How the fuck I stop thinking everything in terms of hierarchies...

How the fuck I stop thinking everything in terms of hierarchies? I don't know is it because of the meme professor JBP or even some traditionalist authors who talk of the caste system in terms of Brahmins at the top (which is not the current situation). Everywhere I go these days.

I've become a conformist piece of shit who thinks within context pyramids within pyramids, then on some days when I read of guys like Jeffrey Epstein it is all about upside-down fucking triangles fucking shadow pyramid loving cocksuckers on top of the apparent hierarchy pyramids.

Last day I had some business visitation with my class to some government official building and all I could think of the ceo is that he is a fucking conformist rapist murderer. Moments ago I just watched some pedestrian on the street and wondered why won't he go buy some fucking gasoline or groceries you fucking pawn.

Attached: C3TZR1g81UNaPs7vzNXHueW5ZM76DSHWEY7onmfLxcK2iNqCoQ4NMxJBPsHV2Cngs2gjH3qTBdTtj5JJW3NDjoDodXmJ3cHcM9kt (640x640, 176K)

This is your brain on capitalism

You mean social darwinism

Begin germinating distinct thought-patterns in a methodically rhizomatic form. Chaining, interlinking, weaving and understanding in a coherent tapestry of interdisciplinary tubercular shapes. Think organic and terrestial-emergent, not deluge-like and schematic

Same thing, capitalism promotes comparison between people and things
Just be one with the universe, bruh

Does reading D&G actually help with this bc if so I'd like to try it out. If you're just meming that's fine too though.

So what. Hierarchies exist.
If you're still in college, you should wait until you get a job. Then you'll see the hierarchy applied.

If I was a gambling man I would put money on it, to be honest I just got into DG and I am still trying to decrypt most of it, I originally started reading them because I wanted to understand what the fuck Nick Land was on about. Then I got hooked on DG and forgot about ACC.

Explain then how the survivability of different social traits vary from historic periods then please wise social darwinist :-)

First of all you should know that there isn't A hierarchy, there's multiple hierarchies even within hierarchies. You should also know that you don't have to be at the top of the hierarchy to have a good, fulfilling life. Being at the top 1% is nothing but a sign of power, not a sign of personal happiness or morality.
A lot of people dream of being at the top of the hierarchy, but that comes mostly from a place of insecurity, jealousy and fear. They also completely ignore the large number of personal sacrifices that most (but obviously not all) people at the top have to suffer to get there, how hard it is to stay at the top and how, even at the top, there's another hierarchy. It's a constant competition, one that very often ruins a person.
Hierarchies are an universal and natural constant, but you should avoid seeing the top as somehere you must be at, as well as avoid seeing the rest of the hierarchy as people being oppressed by those on top. In the end, everyone's at where they're supposed to be at that point in time, either by merit, luck, deceit and/or personal preference.

Well posted

This man knows about human existence.

And this also speaks to insatiable will. If we cannot teach ourselves to desire less, life will eventually be one long journey towards a destination that does not exist, because at each progressive step, the staircase will grow by three.

Reminds of an article that stated how when asked if they felt rich, only a small percent of millionaires said yes. The other’s didn't consider themselves well off.

Read Bookchin

You don't. Power relations is an essential component of all societies.

Say something that is not vague

Word, thank you

Leftists just create inverse hierarchies based theoretically, on who is most 'victimised' or in practice of who can amass more discursive tokens of righteous transgression.

I have come to see some hierarchies are neccesary and that elites should use their power to promote the common interest and a rational humanistic vision of virtue the good. Leftists dont represent the people, they are narcissistic educated middle class elites who have abjured their responsibility.

Neo-thomist integralism> atomising, de facto managerial neoliberal status quo exploitating post marxist discourse for radical cred

Attached: images.jpeg-3.jpg (528x581, 53K)

>how do I stop viewing the world as it really is?
this is what you sound like. All you need to do is realise that hierarchies aren't exactly pyramids. There's is a top, but the rest is a convoluted mess. You can be the bottom at your day job but king in the streets, for example.

It is important to learn how to still desire something. The history of humanity, both as a group as well as a collective of individuals, is based on a constant search for betterment. To have the will is to have the burning flame of being. One should be careful to neither have this flame snuffed out nor to have one be consumed entirely by it. A being without flame is automaton, and a flame without being is conflagration.

stop being western.

which is associated with this :

Leftists ironically cannot conceive of the other, the other to them can only be a reflection of themselves, like Rousseau's noble savages. They assume all non western cultures must share their self expressive consumer values to a T and their enthusiamsm for child drag queens disney and starbucks lattes and if they don't they must have been somehow corrupted by le evil west. When really leftists are the ultimate product of western decadence

This idea that the left fails to develop any kind of authentic understanding of the other I think is a very good point not heard often enough. It's part of what drew me more towards isolationist and nationalist foreign policy even though I'm basically a socialist wrt economic issues.

Even when I thought of going full tankie the whole idea of internationalism kept me from doing it. Even beyond what that would entail in terms of relaxation of values it's just logistically fucking infeasible with the linguistic and cultural orthogonalities that will exist between most people. The internet and general information culture only makes the whole set up more complicated and fragmented, more "rhizomatic".

I'm stating an obvious thing that a lot of people have already said but desu any kind of meaningful and healthy social order can only exist in relatively small or homogeneous environments.

Ironically egalitarianism lowered expectations for those at the top.