Nilsi

Love me some japanese vibes.

Meh. Someone probably just sent him the deepfake of himself that was posted here a while ago. I doubt he knows much about Leo, nor does he care to know more. Plowboy-Ascetic is actually a nice meme though pahaha Thanks for bringing that one up again.

My alarm ringtone:

Source?

Sounds like you shouldn't run at all.

I think the biggest sticking point is having some presentable content to make a case for yourself as a serious conversation partner. Most people probably won’t engage with you just because they don’t know who you are or what you’re about. I doubt Peterson is going to sit through one of your 3-hour rants to figure out if it’s worth scheduling a talk with you. There’s also virtually zero social proof, since you’ve very successfully shielded yourself from interacting and collaborating with other creators and public intellectuals during your career.

It works insofar as you don’t have to invest a lot of time in the gym to build muscle. Whether this is the most optimal method is another discussion (which we’ve had multiple times already, so I won’t even bother going into that here).

Alex O'Connor or Jordan Peterson. While I don’t find them to be particularly interesting, they do cover many of the same topics as you and, importantly, use a scientific and analytic philosophy language that would suit you well. Discussing politics with people who are far more knowledgeable about the subject won’t be productive - they'll just shut you down with obscure references and factoids. Also, I would strongly advice against engaging with Europeans or thinkers rooted in continental philosophy, as it's clear you’re not familiar with that tradition.

lol It works. What' there not to buy?

I work out three times a week for about 20 minutes and consistently make gains just by tracking my workouts and slightly increasing the intensity each time. You do you, but I’m just saying that you don’t need to eat chicken and rice all day or train for hours on end to get results. Consistency and focused effort are all it takes, and you already have that. It just seems like you might be applying it in some odd ways.

Not concerned, just a bit confused about why you would put so much effort and thought into maintaining your muscles when you could just as easily keep building them up.

Awesome how genuinely excited these people get. Nice share.

Quite the nothing-burger. The question is that of identity, and to call a table „God“ is just as stupid as claiming it represents some abstract idea of a „Table.“ A particular table is completely and uniquely itself - it exists independently and inexplainably, by and for itself; it is completely anonymous and its difference precedes any kind of identity.

It’s obvious that reality is not a black-and-white affair. Fixed dualistic categories, like man/woman, are just useful fictions. However, I strongly disagree with the idealist notion that everything is ultimately all white (Spirit, Mind, The Good, etc.), so to speak. I claim that reality is actually all grey, i.e. utterly indeterminate. This applies to concepts like reality being a “Mind.” You can become conscious of that idea, but I argue that this “unity” is part of a larger “multiplicity” - not the other way around.

I can’t tell if this is satire, or if you’re being serious.

SEASCAPE [SEESTÜCK], 1998 (Oil on canvas) - Gerhard Richter

I had a coworker that introduced himself as Lars Vegas when cold calling prospects. How's that for a "name your curtomers can't forget?"

made me think about this gem:

This one is definitely up there.

Bad timing perhaps, but St. Petersburg is a vibe. On my bucket list as well.

Literally my life. If that’s your definition of „luciferianism,“ i’m happy to be a „luciferian.“

A little accompaniment to match the energy of this rant:

I think, by now, it should’ve become obvious to anyone that the rationalist-determinist conception of the world, commonly referred to as "the modern," is passé and is losing its authority over "the real" rapidly; a trend that has been observed in the arts and the social sciences for over a century, but is even starting to become obvious to an increasing number of people in regards to modernity's most precious institution: democracy. The idea of the state "of, for, and by the people" has obviously had its fair share of criticism from the ranks of the political left ever since Marx and Engels penned the "Communist Manifesto" and called out the self-serving shenanigans of the "bourgeois democrats." The idea that the economy could capture politics and thus break the triadic accountability of the populace checking the state (by way of democratic elections), which in turn checks the market (by way of regulations), which in turn checks the people (by way of incentivizing production and consumption), may have been radical in the 19th century, but must have dawned on even the most fervent Kantian in the wake of the 2008 banking crisis when even modernity's most beloved model governments, such as the U.S. and Germany, shamelessly and openly used taxpayer money to bail out some of the most nefarious private banks whose fraudulent operations almost caused a total collapse of the world economy (and who, in the case of Deutsche Bank, just days earlier paid 10 million dollars for the Rolling Stones to play a private show for their lovely president's club - only the best for the best of the investment bankers, whose only job it is to create and sell arcane financial products for their clients to speculate on an even more arcane and out-of-control financial system). One could, of course, interpret that crisis of 2008 as us having momentarily lost the plot on our dear path to enlightenment and universal reason. "Contradiction," the specter of Hegel whispers into the collective ears of the Western world, "is the root of all movement and vitality; it is only through resolving contradictions that we progress towards the realization of the absolute." But is it? And how long can we keep kicking this can down the road before "contradiction," this "root of all movement and vitality," uproots our entire civilization (and perhaps the entire planetary system and the possibility for the continuance of life on Earth with it)? But surely we must have learned from our mistakes, mustn't we? Surely we couldn't have put all our money back into the hands of a small number of large, opaque corporations, when we found out that the people tasked with regulating these corporations are the same people who get a big juicy profit share when these companies hit their targets (looking at you Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG). Surely we must have diversified our economic dependencies? And diversify we did. ETFs? You're telling me we can evenly distribute our money throughout the entire global economy? Remember that thing where we just took our taxpayers' money to bail us out of this crisis? Close call, huh? It would've been better had that taxpayer money been invested more wisely before… We would have had so much more to spend… Aye, and about that ETF thing again. The thing where you get the best ROI to volatility ratio? Way better than giving our money to these cooky investment bankers with their obscure speculation products. We can actually invest in the entire global economy now. And guess what! The entire global economy is waaay too big to fail - obviously. Everyone knows it. And while we're at it: let's make sure all our pension and insurance funds are invested in these ETFs as well. That way, they will be safe too. Ahh… nice… "You could be my luck. Even in a hurricane of frowns. I know that we'll be safe and sound"... I'm not assuming you people here are too familiar with contemporary economics, but the basic idea of an ETF is to invest in an entire market (or the entire global economy) easily and cheaply. These are, of course, complex transactions, which is why they are handled by large investment firms that manage the money of their clients, the clients in this case being the government. Of course, network effects and economies of scale play a role here in how easy and cheap it is for an investment firm to make these transactions, which is why in any sector with such dynamics, such as social media, there has practically emerged a monopoly (a duopoly in the case of ETF's) of corporations making these kinds of transactions on a large scale: BlackRock and Vanguard. These two corporations now manage roughly 20 trillion dollars, which is about 20% of the global money supply. At the point of the market crash in 2008, the major banks involved were managing roughly 25% of the global money supply, whereas BlackRock and Vanguard were only managing around 4% of the global money supply. So all we've really done to "diversify our assets" is place them in the hands of an even smaller number of institutions, whose power over the global money supply is now rapidly approaching the point at which the system broke in 2008. And guess who's regulating these companies… correct, the Big Four yet again, whose top managers are once again counting their oh-so-sweet comission checks, throwing a big party at the precipice of collapse. And what's even worse is that this time all the spare money from federal reserves remains entirely committed to this circlejerk of bourgeois capitalism. So who's gonna bail us out next time? I hope this little example has made it clear that the idea of a sovereign state has become utterly laughable and is becoming an increasingly dangerous fiction to buy into. Modernity, with its deterministic dreams of progress and rationality, continues to barrel towards the precipice, ignoring the signs of its own impending obsolescence. It seems more like we're living in the twilight of modernity rather than a new dawn. Meanwhile, modernity's second favorite child - science - is throwing a similar shitshow. The Silicon Valley AI lunatics, with their glorious promises of transcendence and efficiency, might not look as sharp as Patrick Bateman in 80's Valentino Couture, but they are just as adept at making utterly insane ideas sound fashionable. The tech world is buzzing with talk of the singularity and the impending AI utopia, "juuuuust around the corner, guys!" It’s the latest fantasy: the idea that technology will soon usher us into a perfect world where machines take care of everything, and all we have to do is sit back and enjoy the ride. But let’s be real; it’s just another carrot on a stick, another perhaps not-so-noble lie to distract us from the chaos and unpredictability that define our reality. AI is equal measures utopian dream and maximizing profits, surveillance, and control. It's all about who can create the most sophisticated systems (just as sophisticated as Edson Mitchell's investment portfolios were in Deutsche's heyday) to predict and manipulate behavior, turning people into mere data points to be exploited. The dream of a rational, controlled society powered by AI is just another fantasy of stability in a world that refuses to be tamed. So, what can we do in the face of such profound systemic failures? Welcome to the Deleuzean age, where the world is a labyrinthine network of ever-shifting power structures and identities. Deleuze and Guattari paint a picture of society as a "rhizomatic" entity, where traditional hierarchies and stable identities are things of the past. In this psychedelic landscape, there's no grand narrative to cling to - just the relentless flow of forces and desires, interweaving in a complex dance that’s as sexual as it is political. Forget the old systems of control and order; they're just illusions now. We're living in a postmodern condition where everything is in flux, and stability is just an illusion we desperately hold onto. As the man himself once said: "There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons." In this Deleuzean wonderland, there's no grand solution, no comforting stories of progress or redemption. We’re left to embrace the chaos, the multiplicity, the endless becoming. There are no ultimate truths, no fucking absolutes - just the raw, untamed reality we find ourselves in. Maybe the best we can do is join Larry Fink and his ilk in a collective party as the world goes down the drain, celebrating the end of the deterministic worldviews that promised so much and delivered so little. At least we can say we were there when it all went to hell. In practical terms, what does this mean though? It means rejecting the false securities offered by the state and the market. It means recognizing the limitations of technocratic solutions and the dangers of concentrated power. Instead of seeking to control the uncontrollable, perhaps we should focus on embracing the uncertainty and impermanence of life. This might not sound like much of a solution, but in a world where all the old certainties are crumbling, it might actually be our best bet.

This is the "shit's about to hit the fan big time, and I have no idea what to do about it, so I might as well have fun while I'm at it" manifesto.