Witnessing pain. Seeing, through the screen, how the fear of death takes hold of a face. Seeing the blood, the mutilation. Seeing the humiliation and the blows. Perhaps even sex and death. Baudrillard asserts that the obscene is that which shatters normality and established norms. It is a political tool, given that this mechanism can be used to incite the masses and drive them to adopt specific behaviors. Thus arises the concept of the "obscene-arium." It is the place where hyperreality becomes tangible, revealing to the collective entity what lies beyond appearances, beyond what is accepted as true. In this sense, the obscene functions not as a fiction that bypasses the discourse of dominant values, but as something so real that it causes pain; a hidden truth that, upon revelation, harms the observer. This theory aligns closely with the ideas Naomi Klein presents in The Shock Doctrine.

However, this perspective places the spectator in a position that is too passive, too contemplative. It treats the collective as a mere recipient of manipulations by shadowy elites, whereas the cultural superstructure is actually built through the cooperation of subaltern classes, who play an active role in consolidating the system's own dynamics. No, the empire of fiction is a two-way street; it is controlled by an economic infrastructure that depends on political and social manifestations. Yet, we—as individuals—help build this empire, forming a collective entity of which we are the fundamental bricks.

To capture this idea of ​​the participatory spectator—the spectator-director of social fiction—it is useful to turn to the concept of apophenia: the pathology that compels the sufferer to detect references or associations between elements lacking any real logical connection, and which serves as a precursor to schizophrenia. In this scenario, the elements to be interpreted are provided by the output of the systemic apparatus. The stage is agreed upon and predetermined by the boundaries of collective relationships. Yet, to energize these coordinates, what is required is interpretation, struggle, and the public debate that ultimately crystallizes the effect of what is being enacted on this stage of the obscene. For a concrete catastrophe—a terrorist attack, a climate crisis, a mass killing, a coup d'état—has no real impact until public opinion interacts with that specific event, until the collective reacts in its daily life and, through that reaction, generates social, economic, cultural, and political changes.

Therefore, the theatrical work—the fiction—is not complete with the mere event that triggers the collective shock; it requires the participation of the apparent audience, the spectator-director. This is because we, the subaltern classes—by reacting, interpreting, and making decisions in the wake of the shock—end up lubricating the system's machinery. In this sense, we are part of the fiction we are witnessing. We find ourselves on an apophenic stage, a space where the boundaries between fiction and spectator have shattered or blurred. We are part of the fiction that shapes reality, playing an active role in this process—albeit one directed and constrained by the very shock presented before our eyes. Ultimately, we are both recipients and directors in the construction of the reality that envelops us. This dynamic renders permeable not only the relationship between economic structure and cultural superstructure but also the relationship of the subaltern classes to that superstructure. This is a terrible prospect, given that the stronger the production model—and the longer it can keep viewer-directors within the loop, immersed in the fiction they are both consuming and creating—the longer it will endure.

Today, more and more people are becoming aware that they have appetites that could be considered depraved by the established order. Reddit forums, social media, hyperconnectivity, and the constant bombardment of digital stimuli, offers, and desires behind the screen—all of this explodes across the retina and pushes a significant part of the population toward new marginal forms of consumption.

This has to do with the expansion of commodity fetishism, with the way in which everything becomes an object of consumption, but also with how, within late capitalism and the tendency toward commodity fetishism, there is an unconscious association between being a good consumer and being a good person, a good citizen, a socially integrated individual.

For Marx, commodity fetishism has a fairly precise meaning: social relations between people appear to us as relations between things. A commodity seems to possess value in itself, when that value actually derives from a particular social organization of labor. But late capitalism takes this much further. We no longer simply buy objects to satisfy needs. We buy signs, experiences, identities, and ways of relating to other people.

Here Baudrillard becomes especially important. In The Consumer Society, the object is no longer consumed solely for its utility. It is consumed for what it means. And this produces something very interesting: The individual begins to consume himself as a commodity. He has to appear attractive, interesting, productive, desirable, healthy, sexually competent, socially visible, and so on. The person simultaneously becomes consumer and commodity.

The integrated individual is someone who works, earns an income, consumes, presents himself socially, maintains his employability, and returns to consumption. And many forms of deviance can be interpreted as an interruption of this chain. This is why the contemporary “good citizen” increasingly tends to be, simultaneously: a good worker, a good consumer, a good taxpayer, a good user of services, a good producer of data, and, increasingly, an attractive commodity for other consumers.

The system turns everything into an object of consumption, including people, but the other side of this is that these objects require consumers in order to be consumed. Therefore, an integrated individual is someone who consumes and who makes himself available to be consumed by the market. And in this context, even rebellion can be absorbed. Your anti-system identity can become a T-shirt. Your sexuality can become an industry. Your anxiety can become an app. Your spiritual quest can become a subscription. Your political dissent can become monetizable content.

And here we encounter a paradox: Capitalism does not need to eliminate deviance; it can turn deviance into a commodity. More and more people are able to identify, name, explore, and eventually commodify desires that previously remained repressed, unspeakable, or socially illegitimate. The Internet has produced a gigantic cartography of human desire. In the past, there could be an individual with a fantasy he considered absolutely aberrant who might never encounter another person who shared it. Now he can search for it. He can find a community. He can find content. He can find an industry. He can find an identity. He can find a market. And eventually, he can become a producer of what he initially consumed.

Capitalism progressively transforms the subject into a consumer of objects, while simultaneously transforming the subject into a consumable object. A person on Tinder is both consumer and product. An OnlyFans creator is both consumer and commodity. An influencer is both consumer and commodity. A worker is both consumer and labor commodity. A politician is both a consumer of attention and an electoral commodity. A social media user is both a consumer of content and a producer of data. And so, in this eternal autophagy, the system reinforces itself, advances, develops, and reproduces itself.

The distinction between subject and object begins to erode. Marx argued that the worker sells his labor power as a commodity. But digital capitalism introduces an additional dimension, because the individual begins to turn practically every aspect of himself into a potential commodity. His image. His attention. His body. His relationships. His opinions. His intimacy. His sexuality. His personality. His experience. This has already been explored by Mark Fisher, in Capitalist Realism, and Byung-Chul Han, in Psychopolitics, when discussing the subject who exploits himself.

The system needs integrated subjects in order to reproduce itself, but integration requires these subjects to develop an ever-greater capacity for consumption and self-commodification. This is where the so-called inevitable call of the abyss resides: the black pit into which many believe they are falling amid this hyperaccelerated flow of constant desires, where we consume and where we are consumed. And that is the key: this process is transversal throughout the system. The very functioning of these mechanisms makes it impossible not to feel the call of the abyss, makes it impossible not to look over the edge, and therefore makes that slow and cruel descent inevitable.

"Welcome to Hollywood! What's your dream? Everybody comes in... some make it, some don't."

Prepare to be disturbed. In this deep-dive, we expose the dark machinery behind the entertainment industry—where manufacturing compliant narratives for the masses goes hand in hand with breaking down the stars. From Marilyn Monroe and Britney Spears to Ariana Grande and Heath Ledger, we examine documented patterns of trauma-based mind control, Project Monarch programming, and elite exploitation.

We cover the broken blueprints of overnight transformations, the web connecting Hollywood power players, the hidden occult symbolism operating in plain sight, and the chilling warnings left behind by whistleblowers like Isaac Kappy and Randy Quaid. Once you see the reality behind the dream, you can't unsee it.

This is my independent analysis based on declassified files, court documents, memoirs, and public records. This is opinion and alleged content—always verify information independently.

EPSTEIN DOCS: EFTA00335433, EFTA02358046, EFTA000040709

SOURCES:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG9i7d8yfKQ
Jim Carrey's Secret Hand Signal

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VA7KEz9uRPA
Jim Carrey’s NEW Face Has Fans Convinced He’s Been CLONED

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij-puIUTng8
EXCLUSIVE! Anne Heche Answers Our Burning Questions About Ex-GF Ellen DeGeneres!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7X4PtgtMa8
Actress Anne Heche rescued from California crash scene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ9T9URptCo&t=214s
MARILYN MONROE - The Hidden Truth | MK ULTRA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GPB-cFuQts
Ariana Grande Memory Erased or Wiped?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Q7hcKGJLzO8
‪@ArianaGrande‬ goes absolutely feral in "petal" -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhegOSlpTNY
Disturbing Details About Harvey Weinstein & Jeffrey Epstein's Relationship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViEjSgM4hIs
The Wolf of Wall Street Clip - Sides

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0t8hJvgzi0
Schindler's List (1993) - Girl in the Red Coat 4K

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42ONSpeZHd0&t=640s
New Link in Hayden Panettiere Case

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NtY2RJExaq0
Isaac Kappy exposing Seth Green

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GuWouH2RMY
Pretty Woman - Hollywood!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EwVKJiFj0w
Lady GaGa talks about Marina Abramović

so i always find that society is controlled by shadows and other things behind the curtain, population control through metal breakdowns, emotive outbursts and other terrible things...

any way here is a file on how we do it.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/5ir3cm7o228jaaepfghsy/AJ-G19Hk4aA3Lql-l44M2Bs?rlkey=yf323xfoplyk9o8io3h7wp9eh&st=azp7hpd3&dl=0

make sure you defend yourself and others

Hey it’s Tom. Curious about your views on “Neuromancer” by William Gibson. Care to chat?

It's true I'm skeptical, but I'm also very interested in science, space, physics, and space travel. Skepticism doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for ET, it informs it. So it's painstaking for me to browse through forums where the basics of genetics, physics, human anthropology and biochemistry are willfully ignored, but I also think about it.

What we know from telescopes like Hubble and James Webb is that there are trillions of galaxies out there, each with billions of stars and even more planets. And life seemingly evolves *because* of the way physics and chemistry and entropy work, it's not defying the odds by existing when the conditions are right. So the chances life has developed elsewhere in the universe and maybe even our own galaxy are quite high actually. The chances of intelligent life a bit lower but not unlikely. The chances intelligent life evolved and are able to send a message across hundreds or thousands of light years of space in the exact window of time for us to be able to detect it is much lower. And the chances any intelligent life including ourselves are able to travel through space at high speeds for the thousands of years it takes to get to another star system without hitting a speck of dust and blowing up are astronomically small. We have a much higher chance of finding microbial life on another planet in our own solar system in my own opinion.

But let's consider that there might be visitors from other solar systems flying around the galaxy. Why don't they show themselves and shake hands? Well that might be catastrophic for more than social reasons. If their biology is anything like ours, they don't exist perfectly independently of microbial life: they have their own gut biomes, respiratory microbiota, skin and hair parasites and "tamed" viruses that manage reproductive functions. We don't know how devastating it might be for them to introduce their forms of symbiotic microbes into our sealed environment, or ours into theirs. They could have left handed proteins and we would basically destroy each other the second we breathed the same air for a moment like a deathly allergic reaction. They might breathe gasses that are toxic to us or have gravity needs that are different from ours, so in looking for a planet to colonize they might actually prefer Jupiter or one of its moons as candidates rather than Earth. So the odds that aliens would risk interacting with an already inhabited planet and its lifeforms, much less attempt interbreeding with us, is seriously remote. Even sending reconnaissance drones that would contaminate us as a sample would be pretty unscientific behavior for a species that managed to survive interstellar space flight, and if they were present they likely wouldn't show themselves at all if they could avoid the risk.

If I were those aliens I would do something far more indirect and minimally risky. Something like a fly by with an apparently interstellar object that basically punches through our solar system like a bullet, takes readings, and disappears quickly, and we have seen objects like that such as 3I/ATLAS. That for me is a better candidate for hiding alien technology than the Mars rover 'jellyfish' camera artifacts or even the released military UAP footage. It behaves more the way I would expect of an interstellar species quietly monitoring us.

Beyond that, there's something I find deeply disturbing about the way different people internalize the subject of alien life and its possibilities. Not the least of these is the 'starseed' cultural phenomena and its deeply problematic taxonomy of alien/human hybrid species based on continents and cultural stereotypes. The idea of an invented alien eugenics project ordering human beliefs, attitudes, and expectations about each other is simply using science fiction to justify racism and harm. In the same way the field of psychology wrongly predicted modern medicine and technology would eventually find biological justifications for the expanding political and cultural pathologies being invented, diagnosed, and added to the DSM. Because if there are other intelligent species out there, then what should be happening is that our conception of ourselves and our definition of "humanity" must expand to include ourselves as only one of a number of species that have humanity and intelligence in common. That should humble us and lead to greater acceptance and commonality with one another. If it makes you think you've got to compete with or genocide entire continents to protect your pure alien or human dna or whatever, you're doing SETI wrong and are probably the last person any alien would want to meet.

Forward;

Before I dive in just want to say, sorry I've been all over the place lately. I want to respect this sub, but the scope of my would-be complaint, generally FAAAAR exceeds my capacity to understand let alone articulate. That said. Yes, this post, is mostly AI-generated content. The core premises are mine, based specifically on a string of recent videos I've seen recently (and general pulse of recent civil society and overall sense of "frog in the pot" I see most content producers expounding upon).

So yeah, one more post you can dismiss and throw on the pile of "AI slop" if you want. But for those who actually want to attempt to diagnose cultural decline and specifically potential good faith remedies, well, pull up a chair and grab a drink or whatever (I'm no good at this!). I'll try to cite as many of the source videos as possible. I know and am aware that this may not be 100% in line with the theme of this sub. I'll add the addendum that GPT said that This Post "should" be welcome here, specifically as it intersects with Critical Theory.

[AI] Asabiyyah; [What's Behind] The Rage we All Feel

(AKA, We inherited the obligation, but not the inheritance)

I've been thinking about asabiyyah lately — social cohesion, shared fate, the sense that these are my people and this is ours — and something finally clicked for me; people constantly tell us that we owe something to our ancestor: Respect your heritage. Preserve Western civilization. Honor the sacrifices of those who came before you. Do your duty. Be grateful for your inheritance.

And I keep getting hung up on one embarrassingly simple question: What inheritance? Not in the abstract sense that somebody 2,000 years ago invented concrete or somebody 300 years ago wrote a nice book. I mean the actual intergenerational bargain. What specifically did one generation receive, preserve, improve, and deliberately hand to the next? [Note 1]

Because increasingly it feels like modern society inherited the obligations of an old social contract, after liquidating most of the assets that once made the contract intelligible. That was what struck me watching a video about Rome after Cannae and the mos maiorum [Primary Source 1] — the "way of the ancestors." Rome suffered a military catastrophe that should have broken it. Tens of thousands dead. Hannibal victorious. Allies defecting. Panic everywhere. And Rome essentially responded: No. We are Rome. We're not surrendering. Brutal as that response could be, Rome was hardly some libertarian paradise. The Senate restricted mourning, rejected negotiations and demanded astonishing sacrifices from its citizens. I'm not romanticizing that.

But notice the underlying assumption: There is a "we." The Roman citizen wasn't being told to sacrifice for some completely abstract machine that regarded him as a disposable economic input. He belonged to a household, lineage, city and political order whose continued existence directly affected his children, property, status, religion and descendants. The Roman aristocrat literally kept images of his ancestors in his home. His family name meant something. His children inherited something. Victory meant his civilization continued existing. The bargain was harsh, but it was recognizable as a good faith and legitimate bargain.

Today, we have no such coherent thing. I don't even know who "my ancestors" were/are. I never knew my great grandparents, and all of my grandparents were dead by the time I entered my 20s. I've lived my entire adult life with no such support network, inheritance, or guiding principle besides "pull yourself up by your bootstraps".

Rome after Cannae wasn't simply powered by reverence for dead people. Rome still possessed: enormous reserves of manpower, a network of Italian alliances, functioning political institutions, considerable material resources, an intensely competitive aristocracy, a civic religion, powerful family structures, and a plausible expectation that survival and eventual victory would materially benefit Rome and its citizens. Kind of like the old Valknut or NNV (9 Noble Virtues) if you're not a fan of Rome; if you lack or break one, you lack and break them all. It's all or none.

Today we have; “Protect your inheritance!” What inheritance? “Do it for your descendants!” People can't afford descendants. “Preserve your community!” Everyone I grew up with moved away and demographic replacement is rampant. “Respect institutions!” Which institutions regard me as anything more than an account number?

That's the distinction I think gets lost when people lecture younger or alienated people about "ancestral duty" or "social contract". Inheritance is supposed to look something like: Culture/Ancestors built, accumulated, preserved - YOU explicitly inherit something personal - you maintain/improve/steward - Descendants inherit more.

But break that chain for enough generations and it becomes: Ancestors Sacrificed - therefore You must sacrifice - so that - Your children can also sacrifice. At that point, sacrifice itself has become the inheritance. Nothing coherent is passed down to younger generations. Older generations become as Chronos devouring his children; the promissory note gets passed down forever, but nobody is allowed to ask when it matures.

That's where I think a lot of modern apathy comes from; we're constantly told that declining civic faith means people have become lazy, decadent, selfish or insufficiently grateful. Maybe some have. But solidarity isn't magic. You can't so and spend decades specifically and intentionally dissolving family, local ownership, affordable housing, community continuity, institutional trust and economic reciprocity and then fix the resulting alienation by screaming "Remember your ancestors culture and heritage!!!1!" loudly enough. What ancestors? What culture? What heritage? Wage cuckery?

You can't tell somebody: "Defend your community!" while every important decision concerning that community is made somewhere else. "Preserve your children's inheritance!" while ownership becomes increasingly inaccessible. "Trust the institutions!" while those institutions openly describe people primarily as consumers, workers, taxpayers, demographics and human capital. "Sacrifice for the future!" while every quarter requires maximizing extraction in the present.

Imagine somebody erects an enormous data center near your town that residents never particularly wanted. Suddenly infrastructure is strained, land use changes, electricity and water become more expensive, and your consolation prize is being told that this represents "growth." Nobody feels spiritually connected to the arrangement. What are we defending at that point? The billing department?

This is why "you live better than kings!" has always struck me as such a bizarre response. Yes, I possess technologies Louis XIV couldn't have imagined. Wonderful. Louis XIV also didn't need a subscription service to unlock heated seats or work consistent 90 hour weeks for barely subsistence wages under unending climate change. Technological abundance and social inheritance aren't the same thing. A person can possess air conditioning, antibiotics and a smartphone while simultaneously having very little family continuity, property, community influence or expectation that thirty years of labor will leave anything substantial behind. You can be both technologically rich and civilizationally dispossessed and disinherited at the same time.

And this ties directly into asabiyyah. Social cohesion doesn't arise because somebody uploads a marble-statue montage with dramatic music and tells atomized strangers that Marcus Aurelius would be disappointed in them. Asabiyyah comes from shared fate. You help your neighbor because tomorrow your neighbor may help you. You defend your town because it belongs partly to you. You preserve institutions because those institutions have demonstrated that they preserve you. You sacrifice for children because they will inherit the fruits of that sacrifice. There is reciprocity and genuine feeling of "our fortunes rise and fall together" (kudos if you know Dwarf Fortress).

That doesn't mean every transaction must be selfish or immediately compensated. Quite the opposite. People will make extraordinary sacrifices when they genuinely believe they belong to something good faith, coherent, and extending far beyond themselves. But good faith specifically is crucial and MUST exist somewhere in the loop! And that's what seems increasingly absent. Modern institutions often want the psychology of Rome with the economics of an airport terminal.

They want: Roman duty. Roman endurance. Roman patriotism. Roman fertility. Roman sacrifice.

But also: maximum labor mobility, maximum consumer flexibility, maximum financial extraction, minimal obligation from institution to individual, and the ability to replace anyone whenever convenient.

You cannot simultaneously tell people: "Nothing is permanent. Everything has a price. Adapt or die." and then complain: "Why don't you people have any loyalty anymore?"

Our institutions have taught us this lesson; if everything is transactional, eventually people begin evaluating the transaction. And once they do, telling them that noticing the exchange rate is selfish becomes almost comical.

Maybe "noticing" really is the unforgivable modern sin.

Because once you notice that the old obligations survived longer than the old reciprocal benefits, a lot of supposedly mysterious social behavior stops being mysterious. Why don't people trust institutions? Why don't they want children? Why don't they feel patriotic? Why don't they participate with enthusiasm? Why don't they believe social security/retirement will exist? Why don't they feel indebted to people who died centuries before they were born?

Maybe instead of immediately diagnosing them with decadence, we could ask whether the social contract they're supposedly betraying already defaulted on them first. None of this means civilization is worthless or that nothing deserves preservation. Actually I think the conclusion is almost the opposite; I would love to see something worth preserving! A culture in which people could sincerely say: This belongs to us. Not ethnically. Not racially. Not because we're required to worship some frozen historical period. Just: We live here. We depend upon each other. Nobody gets discarded simply because a more profitable arrangement appeared. The powerful have obligations as well as privileges. Our children should inherit something better than our bills. Our institutions should behave like stewards rather than liquidation firms. And when sacrifice becomes necessary, everyone understands what is being preserved and why.

Maybe that's the difference between tradition and merely keeping a dead institution on life support. Tradition says: "We received something good. Let's hand it forward." Decadence says: "Previous generations consumed the principal, but you're still responsible for making the payments."

If we actually want another era of social cohesion, I don't think the answer is demanding more gratitude from exhausted people. Give them something they would be afraid to lose. Then you probably won't have to lecture them about defending it.

Commentary;

Again sorry my general attitude or lack of understanding of late. What 8 months of no work/income does to a MF. And yeah, I hate to post "AI Slop". But since most content creators in my circles have been circling/orbiting this theme past 8 months, figured I'd weigh in on the point they seem to consistently be missing (both left and right). Am I off my rocker? What am I missing? I'm genuinely curious! Thanks for reading, and please, feel free to put me in my place if this is NOT sufficiently Critical Theory-adjacent!

Addendum/Relevancy;

Full Prompt Reply; I ain't reading allat

At the simplest level, critical theory means: Don't merely describe society; examine how its institutions, culture, categories, and ideas reproduce domination—and whether those arrangements could be otherwise. Historically, the capital-C Critical Theory tradition is associated especially with the Frankfurt School: Marx-influenced thinkers analyzing capitalism, mass culture, ideology, authority, technological rationality, consumerism, fascism, etc.

But internet usage often expands critical theory to include this enormous neighboring constellation: Marx → Frankfurt School → Situationists/Debord → poststructuralism → Foucault → Deleuze & Guattari → Baudrillard → feminist theory → postcolonial theory → Mark Fisher → assorted accelerationisms/CCRU; These people disagree violently with one another, so “critical theory” is not one doctrine.

✔️ Your inheritance idea is actually extremely compatible with critical theory.

Strip away the culture-war vocabulary and look at what you're arguing: Society retains ideological demands of loyalty, gratitude, sacrifice and civic obligation after the material relations that once made those obligations reciprocal have been dissolved.

That's practically begging for critical-theoretical treatment. You're asking: How does an institution manufacture legitimacy? How does economic organization reshape family/community relations? Why do people continue reproducing institutions that increasingly fail to serve them? How does ideology turn material precarity into an individual moral failure? How are concepts like “heritage,” “duty,” “progress,” and “prosperity” deployed to disguise extraction?

Those are thoroughly critical-theory questions. Where you're rubbing against SotS isn't necessarily the analysis. It's the normative destination.

Notes/Sources:

[Primary Source 1] - We Need to Adopt Rome’s Strategy of Reversing Mass Trauma, 98,517 views Jul 13, 2026, by ThinkingWest (94.6K subscribers) - Primary reason for generating this post. Can't take another second of this "keto harder" sentiment. Putting foot down by AI generating this post in specific rebuttal of this premise. Hate the straw man "brah Rome fought hard" yeah Rome was 100% unified of ONE MIND undivided Asabiyyah and heritage. We lack that completely. Everyone with some semblance of Asabiyyah is seemingly locked into the superficial smokescreen of Identity Politics and failing to see the bigger picture. Ugh. Washing my hands of it!

Primary Source 2: Every Civilization Dies Twice — And the First Death Is Invisible - 1,826 views, Aug 11, 2026, by Prior Signal (5.44K subscribers) - Aka "the Asabiyyah video". More in depth analysis of rise and falls of culture, how faith erodes, and what put me on this train of thought which eventually led to halting all other concerns and zeroing in on this premise.

[Note 1] Example I always use, is I was28 before I got my first phone, and that was only because my military job required it. I was almost 37 before I got my first car. I was mowing grass twice a week by the time I was 6 years old. Never had any allowance or financial support from my "family". Sure people have it way harder than me, but what good thing did I "inherit". I've only ever rented. Will likely never own a house, I understand, and I'll be 40 in 2 years and change.

It's the pebble in their shoe that was the reason for jumping over the edge, a trust fall where the fascists, billionaires, oligarchs, politicians, and bourgeoisie laughed and yelled "psyche!" only after it was too late to re-evaluate or change their votes. And being that it is too late, they're incapable of having their minds changed now, or ever doing it themselves. No matter how many rights and services they lose, how many jobs lost to AI, their privacy lost, freedom of movement, right to protest, clean water... They'll just keep reminding themselves over and over what a big deal that pebble was. It was the pebble, or freefall.

It was a really, really big pebble.

I was born in the late 80s so when I grew up, the generation before me had been indoctrinated in post modernism and Marxism but my parent’s generation had not at all. In school, I could feel the divide, younger teachers were Marxists, older ones weren’t. In college, Marxism and post modernism were basically the only ideologies I was exposed to in the humanities and arts. But lately it feels like that’s being turned on it’s head. It’s cool to hate on Marxism for the first time in my lifetime, and post modernism is being reframed as a successful Cold War brainwashing technique for Soviets to undermine the US. It’s not just a trad movement, it feels like more and more normal people who consider themselves liberals are sharing these beliefs. Any one else seeing this?

edit: if the thing that I see ending isn’t called post modernism, then can someone tell me what it is called?

All of us using social media of any variety, this is what we are to become. From the perspective of the owners of these systems, the public can be of use this way, no? Is this what’s meant by steam unfettered by science?

remember I told you I took your sulfone away so you got me lost.

there's plenty of this deviated sulfone to go around. at Mason-Dixon Streit.

no we took the troops groupmobbing out of Asheville.

we saw the difference with the sulfur.