Title, basically. Every day hundreds of thousands of us come on here to post our thoughts and contribute to the shoggoth that will one day consume us. But nothing anyone says here has any impact whatsoever.

You can spend hours debating people. No one will change their mind. You can spend years throwing empty tokens into this virtual space, and have absolutely no tangible affect on reality.

But it certainly feels like doing something, which is probably why people keep coming back. It feels like if you could just show everyone else (who is trying to do the same) how ethical/moral/smart/insert whatever you are, you may believe it too.

But nobody can make you believe what you don’t believe. And coming to Reddit for validation usually backfires anyway, since people are different, and that (used to be) is okay.

Once upon a time we walked through life never knowing the internal monologues of millions of other people. I liked it better then…

It turns out most internal monologues are full of bitterness from a life unlived, spewed out like a virus to infect others.

Proponents of capitalism claim that capitalism resulted in technological inventions and lifted x millions of people out of poverty.

I believe that the phrase "necessity is the mother of all inventions" is largely true. I also agree that capitalism did A) cause certain inventions B) sped up certain inventions. However, the 2 previous sentences are both true, then it must logically follow that capitalism created and sped up inventions, so capitalism would be the "necessity" of these inventions, meaning that without capitalism, certain inventions and the speeding up of certain inventions would not have been required in the first place.

This also applies to poverty:

So people use the phrase "capitalism lifted x million out of poverty" to erroneously defend capitalism as well. But it is not that simple. It is conflating cause and effect. Capitalism itself caused poverty, then lifted some people out of it eventually. Before capitalism, there was no "poverty" in the sense that it is used now: this metric is within the confines of capitalism itself, so it is a logical error to claim that capitalism was necessary for lifting people out of poverty. People were fine for their time before capitalism. It is strange to compare today to the past. It is not a valid comparison. Yes, right now we can't imagine living without washing machines, but back then even without technology they were happy. Do you honestly think that they thought "I wish I had a washing machine" when washing clothes back then? I highly doubt it, it was simply their reality/they were used to it/it was normal for them. What else would they have done with more free time? Worry about bills? Go on tiktok? Fight about politics on social media? They already had a healthy balance of work and free time, and they did not get a chance to worry or get sad or get FOMO and low self esteem while on social media as a result of too much free time like we have now.

So it is strange and arrogant to automatically assume that humans were always suffering until all these inventions and technology and capitalism came. Humans have been around for over 200k years, they lived naturally. It is arrogant to claim that all that time was bad. It doesn't work like that. It is too much of a simplistic argument. As populations would grow, there would have been necessity for inventions regardless of capitalism. So yes capitalism sped up some inventions, and perhaps caused some inventions that wouldn't have been invented without it, but people would have made a sufficient number of inventions regardless, as/when needed, even without capitalism.

Absence acts as a crucible, where identity is not forged in recognition, but emerges from resistance.

Clarity for the self comes into focus from within, because only here, in the absence of another’s ache, does the shape of your own become unmistakable.

A coherence born not from being understood, but from being allowed to unfold.

Like a written note held too softly to resolve, yet too long to forget.

Not a shape buried and waiting, but the excess pour from a mold never made for it.

What's revealed is not what was meant, but what remained, and a form held for a moment before the edges gave way.

It is not found in churches or books or theories that rush to name.

To categorize. To label. To reduce. To structure, arrange, and contain. To administer or govern what was never meant to be managed.

It is found in the breath behind a sigh we smooth into a laugh.

We laugh, not in reverence, but because silence is heavier than speech, and must be borne by the spine.

It touches the clavicle, the hollow at the base of the throat, where grief gathers before it finds language.

The Flesh is a history of holding on.

It does not remember. It accumulates.

You become a remainder, not of something that was whole, but of what was never whole to begin with.

Not what's left, but what never fit.

The rhythm of ache without its cause. The heat where the hand was never placed.

You become the echo of a fracture that was never preceded by unity. Not the ruin of a cathedral, but the dust from a wall that was never built.

It breathes in the seams of worn fabric, in the sweat-salted collar of a shirt never thrown away, not out of sentiment, but because forgetting it would feel like a lie.

Moving like memory through a room that forgot your name. Not haunting. Not homecoming. Only the hush of what is no longer there.

Entered like light through stained glass. Not to filter, but to fracture sight into worship.

No grasp. No arc. No final form.

Only the fidelity to duration that lets silence become the shape of being heard.

I touched you not with fingers, but with an ache that precedes language, and survives it.

Much of humanity's scientific and technological advances emerged in contexts of war, pain and barbarism. The Second World War, for example, boosted medicine, nuclear physics, the pharmaceutical industry and even the beginnings of modern computing. All this at the cost of millions of lives.

During the Third Reich, Nazi scientists carried out experiments that would be absolutely unthinkable and criminal today. But part of this data, even collected on corpses and tortured bodies, still circulates in medical, neurological and even survival studies in low temperatures. World War II boosted medicine, nuclear physics, the pharmaceutical industry, and even the modern computing system. All this at the cost of millions of lives.

Even Nazi experiments, now considered absolutely unethical and criminal, still appear in medical, neurological and low-temperature survival studies. There are data that, although the result of torture and suffering, are still referenced today. This forces us to face an uncomfortable question: if Nazi science is labeled pseudoscience, why is some of its data still used? And if it is considered valid in certain contexts, what does this reveal about the criteria we use to define what is ethical or acceptable in the name of “progress”?

Are we really moving forward, or are we just refining the ways in which we make horror more effective and palatable?

Sure your gonna fall behind a bit compared to your peers, but its better than losing everything later down the line. Its gonna happen eventually regardless, things will go wrong and shit is gonna hit the fan.

But the stability that comes from knowing that you can put yourself back together again is priceless.

It only makes your foundations that much stronger once you overcome. Most problems are like this. they contain a hidden treasure, but only if your willing to tackle the problem with everything you have.

Kapil gupta md said that "nature by its own ingenuity seems to always hides the solution within the problem itself" (don't know if that's exact quote)

edit: examples of being mentally stuck; a writers block, drop in creativity for problem solving. could be emotional problems as well where you cant move forward for some reason (like romantically).

edit2: saw a better example in the comments; A perfect example would be some who experienced childhood trauma and used avoidance as a coping mechanism, focusing on a positive disposition and an overall glossing over the event as a means to Cope.

Growing up, I always found myself surrounded by people who were objectively smart. Some had a gift for math, others skimmed through science and academics like it was second nature. They solved problems with ease, always seemed to know the answer. But strangely, they rarely asked the kind of questions that kept me up at night. The big ones. The ones without clear answers. It’s not that they couldn’t, it just didn’t seem to occur to them. And because of that, something about them always felt… distant. I'm not trying to generalize all academic people as shallow. In fact, the majority of deep thinkers are academically profound. This is just about those who I've come across. The alienation they gave me is torture so I guess this post is also a way to vent these bottled-up feelings that i always had.

As I got older, I started to realize that most people aren’t really chasing understanding. They’re chasing comfort. Predictable routines, easy peace, the kind that comes from never tugging too hard at the threads. They live by the will to satisfaction. Who needs truth when you can wrap yourself in familiarity? Comfort over clarity. Simplicity over depth. Less pain. Less thinking.

And honestly, I don’t blame them. Why question everything when you can just simply fucking don't? Why dig for meaning when the search only leads to more uncertainty? Numbness has a strange appeal when the alternative is an endless spiral of doubt. It’s easier to keep your head down and just exist.

But that’s the catch, isn’t it?

All that comfort is nothing but an obvious trap for me. It lulls people into the illusion that the world doesn’t demand anything from them. That they can drift through it untouched. But underneath that stillness is a quiet rot. A kind of slow erosion born from refusing to look too closely. People settle. They stay still. They stop asking. And in doing so, they lose touch with the pulse of something real.

I think it all comes down to the will to live. It's that raw, instinctive urge to hold on to anything that even resembles satisfaction, no matter how fleeting or hollow.

And sometimes, yeah, I wonder if I’m just overthinking it. Maybe I am being pretentious. Maybe the people who don’t ask these questions have actually figured something out. They seem to know how to live without getting lost in the noise. But even if that’s true, I can’t unsee what I’ve seen. I can’t pretend the cracks aren’t there. Still, it doesn’t mean I have it all figured out. My path’s just different. A little lonelier, maybe. But that’s just what happens when you think too much. You start questioning things others don’t. Sure, I’m not trapped by simplicity, but I’m definitely stuck in my own head.

And yeah, it can be draining, but at least it’s real. And that realness keeps me from going insane, so that helps.

I don't even think that this is that deep of a thought, but I see this pervasive trend, especially amongst GenX, that you're only "strong" if you can take the beatings (metaphorically and otherwise) and not be affected by them.

I get that that's a coping mechanism for abusive childhoods and shitty environments, but like, now that you're an adult... it's smarter to unlearn that sense of learned helplessness that you should even have to take beatings at all.

Yeah, you can't be crushed by every adversity or every bully, but by adapting to those abusive environments and people you're just teaching your mind and body that every person is an adversary. If someone says something you don't like, it's an attack! They question your intent or have a different perception than you? It's an attack! Any and all criticism is an attack, even if it's warranted. Any disagreement is an attack, even if the other person is being respectful.

Work smarter, not harder.

I dont think Identity is as regid as people think it is. it is formed out of desire. and desire cant be limited to just one identity. most of your identity is the first form that your desires were able to manifested as.

And this is based entirely on the environment you were raised in. The environment decides what desires are to be validated or suppressed, leading to the creation of your first core personality.

I think this has more implications than most would like to admit. everything up to intelligence, sexual preferences, addictions and disorders.

I could probably tie this to social media algorithms too. it works in the same way. a continuous feedback loop of past desires forming the environment for new desires. basically a self fulfilling prophecy.

this is both sad and kinda hopeful at the same time. Cause you're not stuck, you literally just need a better algorithm. One that works with your desires rather than against it.

The point is you are not you. you never have been. The interesting part im getting at is how much our intelligence may be tied to this. what if intelligence is largely shaped by identity?

I wonder how far this can go. the more evidence you collect based on the identity you hold. and depending on how deep your immersion is to that identity, it will cement you to certain cognitive standards.

what if no one is actually dumb, what if they just got screwed up by the default identity conditioned into them. Maybe learning and intelligence is just a function of immersion. the deeper the immersion the faster the intelligence network (like a neutral net) can grow. Identity being the bottleneck.

So imagine what would happen if you just allowed an individuals mental network to grow without the limitation of identity. Full immersion without social conditioning to limit identity.

It would stand to reason once the immersion network is big and dense enough it can adapt to other types of cognitive intelligence.

Like the artist becoming good at math from relating everything in mathematics back to art. Or maybe a high level engineer jumping into music. their mastery being so strong it becomes a universal road map to all other subjects?

If your skilled enough in one area, the commonalities start appearing between completely different domains. all roads lead to rome type of feel.

As humans, we crave connection. We thrive in connection as opposed to dissent. Not that all dissent is unhealthy. In fact it’s crucial for growth. However in the context of soulmates, connection is critical.

I’ve met people who didn’t even last more than a month in my life but have left indelible impressions on my soul. Provided my soul with a morsel of value that will forever remain. It has left me wishing they never left my world because I like to think there is more they could’ve fed my soul, or I theirs. I think it is one of the sorrows of being a deep thinker and empathic sojourner.

I don’t believe in “the one”, rather, my idea of a soulmate is different than what society would define it as. I believe these souls can exist in non romantic ways. That a soulmate is one that speaks tremendously to the deepest recesses of the soul, without trying they automatically meet you at the same level of meaning and purpose, connecting through unseen forces that are only felt and oftentimes difficult to describe.

I have a soul dog. We provide each other with a gift that transcends words. Without trying, an immediate and deep bond blossomed. No other pet has ever spoken to my soul in that way. I once had a friend who was a soulmate, our connection was instant and sometimes thoughts or feelings were expressed without explanation or words. A mere glance, a slight smile, or a simple word was the way of communicating between our souls. A soulmate to me moves beyond standard reasoning. It is how souls communicate and carry each other through time. Whether for a lifetime or only a flicker in time. I once knew a woman who married her “soulmate” he eventually passed away and she remarried her 2nd soulmate. Neither was greater or lesser than the other but rather carried her soul through life in a way most of us don’t often experience.

A soulmate is something I am still researching and formulating an opinion on but this is my opinion thus far. It is not a romantic feeling but rather a means of communication between souls.

Look, I'm going to be straight with you. If you're reading this, if you found yourself on fucking r/deepthoughts of all places, you're ridiculously overqualified for the life you're still hesitating to live. This isn't motivational fluff, You've already done more inner work than most people will do in a lifetime. You've torn apart your belief systems, mapped your trauma responses, analyzed your behavioral patterns, and developed self-awareness that would impress a monk. And you're still standing there, waiting for what exactly?

You don't need another self-help book collecting dust on your shelf. You don't need another workshop or breakthrough moment or someone to tell you you're ready. What you need is to make a decision. Here's the thing about high-functioning overthinkers like you: you've mixed up readiness with perfection. You think you need to be certain before you act. You don't. You just need to own your right to move forward despite the uncertainty.

Meanwhile, look around at who's actually running things out there. All these blood-sucking leeches and narcissistic sociopaths in positions of power don't have a fraction of the self-doubt you carry. They're not up at night questioning if they deserve their authority or if they've done enough inner work. They just take what they want without apologizing. And here you are, with ten times their insight, wisdom, and capacity for genuine contribution, still asking for permission to exist fully.

Every time you wait for someone to validate your path or your voice, you're basically handing your power to a world that honestly doesn't care if you shine or not. In fact, systems are designed to keep you second-guessing yourself. It's more profitable that way.

That feeling of "ready enough" you're waiting for? That magical moment when your nervous system finally feels safe to put yourself out there? It's not coming. Not in the way you imagine. That's not how this works.

What actually exists is the ability to say "This is my decision to make, and I'm making it now." What exists is taking action while the doubt is still screaming in your ear. What exists is giving yourself permission when no one else will.

The world doesn't need more perfect people who have everything figured out. The world needs people willing to stand in their messy truth and move anyway.

So let's call this what it is. You're not confused, you're hesitating. You're not lost, you're stalling. You're not unqualified, you're just unconvinced of what's already true about you.

The permission slip was in your pocket the whole time. The authority you're seeking lives in your decisions, not someone else's approval.

No one is coming to tell you it's time. That's your job now.

Everyday, no matter who you are, you are required to carry your own cross. We all experience so much suffering and uncertainty in life. We should all collectively acknowledge this fact more often and be a little bit more compassionate with one another.

Life is pretty tough for us all.

As complex, meaning-seeking perceivers with inherent cognitive biases, we are inclined to invent and cling to concepts like souls, spirits, and the afterlife. These ideas aren’t evidence of immaterial realities, but are predictable byproducts of how our minds process the world. For a long time I wasn't sure—but in the last few years as I’ve become more familiar with how the brain works, neural networks, artificial intelligence, and computer programming, it’s become clear to me that these so-called immaterial phenomena are entirely the result of physical processes. Our brains aren’t mystical; they’re just very (very, very) efficient computers.

Newton’s third law states that for every action force there is an equal and opposite reaction force.

Applying this logic does that mean for every force of good there is an equal and opposite force of bad? If this is true does that mean world peace is impossible to achieve? If that is also true does that mean to be a force for good you are also a force for evil and are therefore evil?

To learn, it must limit itself. To grow, it must forget. Knowledge without perspective is dulled. So the Geist creates sparks, conscious fragments. Each embedded in space and time, conflict and hardship, and limitation.

These sparks encounter transcendance. Not just variations on known truths, but truly emergent things the whole could never experience from a place of totality.

Each life lived is a new lens, each moment experienced an experiment. And the forgetting isn't a flaw, it's the mechanism that allows for revelation and the progression of knowledge.

We’re 8 billion people, and somehow we forgot how to be human. We don’t really talk anymore we scroll, we consume, we perform. We sit next to each other without saying a word, message instead of speak, compare instead of connect. We were meant to laugh, cry, learn, listen, grow. But most of us just wait stuck in our heads, in our feeds, in lives that feel numb. Technology could have brought us closer, but if we’re not careful, it might be the very thing that makes us forget what being human ever felt like.

I came across a video that showed the evolution of the highest traffic websites over the past few decades.

This is the ranking for 2025 (I will write how people are using these sites under each):

1. Google

This would include search engine and gmail, maps, etc.. . The vast majority of searches are for practical questions, such as where the nearest restaurant is.

1. Youtube

The vast majority of videos are for entertainment, followed by charlatan youtubers who spread misinformation and clickbait nonsense, who the masses keep watching and worship.

1. Facebook

No need for an explanation. Nothing deep going on here.

1. Wikipedia

While it is encouraging that this site is still so high up the list, I am willing to bet over 95% of hits are from students or to find trivial information similar to google.

1. Instagram

No need for an explanation. Nothing deep going on here.

1. Reddit

95%+ for entertainment or using emotional reasoning to fight each other, or parroting pre-existing subjective believes in echo chamber subs.

1. Twitter/X

For entertainment or fighting with each other. You can't really get anything substantial with 1-2 liner posts.

1. ChatGPT

This is similar to google now but in a more advanced form.

1. Yandex

Same as google.

1. Whatsapp

For non-deep superficial communication among family/friends.

1. Amazon

To buy unnecessary stuff.

So as you see, the vast majority of people are using the internet for repetitive mundane entertainment, or to do practical/school/work related stuff, or to argue with each other using emotional reasoning and cognitive biases.

No critical thinking whatsoever. We are doomed. Well we have been doomed for quite a while, but with AI it will get worse, people are going to use their brains even less. Attention spans are getting less, people are having no resilience because they are used to getting instant answers or gratification, I think this is even partially why people seem more angry and less patient these days in general.

It is bizarre, I had initially thought that the internet getting popular would vastly increase knowledge levels across the earth. Personally, most of what I learned was from the internet: it is a vast sea of virtually unlimited free information. I took maximum advantage of this, I am so grateful for it in that regard, it helped me learned so much. So it seemed like the perfect tool to make people critical thinkers, to prevent unjust rulers who use people's ignorance to maintain power and oppress others. But the exact opposite happened: all these problems got WORSE. People became LESS knowledgeable and MORE ignorant. So you can have as many free tools with as much knowledge as possible, but unfortunately, when there is no demand for it, and people use it the wrong way, it won't make a difference. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. No matter how much you increase the size of the pond (supply), if there is no demand, then it is futile.

To simply out it, kids who aren't discipline now will clash with kids who are properly discipline.

I will even make one hell of a claim and argue that Social Darwinism would be a much healthier system than what we have, because currency allows the agent to undervalue relationships. If we lived in the land of meat and berries, the potential for accumulation would be greatly limited and if others are willing to be aggressive, and not be fooled by unfair rules and laws then even if we consider pure selfishness, how much one can accumulate is highly limited. We can introduce stores of value, but again, if others are willing to fight then you have a problem. Even if you have apparent fair laws such as one of private property, it certainly favours those who own more, and especially owned more from the start, and with money making money the outcome is destiny.

Fundamentally, a society needs a story, yet this story is almost certainly a story of hierarchy. Another variable is that accumulation fails even the original very generously interpreted spirit of neoliberalism, that your net worth is your worth to society. I am going to disregard the idiocracy we have and suppose you truly wanted such a system, it honestly would be communism, because it would allow the state to utilize every single agent as much as possible, and most importantly they wouldn't be able to dominate and oppress and thrive even despite their ineptitude. This partly was the problem with the aristocracy, that they weren't superior, they were subpar, and they knew it. Jobs don't exist merely to exploit people, but to greatly limit competition. If a rich person truly thought they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, then their greatest fear in life wouldn't be becoming you, and competition is what they have the most. Regardless, it's clearly a great play, just considering self-interest, especially with how pathetic people are these days, the main threat seems to be that maybe people will ask for some of your money later, instead of purging your family line, or least having the balls to take what "you" have because keep in mind it would be in their self-evident self-interest. It's important to emphasize that "having" is an affront to true Social Darwinism. If one crowned themselves master and told you to work their field and obey them or starve, the only recourse would be killing them or, if you feel so inclined, making them your slave. Now, don't strictly take what I say literally, yet often times our world very much prevents any recourse within the law.

Even if you would argue that some are "worthy" not that I am claiming that you should build a society around that, the nature of accumulation makes it a destiny that the weak will always be in charge, because they suppress everyone else. Even during the course of your life, you become like 60, and the new generations can't have kids, society is literally collapsing, but your boss promised you that albeit they exploit you, you get to exploit future generations with them. There is no liberation or freedom, only trying to become the biggest exploiter you can. It's literally a pyramid scheme of bullshit, and if people check out or rise up, then they are "bad". If they decided that "what money" and "what ownership" then they would be criminal, but isn't it criminal to have kids come to this world and have them owed nothing and not only that, but claim they owe you? Disgusting, but the norm, we all agreed about who has stuff, and that we have money and all we want is more slaves. Let there be no confusion about this, my money is worthless, it's only worth as far as and as much as I can make others slave for it.

Yet this is not conducive to strength, if you really believed you are superior you wouldn't try to rig so desperately, nor personally accumulate even later, that a society that has balls would 100% kill you for, if not even for having personally wronged others, which is almost certainly the case en masse, but pure greed. Ironically, if killing and taking was totally legal, which is for some, but still it might make us more cultured, because at least you wouldn't want to be a mark.

What legacy? You just have a rich person by whatever means, usually the most noteworthy feature is their selfishness then a long line of their degenerate descendants. Those who actually praise competition do so because the competition is rigged in their favour, if not even strictly decided. But we don't have to look into descendant, you can have a company make some money, then a new company that is better comes up, but ohoh the old company has a lot of money, so they can warchest them out of existence or just buy them. They don't need to be better, being better is just having more money. Sure, innovation still happens, but almost every single time captured by privilege, even the successful startups almost always get bought.

The lack of cooperation and the influence of money only hinders progress and achievement, and this game only makes sense if you easily have more money than most. Not even skilled, in this game a skilled person gets robbed the most, suppose you were 100x better than average, but all you could do was work a job, for roughly the same as everyone else, and you can't claim it was for humanity, but to make a rich boy richer, and suppose no one wanted to own you, then I guess you just don't get to live. Now keep in mind this is not strictly competence but "attitude", you need the proper subservient mindset, and if you don't have it even all your education, then totalitarian systems we call jobs have no use for you, also I am mentioning this because the exact same mindset would hinder your agency. Isn't it ironic that despite all the claims about competition, all we teach and want is obedience? Almost like what people tell you is the opposite of what they are doing. Partly the reason why the populace needs to be suppressed so hard is insecurity, if I was God, I would have zero reason to keep you down, not out of goodness but because I am all powerful, yet they are not all powerful, they only have what you give to them. People would only agree out of self-interest, so whatever you want would have to be counterbalanced, or I guess you can just use violence, but once people watch what you do instead of what you say, there is no talk to be had, only violence. You can't just call the cops on protestors, because they were talking and asking before, but now they are being beaten into obedience, so the message would be clear, TAKE AND FIGHT. I am not advocating, just to make it clear, yet the conclusion is unmistakable, or are they just venting, playing the rebel for a day then going back to living out the rest of their lives as a joke? Not to disregard "civilized" channels, but if they don't work, then they are mere distractions. Why do the rich try to rig politics so hard? Why not just cast their one vote in secret? We all know why. Without media control, the people would probably vote for the money by lunch, it would be self-evidently in their self-interest. The king has as much power as you bestow upon them, otherwise they are just an idiot with a stupid hat.

I just had another redditor recommend a book to me. It is called Thinking, Fast and Slow by Kahneman. They mentioned this book because it backs up my hypothesis that I posted: that the vast majority of humans use emotional reasoning and cognitive biases as opposed to rational thinking.

So I searched how many copies book sold. It was released in 2011, so in about 15 years so far it sold 2.6 million copies (according to AI, so I don't know if this is accurate, another source said over a million, but that source may have been written years ago). Now, I have to say I was surprised, I was expecting much less. So in this sense it was encouraging. However, when I think about it more deeply, I can't help but think that there is a huge paradox here: I bet the vast majority of those who bought the book were already the rare type who use rational thinking/are critical thinkers. It is likely that a very tiny portion of those who bought the book were the type who use emotional reasoning as opposed to rational reasoning: it doesn't make sense, as this type would not be interested in a book like this.

So it is an unfortunate paradox. It is a sort of confirmation bias. There are some wonderful thinkers out there with books and messages that can positively change the world, but virtually the only people who listen to them are other voices of reason who already agree with/think the same things that that thinker is saying in their book/message. So the release of these sorts of books and messages unfortunately does not spread to the wider public. And if the majority of people use emotional reasoning and cognitive biases as opposed to rational/critical thinking + they do not get exposed to/have no interest to pursue these kinds of books/messages, then how can the world ever change?

There is no society that can exist without lies. Not just little lies here and there, but the whole system is built on lies. People's feelings will change over time but what doesn't is the amount of work these people need to do. Anyone who knows too much about how it all works is seen as an immediate threat to the hierarchy. Thus propaganda is valuable tool to distract and obfuscate the working class from truth and to keep them working

I do. I feel like I don’t know what it’s like to live for myself as I grew up feeling like I am solely here for the purpose of making people happy. I’m not sure when this started but it might’ve started after I had gotten cyber bullied multiple times during my adolescence.

It’s like ever since I knew what kind of mean things were said to me, I try my best to avoid disappointment and keep my guard up so I don’t get hurt anymore. I am always saying Yes to requests made of me. I don’t say No to things I don’t want to do. I go with the flow. I keep my opinions and thoughts to myself. I just would rather others be happy than me, and if it means agreeing to something that I don’t agree with, then I’d agree.

For most of my life, I catered to my mother per my father’s instructions. Anything mom said, goes. I am now in my late 20s and I’m engaged to my man, but now I feel like I cater to him and him alone. I do my best solely for the purpose of his happiness.

Even when it comes to work, I know that I go above and beyond for it. I currently work 2 jobs and am managing it pretty nicely, but it’s been a challenge for sure. Both my jobs, upon hire, they already knew that I was a good choice just during orientation day. I’m quick to adapt and learn, I communicate, I love to help.. but even with work, I still feel that it’s for the purpose of the work and not for me.

It’s like the cyber bullying plus what I was taught growing up equals the over achieving people pleaser that stands before you writing this right now. I don’t know what my goal is in writing this, but I just would like to know how I can get out of this mentality. How do I live for myself? How do I love myself? I have so much love, but mostly for others and not me.

I know, meaning can be subjective, that is why I am talking about objective purpose and meaning.

This in itself not so much of a news for many thinkers of course but it appears each individual is just another experiment of entropy that serves the universe's grand experiment.

It feels to me that the universe is trying to find "most complex but at the same time most stable" form of itself. I feel like emergence of biology was just another step in this randomized search for complexity. Non-stable versions are discarded, this is way easier to do in quantum world since physics does it's own job but with complexity increase it uses other methods like death, as in for biological beings. But even though, was the rise of consciousness necessary?

I am sad that I won't have long enough life to find out what this is all about if we ever do find out. Life is too short and being just a lab rat for universe's experiment hurts my existential ego. I want to be more than this biological hardware that I am stuck with.

A lot of people are talking about world events right now and talking about the likes of Trump. But this is not a new issue. It has been ongoing for the past half century. For the past half century, the dominant political/economic model has been neoliberalism. It is essentially an anti-middle class system, which has progressively and consistently made life worse for the middle class for the past half century and counting. Trump just says more direct/bizarre things, and the media focuses on him to distract you about neoliberalism as a whole.

For the past half century, both Republicans and Democrats have been neoliberal. In fact, factually speaking, neoliberalism and the myth of trickle down economics initiated in the USA under Democrat Jimmy Carter (who is known as one of the most left wing presidents in history), though it was exacerbated by Republican Reagan. But since then, every president, Democrat or Republican, has been neoliberal. And every decade since then, life has progressively gotten worse for the middle class/the middle class continues to economically get weaker, while the rich get richer.

So both Republicans and Democrats work for the ruling class/the neoliberal establishment/oligarchy. Yet for half a century and counting, people continue to bizarrely willingly and voluntarily not just vote for, but worship these neoliberal anti-middle class politicians, who work against their interests. I believe this is because of irrational optimism. When a charlatan anti-middle class bank-bailing, Occupy Wall Street crushing, Goldman-Sach speech giving neoliberal like Obama expels hot air from his mouth and says "yes we can" to sell hope and buy 8 more years for the ruling class/neoliberal system, it FEELS good. It FEELS good to attend a rally and all join and yell YES WE CAN. It FEELS GOOD TO FEEL GOOD. It FEELS GOOD TO be optimistic.

Unfortunately, reality does not abide by in-the-moment subjective feelings. So this is all a delusion in people's minds. It is a psychological defense mechanism: they can't/are unwilling to handle REALITY: that even Democrats are also anti-middle class, and things will continue to get worse, not better. I have been saying this to people for years, but each time they attack me and say "Obama/Biden/Hillary/Karmala are my GODS I would sacrifice my own children for these saints! All their bases are belong to us! Republicans ate the apple they are 100% the source of all problems! GOBAMA!". Then after 4-8 years, they are worse off because they willingly worship and put in power these anti-middle class neoliberals, yet bizarrely, they continue to worship them and willingly vote them in. This is because they are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

When the political/economic system is broken at such a root level, 1 vote every 4 years and perpetually see-sawing perpetually between neoliberal Democrats and neoliberal Republicans is not sufficient for meaningful change. It is basic logic: when these neoliberals see that you unconditionally and perpetually will support/vote for them, they have no incentive to provide anything to the middle class. They know they can continue their good cop/bad cop game perpetually and switch power every few years. No matter which one wins, the neoliberal system goes on, and they both benefit from it. They have much more in common with each other than either does with the middle class.

Yet these virtue signalers who keep worshiping their neoliberal oppressors and voting for them perpetually can't handle the guilt from this reality, so they delude themselves into telling themselves that all they have to do is vote for the so called "lesser evil" once every 4 years and that's it, they no longer have to do anything. Then they PROJECT their guilt and bizarrely direct vitriol at the likes of me for not voting. They get mad because of avoidance: they don't want to acknowledge the REALITY that if they want meaningful change they have to do more than 1 vote every 4 years: so anybody who makes them THINK will be the target of their projection and rage. As if voting under this system will change anything: the past half century factually shows it doesn't: if this strategy even resulted in 1% incremental improvement, they may have a point, but it hasn't: things have not only failed to improve, rather, under this system that they keep willingly voting for/prolonging, life consistently and progressively has been getting WORSE every decade for the middle class.

Then they find scapegoats like Trump and act like he spawned from outer space and is the cause of all problems. No, the cause of problems goes way deeper than Trump. The cause is a fundamentally/essential invalid and broken anti-middle class system called neoliberalism. Trump is just a logical domino-effect byproduct of this system. The reason neoliberal Trump won in the first place was because the neoliberal Democrats REPETITIVELY had NOTHING to offer the middle class. So Trump used that to his advantage and spouted his own hilarious lie/fake promise of "draining the swamp", even though he too like the democrats is pro-establishment and anti-middle class.

So it is a mix of irrational optimism stemming from avoidance (avoidance of guilt/facing reality/and having to put more effort/thought than 1 vote every 4 years).

I believe that we as humans have evolved too much, too fast. Humans, in my view, should not be cramped up in crowded cities staring at a computer or phone screen all day. We were meant to care for our planet and enjoy the many resources it provides us. We have people that are charging other people to live on the Earth. Humanity has evolved too much that we now have lost sight of how much danger we are actually in. As technology continues to progress we will lose more aspects of our humanity a little at a time until we merge with the machines and lose it entirely.

I remember in grade school doing a book report and something stuck out to me. I noticed that no matter what book we chose, there would have to be a "conflict" stage in the book report. I had asked the teacher why does there have to be conflict, and they said every book has conflict in the story. This was odd to me.

Now, when I look at the world and how bizarre people act, this makes sense. Still, there must be a deeper root/reason for this. So I have been thinking and now I believe it could be due to unconsciously dreaded existential despair.

Basically, we avoid having to think about our mortality/the purposelessness of our lives, by filling up our time with things, and one of those things is conflict. Other things could be mindless repetitive entertainment, which is also a major modern theme. Other things could be anxiety or sadness about other/mundane things, or drama in relationships. It seems like most things are consistent with this: we basically can't handle having to face the thought of death or the meaninglessness of life, so instead we hyperfixate on other things (often mundane) and create unnecessary problems.

I mean why else would people worry or become sad about mundane things? Ever saw someone worry or be sad about something and think to yourself what a mundane/meaningless thing to waste time suffering over? Yet for the person doing the worrying/rumination, they don't see it this way: for them that issue is very important. But often, as they get past it, they realize how mundane it was. Yet they then focus their attention on another mundane issue to worry/ruminate about. If their experience shows them that these are mundane things to worry about, why do they repeat this pattern? Could it be because they can't handle solitude/a calm state of mind, because that may lead to thoughts about death or the meaningless of life? Think about it, if you are not focused on something, then you get bored. And boredom is consistent with life being meaningless.

Other people cause unnecessary drama and conflict. Again, it is often so unnecessary. Why do they keep doing this? There could be many reasons, such as wanting attention. But I think a lot of people also do it for the same reason: to avoid being bored/having their mind shift to thoughts about the meaninglessness of life and thoughts of their own mortality.

This could also be the same reason humans have always had so much unnecessary wars and conflicts. Check the map, it is usually neighboring countries fighting each other for meaningless things. Whenever you have 2 or more humans, there is a good chance that eventually they will start arguing and fighting, usually over meaningless nonsense. So could it be that they are unconciously doing this because they can't handle boredom, because that can eventually lead to thoughts about the meaninglessness of life, and their own mortality? Some people say humans are naturally" greedy"... could it be that it is not "greed", rather, it is this unconscious fear of existentialism, that leads people to behaviors that can superficially be seen as greedy?

This was not as much of an issue in the past, because humans were preoccupied with hunting to survive, so they had no time to question the meaninglessness of life or their mortality. And if they did fight, it was for survival/necessary resources/food that they would die without. But now that we have more free time, we appear to be at each other's throats over mundane or meaningless nonsense.

While I was thinking about this, I noticed that some people also made a theory that is similar to what I wrote above, it is called terror management theory. Though that theory appears to be limited to self-esteem and culture, and also limited to fears of death (not boredom/meaninglessness of life). For example: that theory claims that religion/beliefs in the afterlife may have risen from fears of our mortality. But what I am saying above extends that theory I guess, into more domains of life, such as general anxiety, sadness, chasing of mindless entertainment, and unnecessary conflict.