Schizophonia

France is the most redistributive country in Europe with Danemark. And it’s also the European country with the highest fertility rate. The second country with the highest fertility rate is Sweden, which is very redistributive too. Eastern and southern countries have the worst fertility rates, Great Britain and Central European countries are in the middle. So it gives me right; The fertility rate in European countries is even positively correlated with education, as long as the conditions of the social body are favorable.

Wealth corrupts because it owns you. Also, humans still have the same brains as in the paleolithic period, so most of the most pleasant things are simple things.

Yes lol, although of course a compatible girl is better than any ice cream.

It's just conditioning.

I had a huge crush in middle school. Then in high school, I wasn't really interested in girls, and afterward, I socially isolated myself and suffered from very severe insomnia for over three years, so I didn't fall in love or even met girls. Some girls actually gravitated toward me when I was still present in college, but I didn't care because of my health in particular but also because I felt nothing for them. Indeed i have no problem talking to girls and asking for their number, it's like talking to the postman. Probably if I were in love I would be softer, but that wasn't the point.

I see girls as giant ice creams of different flavors and/or sizes that I potentially want to enjoy. In this setting, there's no fear or "simping," because you don't "need" her; she imposes herself on you, just as the taste of strawberry ice cream imposes itself on you when you bite into it; you simply enjoy what's available. The more performative, directed by ego I am, the less it works.

@Jowblob Do you have siddhis ?

I could have structured this thread to make it seem less prescriptive or even trollish, depending on your point of view. I'm thinking of deleting the thread for this reason. But assuming others should have something they don't is what we do all the time; it's the principle of criticism. And not having children isn't abnormal; it's boringly banal. The Eiffel Tower is mediocre, only tourists are interested in it 👀 Yes.

@Leo Gura is kind, smart and has a decent sense of efforts/responsability. He could have a wife and children who truly love him, but instead, probably because he identifies with a father figure full of guilt who didn't dare spank him or something like that, he ends up with a forum of wankers because of the legacy of guilt he doesn't want to send us to hell; many of whom wouldn't be able to put down a few dozen euros a month to have access to his forum, his videos and him in general. Why would you waste energy on people who wouldn't even be able to pay a little to see you, it's a pure energy deficit if you think about it. People will tell me that no, there are not only wankers and that I am projecting (which is obviously true, ahah; mirror effect and all that) but it is fundamentally false because the more proactive you are, unconsciously giving yourself over to your desires, the less time you will have to post here; because a forum is a libidinally poor investment object. To get back to Leo, this "Serious guy who wears white shirts and talks about maturity/truth" archetype doesn't look like phallic software; it's software of submission to the father figure for fear of being punished. If he really became fundamentally phallic, if he killed his father, I'm sure he'd have a divine revelation like, "Holy shit, why am I bothering with this shitty forum, this shitty toastmaster, these shitty shirts, these shitty truth stories, torturing myself with these shitty psychedelic trips? Now I'm going to a tank top with a big gold chain, start a family, have lots of friends, party regularly, become rich, etc." Masculinity isn't scarcity software; masculinity is a state of opulence and warmth; it's the phallic position. A behavior is phallic when the answer is no to the question "Is this coming from some kind of moral dictator in my head ?" otherwise it is neurotic.

Yes you are right it is very stupid, I was just criticizing the fact of saying that he is ruthless/said "horrifying" things. I myself am very left-wing.

It's easier to have children when women don't work/and where your family can take care of them. Rich, redistributionist countries like France have a much higher fertility rate than traditional, poor countries, but without social policies to partially offset the atomization process (Eastern countries, South America, etc.). People with mental illnesses, or simply neurotics, are also less likely to have children or be sociable in general. But mental health is a social issue; engaging in social activities or seeing a psychologist is not without cost; the childhood traumas that lead to these mental illnesses are also social (alcoholic parents, reproduction of family patterns, etc.). So, there's no problem: people with a higher level of education will have more children, and the children of less educated parents will be more likely to have a significantly higher intellect if environmental conditions improve.

I should point out that I am not particularly pro-Israeli; I just have no interest in this conflict and this opinion was a one-off.

It's the same for what you call your life path, you can lose it and you will pay the bill.

😈

😏

It's completely open to criticism, but he doesn't say anything special; that the "left is dangerous" and that it's terrible that Kirk got killed. And then you say he's "cruel" before insulting him? lol You prove him right.

Masculinity is about being nothing, that's why men tend to be dominant sexually or in general in life because why would you want, be exited to the idea of being dominated/reduced when that's already your normal state, you can only want to go to where (you think) you're not already. So, Valentin is not a subject; Valentin is nothing, and the rest is all that is most important. From the warmth of my big black sweater, to the effect of nicotine, including the sight of an ass. It's all about submitting to the big other, as Lacan would say. Love is the impulse to make something exist, more of a symbol for men, and an imaginary one for women; even though technically we all live more or less across both orders.

Of course it's a poor country; it's a Central American island under embargo for 70 years, what don't you understand? It's like that everywhere on the planet, actually; I too can show you documentaries about poor neighborhoods in the United States that will make Cuba look like a safe place. Contrary to what you say, city dwellers don't have power outages, and even if this is the case in rural areas/smaller towns, ultimately 99% of the population has access to it. This is slightly more than all other Central American countries and equal to that of South American countries. And yes, there are poor people in your videos, but even in France and the United States, there are people starving too; if there weren't access to medicine and decent nutrition, Cuba wouldn't have an average life expectancy of 5 years longer than the United States. A small, almost resourceless island, with a population descended mainly from spanish farmers and a few black slaves, under an embargo, got a higher life expectancy than the world's leading power. Again. 1)Mao isn't the "Marxism" 2)China was a poor, backward, very corrupt country, divided between Chiang Kai-shek and warlords, which suffered the war against the Japanese and then the civil war between the nationalist party and a communist party; all of eastern China from Guanxi to Manchuria (Hoi4 helps me revise my geography😎) was damaged. Between 15 and 20 million people died during the war against the Japanese, and up to 10 million died in the civil war. And despite all that, and his nonsense, Mao left behind a stable Chinese state, largely free of corruption, and one that had begun its industrialization. Deng Xiaoping did indeed enrich China, but it wasn't thanks to market liberalization per se; Maoism was isolationist, and China was therefore an autarkic state. Opening up to the international market and the possibility of a private market allowed foreign investors to come and thus bring back their capital, and also their expertise. Even today, China is very statist, and that doesn't prevent it from becoming the second world power; probably soon the first. No Marxists today are in favor of autarky; most are alterglobalist because that's simply the rational position. No, technological progress and power relations do.

Wanting to make someone exist.

I'm not in favor of the Chinese model; I used it as proof that a country with a very strong state could become the world's leading power. I also used the case of France. China has high inequality because it's a huge country where wealth is concentrated in certain cities/provinces, particularly special economic zones on the coast. So you have very wealthy areas like Shenzhen, with lots of wealthy and skilled people, and the further west you go, the poorer and more rural it becomes. China is the size of Europe; it's a gigantic and multiethnic country.

I asked ChatGPT and Cuban doctors still earn more than the national average, so no, a delivery man probably doesn't earn more than a doctor. Once again, you can't get your American frame of reference out of your head. You have to ask yourself which country's population has the best care: Cuba, or other countries with a similar socioeconomic history, even if it's hard to quantify. Everyone would rather be Cuban with lymphoma than Nicaraguan with lymphoma; because at least there are plenty of doctors and it's free. Today, Cuba is one of the poorest countries with the highest life expectancy, at 79 years on average. This is higher than the United States (74 years), and Cubans live longer than Americans. No, it's not true. Doctors and surgeons make huge profits because they're in a position of power. First, the doctors; in France, and it's probably the same in most countries, there's a cartel of veteran doctors and academics who organize to prevent access to education from being made easier (scholarships, the number of students selected and trained, the same duration, etc.) in order to maintain the high salaries of existing doctors. There's also the profit from mutual insurance companies. In France, they're fairly regulated and inexpensive, but those in the United States are more expensive and more conditional; because they're businesses. The United States spends a larger portion of its budget on healthcare than France, even though healthcare in France is very inexpensive because hospitals are an industry. Depending on the sector, the average salary in the United States ranges from $250,000 to €500,000; it's absolutely enormous, and no one deserves a salary that high, even after 7/8 years of study. When you earn half a million dollars, you're profiting from human misery, that's all. As a general rule, when you earn a lot, you can have a lot, because there are people who can't meet their needs even though they work. Already responded. Yes, and if you work at McDiabetes, if you're not careful with your hygiene, you could accidentally kill someone. You could say that about any job, actually. Already responded.

@Leo Gura You're not looking for the truth; you want to be right. That's why you haven't contradicted my arguments, except for "Cuban doctors are poor." Well yes, compared to a rich country, where doctors are in addition to that entitled to use their position of power to overcharge their patients, they are poor. But the countries of Eastern Europe/the Balkans, South America, even more so Central America, and some African countries are very poor, even though they are capitalist countries with access to the global market. According to your reductionist theory, they should be much richer "since capitalism creates wealth." You also say that "all Marxist experiments have failed," when only a handful of countries have become communist, the majority of which were poor or very poor at the outset. Russia was a very unequal country with a level of industrialization close to the Middle Ages and under the Communist Party, despite the initial poverty of its population and infrastructure, the First World War, the Civil War, the embargo by Western countries after the Civil War and beyond, ethnic diversity, the sometimes polar climate, the Second World War, and isolation from the international market after the Second World War; it still became the second world power. The same goes for China; Mao made some really stupid mistakes, like the Great Leap Forward, which caused a famine, or trying to kill birds to prevent them from eating crops, lol. But that's Mao, not "Marxism," and despite everything, he still managed to create a state somewhat free of the widespread corruption of Nationalist China, and began the industrialization of the country. Today, China has once again become a market economy with special economic zones, but it's extremely statist and Marxist-inspired; and today it's the second-largest economy in the world. France also experienced its golden age of growth and purchasing power, known as the "30 glorious years," shortly after the Second World War; and this corresponded to a semi-planned economy as a compromise between the Communist Party, which had won the legislative elections, and the opposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_French_legislative_election

It's a Caribbean island with no resources, which has always been poor and under American embargo since the 50s, obviously it's poor. You have to compare it to Central American countries to be relevant; Nicaragua, Belize etc which basically have no infrastructure outside their capital and rich enclaves. The objective of a communist country is also automatically to avoid prostitution in various ways (labor law, legality/tolerance of psychoactive products and prostitution...) to attract foreign capital as the Far Eastern countries have been able to do in various ways. Thailand got richer by having a military junta that tolerates drug sales and mass prostitution; well yes it works but it probably wasn't really Che Guevara's plan. This proportion of the capitalist system to move wealth towards the countries which prostitute themselves the most to big capital, by the logic of competition, geopolitical issues etc; is already described by Trotsky and it is what motivated, if we can put it like that, his idea of permanent revolution. Once again you are a good well-fed, white, democrat American who is unaware of the extent to which he is favored by power relations of which he is visibly unconscious of. We are talking once again about a third world country, which has gone through a civil war, which is under embargo, and which has managed to make its population fully literate, created the largest cigar industry in the world, and has become one of the countries with the most people skilled in medicine (in proportion), even if there is "no medicine" (infrastructure). It's like a millionaire kid with lots of free time making fun of his poor neighbor who has to work because he only got a "C" or "B-".

Yes, but if we don't have a communist project, then all the anti-oligarchy rhetoric will lead nowhere. The Trumpists win, the overtone window shifts in their favor, because the Democratic opposition are weak centrists without a coherent worldview or epistemology.

Communism transformed the russia into a nuclear superpower despite the civil war, the stalinist bureaucracy, the tens of millions of direct and indirect deaths of World War II, and the global western indirect embargo quickly after ww2 that i quickly talked about in my topic about Trosky; I should make a second improved and cleaner version btw. Even Cuba, which found itself self-sufficient, went from being the current equivalent of Cambodia to one of the countries that trains the most doctors and has the largest cigar industry in the world; Hugo Chávez, too, has made his population literate and drastically increased its standard of living. Meanwhile capitalist systems spend their time collapsing on themselves due to their contradiction, without there even being a conflict of intensity or deprivation of resources. The United States survived the 1929 crisis mainly thanks to debt (always the same Ponzi scheme) but also thanks to a policy of massive redistribution; Income tax could rise to over 90% during the New Deal. And these are very redistributionist countries.