Jeff Bargowski (Duceman)

Was sucked into gnostic/esoteric ideas for 15+ years. Kept old journaling - trying to paint the inner psychology of subjectively defined truth

[Jeff Bargowski (Duceman) @Ducemin]

How to create social media engagement bait lesson 1:

[DansGaming @Dansgaming]

I can’t believe there are people still afraid to play as a woman in a video game

[Jeff Bargowski (Duceman) @Ducemin]

@UnmitigatedAss @grok is this true

[Jeff Bargowski (Duceman) @Ducemin]

I wrote this a few days ago but it pairs well with the content of this ND bullet:

I remember thinking I was very smart at 12 or so for joining the new athiest movement because "I could already see how crazy this religion stuff sounds at such a young age."

Turns out that just meant a 12 year old was in charge of my perception of meaning and human experience.

Fun times what with all the dark esoteric critical self theory brain rot that followed (mind you my predisposition towards analysis through creative interpretation/story may have done it with Christianity either way).

I think what religion does best is provide a system for respecting the authority of reality, alongside teaching what kind of behavior benefits you and those around you maximally. It also attempts to highlight the result of not being aligned with reality via some sort of pain.

These are very hard things to know how to do without structure because reality is absurdly complicated, and we are capable of great evil and destruction without any sense of order.

I think it's possible to be an athiest and still be moral if your highest value is truth, but in general I now think it might be harder, especially if the entire society is also athiest.

(Funny comparison but it's kinda like how you can be a vegan, but it's much harder to achieve all your nutritional necessities. It requires a civilization that has developed supplements and monocrop agriculture)

The thing that is misunderstood is that despite whether or not there is a God, there is a "throne." Different ideas have unequal influence, and they will always compete to sit in that throne as a result of that reality. A nation of athiests will still develop an idea that leads its citizens, and that idea will sit on the throne (this is something socialists fail to understand). Counter culture here will repeatedly generate destabilization. Random leading ideas will result in some kind of odd paganism every time, and a dystopian society along with it.

("There must always be a lich king")

Fundamentally, belief in the functionality of a state like this is a fantasy fueled by the rejection (perhaps resentment) of human nature.

In paper you can see the development of both sides of totalitarianism arise here - multiple variations of being/playing God appear because the throne is considered empty.

In our current scenario:

For the "left," empathy and compassion take the place of the absolute good - inadvertently placing the subjective sense (the self) of what is good on the throne. This places our own interpretation of human nature on top (as "God"), and the resulting grandiosity deludes us into thinking our progressing actions with this foundation will take us to a perfect society (or Eden in some real sense). This generates a deep and "justifiable" resentment towards people who don't share your views because they seem antithetical to the end of suffering.

("The closer you get to the light, the greater your shadow becomes")

Anything considered 100% good has a 100% chance of having evil choose it as its hiding place. It always finds and inverts anything with value. Those who seek power will appeal to it maximally.

For leftist totalitarianism, seeing ourselves as 100% good is a rejection of our capacity for evil (a rejection of our humanity), and blinds us to destruction of our own doing.

For the "right," the reaction to the inevitable emergence of this evil elicits the impulse to return to the law that produced the original good in the first place. Now, the response to evil takes the place on the throne as "that which is pure because it destroys evil." This becomes the new "100% good" that evil hides behind, because it instantiates itself as antithetical to that which causes destruction. In this case, the subjective view of what is "good" gets tainted by the desire to purify something we resent from the world, and we end up putting ourselves on the throne again whilst using the name "God" to justify it.

Any mindspace that presumes itself to be of absolute good/purity is not a place that ideas should manifest, as any that do here are rife with the temptations towards seating yourself on the throne (eating the fruit).

Bad actors in both "purity" situations will be present because evil will always hide behind what is considered absolute good.

What both sides of these perspectives share is an active rejection of our potential for "original sin." In our purity we reject that which appears to make us impure societally, and ultimately, that means that the target for both of these sects is Human Nature.

The left thinks they can escape their humanity in perfect compassion (purity), and the right thinks they can escape their humanity in perfect purification. Both are utopian ideals fantasizing about how the world could be if everyone simply just adopted the right consciousness. But what this means is that they think we can transcend what makes us human collectively.

It's a tower of Babel either way (a return to Eden), and the "dialectical fighting" is a battle for determining how best to eradicate the flaws of our own humanity - an opportunity for those who seek to place their own interpretation of what reigns supreme upon the throne that is always there.

Who's subjectivity is best?

Well, probably neither, as both bring us to resentment of the human soul. The battle simply tries to destroy what we deem sinful (like a critical theory) in those we see that evil in, convinced that their removal will rid it from the earth, and the result is killing ourselves from two sides as we can't destroy what makes us human without total annihilation.

Dialectically, it's like a conjoining force of the eradication of humanity under the guise of salvation.

"The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" in the sense that we never realize quite what we're producing when possessed by destructive impulses, by a sense of "purity." Pride controls both sides of this dynamic where we are lured into engaging in a self-designed reality, possessed by our values, creating only the destruction of ourselves.

This post went all over the place but the point is that whatever the "throne" is is real, and placing something that is not us on it works out better than when we place ourselves upon it.

But damn, are we good at not really realizing when we're doing it. Maybe also a useful benefit actual religion gives is just staying clear.

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

The deep psychology under Woke beliefs is really something worth exploring. Inside Woke beliefs, for example, we see a peculiar fascination with man returning to his sinless prelapsarian state.
https://t.co/h7Y7PwSkkz

[The Misfit Patriot @misfitpatriot_]

Apparently ��America First” means we should give up our position as the leader of the free world and global superpower, and instead share power with China and Russia.

Because nothing says land of the free like teaming up with communists and dictators.

[Mikale Olson @realmikolson]

This is called the Hegelian Dialect:

Pit (agitate to the point of revolution, is the end goal) two “extremes” against each other in order to create a synthesis (a “new way”).

This is the goal of the woke left & right.

They are two sides of the same coin, provoking one another into a post-constitutional, post-individual liberty, “post-liberal,” post-America synthesis.

Megyn Kelly and Shawn Ryan represent one side of this coin. Anna Kasparian represents the other.

It’s pure evil.

[Eamon 🇺🇸🕯️ @Eamon_USA]

The magical thinking of the Third Way dialectical actors will have one outcome: Republicans will lose and Democrats will turn America into the UK.

And our sons will be stabbed with ceremonial knives while the police handcuff them for under the suspicion of ���hate crimes’.

Megyn doesn’t defend Erika, because Megyn doesn’t care if TPUSA fails.

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

This is the Woke view. If you agree with this, you're almost certainly Woke. It doesn't matter which "side" you're on because you're Woke and doing the work of the Woke side.

[Seth Dillon @SethDillon]

Sesame Street announces their content is not suitable for children.

[Jeff Bargowski (Duceman) @Ducemin]

It's very easy for it to feel true because it offers an explanation for something observed that gives you an opportunity to feel saturated in morality and simultaneously makes you deserving of compensation.

It gives you a diagnosis for why life feels hard.

[Wokal Distance @wokal_distance]

The claim that everyone that is wealthy today only accrued that wealth as a result of colonialism is one of those little bits of leftist folklore that circulate through our culture unchallenged

[Jeff Bargowski (Duceman) @Ducemin]

@UnmitigatedAss @corTheory I could definitely expand upon it. 👍

[Jeff Bargowski (Duceman) @Ducemin]

If anything is perceived to be 100% good, there is a 100% chance that evil will use it as a hiding place.

[Elenore Sturko @elenoresturko]

I’m disgusted to see the rainbow crosswalk in Surrey was damaged.

Vandalism is not protected free speech.

As Pride Month begins, I stand in solidarity with the community and condemn hate in all its forms.

Thank you to the City of Surrey for cleaning this up.

[TheUnmitigatedAss @UnmitigatedAss]

I've been griping about "epistemic self consciousness" for so long now.

Let's try and simplify the whole thing.

"I listen to the best music. Proof is that the music I listen to (I judge) is the best."

Citing yourself means nothing.

And our algorithms are just here to reinforce our own beliefs.

It's epistemic masturbation.

The circle only begins and ends with you IF you are all that exists. That is solipsism. That is narcissism.

If you are 100% correct, that makes you God, that makes everyone else a light switch.

And if everyone thinks like that, then conflict is all you can get.

Do you get that?

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

Aleksandr Dugin (with whom Candace is meeting in Russia now, and whom the Woke Right has elevated considerably for years) writes the following in The Foundation of Geopolitics, which is usually considered his most important work:

"Another feature of neo-Eurasianism is the choice of Islamic countries (especially mainland Iran) as an important strategic ally. The idea of a continental Russian-Islamic alliance underlies the anti-Atlantic strategy on the southwestern coast of the Eurasian continent. At the doctrinal level, this alliance is based on the traditional character of the Russian and Islamic civilizations, which unites them in opposition to the anti-traditional, secular-pragmatic West.

"In this direction of neo-Eurasianism, the picture of all geopolitical projects in relation to the current situation is being completed to its completeness, since ideologically, strategically, politically, and positionally, the neo-Eurasian project is the most complete, consistent, complete and historically justified opposition to all varieties of Western geopolitical projects (both Atlanticist and mondialist)."

Sound familiar?

This book also explicitly calls for the destruction of the United States including through internal subversion in accordance with its geopolitical ambitions.

[Jeff Bargowski (Duceman) @Ducemin]

When you spend your time saturating what you learn in your own creative headspace long enough what you inevitably come up with is an absolute sense of truth because your feelings get intertwined with the epistemic method.

You can know for certain that you feel a certain way, and if that sense of certainty is the same space in which you develop ideas in then your conclusions >feel< factual. Your sense of what "true" is becomes tethered to what you feel should be true. Ideas built in the "feeling world" are automatically subjective, but feelings often demand catharsis, and compel action towards that catharsis - even intellectual conclusions.

In short, information is absorbed through a filter that "dyes it the color" of what you need for that catharsis before you accept and internalize it. If you spend enough time doing this then you begin to feel like a genius who understands everything because you have constructed a theory that fits everywhere (at the risk of ranting further, this is a large building block for hermetic mythology).

This is why critical theory is so dangerous and intoxicating because eventually you can't empathize with methods outside of its process - yours are too perceptive and you have "evidence."

Advocacy for objective truth is a foreign landscape because now you're convinced everyone else not participating in your method of knowledge hasn't done the psychological work necessary to see the actual issues. They seem like bad actors who want to invalidate you because their opinions aren't validating the path to catharsis.

This is the whole "right consciousness" behavior - which (and this is important) actually just means that you aren't them. That's the hidden grandiosity beneath the surface - the only objectivity is the best subjectivity, and it's theirs. If only you could feel the same way, then you'd see it.

If you get surrounded by like-minded people (those who "get it"), what occurs is a shared resentment towards any structures perceived to be outside of this "way of knowing." I.e. people who do not validate feelings with their decisions - and so can logically be labeled as cruel or corrupt; as people excluding them from full participation.

What this means is that they think their opponents are actually doing the same thing as they are - trying to validate their own emotional felt conclusions selfishly. Except, they can't see it this way because theirs doesn't have the label of "selfish," otherwise it wouldn't be able to be validated. Massive cognitive dissnance going on here tangled in the web of their critical epistemology.

They're so certain of their methods that they think it's everyone's, but that they're doing it right, because they haven't actually participated in reality enough to know that it doesn't work. And when it doesn't work, it's the fault of something else and not them. Cain and resentment of the world follows etc. etc.

So when you argue with them, you're not arguing truth or facts, you're arguing with someone who sees the world so subjectively that all information outside of that subjective lens is interpreted as destruction (which is why their identities constantly feel under threat).

For them, the world must be the color they've seen inside, and all alternative colors need to be assimilated for the sake of the species (but really just them). The drive for subjective totalism can hide behind a savior complex built in a fantasy of freedom from suffering, and so infinitely moral.

[The Vigilant Fox 🦊 @VigilantFox]

DAVE RUBIN: “Do you not want people to own private property?”

WOMAN: “I’m definitely anti-capitalist...Workers should own the means of production.”

RUBIN: “So you’re a communist?”

WOMAN: “Yeah!”

RUBIN: “I haven’t talked to a real-life communist.”

WOMAN: “What’s a communist?”

RUBIN: “Well, you want the people, you want the ‘people to own the means of production,’ and you don’t seem to believe in private property.”

WOMAN: “The people who create value, as in create the value of commodities, should own the actual value that they create from that process.”

RUBIN: “Do you work?”

WOMAN: “Yeah.”

RUBIN: “Do you pay taxes?”

WOMAN: “Yeah.”

RUBIN: “I want you to keep more of your money. Whatever you earn, I want you to have more of that money so you can put it back into the system.”

WOMAN: “The majority of wealth in this system is owned by 1% of the population. You understand that, right?”

RUBIN: “Do you know how much that 1% pays in taxes?”

WOMAN: “Not nearly enough.”

RUBIN: “It’s 47%. 1% of the population pays 47%. You accept that?”

WOMAN: “Yeah.”

RUBIN: “What would be their fair share?”

WOMAN: “Majority of these lineages of power and ownership date back to—”

RUBIN: “What would be their fair share?”

WOMAN: “You’re not letting me finish.”

RUBIN: “What would be their fair share?”

WOMAN: “Their wealth is coming from the back ends of colonialism, so it’s not gonna work!”

[Gad Saad @GadSaad]

The only thing that stops violent men from raping you and your society are other men who are equally willing to be violent in stopping the rapists. The West has decided that the highest virtue is to quietly comply with the destruction of your civilization because to do otherwise is bigoted toward the rapists. It really is that simple.

[Jeff Bargowski (Duceman) @Ducemin]

>Lived experience replaced epistemology for determining whether or not racial prejudice exists

>This means individuals get to determine the reality of events

>Only those who have lived the experience can participate in the opinion

>Victims become socially elevated and intellectual authority, non victims (or the unconscious) become second class citizens

>Non victims become dehumanized and ostracized; othered

>Original definition of racism repeats itself in new foundations/language towards non-victims

>Society behaves racist except now it's "acceptable" because they were frog boiled in a pot of their own values

>With the original definition redefined it cannot be used against the same behavior anymore, so it can't be identified as identical - illegitimate

>social engineering 🎆

[Jeff Bargowski (Duceman) @Ducemin]

@limitingpatrick I might have poorly juxtaposed cause I was referring to my like bubble being interpreted 😅

He might, but ultimately it's not on him 🤷‍♂️

[Jeff Bargowski (Duceman) @Ducemin]

"Duceman it can't be that easy to sway public opinion, it's not like it only takes one image to change the way people perceive u"

Zoomed in: Zoomed out:

[Bryan Bargowski @GosuGains]

This is critically important for everyone to understand

This claim of Woke = empathy is quite literally the perfect opposite of the truth

But it IS the aggressive sales pitch that has captured so many well-intentioned people

Woke encourages performances of empathy without boundaries or sufficient knowledge and effort to actually empathize

There is precisely ZERO empathy actually taking place, but an APPEARANCE of martyr-levels of empathy that are extremely attractive to narcissists, codependents, and the insecure (particularly nurturers without any "kin" of their own to nurture)

And therein lies the game

Woke "empathy" has nothing to do with empathizing, and everything to do with being publicly seen PERFORMING empathy on people least deserving of it - the people that:

A. Possess a perceived, ideologically aligned "oppressed" status

B. Are so apparently undeserving of empathy that to empathize with them is to effectively be seen saying, "I'm such an empath that I can empathize even with this person's struggles. Look how good a person I must be to achieve this!"

You see, to the Woke, a person least likely to be empathized with (and usually least deserving) is simply suffering from a lack of empathy! Society unfairly cast them out/oppressed them, and they are victims that need exceptionally good people (the Woke) to side with them

The Woke are their saviors!

"No one else would do it, but I see the good underneath all the oppression!"

There is a very good reason these people always flaunt their performance of empathy

If they aren't seen doing it by SOMEONE, it's usually not worth the effort of performing

This is entirely an effort in collecting the perception of virtue amongst your tribe, and/or avoiding being seen as uncaring/unempathetic by those same people (the people who don't actually understand what empathy is)

The recent highlighting of the supposed illegal immigrant mother crying after finding out she won't be allowed into the country is a PERFECT example

None of these people pretending to empathize know this person, her actual story, what she's been through, or if ANY of it is even what it appears to be on the surface

They know NONE of the things that would allow them to occupy her emotional space and actually achieve real empathy, or determine if she is even deserving of it in reality. What they "know" is that she plainly falls into the camp of oppressed victim, and that others in their tribe are seeing the same thing (surface level examination)

What they also know, but refuse to be seen acknowledging, is that there are millions of people who have suffered tremendously as a result of the enormous influx of illegal immigrants

People who are ACTUAL, VERIFIABLE victims that were truly powerless to stop what was done to them

Where is the empathy for those people?

Is it a coincidence that you will NEVER find a sufficiently Woke person even pretending to empathize with them?

Do you see the discrepancy?

Why waste time being seen performing empathy on these people? There are no social points to be gained by doing so, and they know their tribe would ruthlessly condemn them if they tried

Woke demands the perversion of empathy, and then weaponizes it

It makes a mockery of real empathy, and of those who express it

Woke has literally nothing to do with expressing genuine empathy, and everything to do with abusing it

Do not be fooled