/cy/ - Cyberpunk

>>2468
soyfag

>>2468
America is currently experiencing near total behavioral collapse. It's breaking apart at the social level. Combine that with how fragile our modern supply chain is and it can't go on for ever. There WILL be some sort of drastic change of the political landscape in the US, perhaps in a couple generations, but there's simply is no way for the current social and economic system. to continue indefinitely; and people are so demoralized that the only solution they see is total collapse and rebuilding from the ashes.

>>2470
Idk if we are talking about the same thing, but if you mean the staggering numbers of degeneracy recently, I'm pretty shure it's all wanted by the ones upholding the current state of things.
For once they are degenerates themselves, but more importantly people subjugated to that perversion aren't of danger anymore, since they are now mere slaves to their sick version of pleasure.

The biosphere is collapsing. Insects are disappearing, birds can't make it home from migration, what little remains of forest is burning down, the oceans have been emptied out of life, the deserts keep creeping…

>>2470
I am absolutely mind boggled by this post. You may be right that the US political landscape will change in the next few generations. A few generations ago it changed pretty wildly and a few generations before that and few before that as well. It seems every 10 years or so something pretty big happens that changes politics in a notable way and every 40-60 something really changes the way American democracy operates. I think you grossly exaggerate how dire the situation is, though. The Civil War, the Great Depression, the Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, and 2008 all came and went. All of them saw some incredible social and political turmoil in the US. None of them went as far as to destroy it. Not even close. Not even the Civil War was close. And now? What's happening now that is really breaking America? The only thing that I can think of that has really changed in our political landscape is the internet. I don't think for a minute that that is really powerful enough to destroy America. In fact, I think the internet is directly serving the interests of the current American political system. We are all, in our use of our little machines, benefitting our masters. The demoralization you speak of is far more rare than you believe, and it benefits our masters far more than it hurts them. I do think things will change in the US, but not revolutionarily. In the mext 20, 30, 50 years the Democratic party might become the Social Democratic party or the Democratic Socialist party and that's the most that I'd feel comfortable predicting. Things are far more in control than you probably realize.
>>2471
I don't think there is anyone "upholding the current state of things." As it stands, the capitalists, foreign and domestic, are unhappy with their current deal and are looking to change things for each of their competing interests. I think that the primary issue stands at production, not reproduction.
>>2468
I personally doubt that the PRC will betaking the reins in the foreseeable future. Their extremely aging population is almost certainly going to bite them in the ass soon. I think through this lens that Xi Jinpings actions make a lot of sense. The CCP is doing everything it can to ensure its longevity in a nation that is becoming more and more hostile to it. The 24/7 surveillance, restriction of information, and foreign manipulation are all tactics being used by a government desperately clinging to power. If the CCP somehow survives the coming crisis, then maybe it will really pose that threat. Until then, I fail to see a PRC takeover of America. I think the USA will continue to stand for a long time to come. As for why people believe that revolution/collapse is inevitable, I think they just really want to live in an easy world where the things they want will happen. Most of the people I've seen who think these things will happen are ones who genuinely want it to happen because they hate the current state of things that much. They tend to dearly believe in some force (usually outside of themselves) that will come in and deal with it all and something better will come just because they really want that to happen. It's a weird kind of pessimistic optimism.

>>2473
That said, I don't think prepping is bad. In fact, it's probably a good thing. There's the old saying that if you're prepared for zombies then you're prepared for any natural disaster. I think that applies to this too. By all means, buy a home and stock up on bottled water and Campbell's soup in the far more likely case that you lose your job than the US government explodes. Learn the good skills of tailoring, carving, and all other manners of self-sufficiencies so that you can save a few bucks on (and find some pride in) your clothes and decor rather than being prepared to put a barricade of spikes around your linen tent when the boog happens. And by all means, wean yourself off technologies like the internet if you really feel the need to. It'll probably be better for your mental health than doom posting about Ted K. dying and it being over for the Jews or whatever.

>>2468
First, as >>2474 said prepping isn't necessarily bad, in fact I also agree that it's beneficial. But that's besides the point.
AFAIK, whoever the current generation of humans are have thought, more or less, that they were approaching the end times. I don't really know why. If I had to guess, it's probably just a really dang useful survival mechanism. I mean, it encourages forethought and preparing for unpredictable calamity.
Also, we now live in a world that changes far more rapidly than any other generation has experienced. Previously, such as the 1200's or something, one could expect 100 years in the future to be mostly the same as the current time, with only a few drastic changes to lifestyle. Now even so much as 20 years can have wild changes to how we live our lives. We're also not super great at accurately predicting the future. So for many, a far easier to understand and simpler prediction of how events will unfold is societal collapse followed by a rebuilding period, rather than the strange twists and turns history will actually take. Even actual collapses of nations have never been as cut and dry as some doomers would make you believe.
Another major contributing factor is various forms of media. Legacy media (news) makes its money by getting people angry and afraid. Plenty movies, shows, games, etc. have there setting in an apocalypse or about the inevitable decline of our world. And soy-boy social media provides an excellent echo chamber for making things seem worse than they are. Basically some assholes make their living by doom-preaching.
I think we're also more aware and/or willing now to admit the ways in which industrial society sucks, which probably contributes something to the feeling of impending doom.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you about the internal stability of the United States. However, I don't understand how you can believe that the Democratic Party could change its ideology to the left (and why the hell that could ever be a good thing). It's obvious that the blue party is the same as the red party, but with a focus on degenerates instead of Christian sects.
Also, in my opinion, it is quite logical that sexual confusion and generally all forms of mental illness are promoted by the oligarchy. Wouldn't it be classy for them to put the population to sleep in this way?
The narrative here of China's imminent collapse is ridiculous. I've been there and I have to say that the propaganda there is doing a very good job of convincing the population of the government's "benevolence." And the population decline will probably not begin to inflict noticeable damage for another twenty or so years, unless China has already outsourced a large part of its workforce to Africa by then anyway, which seems more than plausible given the expansion of Chinese financial power in the region.
Your analysis of the psychology of all these armchair revolutionaries was very correct and insightful, though.

pastebin: bLByHkuU

>>2473
I feel like you misunderstand me. When I say drastic change in the US political landscape, I'm talking on the level of a dictator rising or total collapse of the federal government. I do really believe some such unprecedented thing is coming and we're at the end of the modern era. Likely I think technology will regress to a potentially unrecoverable point and only luddites will survive. What's happening now is a total breakdown of the social layer of society. People aren't talking to each other, making friends, having sex. Not to mention the radical racial changes, those will eventually have to come to ahead and likely it will be extremely violent. Now more than any other time we rely on far away places for basic ammeters. What would happen to the US if China suddenly stopped all their manufacturing? Total collapse of the supply chain. This would in fact happen all across the developed world. We live in a time that is totally unlike any time before, even a decade ago was a alien time. The current trajectory of things IS towards a slow crawl into a dark ages. and I believe at some point something will snap and change unimaginable to the average man will happen virtually overnight. My only hope is that it comes in the form of a dictator to forcibly restore order and reason to the country. And mass democratic governance is never attempted again.

>>2479
I understood what you meant. It just doesn't make much sense. Like yeah, what would happen if China just stopped manufacturing anything? I don't think it would be as drastic as you think first of all, but even if it were what is the point of that thought experiment? It's something so astronomically unlikely to happen with such wildly unpredictable consequences that it's basically pointless to speculate. You might as well ask what would happen if all humans suddenly stopped being able to communicate. Like yeah, that would be a pretty dire situation for anyone who isn't doing Dr. Kaczynski in the wood. And your insisting that everyone is just sitting inside and jacking off or whatever is absolutely nonsensical. Absolutely, the internet has made a life where you can wake up, work from your home, and order groceries/take out to your door without needing to interact with anyone more possible than before, but that doesn't mean that it's the only ways people are living. Most people still work onsite and buy groceries from the story and fuck their girlfriends instead of the hands. This total social erasure thing is nonsense and bad for business. These deprivation societies you speak of only make sense in novels and pipe dreams where you don't have to think about the consequences of these things. No doubt, people could use to pick up more handicrafts and such, but I don't think "only the Luddites will survive the coming dark age" is the reason why. Anyhow, I hope you enjoy perishing with me in the coming dark age. We can even hold hands if you like

>>2480
Not the other anon, and I have to agree with you to the extent that stopping imports from China will probably have less drastic consequences for the U.S. than many fear, since I don't think it will really be hard to rebuild a sufficient industry, especially with a population as desperate as the American one. Unlike you, however, I think such a scenario is quite realistic, partly because China is increasingly focusing on other markets but mainly because the conflict with America will only intensify.
As for the Dark Ages that >>2479 speaks of, I am quite sure that we are currently living in them. There is light on the horizon!

>>2480
The point of the China though experiment was to show just how fragile our supply chain is. There is basically nowhere in the modern world that isn't totally reliant on people continents away for things like food and energy. Modern society simply cannot exist without the worldwide apparatus working at all times. Once things do collapse it will be over before anyone realizes it started. One day there just won't be the latest shipment of food to your area and people will starve. In the before times self-sufficiency was the rule, only the largest cities could get away with importing necessities. Now we have things like plastics with an absurdly complicated manufacturing process being the basic material for all consumer goods. As for soc ail collapse, that IS happening. About a third of the male population is simply not engaging in society. They don't work and spend their days watching tv and jerking off. People aren't forming relationships, marriage and birthrates near extinction levels of low; with millions of third worlders being imported to make up the difference. Most Americans have never had a real friend. And this trend started long before the internet, it's a result of humanity attempting to excise it's tribal nature. One of the few peoples in America to actually retain a healthy society is the Amish. Seriously look into them if you haven't; they basically escaped modernity. They are absurdly more healthy; physically, mentally, socially, and spiritually than the average American because they as their ancestors have for centuries; they live in a way fitting humanity.

>>2482
I'm just going to pop in here and fundamentally disagree with you on nearly every point. Except maybe the short-term fragility of supply chains (which is basically a truism).
I think the core of your misunderstanding is that you are confusing governments and social relations with what is actually the structure and prime mover of modern society: capital flows and capital accumulation. In this way your claim that current societal problems portend of some major systems collapse is both right, on a surface level, and wrong in a crucial way. Since, the collapse of the federal government, although I am deeply skeptical of this, is in no way a collapse of the actual systems of control and domination, which are truthfully in the hands of corporate elite and transnational capital.
It is also in this way that you are only correct to point out the short-term vulnerability of supply chains; the fluidity of transnational capital means it is only answerable to the whims and decisions of separate governments in superficial ways.
Furthermore, your point relating to the desirability of Amish society seems to be far too idealistic, if we put aside the massive concerns most people would have with such a change. Idealistic in that it assumes that by rejecting the cultural forms of capital accumulation we are somehow free of the economic or material domination as well. No, the Amish are free only from the modern cultural manifestations of market forces and have only managed to revive the outmoded face of societal structure, while still in the same boat of economic domination as the rest of us. Not to mention it remains to be seen how long that cultural facade can hold against the revolutionary force of capital.
It is what appears to you as cultural collapse that is in fact the system reordering itself completely in service to its economic ends; not collapse but refinement. It may be worthwhile to wonder just how malleable humans are, and whether this restructuring might not push us too far, but it would be a misunderstanding to see it as degradation at a system level analysis.


As a final note, whatever health benefits the Chinese may have inherited from the generational concentration of Chi will have to be measured against the material demands of global capital on their descendants.

Addendum: any appearance of communist thought in my writing is entirely intentional. Go read some Marx.

>>2484
This! I have nothing also to add.

>>2468
Rich get richer.
Poor get poorer.
While the establishment that enslaves us destroys the environment.
Meanwhile the establishement tells us its our fault the environment dies and not that one of big corpos.
Those in power can only uphold the current state with retardedly hardcore propaganda and some look through it and others dont.
So its people against people, both h8 society for the same reasons but come from a different argumentation.

>>2487
The system of unequal wealth distribution is, unfortunately, a fairly stable system, and when it is destroyed, it is either semi-permanently replaced by an alternative or it quickly returns, albeit often in a different form.
The problem with modern propaganda is that while it is a lot, it is not of high quality. It mostly consists of variations of the same few stories, combined with a few buzzwords that, if you recognized them and have some degree of pattern recognition, you all know.
The whole destruction of nature thing is indeed pretty bad, but can still be reversed by reforestation and reduction of production.