[ a / b / cf / cy / g / lain / un / pollitx ] [ wired / meta ] [ home / rules / faq / affiliates ] [ calculus / mebious ]

/pollitx/ - Occultism

Past and modern, /pol/ / lit/ /x/
Name
Subject
Comment
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Mebious now up and running! Access the wired.

File: 1625101525974.png (259.81 KB, 480x300, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.1[Reply]

Greetings, wirechan users.
Welcome to /pollitx/, a board that is influenced from /pol/, /lit/, and /x/.

Any kind of cringe supremacy, extreme nationalism, etc is not encouraged.

Please note that this is a test board!


File: 1631946878101.jpg (114.36 KB, 799x1000, runner.jpg)

 No.46[Reply]

I always have been interested in cyberpunk and sci-fi themes.
The kinda 2cool4u haxor kinda kid.

"Man it would be cool to have AR systems irl"
"yea ima l33t h4x0r lol check out my kali"
"expoct us lol"


How ever as i reach my 20s i feel like actively rejecting the current cyberpunk reality we live in(and all fictional ones started to soud kinda shitty too),
: 3/4 of the people i know are on some mind altering substance
from rich girls becoming cocaine groupies being passed around to crackheads tweaking at a middle school parking lot, everybody its terminally online to the point that not being in social media makes you borderline socially dead, big tech and banks are waging a war against old oil giants and fundies while the middle class(who barely exists anymore) its genocided, manufactured race tensions are monetized in expense of actual problem solving, china bugmen are taking over large parts of the world, most entertainers are involved in plenty of epstein tier shit, and other garbage i sure forgot to mention.

this isnt some primitivist rant either since i think thats a cowardly retarded way of dealing with problems.

Shortly i left high school i felt really jaded thinking about everything, so for a while i read many books, studied many religions and talked to all kinds of different people only to feel extreme nihlism creeping in and i felt no past philosophy predicted this.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.47

Cyberpunk is dystopian, you are not supposed to want to live in its world. I don't think you have to reject cyberpunk to reject the "cyberpunk reality", as many of the cyberpunk works reject it too, or at least heavily criticise it. People usually overemphasize the aesthetics (the "cyber") elements of it and downplay the critical (the "punk") parts of it, but you don't have to follow it. Cyberpunk does not have to be about neon signs and synthwave.

 No.48

>>47
i understand that now that i have matured, that does not change the reality we live in though only my perspective of it, the point of this thread is not bash cyberpunk works but to discuss how to (mentally) survive in the current reality without becoming entrapped into it

 No.49

>>46
u just gotta man up and exert your will over it

 No.50

File: 1632487958917.gif (792.98 KB, 280x158, shyde.gif)

>I have developed into a positive nihilism
>Some of my friends started calling this philosophy as being Chadpilled.



File: 1628150428915.jpg (37.44 KB, 472x595, The Great Red Dragon and t….jpg)

 No.28[Reply]

Thoughts on the Apocalypse of John?
7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.41

>>40
I probably can't match expectations after all this anticipation, but I'll try.
I thought it was quite interesting… I now know that a lot of bits that I heard before in the context of some media have the origin in revelations (i guess). The horsemen I obviously knew about before, i'm talking about for example the sea of blood or the swarms of locusts.
Probably the most interesting part about it is that the apocalypse is described as happening over years, like a war, as opposed to a catastrophe of some kind that lasts a week or two like I imagined.
Also you'd think that in such an environment most people would consider the faith, any type of faith, but even in the face of apocalypse people are described as denying the more and more obvious becoming truth.

 No.42

>>41
I remember that when I was an atheist, that one of the strongest arguments to me was "Even if their was a God, he can't expect people to believe if there is not enough evidence" (I think Christopher Hitchens made it). Revelations, but also other parts of the bible suggest, that even if there was concrete proof, many would not accept it anyway. A quite popular argument I heard back in the day was "Even if Christianity was true, I would not follow Gods command because I think the Bible is immoral" and things similar to that. There are also a lot of people consciously holding absurd believes, but say that they aren't "able" to believe what the Bible says, or who say that the churches have done too much evil etc, while holding sympathies with ideologies or political parties that have much grimmer pasts.
I watched a debate/discussion the other day about the existence of God, and the atheist was so laughably uncharitable from the beginning, making arguments so weak, that I think his stance is not based on lack of intelligence, but rather a deeper character flaw or even a conscious decision of being "against God", which lead him to that position. I was certainly there myself, though I was a teenager.
Anyway I would be interested what your main thoughts on it are.

 No.43

File: 1631524564554.jpg (184.36 KB, 800x895, The Great Red Dragon and t….jpg)

>>41
>>42

I'll briefly give you my main thoughts on what I thought when I first read The Apocalypse of John when I had only read the New Testament, and then again when I read it a year later after having read The Old Testament and some Apocrypha.

On my first reading of it, I was very stunned by the ingenuity and bizarreness of not just the symbolism, but the manner is which the symbolism was presented. Symbolism was nothing new to me, of course, but the imagery and method of conveying the imagery was very disorienting.

For example, I found Revelation 13:3 to be a particularly striking moment. Revelation 13:1-2: "The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority." This is already a Surreal enough scene, so heavily steeped in obscure metaphor that to imagine it literally is like a fevered dream, but then 13:3 reads: " One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast."

What does this mean? It's so utterly bizarre and specific. It's no doubt a very pointed metaphor by the author, but it in and of itself is so strange. A monster raises itself from the sea? Okay. Nothing too weird, even if it's a weird monster, but then there's such an unexplained little detail like that? That really takes it to another level for me.

 No.44

>>43

I had frequently heard Revelation described as "an acid trip" to me beforehand, but when I finally read it for the first time in a single sitting, I really felt like I was on something. This was my reading while I was still largely ignorant of the Old Testament and really Jewish religion to start with. I knew only what was contained in the New Testament and random things I had picked up culturally like Moses and the Red Sea.

About a year after that, I finally read the whole Old Testament, which was not quick. It was at that point that I was exposed to the apocalyptic books of the Torah that directly inspired and informed Revelation. When you only have the New Testament, the only apocalyptic book is Revelation. Every other book is either an epistle or a history. But the Old Testament has an exceedingly robust amount of differing genres and no lack of apocalyptic visions, both metaphorical and literal. Ezekiel, Isaiah, and especially Daniel are of the same genre as Revelation. And of course, the writer of Revelation was intimately familiar with these books, and other apocalyptic books like in the minor prophets.

So, when I read these books, I started to actually understand the library of metaphors and symbolism that served as the vocabulary for John, or however you would like to call the actual author of Revelation. Daniel in particular helped because of very specific metaphors. It also helped because it's a apocalypse that still hasn't happened or perhaps would be better said to be ongoing, just like Revelation.

 No.45

>>44
After reading these books - all in the KVJ translation - about a year later, I re-read the New Testament with a full knowledge of the Old Testament. I had also by this time read the complete works of Josephus to get a rounder overall view of both Jewish antiquity and the time of Christ. This time, I read Richmond Lattimore's translation. Of course at once I better understood Christ's teachings because now I truly understood the Old Covenant and David and etc.

When it came time to re-read Revelation, again in one sitting, I was impressed by the fact that this time I wasn't impressed. My first time, my mind was completely blown - not strictly in a religious capacity, but in the totality of effect of the artistic skill behind the writing. But on my second go through, I had a much greater understanding of what I was actually reading and many of the metaphors and images didn't seem so completely foreign to me anymore.

I'm not going to say that I understand huge sections of Revelation. Nobody does. You mentioned the Four Horsemen in your post. Look, for example, at the huge controversy about the identity of just the first Horsemen. It is a complicated book to say the least. I personally do not hold the various apocalypses as having much legitimate theological value. I consider them largely as a form of catharsis for oppressed peoples. You know, there are the types that are looking forward to the Judgement less for being saved and more that the sinners will be punished. But that's just my own view on the genre of apocalyptic literature.

Anyways, I kind of rambled on for a bit, but I just thought I would share that, given my two contrasting readings of the Apocalypse of John.



File: 1629561928123.jpg (19.71 KB, 185x255, 340ecc1247e0c9f168d6e9477f….jpg)

 No.37[Reply]

is asking things to spirits related to a specific religion? if yes, how is it called?

 No.38

>>37
homosexuality



 No.4[Reply]

How much of this is true? Is it actually possible?
3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14

>>13
Good news, he still is!

 No.15

>>12
>A theory is something proven or at least provable
Getting off-topic here, but that's not right. Unlike mathematical truths, scientific theories are not provable beyond all doubt. For example, Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation was very, very good and it was used successfully for hundreds of years. But, although there was lots of evidence in favour of the theory, it was never proven, because Einstein came along and pointed out that the gravitational force between two objects does not exactly follow Newton's formula.

A theory is actually just a set of assertions. Flat earth is a theory - it's false, and provably so (beyond reasonable doubt). Quantum mechanics is a theory - it's very useful but even physicists would admit that it has not been 'proven'. Some more complete, more correct Grand Unified Theory might come and replace it.

 No.31


 No.33

>>15
I think you got that wrong.
Provable or proven does not necessarily mean correct. See flat earth is a theory because you can in some ways make your proves that the earth is flat. The proves are all bullshit because the theory is wrong.
Hypothethis = scientific thought/reason based on a seen pattern
Theory = hypothethis that has been proven in some way.

Also Isaac Newton's theory is a theory becaues it was proven. He made forecasts based on his equations that actually happened = prove.
And I'm pretty sure that Newton's theory was only wrong in the speed of gravitational force which he said was instantanious and einstein prove that it was at the speed of light.
Einsteins gravitational theory isn't really changing newton's equation's it's just giving the reason for why gravitation exists, which is the bending and curving of spacetime.


I mean we're obviously just discussing the exact definitions, but I've learned that the scientific hierarchy is:

Individual Observation -> Pattern -> Hypothethis -prove-by-not-being-able-to-flasificate-> Theory

Maybe I got this wrong, but in the end we mean the same.

 No.34

>>12
>>15
>>33
My pals have gotten something up at https://fatchan.org/sci/index.html http://cimixezweeq64g42vl6tyhk4becxhi4ldwqq6w43u53qhwsd3s4c3lyd.onion/sci/index.html , I have got a lot of problems with confusing "research" with "science" and that's all the mainstream does. With research you don't have to understand anything, you just have to observe, analyze, calculate, etc. but with science you have to say something about the world to kill the magic. Bill Gaede is a guy you should definitely look into.



File: 1627874682053.jpg (113.54 KB, 1024x800, Lain.jpg)

 No.23[Reply]

Opinions on the stablishment and codification of a solid Lainist doctrine?

 No.24

this is the most embarrassing OP ever posted to this site, go back home to lainchan and systemspace

 No.25

Why are people so enamoured with SEL? It's a good anime but some people treat it as if it was the second coming of Christ.

 No.26

>>23
what

 No.27

>>25
I'm literally autisticly obsessed with SEL but I don't do this kind of shit.



File: 1627536427577-0.jpg (96.39 KB, 676x950, b4099ee5c25dfc7e612f6bcd76….jpg)

File: 1627536427577-1.jpg (746.97 KB, 1383x1887, 1463725322_1.jpg)

File: 1627536427577-2.gif (494.34 KB, 500x185, tumblr_mxppxhMqV91sxqh33o1….gif)

File: 1627536427577-3.jpg (558.58 KB, 789x1207, Alice-white-rabbit.jpg)

 No.22[Reply]

It's Alice-time
Allthough it is a fairy tale for children it has hidden/deep meanings.
The story also has been reffered in several films about reality and identity.
Follow the white rabbit.
ITT: We talk about the story, discuss the meaning and post artwork of Arisu

Related links:

>The book itself

(epub with the classical illustrations by John Tenniel, the sequel and extra notes)
https://en.de1lib.org/book/1236779/2420d1
(pdf with the classical illustrations by John Tenniel, the sequel and extra notes)
https://en.de1lib.org/book/2630799/9b0d5f

>other editions/formats

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1625102377644.jpg (810.83 KB, 1761x2662, 178.jpg)

 No.2[Reply]

>White nationalism cringe isn't allowed.
How about black supremacy, jewish ethnonationalism, misogyny/misandry..?If you ban the discussion about one ideology you consider "cringe", why do you not ban similar ideologies? Why exactly "white nationalism", are non-whites allowed to be ethnonationalists and discriminate other groups based on their ethnicity?
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.17

>>16
blacks and whites one common goal

hate women

 No.18

>>16
Usually the people who care most about "x" being banned from a platform are ones with some kind of personal investment to "x". You are not wrong in that.
The reason I asked this question in the OP is not because I am a "white supremacist". To ban "x" but to not ban "y" and "z" where "y" and "z" are essentially the same thing as "x" with some superficial differences is not a good rule so I was suggesting creating a rule that is more general.
From your post I am making the assumption that you are from the U.S. and you are a leftist. Outside of the U.S. we usually talk about racism, not white supremacy. The entire universe doesn't revolve around American society and its racial tensions, so I can assure you that most of the racism in the world doesn't involve white people at all.

 No.19

>>10
HUH??? SAGE?? LIKE THE SPICE!?? I LIKE IT!

 No.20

>>18
Not OP but imo racism is a very american thing.
Not that prejudice (or if you're more lefty "systemic oppression") doesn't exist in other places, but how that's mixed in with the concept of race is very unique to America, where there's a clear divide amongst people of different skin tones and a gradually mixing of people of similar skin tones.
I don't think most Europeans consider themselves "white" like in American. They're French, German, Romani or whatever. Same with Africans and Asians. And in countries outside of the US any group conflict is usually among people of the same skin tone, which can be just as vicious but it's not racial. And it's usually more geographically separated.
With the US, people identify themselves with their race rather than their ethnicity, which has more to do with how society labels you based on appearance rather than a cultural background. And most of the conflict is within society instead of between societies. People might be segregated to some extent, but it's by town and there's still a lot of overlap. It's not like black people live in one part of the US and white people live in the rest. And after a while, most people who "looked white" became "white" in the US.
Basically because of it's unique makeup I don't think "racism" in the US plays out the way "ethnic conflicts" play out in other parts of the world. All of this might apply to the "new world" in general though, but I don't understand shit about anything directly south of the US.

 No.21

>>20
Yeah murrica is basically the india of the west. But you've got racism everywhere. On other places it's just more casual and less political.



Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] Next | Catalog
[ a / b / cf / cy / g / lain / un / pollitx ] [ wired / meta ] [ home / rules / faq / affiliates ] [ calculus / mebious ]