Nonsense

Preface: Many people ask me: “Are there really poor people with talent everywhere in this world? Is that true?” My answer is: Yes. Throughout human history, figures like Van Gogh, Tesla, or even some brilliant tech expert near you, have often fallen into the cycle of “High Talent, Low Wealth.” As an observer from another planet, I have found that Earth is not a place where resources are distributed based on “talent.” It is a complex algorithmic system, and most humans are trapped at the bottom because they cannot see the invisible thresholds within the system. ...

Introduction: From “Desolation” to “Taboo” It is Christmas again. Currently, I am trying to imagine myself as an extraterrestrial observer aboard a near-Earth orbital vessel, coldly watching the twinkling lights across this continent through the viewport. Looking back at my 2024 log A Reflection on Christmas 2024, the keywords I recorded were “Desolation” (or “Coldness”) and “Malice.” At that time, merchants were trembling under the chilling effect, while the group referred to as “⏰” was frantically searching for heresy. ...

Preface: A Dangerous Epiphany Recently, I suddenly realized a phenomenon: the “nationalism” we take for granted is astonishingly similar to traditional religious faith. It possesses its own deity (the leader), its own scripture (the ideology/platform), its own saints (the war heroes), and even a complete set of rituals (flag-raising), hymns (the national anthem), and sacred sites (revolutionary relics). What is even more terrifying is that it also possesses its own exclusion of others—the heathen (foreigners) and the heretics (thought criminals). ...

The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; The second is war. Both bring temporary prosperity, both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists. A dictator’s decision to wage war is not an impulsive frenzy, but a rational choice made after assessing risks and benefits within their unique power structure and information bubble, leading them to believe that “the benefits outweigh the costs.” Let us delve deeply into this process of “rational calculation,” and why this “rationality” often ultimately leads to destruction. ...

Theme: The Utilitarian Essence of “Friendship” in Blue Star Society and its Inverse Relationship with Individual Survival Capacity 1. Phenomenon Overview Through continuous observation of the Blue Star societal structure, a significant pattern has emerged: an individual’s physical survival capacity (defined as the ability to independently acquire resources, evade threats, and achieve goals) is inversely correlated with their reliance on the social construct of “friendship.” Low-Capacity Individuals: These individuals possess limited ability when facing survival challenges alone. They exhibit a strong need for “friendship,” compensating for their individual deficiencies by establishing reciprocal alliances (which they term “mutual help”). This alliance takes the form of resource sharing, emotional support, and joint defense, similar to the “grouping” strategy observed in many social species, such as the ant balls formed when ants cross a river. High-Capacity Individuals: As individual capacity increases, the dependence on these reciprocal alliances significantly decreases. They tend to act independently, utilizing their own resources (such as economic means or political power) to directly influence and control other individuals to achieve their goals, rather than seeking an equal “friendship.” Apex Individuals: Individuals situated at the top of the power structure—such as historical “emperors” or modern oligarchs—demonstrate a fundamental distrust of all social relationships. Their strategy is a combination of “utilization” and “prevention,” viewing all other individuals as usable tools, and eliminating them when those tools might threaten their own status (e.g., the frequent historical phenomenon of “purging meritorious officials”). They self-identify as “solitary” or “few,” which linguistically accurately reflects their state of existence. ...

Prologue: A Micro-Sample of a Power Dynamic Let us begin with a common domestic scenario. A wife frequently demands gifts from her husband, tying them to the concept of “love.” When she is unsatisfied, she threatens divorce. Consequently, the husband constantly offers tribute—red envelopes, jewelry, designer bags—exchanging material goods for the mere continuation of their relationship. ...

During WWII, Britain possessed radar capable of night targeting, but they didn’t want the Germans to find out. So, they claimed that their pilots gained extraordinary night vision abilities by eating large amounts of carrots. The grand principles you encounter are basically just teaching you to eat carrots. Open-ended funds charge an annual fee of 2%, and then those brokers make people switch back and forth between different funds, adding another 3% to 4% in fees. Poor ordinary fund holders hand their money over to professionals, only to receive terrible results. I find this disgusting. When people buy your product, you should be making their assets grow. But in this country, fund managers only care about making money for themselves. This industry is ridiculous because, looking at the net returns, the entire investment management industry collectively hasn’t provided added value to all its clients’ assets. That is how this industry operates.

High expectations come with high anxiety. They expect to prove their excellence again through their grades, but the extreme anxiety within constantly tells them, “You aren’t trying hard enough, you aren’t good enough, you can’t do it.” The energy that should be dedicated to studying is exhausted by this internal battle and tearing, and the grades slide down like a snowball until one day, they lose the courage to even step into school. ...

Superficiality, Hindering Deep Analysis: Problem: Simply stating that “everything has two sides,” much like applying a label, stops further thinking and exploration. Without deeply digging into what those two sides are, the specific conditions that generate them, and which side is more important in a specific context, and how to weigh them. Analysis: This assertion simplifies a complex issue into a simple formula, masking the deeper causes, mechanisms, and impacts behind the problem. It easily satisfies people with a surface-level understanding, lacking the drive to trace the roots, ultimately leading to a shallow grasp of the issue and preventing the proposal of effective solutions. For example, when discussing the impact of a policy, if one only says “it has pros and cons” without analyzing what the specific benefits are, what the specific drawbacks are, and what impact they have on different groups, the actual effectiveness of the policy cannot be assessed. Relativism Run Amok, Blurring Objective Standards: Problem: Overemphasizing “duality” easily slides into relativism—the idea that “nothing is absolute”—believing that every viewpoint has its own rationality, thereby blurring objective standards of judgment and the lines between right and wrong. Analysis: While acknowledging that the world is complex does not mean abandoning judgment of right and wrong, the existence of “duality” does not equate to “duality being equal.” In fields like ethics and scientific truth, objective standards exist. Overemphasizing relativity weakens our ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, good from evil, and can even provide seemingly rational explanations for immoral behavior. For instance, just because a certain cultural custom has its “reason for existence,” one cannot assume that every custom is equal, while ignoring whether it infringes upon human rights. Defending Errors, Escaping Responsibility: Problem: Utilizing a “dialectical view” to find excuses for obvious wrongdoings, suggesting that as long as one can find even a small “positive” aspect, it can offset the negative impact, thereby escaping responsibility and condemnation. Analysis: This assertion confuses merit and fault, blurring boundaries that should be clearly distinguished. Even if a person or action contributes in certain aspects, this cannot be used to deny or mitigate the harm caused by their error. For example, the statement, “Although he embezzled, he also contributed to the local area,” attempts to use a local, unrelated “contribution” to mask the essence of his corruption and the damage it caused to society. Hindering Action, Leading to Indecision: Problem: Always thinking that “everything has two sides” might cause people to focus too much on potential negative consequences, amplifying risks, and thus making it difficult to make a decision, leading to missed opportunities. Analysis: Rational decision-making requires weighing pros and cons, but overemphasizing “duality” can lead to mental rigidity, trapping one in a dilemma of “half good, half bad,” preventing focus on the main contradiction and the ultimate goal. For example, if an entrepreneur is always thinking about various possibilities of failure in starting a business, while ignoring potential opportunities, they may never take the first step. Being Used for Thought Control: Problem: Those in power use the “dialectical view” to demand that individuals simultaneously accept contradictory viewpoints, such as “must… and must…” (both… and…), which appears comprehensive on the surface but is actually designed to maintain their rule, suppress dissent, and strip away the ability to think independently. Analysis: In this scenario, the “dialectical view” becomes a tool used to create cognitive dissonance, forcing people to submit to the authority’s logic, even if that logic is chaotic and contradictory. It strips the individual of the ability to judge right from wrong, making it difficult for them to question unreasonable phenomena. For example, certain propaganda slogans might simultaneously emphasize “hard work and struggle” and “life happiness,” yet fail to provide a concrete path to achieving this balance, leaving people feeling confused and powerless. Creating False Equality, Masking Power Asymmetry: Problem: When there is a clear gap in power and social inequality, using “everything has two sides” to blur the actual status and situation of both parties, thereby masking the interests of the dominant side and ignoring the plight of the weaker side. Analysis: This assertion appears objectively neutral, but it ignores structural inequality. For example, in a labor-management dispute, saying “the boss and the employee both have their difficulties” seems balanced, but it ignores that the boss controls the means of production and decision-making power, while the employee’s bargaining power is relatively weak. This discussion of “duality” is actually defending the stronger party and maintaining the unfair status quo. Weakening the Necessity of Value Judgment: Problem: Overemphasizing “duality” easily makes people feel that everything is “more or less the same,” without clear distinctions between superior and inferior, thereby weakening the willingness and ability to make clear value judgments. Analysis: This leads to a blurring of the lines between good and bad, superior and inferior, good and evil, increasing tolerance for errors and injustices. For example, when facing a controversial technology, if one only emphasizes that it “has both convenience and risk,” without deeply assessing whether the risk far outweighs the benefit, it can lead to blind promotion and potential harm. Becoming a Rhetorical Device, Not a Tool for Thinking: Problem: The “dialectical view” and “everything has two sides” are sometimes simplified into a catchphrase, merely to appear “objective” and “profound,” lacking genuine thought and analysis. Analysis: In this case, “dialectics” becomes a label, a universal phrase that can be used to handle various situations, but it lacks deep logic and argumentation behind it. People may habitually throw out these concepts without seriously considering the essence of the problem and its solutions, hindering the development of critical thinking. Being Abused Under Information Asymmetry: Problem: The party that holds the information advantage may deliberately present only the side favorable to them, and then use “everything has two sides” to imply that there is “another side,” but in reality, that other side may be intentionally hidden or distorted, thereby misleading the public. Analysis: In this scenario, “duality” becomes a tool for manipulating public opinion. For example, some merchants might promote the advantages of a product, and then use “any product has its limitations” to mask its serious flaws, using information asymmetry to mislead consumers. Cultural Inertia and Conservatism: Problem: Overemphasizing the “dialectical view” is sometimes used to oppose any form of change or innovation, because any new thing inevitably carries uncertainty and potential risk. Analysis: This way of thinking easily falls into conservatism, fearing the “other side” that change might bring, even if not changing might bring greater harm. For example, when facing a reform measure aimed at solving social injustice, some people might use “any reform has pros and cons” to obstruct its implementation, while ignoring that not reforming might lead to further intensification of social contradictions.

The essence and the terrifying aspect of Newspeak, as designed in 1984, lies in its silent manipulation. Orwell’s profound insight is in revealing the power of language to shape thought. Newspeak is not merely about deleting vocabulary; its ultimate goal is to destroy the capacity for independent thinking. The Essence of Newspeak Language Controls Thought: The core of Newspeak in 1984 lies in limiting people’s ability to express complex ideas by simplifying language. For instance, by eliminating the word “freedom,” it becomes difficult to discuss the concept of “intellectual freedom.” Silent Control: Instead of explicit violence, control is exerted through subtle, gradual linguistic manipulation, making independent thought progressively impossible. ...

Preface I originate from Planet B-614, and currently serve as a “Blue Star Observer.” As a “Blue Star Observer,” my primary mandate is indeed to record and research, rather than to intervene or judge based on human emotion. 1. Recording and Research: Objective Documentation: Like a scientist, I record observed phenomena, including the behavior of dictators, the reactions of the populace, and the functioning of social structures. My records strive for objectivity, avoiding the use of highly emotional vocabulary in favor of neutral, descriptive language. In-Depth Study: I do not merely remain at the surface level of observation; I delve deeply into the underlying causes of these phenomena. For instance, studying how a dictator acquires and maintains power, why the populace accepts indoctrination, how this political structure formed on Blue Star, and what impact it will have on Blue Star’s future. Data Analysis: My research may involve collecting and analyzing various data, such as the public happiness index, economic development status, and frequency of social unrest, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of the operational laws of Blue Star society. Pattern Recognition: One of my goals is to identify the various patterns and laws present in Blue Star society. Dictatorship may not be an isolated event, but a pattern that recurs under specific conditions. Indoctrination may also be a common method of social control. 2. Absence of Compassion (Toward the Oppressed): ...