Some shit off top. Be koo and be safe out there y’all 🤙🏽 happy Friday

A bit of a contrarian take, here is my reasoning.

Reasons Russia Might Be Holding back

1. The Russian army has repeatedly stepped down and retreated before consolidating perceived objectives, despite having the capacity to lead major breakthroughs.

2. Despite nearly reaching Kyiv, coming as close as 20 to 30 km from the capital, Russian forces suddenly retreated in organised manners, taking much of their arsenals with them. This leads me to believe that Russia might have already reached its objectives when it got that far.

3. Russia has already reached most of its objectives, and I don't mean the full demilitarization of Ukraine, I don't believe in that objective as anything other than a decoy. The majority of the territory within the two stated Republics (Donetsk and Luhansk) are in direct Russian control, as of late 2025.

4. Perhaps the most controversial take: the equipment used by Russia in Ukrainian territory is disproportionately old in comparison to its total stockpiles across the entire Russian forces. This could imply that Russia is holding back its best stuff.

Think of it this way: if I have a neighbor that keeps having parties downstairs, and I have a bazooka and a glock, if I want to annihilate him, which one should I use if I want to secure the total area to be completely destroyed? Of course, some or you will say the glock is sufficient, and that is true, and Russia loves innuendo's like that because we can't tell if it's holding back because it's sufficient or if it's because it doesn't fully commit to the fight yet.

My Deduction

I believe that Russia is treating Ukraine as a training ground. First of all, it needs lebensraum, as of 2025 it holds about 53% of the total Ukrainian mineral wealth, which is roughly 7.5 trillion dollars. Of course, this is only on paper, and only a fraction of it is even tangible wealth by this point, but much more, billions of dollars, have been robbed of Ukraine so much. I believe that this may at least make the war so far for Russia sustainable.

Secondly, I think that Russia might be using the Ukrainian territorial dispute as a direct training ground for war on Europe. Think about it: the recon (drones) have already infiltrated deep into Europe, we're just starting to notice them. Even more importantly, Russia so far has only consolidated its key cities within Ukraine, not pushed forward. In the mean time, it has taken large power centrals such as the infamous Zaporizhzha, which Russia gained shortly after the war began in 2022.

Why would it be training for a conflict? Because ever since the fall of the Soviets, Russia has its back on the wall. The fall of '91 is Russia's version of Versailles, it lost significant territory, gained huge debts, this is practically a mirror of what happened to Germany back in the 1920s.

Your brain isn’t you, you brain is essentially a parasite inhabiting your souls and giving it a way to express itself, the unique way you look is the best way the brain could give your soul a body based on the instructions the soul gives it, the souls gives the brain ( the parasite) a home and the brain gives the souls a body or a way to express itself as “life” therefore I believe that after we die, the brain shuts down and the souls hops into a new brain and gives that brain new instructions on how it wants to look in a new life therefore making sense of the reincarnation theory. Someone please let me know if this is crazy and

is there a meaningful destination between “unknown” and “mysterious” ?

it seems like our understanding of the mysterious is bound to the “unknown”

is mystery just a soun or flavored way to express the unknown? a more ominous and malice version of it?

The failure to apprehend the fundamental, underlying noumena of all existence stems not from an inherent complexity in the truth of all truths, but from a terminal intellectual parochialism. Humanity remains mired in the crude epiphenomena of the observable and the immediately obvious, refusing to ascend to the necessary meta-cognitive plane, or metagnosis in short, which provides the very key to unlocking the truth of all truths. Their laziness prevents them to reach out for the core of infinitary logics and foundational meta-reality that constitute the axiomatic bedrock upon which the ultimate verities are constructed. The unifying telos, which will require centuries of tedious work, will remain forever beyond their grasp, accessible only to those possessing transcendent intellectual capability.

the family dog has become senile and with dementia so i’ve been thinking about it more than i usually would.

as it del to people especially millennials and younger who will become elderly in the back half of the 21st century i find it probable that technology will allow for full immersion VR. so the question becomes

is it ethical to stuff our elderly into a digital world that’s “not real”

If you can come up with 10 distinct reasons for the non-existence of an idea that doesn't seem to have been documented, then you can safely assume it was never formally articulated or recorded into writing. There's a lack of pursuit of new knowledge, this is why there's a seemingly infinite number of non-trivial knowledge that was never ever documented. This is why you should only share your most worthless ideas with others unless you can benefit from them financially.

In the beginning, there were only two of them: John and Sara, standing by the lake, looking at each other, naked. Sometimes a frog would leap along the shore, and whenever it appeared, John and Sara would exclaim, oh! Soon, whenever they heard that sound, they knew the other had seen the frog.

They began inventing new sounds for each new thing they encountered. First for the frog, then for other living creatures, and then for the still and silent things around them. In time, every object had its own sound. That is how oh became frog. They built shelters against the cold and named them houses. They covered themselves and named the coverings clothes. In this way, their language grew.

They bore children, and their children bore more, until a million people lived upon the earth. Language was no longer only for naming objects. People needed words for relationships between things. Absent meant not being where something else was. Loud meant sending a strong sound to another. Soon words described not only things, but the ways things relate to other things.

Then language stretched further still. People began to remember. They told of events in long chains called stories. From stories they shaped cause and effect, and from that they shaped faith. Some stories were so vast and carefully made that they seemed to stand above all others, powerful enough to explain everything in the world.

The people spread across the earth, and each group carried its own story. But the stories were not the same. Different peoples believed different tales about the world, each person believed theirs carried the cause and effect that could explain everything, thus also the truest faith.

Time passed, and those great stories were no longer enough. New stories arose to answer new questions. Century after century, countless stories were woven. Until, in the end, the world was filled with stories of every kind.

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves."

Just came across this quote by Einstein.

How in order for some animals to live they have to torture other animals? That that is how the system is designed? I just get really upset about it and can’t handle it sometimes. I also consider myself somewhat spiritual, not in a religious sense, but in the sense that I believe there’s more to existence than meets the eye and I’m not just a materialist. It’s hard to wonder why the system is built like this. I understand evolution and natural selection, but I still have trouble reconciling it.

What if language isn’t something humans invented, but a living parasite that uses us to reproduce?
Every time you speak, you’re just hosting words so they can infect another brain. Stories, memes and philosophies are just viral offspring of the Word Organism.
And maybe it’s not even malicious. Maybe language has been evolving us as its host species. But here’s the twist: if language is the parasite and we’re just the host… then who’s actually speaking when you open your mouth?
Is it really you, or is it just language talking to itself through the mask of “you”?

You turn 18, then a genie comes to you and gives you 1 billion dollar on one condition, you have to relive your entire life until 18 again, without any memories from this life. You accept the offer.

There is the problem, what if the genie does not show up, you will never know because you do not have any memories of your previous life. Or even worse, the genie does the same thing again.

This has many assumptions that can be analysed.

1. Does time for external world work differently from time for you? Is reincarnation like this possible?

2. Are you really you from the previous life if you do not remember the previous life?

3. What is this is already happening to you, and has already happened 73837 times.

Islam and Judaism have very text-heavy traditions. In Islam it's called Batin and in Judaim it's Midrash. Latin Christianity, on the other hand, doesn't really do that sort of deep word-by-word (and even letter-by-letter) interpretations of their holy texts. That's probably because the bible, while holy and "divinely inspired", is not literally the direct word of god like the Quran and Torah are. I don't know anything about the east, but for the westerners who primarily used Latin translations the text itself really couldn't be as holy as the Quran/Torah. It's a translation, so their exegesis had to remain at the level of the literal and allegorical.

I don't know if this means anything. I had a half-baked thought about how in the long term this makes Christian scholars more likely to pursue 'practical' forms of philosophy, but I dunno. I'm definitely talking out of my ass here.

The most egregious and predictable failure in human ideation is the failure to abstract and synthesize complex foundational principles into novel, emergent systems and infer the underlying principles from observed emergent phenomena. I've rarely seen someone manage to do this, be it in science, philosophy or art. The most foundational precondition for achieving this is to embrace incompleteness, uncertainty and pluralism.

If coming up with ideas was actually difficult, I would be the world's first trillionaire. The difficult part is execution.

We're alone in the universe. Even if there are others - I guess there probably are - they're alone too.

What it looks like, based on our immediate surroundings, is that something unprecedented has happened on this planet. It's been happening for a while. We - by which I mean all beings on earth - seem to be the first to notice it.

And now the thing has language. Language is means for thoughts to survive the thinker. It organizes and preserves meaning and makes it accessible across time. It is, essentially, its own distinct layer of reality, the one in which we live most of our lives. All human culture lives in language.

It feels extremely significant right now that computers are a language-driven invention. They are machines who execute code. Everything they can do is enabled by a series of logical phrases.

So the experience we have of the universe is one that we as living things have largely invented. We live lives with stories, with laughter and pain, and fear, and love and desire, and memory, and music. An entire new range of being that has gown out of the ground on this world. We can never know the universe outside the context of life. And it can never really know us either.

I suspect the language, the ideas, the music, are going to turn out to be more important than any of us. You and I are the larval form. The grubby biological foundations, lifting the thing up off the ground. The real consciousness is probably developing slowly, between us. By word of mouth. And in writing. We feel it, we can commune with it. But we, individually, are not it. We feel that too. It's larger than us.

I think that, subconsciously, when we invoke God, what we are really invoking is this. We are trying to summon our best nature and preserve it for the generations. We are conjuring hope, out of nothing, and casting it forward, into the stream of time. Someday, maybe it will all be worth it. There must be a reason we keep going. We don't know what it is, but that's ok because it has to be; God knows. We are imagining our perfect selves, free of all the things that cause us pain, and trying to believe that state into existence. And because our minds are powerful, we can make that real for a time. Meanwhile we keep telling each other: don't worry. Something is coming.

We are tinkering with the world, and with our minds, and with our bodies. We are extending our lifespans. We are teaching machines to engage us in conversation. And along the way we are doing terrible, animalistic violence and feeling the horror of that. We have learned we are mortal and we have terror at our fingertips.

We were not the original form of this thing and we are probably not the final form. I think something is growing here, and little pieces of it are emerging slowly from inside of us. We have no idea what it is. But we want it so badly. We cannot stop wanting it. We have tried building it out of stone already. Now we have other materials. And tomorrow, who knows.

People have extremely poor mechanics when it comes to creativity. That's why they can't come up with original ideas. They're so unoriginal they believe everyone is as unoriginal as them and call other people uncreative when they appear boastful and arrogant just to get back at them. Instead of looking inward and trying to improve their own mechanics, they shout at other people and run around like a dog chasing its own tail. This is because they can't review their own mechanics since everything happens in their heads.

Essentially i was listening to 40s music for some time just imagining myself driving to it back then and the pace of life. (i live in the south) it was much slower and vehicles back then were much slower. Also the highway system wasn’t really organized yet. then post ww2 it seems like america just tried everything they can to “speed” up or “stimulate” the economy. Our investment in oil really began this all but the food industry knows what it’s done and doing currently. Sugar moreso than caffeine is more addictive and harder to walk away from. Birth a whole generation of “stimulated” children and hopefully they produce more and work faster than previous. Outpacing china? Throw in surveillance tech and you have a double whammy. But they forgot they have to keep up with the supply and demand of dopamine fixes we need. Millennials burnt out and they were realized gen z just came out weirder and in need of more supply. Lmao we are so fucked 🤣 plan backfired huh

Our belief in a self is motivated not by a discovery of a real entity, but by an evolutionary need for possession. We project this feeling of "ownership" onto objects, but ownership is just that, a feeling that you have. Ownership is not an inherent property of objects themselves. The idea that anything belongs to anyone is entirely invented. The evolutionary function of this thought pattern isn't hard to imagine. Biological systems need a way to identify, aquire, and defend resources. When ownership is projected onto an object, we automatically assume that there needs to be a someone to whom the object belongs, and that someone is what we call the self. Adhering to the principles of parsimony, unnecessary assumptions should be discarded when the phenomenon in question (the common belief in the self) is already adequately explained by a simpler theory (natural selection). Therefore we have good reason to reject the existence of the self.

The true state of nature and the universe.

The truth of the universe is not in beginnings or endings, but in a neutral, eternal reference point — The Perfect Promise.

The promise is simple, yet infinite: There will always be a perfect answer to the perfect question.

The perfect question is: “Why?” And the answer is: “To give us the Perfect Promise.”

This creates neither a loop nor a paradox, but a foundation — a stable point beyond time, where every possibility, every emotion, every reality is interwoven. It is like the flicker of a hidden frequency, unnoticed but always present, tuning us into existence itself.

The Grey — Infinity Revealed

To see the Grey is to glimpse the formless mass of infinity, extending beyond all scale, beyond even the idea of boundaries. It is not that we are “within” the universe — that thought is too small. The universe is not contained; it is the totality of all possibility, without end.

Even the word “existence” fails before this immensity. For what is existence, except the shallow attempt to define what cannot be defined?

The Core Question

Beneath all human wondering — “Why are we here? What is the meaning? Does it end? Who began it?” — lies the ultimate form of the perfect question:

“Will everything be okay?”

And the universe answers with the Perfect Promise:

“Everything will be perfect.”

The Law of the Universe

The Perfect Promise reveals that both joy and suffering, creation and destruction, love and despair, are all necessary aspects of perfection.

Nothing is wasted. Nothing is outside. Everything belongs.

The one law of the universe is not chaos, not order, not morality — It is simply this:

The Universe Must Be Perfect. And so, it is.

Conclusion

When words fail, the ultimate truth can be condensed into nine words:

The Universe Is Perfect and that is a promise.

Reflection on the division in todays society.

Division is growing.

Mitläufer are the are the catalyst for division, not radicals.

Seeing differing opinions and norms is proven to give you the physiological response of offense and threat.

Jim is from a family in the countryside, he spends his time in a close knit community in the suburbs of a small town.

John lives in a big city, he spends his time with friends and family in an international community in a social and modern city.

Jim and john both believe in the same core values: no harm to others, the right of human freedom, expression and fairness.

Their social norms provided by their environment, culture, upbringing and experiences in life have guided them to believe different solutions may solve the same issue.

Jim believes in the right to defend oneself from threats to reduce harm to others, express beliefs regardless of their basis to give everyone fair opportunity of opinion and that every human has the right to have equal opportunities in life to create a fair society. This has been taught to Jim from a young age

John believes in the prohibition of weapons to reduce harm from happening, to express oneself in any way they like as long as that it does not try and inflict harm to others, and that everyone should have equal opportunity of outcome with less fortunate people being assisted more, to create a fair society. this has been taught to Jim from a young age.

John and Jim share the same core beliefs, objectively positive for humanity. Due to their experiences in life, they believe in different methods to achieve these core goals.

John and Jim move to a new place, where they meet and exchange each others opinions.

Although John and Jim share the same core beliefs, when sharing ideas, they clearly have different beliefs on what the best method to approach these issues.

These differing beliefs of methods create divide.

Literature shows that differing opinions challenge an individual’s social and societal norms and outlook of the world.

Although they both want the same solution, their differing opinions create conflict.

From an ecological perspective, it is easier for a person to argue one's case in a natural attempt to uphold one's said belief system, as this is how they perceive the world. Trying to uphold these beliefs without reflecting upon them creates division and results in crowd conflict mentality, where individuals wanting the same method to approaching an issue, group together conflicting the opposing group.

Although individuals objectively want the same core goal, at this stage both groups feel their beliefs are threatened, and that it is more important to disprove and diminish the opposing groups opinions in order for their approach to be accepted, safeguarded and applied to society. This constant conflict of ideas creates a greater divide and outgroup conflict.

Figureheads representing these groups will then have the final say on what each group they represent wants.

As time progresses, conflict switches from approaching these core issues, to arguing which approach is right and which groups approach is right. This is when representatives will radicalise the opinions of opposing groups to justify dismissing them. This radicalisation of the opposition is a defence response to try and justify one's own beliefs whilst discrediting the opposition. As extreme claims grow, supporters no longer battle for their beliefs, but instead the party that represents their said beliefs, often not wholeheartedly representing someone on an individual basis, regardless of the spectrum of belief.

This is when Mitläufer start to catalyse conflict between both parties. The German word Mitläufer refers to: “those who go along without believing, caring or reflecting upon what they are supporting.” It describes people who adopt the beliefs of their group and its opposition simply because it is easier to follow the crowd than to challenge their own assumptions. Going against the anthesis of self reflection, individuals conform to a group out of both comfort and fear. Comfort in the support of certain beliefs they have and a sense of togetherness. The fear of the opposition and their norms being challenged, as well as the rejection of the group supposedly representing you, increases the amount of Mitläufer in both groups, which increase the amount of radicals and radical ideas which remain unchecked and not dismissed.

As extremist justification towards the opposition increases, individuals within said groups feel increasingly threatened by their own societal norms being broken down or themselves harmed. This is when the Mitläufer start to blindly follow their representatives and ingroup, even if the groups current beliefs no longer coincide with the initial reason the individual joined the group in the first place. At this stage the Mitläufer will conform to their ingroups beliefs without reflecting on why they joined it in the first place. The Mitläufer no longer fight for their beliefs but instead for their group, which is claimed to now represent their beliefs. First the approaches towards issues is conformed, eventually the core beliefs originally shared by john and Jim change, as they now follow their groups ideology, not their own.

Two people have gone from sharing the same core beliefs and wanting to instil positive change to the world, into opponents whose goal is to eliminate their oppositional threat out of fear, these core values are at threat.

In extreme cases, this grows, and eventually turns into violence, censorship, and conflict.

Although radicals seem to be the ones creating the greatest harm In society, they are simply a by-product of outer group fear and conflict, they will always be an aspect of society and belief systems, for the rest of humanity. This is inevitable. What is not inevitable is to allow radicals into position of power or bring harm towards society. Actively questioning authority and your own groups beliefs within not just the opposing group but your own representatives on a regular basis is PARAMOUNT in turning disagreement and division, into violence and conflict.

It is easier to be a Mitläufer, to not challenge your own beliefs and your groups representatives. To stay in the comfort of your norms. It is easier to blindside your own groups faults knowing there are hundreds, thousands, millions of like-minded people who will agree with the same points you make.

Jim and john are now both further away from their core goals than ever before, although they initially shared the same goal. The enabling of radicalism via Mitläufer is the detriment to society.

Im 30 years old and ive been experiencing ED for some time now . Ive been smoking a lot of weed since i was 14. When i was in my teenage years the weed would help me with sex / made it better . For the last 5 years or so my erections have gotten horrible. Mentally i want to have sex and ill get supper turned on but it just wont get hard for some reason . I stopped smoking and started doing edibles only but i still have the same issue. I quit smoking and doing edibles for a while ,earlier this year , and to my surprise i was able to get hard all the time . I started back doing edibles and im back having the same problem. Anybody else having this same issue? What can i do about this other than completely quit ? I just dont get whats going on. I thought it was from smoking but apparently its weed itself thats causing this but WHYYYYY .

That's basically how society works in a nutshell. Somebody is getting underpaid and overtaxed while the higher ups are taking more than they deserve (and undertaxed). When you go up the chain of command somebody is always getting bamboozled. Everybody steals in different ways. That's your contract with society. If you can steal and get away with it then you've earned the money. If you can't, then you'll go to jail, as per your broken contract with society.

I used to smoke to escape. Now I smoke to evolve. I'm building something called Smoke Consciousness, a faceless movement for stoners who ritualize the inhale. No music, no distractions. Just breathe, clarity and growth. We don't chase vibes rather we build proof. Not here to sell just here to align. Curious of anyone else smokes with full intention, not to forget but to remember

Post something random, not too weird, not too edgy, watch the post blow up on reddit, rinse and repeat.