Psychedelics, revisited

I thought I'd summarize and condense all of my thoughts in one post, to make it easier for people to find them. It's not that original, but it's more for anyone who finds the discourse surrounding these drugs very suspicious (a sign your BS-detector is working correctly)-- it's a look at the basic facts and arguments, which you can also use to push back at all the pretentious slop they're trying to inundate social media with.

Getting through to the drug addicts themselves is impossible, because they are members of a massive cult where all they do is jerk themselves off to fantastic tales of wonderful benefits and amazing superpowers and whatnot-- criticizing their preferred flavor of copium threatens to take way their crutch, so they will lash out in fury. But at least you can be aware of how scant the evidence is, and how dubious the reasoning is, and spread that knowledge to others.

1) The proper scientific name for all these substances is 'hallucinogen'-- 'psychedelic' is a literal sci-fi term, invented by the sci-fi writer Aldous Huxley. The former is a more accurate label because it tells you right away what the drugs do (they give you delusions, and make you hallucinate) whereas the latter doesn't and in fact misleads as to their nature. 

2) Hallucinogens causes psychosis, especially in people who have a mental-illness or are at risk for one. This is common knowledge. There is also a link to schizophrenia, which is not as simple as stating that they cause it (they may simply bring it out prematurely in those who are genetically predisposed; people with weird brains are also more likely to self-medicate with drugs to cope with their problems), but is there nonetheless. The point is that it's simply not true that they are 'risk free' and 'not harmful'. 

3) It is possible to get addicted to them. While hallucinogens themselves don't cause tolerance or withdrawal, people with addictive brains (like drug addicts) can still go through the process of addiction anyways. 

It's important to note that in many cases where people repeatedly announce that X or Y 'isn't addictive' they are usually not making a claim about reality or a rational argument or whatever, but are really in the process of beginning the cycle of addiction, and are simply trying to reduce cognitive dissonance by rationalizing their behavior.

You'll notice that this is especially common among users of hallucinogens (not surprising, given that the drugs make you delusional). They will often make verbal claims that are directly at odds with their real-world, observable behavior: they will tell you that the drugs are not addictive, as they withdraw from social relationships in the pursuit of greater and greater highs, or that they're not harmful, as they become more mentally unstable, or that they are not gateway drugs, while getting addicted to all kinds of other drugs. This discrepancy between their self-image and behavior just never occurs to them. 

4) Many of the terms confidently used by the hallucinogen enthusiasts don't mean anything, or describe processes that are poorly understood or unclear. In some cases they even imply things that go against basic scientific knowledge. 

The confidence with which they use the terms is unwarranted, given how limited the research is, but it is is fairly common among pseudoscientific fads: poorly-understood terms are used to impress laymen and silence their doubts by creating the illusion of total confidence, while the gatekeepers and gurus preen about their special esoteric knowledge (which often turns out to be fabricated).  

For example, many of them tout the birth of new neurons ('neurogenesis') that occurs during the drug trip, as if they were sprouting a second brain or enlarging their minds or discovering new things or whatever, when the reality is that this process-- the hippocampus birthing new neurons--  occurs in adulthood as a response to brain damage, such as following traumatic brain injury or a stroke. (This is not to mention that hallucinations themselves are almost always seen as signs of brain damage.)

Of course this is not definitive either, but the point is that the advocates are using poorly-researched terms to justify extraordinary claims, which they also usually present glibly (as if they were well-established facts), when they should require mountains of evidence to prove. 

5) Nobody who uses these drugs in the long run comes across as remotely sane, normal, or well-adjusted-- the exact opposite. They suffer from delusions of grandeur and main character syndrome (perhaps due to damaging the parts of their brain responsible for emotional regulation), and to the extent that they can distinguish between reality and their own private narcissistic fantasies, they seem to look down on reality A brief look at their state is a better argument than anything I could come up with.

6) Finally, regular users of hallucinogens are in denial as to who they actually are-- junkies.

This arguably the most damaging aspect of the whole cope, which is that it obscures the nature of what they are doing by presenting their retreat from reality, descent into addiction, and decision to self-medicate with poorly-understood substances as a heroic win, a triumph, a form of exploration, etc when fundamentally none of this is true.

At this point many of them will try to defend their lifestyles by pointing out the many well-known and obvious flaws of Big Pharma and the failures of SSRIs, but in many ways their decisions represent an intensification of the already-dangerous tendencies of the status quo-- they reject the traditional drugs, in favor of even harder versions of them (rather than trying to live a healthy or natural lifestyle) and they replace a flawed process with one that is guaranteed to fail (self-medicating). All in all the whole thing is a very harmful and disturbing trend.  

Japanese vs American Twitter

One of the cooler trends on Twitter recently has been the whole Japanese x American cultural exchange, which I've found very revealing in terms of the main differences between the two cultures.

The Japanese mainly seem to use Twitter to discuss culture, food, art, share anecdotes and stories, get nostalgic, and keep up with the other 95% of totally normal interests that are never mentioned on American Twitter-- and if they were to be mentioned, it would be with scornful disdain, as if those things were inferior activities (cuz people who regularly fry their brains with digital opium are too joyless to derive any pleasure from daily life).

I also saw very little political content-- and even the stuff I saw wasn't extreme, deranged, weird, deliberately gatekept, etc, it was all just reasonable stuff anyone could agree with. Not meant to be offensive or triggering. 

This more normal focus ties into another trend I noticed, which was the total lack of irony, the widespread sincere tone, and the eagerness to please and interact in a friendly way with the other side on their behalf. It was very refreshing, and at the same time could not be more opposite of  how things are done in America.

The way it works here is that everyone just hides their feelings all the time, through a kind of ironic numbness, and so most people never really express anything.  The actually sincere people-- the ones who are willing to open up, show their feelings, and make an effort-- are a tiny minority of the population, including on the Internet, and to make things worse are always on the defensive, because there's a kind of seething bitter hater type (and general impulse in the culture) to tone-police any display of emotion, in order to maintain peak irony and hostility. 

This results in a situation where the best you can hope for on most forums, websites, sub-cultures, etc is just an environment of atomized neutrality, where people refrain from witch-hunting and cancelling each other, but otherwise don't form real connections (since doing so would violate the rule against showing any emotion)-- and at worst, as everyone knows, seething hatred, pile-ons, neverending witch-hunts, etc. 

I know that it's a very downer thing to say, and I don't mean to shit on American / Western culture so much in the midst of something positive like this, but it really does make me bitter about how sterile, anti-social, and hostile our culture has become.

My own website / moving

I have my *own* site now! 

Well, not really, it's just Wordpress-- but it's better than leeching off of Google, and it allows me to customize the appearance and whatnot more easily too. 

https://rightpopulist.blog

(Yes, I realize this is not the most creative name, but I wanted there to be continuity between one site and the other.) 

As for the content itself, what that'll be like, I don't want to give away too much-- for now, just envision a torrent of misinformation, flowing straight from the mouth of Putin himself, like a river of lava from a volcano, and that'll give you a rough idea. 

Racism, cynicism, misanthropy, bitterness... it'll all be there, and your puny soul will only be capable of trembling at the sight. We're talking about a very hardcore and serious type of unpaid online journalism, not your father's idea of blogging at all. 

(In all seriousness, I promise it won't be that bad, please click and don't be afraid.)

New war alert!

Despite already having ranted on the subject at length, I find it hard to ignore the upcoming war with Iran.

Every single war in the M-E has failed, going back decades now, and most recently in Yemen and Afghanistan-- so we don't need to speculate about the potential outcome of this one, and anyone doing so is simply retarded: it will fail too, just like all the other ones, with the only real question being how. 

Anyone ignoring this obvious fact, is just a paid propagandist trying to rebrand the status quo as based, edgy, shocking, new, etc-- nowadays, probably some Millennial faggot on Twitter, as opposed to some equally retarded Boomer on Fox News, but still the same old same old. 

I think it helps to categorize the different outcomes of previous conflicts using Nassim Taleb's terms: either the affected nation collapses under the immense stress and never recovers ('fragile') or the continuous intervention manages to create a force that winds up wiping out the invaders ('anti-fragile').

The examples of fragility are Libya, Syria, and Iraq-- the ruling regime and the institutions are destroyed, but without replacing them with a pro-American version, and so the entire nation just plunges into pure anarchy and chaos, without us gaining control over resources, territory, population, etc, just a sheer waste of lives for no benefit.

Given how weak and old the regime in Iran is, with the protests and general senility and so on, this is certainly a possibility.

The other set of outcomes are less discussed by the media, or even by anti-war Americans, because they're humiliating to think about-- but it's a textbook case of what happens when you continuously and naively intervene: you wind up in incentivizing the creation of an even more hostile force. 

This is what has taken place in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Yemen-- it's not that the invasion failed, but they actually became stronger, and wound up going on the offensive. Anti-fragile growth.

The Taliban withstood the US Army, and then kicked them out and took control over the entirety of Afghanistan. Lebanon withstood the Israeli invasion, kicked them out in the 2000s, resisted another invasion in 2006, and has now forced them out of Northern Israel. The Houthis resisted a decade of bombing from the Pentagon, won their civil war, and now control the Red Sea.

It goes beyond mere defeat-- an even worse loss than if you had not gotten involved.

I don't rule out this process taking place in Iran either, and perhaps especially if the ruling regime is assassinated / destroyed-- neocon retards are barely able to think two steps ahead, or account for the effect of their own actions.

In any case, those are the examples to keep in mind. (And again, anyone thinking we're going to see amazing benefits -- retarded, and probably a puppet.)

I've also discussed this before, but here in America we seem to have entered into the Era of the School Shooter in the 2020s-- we've gone from having more and more corrupt elites, but hiding it somewhat, to now having openly anti-social, unhinged, freaks who hate the people they're in charge of. 

It's not an exaggeration to say that they resemble some psychotic loser blowing up his school more than anyone with a trace of sanity, and in fact they'll probably be remembered in those terms: they simply no longer bother hiding the contempt they feel for the people under them. 

In this particular case, with the military, I imagine they've realized how unpopular their agenda is with the post-Boomer generations, and especially with Millennials and Zoomers (regardless of how much they spend on marketing, branding, paying off Millennials on Twitter, etc).

They also know that America is headed for some kind of severe financial crisis.

This means that the days of occupying the world, or propping up Israel, or fighting pointless wars in the M-E will be drawing to a close soon-- and I think they've figured that out, and are waging one final unhinged campaign against their enemies, a kind of all-out assault before they bite the dust for good.

This is not limited to the military (just the most dramatic example)-- you see the same behavior throughout most institutions, such as the COVID response, the DNC rigging elections and forcing Biden / Kamala onto their own voters, politicians like Vivek and Musk openly telling Americans to embrace being replaced with cheap labor, and so on and so forth.

Power-tripping on steroids, pointless campaigns that achieve nothing, doubling down on a losing hand, and committing suicide for no real reason-- that's the new era we live in, and that's why I don't waste my time trying to find a logical high-IQ motive to explain or justify this behavior, since it doesn't exist.

Yes, nerds, autists, and geeks aren't even close to being smart

Now that I have my own safe space, I can finally admit to one of my most non-PC beliefs, which would get me banned on every Internet forum, sub-culture, etc (since they control them).

As I said before about Internet People, just as many of them are misfits, the majority of them are also nerds, in fact probably around 95%. The two syndromes overlap.

Unfortunately the nerds have rewritten the entirety of human history (also with some help from Hollywood) to make it sound as if they are the true geniuses, the real gifted ones, the mavericks, bla bla bla, unjustly punished by mediocre society, etc etc etc. 

The truth is that, despite this grandiose narrative, you will never find a nerd, autist, or geek (on any Internet sub-culture) with amazing discoveries in math or science or engineering, profound knowledge of art or literature or linguistics, capable of writing symphonies or painting masterpieces, or really doing anything remotely respectable or cool-- and this is because nerds are dumb, unoriginal, mediocre, slop-consuming weirdos.

The nerds do brag about certain things, in fact all they do is brag about how unique and special they are, but many of their achievements are either incredibly common or a sign of brain damage.

Typically this involves something to do with their ever-growing list of mental illnesses (it's kwalled not bweing a neuwotypical DAAAAAD!), their mind-blowing knowledge of Wikipedia, their adherence to various holier-than-thou Internet ideologies (which however revolve entirely around online preening, and seemingly preclude real-world action), their hatred of the vapid sluts who ignored them throughout all of high school (fuckin' women!), their habit of regurgitating meaningless phrases, and their ability to perform very minor janitorial work on the computer.  

That last one, which is more the result of them wasting hours on the Internet than a sign of giftedness (see the completely broken state of the online world, which has been built by these same geniuses), they view as a key that unlocks mastery over every subject on Earth, despite never reading, learning, or doing anything.

In fact, you will be astonished at the level of smug contempt that they have for every job and subject on Earth, and you will be equally astonished by the basic ignorance they have of every job and subject on Earth-- truly an impressive combination! 

If the nerds were capable of creativity, and had an art form, it would be more than anything else the revenge fantasy-- bitter masturbation is all they are really capable of-- and this is the only area of life where the rejects do show signs of creativity, intelligence, and originality. 

All nerd sub-cultures, ie most of the Internet, are defined by their endless fixation with punishing others. 

The fact that they can only fantasize about harming other people, never doing anything good or praiseworthy, is revealing of what the core of nerdiness really is, which is just a profound degree of self-absorption (bordering on autism or sociopathy). They are simply not capable of making genuine connections with others, and they worship themselves to such a degree that social integration into a larger unit than their individual selves is impossible. 

Rather than view their basic failure to adjust to reality as indicative of some deficit on their part, and work on fixing themselves to be more aligned with the world, the retarded nerds blame reality instead, and then spend their entire lives seething about the fact, concocting theories to explain it, and waiting for everyone else to realize how smart they are (this never happens, which is what masturbation is for).