Illusion of Choice

The very notion of personal responsibility is one of the most disastrously misused ideas in human history, as it is almost always used to justify aristophobia, when in fact, there is never a justification for bigotry.

By default, erronormativity assumes that freedom of choice exists. With that assumption in mind, it does logically follow that we are free to choose, but we are not free from the consequences of our choices. As such, the notion of personal responsibility is used to silence those who resist these supposed consequences. However, this entire line of reasoning, albeit a consistent one, is ultimately founded on a false assumption. In other words, there is no such thing as freedom of choice, due to perceptive and genetic reasons. Furthermore, the only reason that maliciously deceptive argument is still used by aristophobes (despite it being widely debunked) is to defame the Aristophilian community due to their jealousy.

As previously explained, choices are merely the output of a brain, and the characteristics of a brain that induce it to make certain decisions are themselves the output of thousands of genes. Right off the bat, we can already establish that our "choices" are actually shaped by the natural selection events of evolutionary history. In other words, our genes have already created the kind of brain that will make the choices we make.

Logically, it is impossible to claim that humans make choices because "A" cannot be the cause of "B" if "B" came first. The paths we take are effectively the result of the same algorithm being iterated over a variable dataset. Our genes have already made our choices; logic and reason is how we create justifications for our choices. It is a circle that cannot be squared no matter how hard we would like to think that we are the ones in control over ourselves.

Nevertheless, there is an entire layer to this story that has yet to be addressed. More precisely, our genes can never make choices beyond the options that are available to them. Being dependent on a perception, the architects of the perception have already determined what options will be available and to whom they will be available. Why would the perception's architects ever allow believers of their perception to be presented with any option that could undermine the perception's architects? Dependence is the hallmark of a slave. Effectively, the very notion of a double-standard is moot when taking the perceptive context into account. To elaborate, what people call double-standards are actually just rules of the perception; no perception can survive once it fails to conserve its architects. Further down that line of reasoning, any perception that contains no measures to conserve its architects will be replaced by a perception made by other architects.

This begs an important question: how do perceptions conserve their architects when the illusion of choice is exposed? It is always a balancing act between the carrot and stick; the only difference in how perceptions exert control is in the equilibrium between reward and punishment. For example, the Western perception is primarily pleasure-driven, in contrast to China's more punishment-oriented perception; the West prefers to flood its people with the bliss of ignorance to render its population too nihilistic to care about anything, even their own decadence.

A common method of inducing mass nihilism is demoralization: tell the masses that the perception is self-perpetual, inevitable, and pointless to resist; this is exemplified by Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, which is (perhaps unintentionally) a tool of demoralization. It is impossible to read the book and not come to the conclusion that "what's the point of anything" because why resist an inevitability?

In reality, the Western perception has failed to preserve the people who were susceptible to believing it to begin with. In a sense, the West is like a farmer who has exchanged its livestock with one that is incompatible with the farm's machinery and as such, the farmer can no longer extract what he once could; can a farm survive without its produce? The only inevitability is the slow collapse of the Western perception. In fact, the decline is so obvious that it has already been widely acknowledged, even by the likes of Presidents such as Emmanuel Macron and Vladimir Putin. The message is clear: the West is moving opposite to the direction of the international community.

It is exactly as we have said all along: a new perception has come, one that cleanses all errors - a philosophy of intellectual hygiene known as the Perfectionment. The coming of this clean and shiny new perception, marks the beginning of the Age of Beauty and what an excellent start we have had, given the major ongoing resurgence of perfection, beauty, and genius. It is truly a great time to be alive and it is so sad that fringe extremists will choose to reject this great new era, but we cannot stop the march of history for a few dangerous radicals. We should always show compassion to those who fail. It's not their fault. They deserve tolerance.