This is an extract from my side a conversation I had with someone. Since it goes over much of my subject matter and reveals nothing personal about who I'm talking to I'm reposting the message here. The background of the conversation was about how technology was used in a specific area to crowd out competitors.

"What management is advertising is not technology but their control over it, which they believe is itself the "master technology". They have a million thought-terminating cliches to tell you that you can't have tools, and these are deemed "the master's tools" as a misdirect, always exhorting people to live in forced ignorance.

"And then you see that forced ignorance is at the center of Eugenics, or rather "Ignorance is Strength", where the visible rejection and ignoring of anyone who lives apart from Eugenics, the ignoring of people who speak publicly of the atrocities done, is glorified. They "know" but they make a point of not actually knowing because to acknowledge the truth would make it clear that this has an obvious outcome and no one will ever allow this to continue. The use of anti-technology canards is not accidental or a reaction of fear or pigheadedness. For Eugenics to be the true religion, it must make claims about nature. The ultimate root of this is twofold. One is a belief about evolution and life as "struggle" that is not defensible on its own terms. The second is a clamoring for ritual sacrifice, which ultimately was rooted on how humans utilized language and how language came about. It is only by the language games alone that ritual sacrifice could be summoned. Nothing in material nature or a primal instinct required anyone to hoot and holler to glorify death. In nature, the animal seeks stability and must reconcile somehow with the world. The first lie is to state that humans "make" reality by wordplay, even though this is so absurd a child can see through it.

"If all of the habits of Eugenics failed, if this isn't the true religion, then all of the ritual sacrifice, all of the imperial games, were for nothing. That is what they must never tolerate; that their game has been wholly ruinous. It is "smart" to remain ignorant in all public presenting institutions of what is happening because that is expedient. To "just ignore it" while they do this to the world and repeatedly goad anyone to act so they have their excuse to get high and mighty.

"And how did the ritual sacrifice begin? Because of language. Because they were just smart enough to organize this effort, and by doing so, the course of human history was set in favor of this ritual sacrifice. It starts with a small conspiracy, and it started many times over rather than from a singular source. But, in the revised history, all such acts, all such conspiracies and all such technology can only be "One"."
8:22 AM

End quote. This encapsulates, in the space of a standard paragraph, what TRI is all about, and why we have the peculiar attitude about technology promoted everywhere. In all things, Eugenics seeks to make computation and Reason identical with Eugenics, just as they declared Nature is identical with Eugenics and Science is identical with Eugenics. It is Eugenics alone that can subsume all other ideas. Ritual sacrifice on its own has no argument to make, but a whole system and theory of history based on ritual sacrifice, which places this ritual sacrifice in the most basic act of life, can do what primitive superstition cannot.

It is important to remember that all of these initiatives, all of these imperial games, were started from a position of ignorance, just as a child is largely ignorant of the world at birth and possesses no inherent knowledge beyond the most basic functions of the body. Language came about by accident, and then because it was the chief determination of who lived and who died by ritual sacrifice. Since humans were by far the greatest danger to other humans, this immediately made real a terrible condition. The worst thing in the world, the predator to fear the most, was the human who was closest to you, and from the outset this disgusting cult learned to manipulate, to cajole, to berate, and to glorify every act of low cunning their disgusting race could manage. It is this that was at the heart of modern race-theories and race-science, because a biological race, a biological category, is reduced to its most superficial qualities, stripped of any of the history, potential, and meaning that a "biological nation", the most primitive generalized social formation, would have had. The cult of ritual sacrifice then claims that civilization, by some vague working, was responsible as a passive force for corrupting a once-good humanity. A parodic history of primitive society is always promoted by imperial religions and cults of power, and this is seen throughout human societies. Civilization for its part is remarkably neutral on the matter of life and ritual sacrifice. However many people live or die, the city will still be there as long as it is maintained. Cities require considerable labor to maintain and this labor is parasitic upon what humans would have wanted, but nothing about cities demanded monopoly or Empire or any of the lurid cults. Cities also created both a mass of people that was previously unsustainable but new potentials as people were able to cooperate towards new ventures and new technology could proliferate. Something like metal-working would not have been possible without a settled society and regular economic life, and metal-working in turn was a driver for early trade and the growth of a mercantile function in human society. All of that must be sublated into Eugenics and a "primal" want for the essential act of ritual sacrifice. Ultimately, the eugenists "naturally win" because of an uncomfortable truth that all must pretend didn't happen; that this ritual sacrifice was the origin of humans as humans, and all later technology only occurred in a world where that practice was established. Those who carried out the ritual sacrifice knew well what they had done and that this act must be repeated and glorified regardless of any truth, and that is all they ever had to know or cared to know. The muck of producing anything else was for the slaves. This is what ideology always degenerates to. It is "retarded" to know of anything else or spend effort on learning any idea other than those that glorify Eugenics—that glorify "God".

This is the true meaning of "smart" devices; that it is "smart" to build technology that corrals, degrades, and controls, and "retarded" to speak of technology that users control that did nothing wrong to anyone. Everywhere the "smart" technologies are promoted, they promoted shitty, unfriendly designs that hamper the user that were wholly unnecessary. That's the "smartness" managers like to see, which is frustration for the rest of us. It's rather petty for me to say this after a world-sweeping statement, but this sort of stupid "smartness" led to a broken iPod because iTunes is shit and Apple mandated it. I switched to a cheapo Sandisk player and never looked back, and it's still going 13 years later. It's simple, you can use the file system every other computer uses that no one had that great a problem with, and if I wanted to I could modify it and even modify the program to make the MP3 player into something else. It isn't "easy" in the sense that you can do this willy nilly since any extensive mods require you to know something about how a computer works, but there aren't features designed purely to hamper users and gate them to use proprietary software that breaks your device. This is an example of why the rush for "smartness" is stupid and that this stupidity is recast as a type of intellect to glorify; because it leads to needless destruction, because it wastes our time and because it conditions users to accept shittier products in monopoly conditions. The good news is that whoever made Sandisk didn't follow the direction of American companies. It's a particularly American disease and it exists purely because American tech companies are taken over by the worst eugenists. These assholes love running America into the ground and tell us we will only ever have worse and worse things. Whenever an American attempts to work against this impulse, that is "retarded" and thus it is stopped by the most ancient rites of the human race. The rest of the world just saw products as things to make because, one way or another, people will consider the means available to them and conclude that there is no reason to continue following such a ruinous path. Therefore, "Ignorance is Strength". We would have done well to ignore them and not allow eugenists this much power over political and economic life let alone private and interpersonal life. The impulse of Eugenics, and the impulse of ritual sacrifice, states that the closest relations are the first to be betrayed and the most glorious of all betrayals, and that such betrayal is baked into Nature, the race, and the world itself. Eugenics cannot tolerate anything else existing, and so their first order to the slaves is that we must be tolerant and restrained, and that the indulgent eugenists are paragons of prudence. It's a deliberate dissonance to mock you. Their idea of "restraint" always entails a grand ulterior motive that they hold, with full knowledge that the knife at the throat of everyone else will never go away and faithful soldiers of Eugenics will never stop clamoring for blood as befits their race.

Thread for AI and LLM-related snippets since this comes up a LOT and it's a topic I would comment on because of the stupidity of the educational sector about it.
Will repost snippets from Twitter here because this forum lets me do more without having to upload to the site itself. I hope to compile these into articles in the future.

So many people think money has "intrinsic value" of some sort that obligates anyone to believe it means something more than it does. Money is only a tool and can only ever be a tool, and the fastest way to make someone a fool is to lie to them about money and its purpose. Money's value is not "subjective" nor is it in any way bound by any material necessity or natural Law. Money only has one value: it relevance to the institutions that in any way handle money or are affected by money. You are taught to believe that a vague "agency" is necessary for money to hold meaning while simultaneously insisting that this agency is granted authority by a natural law that supersedes the laws men made and set; but the slave, the beggar, and those wholly dispossessed are certainly affected by money, learn what money is, and learn that they are not allowed to hold it in their person because their legal person has no right to do so. Those who are given nominal rights to have money never control it as they please. Those who issue money do not have the control they wish they had over it. Not one iota of agency asserts what money will be in all cases, or that any person has a reason to respect or regard this instrument because it is lawfully permitted to exist. It is very trivial to forbid the exchange of money with punishments severe or incentives against it, and under such circumstances, an obsession with money's intrinsic worth or relevance to anything is dubious. If you really want to dance like an idiot around the totem of Mammon, Mammon is not at all impressed by this.

Willful ignorance about this is a common trope that has been programmed into the subjects, the slaves, of the present society. They are taught to believe that money has spiritual power over lesser men, and usually they tell themselves that they and their friends are uniquely above it, and "the only ones with the truth".

What is the true power of money? It is a type of technology that is understood by humans as a tool and no more than a tool. The will of a human is something entirely apart from a piece of paper or ingot of metal. The marker of credit on a ledger has no more claim to will than the ingot, and the paper note has always been far more dubious than metals. Those who issue credit love the idea that they can arbitrarily create credit money as they please, and that they have somehow mastered the tool once and for all, but nothing of the sort can take place. Money in any form, and credit is treated as money and is money for all intents and purposes, will be viewed like any other technology, and it is a technology with limited applications. This "awesome" unit cannot even resolve the simplest questions of value, cannot account for utility in any sensical manner, and produces perverse incentives even when all of the participants in economic life know money has this effect on exchange. It would have been far easier for us, being reasonable enough creatures, to work with the goods in kind and possess knowledge of what actually happens in the world.

I'm inspired by this recent spat I got into on Twitter from one of the usual leftoid believers in this narrative, who seems to believe that he's always going to be "just ahead" of those who chase after money. He does not see that he is and always has been the sucker who actually believes money works in this way that overrides history and overrides what anyone actually did or would have thought, or the words those men wrote about the very events he claims to have total knowledge of. The argument of the "money cult" really has nothing to do with money and everything to do with a blind ideological avarice that insists on naturalizing this tool, insisting that it could only exist in some way because it "has" to and that they will somehow control it to make others do as they ought to do. If money circulates within a society, its holders judge money not on the assertion of imperious law by decree but by the laws set by the institutions handling money. Nothing prevents these persons from utilizing this monetary unit for some creative scheme that bypasses mediation. If they do this, the money has nothing "real" backing it, but do states have anything more real backing money? States are concerned with force. The entire reason states took an interest in money at all is because they had armies to raise and equip, bureaucracies and governments to operate, and these things required goods that were already produced by a monetary economy in the ancient world. That ancient monetary economy understood intuitively that money only had relevance because it could purchase crops, and every currency unit of the ancient world was pegged to a common crop for the region; and so this monetary economy is somewhat tied to agriculture, and not so much to the pastoralists who saw their herd of cattle as wealth in its own right, and this cattle was seen as wealth and not a think exchanged for trinkets or baubles.

So here is a continuation of that thread:

https://x.com/Eleven_twenT2/status/2055050862339441087

"Do you always write any countermovement from below out of history to concieve of the Eugenicists as omnipotent? Washington was shocked by the rebellion, he did not see it coming."

Here is the standard hectoring of such ideologues, always asserting beforehand that any criticism of Eugenics is "unhinged". I'll spare you the way I highlight what he's doing and tell you what is pertinent to this thread. There is this idea that rulers are fearful and ignorant, and somehow Master Mason George Washington is totally in the dark and totally fooled. It's absurd to think that Washington did not know what men did when they faced debt, and that it would surprise him that men would take up arms to not be sold into slavery. Whether he was on the side of the debt collectors or not is irrelevant; my contention isn't that Washington is a good and decent man, but that he would not have thought the thoughts being ascribed to him here, and that changes the narrative this guy is trying to advance considerably. This guy repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the reality of what it meant when the post-rebellion American government couldn't raise a militia—couldn't raise an army—and thinks that no, it must be this fetishistic chase for money that overrides all else. THAT is what I am attacking in this thread, and he only has the same mealy-mouthed excuses. A root of his thinking is a fetishistic thought about money and its meaning. Of course, I know the true roots of his thinking are not motivated by his ignorance but by his willful avarice and wish to edit history, and he has repeatedly resorted to dishonest swipes which practically force me to respond in kind. I cannot abide this sort of insistence that history will be edited regarding a matter that is well known. I definitely do not abide that of all the things to worry about, a "real movement" that didn't exist as such was a greater fear of the rulers than the obvious problem that the Articles government couldn't field a FUCKING army, which is the most obvious critical failure for a state you can imagine. So obsessed are these people with their fetishistic theory that they ignore entirely a situation where the state, the thing the revolutionaries ostensibly seek to capture, has already failed!

In doing this, the original post is ascribing to Washington and the framers the same devlish scheming he accuses me of assigning to the eugenists (a dishonest attack against me), yet at the same time Washington is portrayed as a fearful coward against an imagined "real movement" and Washington must be wholly ignorant on the nature of men. It becomes increasingly absurd to defend this narrative theory of history; and all throughout this thread, the guy I'm writing to consistently refuses to acknowledge the existence of any theory but his grand narrative theory. THIS is the kind of autism I'm railing against, and I am very particular on this point. It is the manner in which he is choosing to present history that bothers me even more than the possibility that my interpretation of events, or what a reader would think my interpretation of events are, could be wrong. Since the actual history and thoughts of men at the time regarding Shay's rebellion are not contentious. There was indeed a plea for debt relief, because they believed the government, the same government that already owed back pay to soldiers like Shays, could easily call off the debt collectors at the least. Issuing paper money is recast as some existential "threat to the system" rather than an expedient. Ejected from history altogether is the extremely unstable currency situation for the new American state, which is yet another major reason why the US Constitution was rammed down everyone's throat; and anyone who regarded the Constitution as a worthwhile instrument of government took the Treasury's prerogative to issue money very seriously. What you see here is a series of rewritten histories to abolish not so much what actually happened, but to make it impossible to sensibly understand the motives of anyone without recasting it into this narrow program that didn't exist until the 20th century; that all history must be rewritten to conform to the present, which is eternal and "always imminent". What I am doing is attacking this particular type of insanity, and somehow the guy fails to comprehend this point and insists on retreating to the same failed system and failed thinking because "orthodoxy demands it", unmoored from anything that actually happeened.

What he does diminishes what anyone who did call for populist reforms wanted to accomplish. Instead of populist reforms for sensical things, populism is recast as this idealistic, fantastical zeal to violate utterly the world; that is to say, the populists are recast as possessing a wholly aristocratic mindset about power and the purpose of politics, far removed from what they wanted which was to not go to jail because they were in debt. For all of his talk about "the real movement", here is a movement of the dispossessed who want to not be hauled to debt prison, and it is recast as the idealistic mission of college students who are about to enter the very machine that puts those men in debt and brags that "this never changes". All of this of course is calculated, and the people presenting this foul narrative of history know exactly what they are doing. They can't stand the idea that anyone would write against them or even suggest there is any understanding of men other than their grand theory. It becomes ever-more insane when they must edit more things in history (once again a history we know quite a lot about since we did not need to lie about history and many of us never did up to now). I've seen this program play out for as long as I've been alive. People have been cannibalized by today's debt collectors and these people can only think to encourage it because they've been trained to believe it is natural, inevitable, and yet their Christ-like savior is just around the corner if they clap their hands and believe. They are insane. I am not insane; but I am made out to be mad for even suggesting basic shit, and this is what people like that do. This is what they want all discussions to devolve to.

If I were to reduce what he is doing to "he has a fetishistic belief about money" I would be constructed a grand narrative theory myself; but at a basic level, this is what motivates a lot of his thinking as the most convenient excuse, the most convenient pretext and myth that he believes about poor people or the unwashed dumbs like me. I can write at greater lengths about the particular psychological conditioning that the youth were exposed to when I was a chlid, because I remember vividly the most contemptuous lies. The lower your caste, the more brazen the lying, and this was all projection to mark who would be sacrificed under the eugenic creed. His contemptuous dismissal of the centrality of Eugenics says everything I need to know.

But, none of this particular discussion grants any more legitimacy to my point about money itself, because I've been thinking about this sort of thing for a long time; a very long time, and not at all related to idiots like this who are the bottomfeeders of internet discussion. This is why, rather than refuting point by point the old system, I begin my book series, The Retarded Ideology, by simply ignoring and talking past the accumulated "mandatory" claims about what money and laws are. To truly understand economics and what happened requires what was unseemly when it was first tried: to divorce economics from politics, which a number of writers in the late 19th century began to do. If economics were viewed on its own terms as what humans did to manage these resources, it becomes clear that the economic question and everything money "really represents" would be a trivial problem to solve in any era. It is so simple that it should not even be a controversy, and if it is known, there is no insinuation that this "ought" to be a political question. A state that willfully starves its people is what it is. There is no reason to pretend it is actually something else, and the contemptuous lying is there to insist you must "stand and die" as this is done to you.

Money is a tool at the end of the day. It is in some way a political tool, because inevitably money is valued not because of the things it purchases or the promises of some financial scheme, but because of the general fear. Debt collectors exist without money as such. The narrative theory wants to tell you, as Graeber wanted to claim, that the debt collectors alone created money and made it an immaculate tool. If however you coughed up the nominal tokens to pay your debt, nothing obligates the tax farmer to honor his part of the arrangement. Such things have been a constant throughout human history, where after dutifully paying his tax like a Good Citizen, the honest man is beaten, bloodied, and mocked for the crime of doing so. What was money then, except a contrivance to convince someone temporaily to tolerate any of this? Without the promises of debt, money has little going for it. It does not accurately assess the uses of things, is not so freely transmutable as the mythology of the money cult insists, and even if you possess it, its "real value" can be aribtrarily docked because there are men who insist it will be so and no more than that is needed. I can go on about the "just world" theory of so many of these leftoids and how they glorify the insult of telling us about the "just world" when humanity's core impulse has been injustice and cruelty for its own sake, but that is moving away from money in particular which on its own has no such necessary malice. Not even the debt collector is malicious in of itself; he is doing a job, and whatever we may prefer the world to be, there will be a reckoning of debt and credit so long as humans have to coexist and assess the actions of other humans. On some level it is entirely right and fair that those in debt face the consequences of such. Money will never provide a rubric for justice in of itself, and the ancients understood that intuitively; and this is why money and the merchants were always distrusted and unseemly to political minds. If we have a society where grotesque humiliation and debt slavery are normalized and naturalized, it says something about the society that invents every excuse to continue this, when the solution has always been incredibly simple: we simply don't destroy people over a credit entry in a ledger, when that has done no good for human society or any individual. To uphold this grand narrative theory in the end requires a exaltation of human cruelty as some inherent good or substance that is treasured more than life itself. No one actually thinks like that; they only ever project this mentality onto people they are selecting to die, and always believe that they alone possess a unique right of transgression. They are stupid for thinking this because it has never worked ever, but certain people just love failure that much and they're trained to reinforce it at a subconscious level.

If you really look at history, money should have ceased to exist in the 20th century, and in many ways it did. Monopolies set the price on everything. Credit is extended so that debts are a joke until Eugenics decides to assess the real value it always coveted. No one who contests the state or anything real has any illusions about money or its function. Even when the economic thinking is cruder, no one likes being ripped off or fed into an obvious scam like ideology. I could go on about this topic, but I feel I've gone on enough and would prefer yielding to any response so I have more to write about.

I'm hoping this forum posting becomes a regular thing and that I can stimulate engagement in this manner, rather than relying on the algorithm of a shithole like Twitter.

Hello world.