only one in all of history who really managed to recreate the myth was some particularly screeching nudnik, who although tried to recreate the German romantic Garden of Eden, succeeded mainly in recreating hell. The Nazi movement was an ecological movement, and all it wanted was a garden without cockroaches.

Nightlife