Posts Tagged ‘self-deception’

National Cheeseburger Day

Thursday, September 18th, 2014


Today is National Cheeseburger Day, reminding us that if nothing else democracies show effectiveness at naming commemorative holidays. And yet, the cheeseburger looms over us as a mighty symbol.

When our forefathers crept out of caves the word “food” meant a process of hunting, gathering or growing raw materials and then cooking them. As specialization of labor occurred, it came to mean an exchange of money for those same products. With the rise of industry, for many it became a question of exchanging credit obligations for pre-prepared meals.

This process shows us the larger pattern of society distancing us from cause and effect. We live not in reality, but in a proxy for reality created of the tokens we exchange to survive. Some are monetary, which is why we labor among idiots for long hours, and some are social, such as the politically-correct terms we use to cover up foibles and failures and bless the unrealistic as a kind of moral optimum.

We might view civilization itself as a kind of reality-within-reality, like how our rearview mirrors warn us that objects are closer than they appear. We are looking at a six-inch screen when we glance at our rearview mirror, and if we remove for a minute the implication of what those images mean, we see how small the portal really is. So it is with society, where symbols such as threats (ISIS in our nightclubs) or promises (stock market breaking records) rule us because we rely on them to predict the future.

And yet no predictions have ever turned out to be really accurate. The best of us can sketch out a type of pattern that will occur and roughly estimate its intermediate result, but it is harder to tell when and how. Thus we are as ruled by phantoms as ancient pygmies praising whatever sun-gods and cargo cults they could conjure in their imaginations.

The cheeseburger symbolizes our world. Disconnected from the cow, the wheat, the cucumber and the tomato, it nonetheless rules our lives. We need to have tokens to buy them; if we do not display the correct social tokens, we will be barred from doing so. And this leads us full circle to the reason that democracy has proved able to conjure up many such holidays but few solutions.

Democracy creates a symbolic reality in which we live by consensus in the belief that we must do so to get along with others. We thus indulge a fiction, such as that “we the People choose our government,” and when it fails, we choose a counter-fiction such as “the election was stolen” or “the billionaires manipulate us.” But at the end of the day, when we pick apart the cheeseburger into bits of cow, wheat and vegetation, we must view the process as it occurred before it got to us: we voted, we voted poorly and the results have turned out badly.

A dark specter dogs humanity. It is the specter of our own choices, and of our habit of projecting our hopes, desires and fears into politics and thus ending up with those who specialize in such things, namely salesmen and charlatans. They hold out the cheeseburger and we vote, and then when it arrives it is never quite as great as what the television commercials and billboards promised. If humanity has a singular disease, it is this loop of making a false reality, projecting ourselves into it socially, and then blaming it for falling short of the expectations we lured ourselves into having.

The Prole Wars: the closing

Sunday, November 20th, 2011

This is the third part of my experience when visiting the demonstrations about the financial crisis.

In the second episode of these reviews I pointed out to the protesters that they lacked unity, order and cohesion. They did not have a singular message to convey, but instead their protest was made up from a collection of islands founded upon private opinions. I remarked that because of this they formed yet another bubble encapsulated within society. They couldn’t possibly challenge the order, because by embracing the spot they were given to demonstrate, they had already made themselves irrelevant. Even though they claimed that spot in front of the stock market for themselves, they couldn’t threaten the order – because they are nothing more than another format to voice a private opinion.

The order has defined itself so that whoever wishes to criticize that order, gets a space to do it. The governors who allow those protesters to camp there, understand it. The politicians who wish them removed, do not understand it.

  • For The System, it’s not about good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust. It’s about stability. If you give them a place to demonstrate and state their opinion, it triggers less instability.
  • Relativism has overcome all. Very few people are going to confront a violent drunkard or a dishonest manager. It is not clear on what grounds we will criticize the other; we won’t feel strong since we will have the feeling these are our personal subjective moral preferences versus those of his. “That’s cool man, the fact we are protesting and standing up for something, but let’s not forget it’s all just our opinion,” said one protester to the other. The System understand. The System merely nods.

Relativism has triumphed over everything, and every statement is a priori understood as the utterance of a private preference. A2 + B2 = C2 ? That’s just Pythagoras’ opinion.

“We’re very proud of this demonstration,” one of the protesters said to me, “we’ve been here for days, but not a single window of the stock market building has been smashed . . . You see if someone would demolish a window by throwing a stone, then the police would have a reason to get us out of here. They will bulldozer this place, and our stands will be gone. So we’re not giving them any reason to remove us. We value freedom of opinion and our conduct is entirely peaceful.”

One of the corners of my mouth involuntarily curled up as I heard it – I understood.

They,” I responded, “don’t care about your reasons for being here. It is of no concern to them whether you’re right or wrong or how noble the cause of your protest is. They think in operationals. If you would demolish a window, you would be labeled as a source of instability, as a cause of deconstruction to society. That’s why you would be removed. Not because you are speaking dismissively of The Man – not because you lay bare the insidiousness of their practices, as you so proudly like to think. The moral grounds of your presence are irrelevant to The System.”

“To The System,” I continued, “you resemble nothing more than an operational. The reason they are not driving you out of here, is because if they would, it would be perceived by the general public as beating down innocent civilians merely making use of their freedom of speech. That perception would create civil unrest and antagonism against The State. And remember! The State does everything that it does with the eye towards social stability. However if your group would break a window, then you would be perceived as the cause of social unrest, and thus you would be removed.”

I decided to discuss the impressions I gained from the protest with my friend, as he invited me to a local fastfood restaurant. Once we took a seat he noticed a sign on the wall, that read:

The manager can send you away. With or without reason.

“Ah,” he said, “so we are in fact present in a dictatorship right now.”

“Yes,” I replied, “in essence, we are. However, there is supposed a Hobbesian primordial point of freedom in which we found ourselves before entering this restaurant. A primordial point of freedom from which we decided to enter this restaurant, and to make use of this service, of this product we purchased. The possibility to be randomly sent away, is part of this product. That’s how our legal system would reason.”

“Well, if you envision that freedom so absolute, in such a pure and impermeable way, then you are pretty much ignoring basic conditions.” my friend said: “An impenetrable sphere of original freedom from which a choice was made – a point where no community existed, and no bodily needs such as hunger or thirst. It thinks the individual human as a separate entity from the community, whereas the human being finds his fulfillment by being part of a community.”

“Hmhm,” I commented, “we never find ourselves within an impervious sheet of freedom from which we choose. We always find ourselves within starting conditions. And from those starting conditions we reason what conduct is most likely to provide us with success. The clearer we see that path, from starting conditions to success, the better we understand causality, and thus the more free we are. But that’s something entirely different as thinking we’re free because we entered into an imaginary contract with society surrounding us – that sort of thinking renders all bonds between individuals into more or less calculated deals for temporary mutual pleasure, contact that for that reason feels ultimately hollow and empty.” 

This way I saw two poles draw themselves out. The first pole is absolute freedom, the kind of imaginary freedom just described. It’s essentially despotism guised by the clause of one’s own consent. The second pole is altruism, to help others first and only later check what you get out of it for yourself. The kind of attitude that is friendly to all.

“I know a good example of this second pole.” my friend said, “It is a group of people who are unemployed and get a welfare cheque. However they are idle, and The State has to pay them. ‘Therefore,’ The State reasoned, ‘they are going to have to do labor, for a tiny bit of extra money on top of that welfare amount.’ Because if they didn’t get that tiny bit of extra money, they would have no reason to do any work in the first place, and The State would lose money either way. These unemployed had to help all sorts of people with repairing their roofs and unplugging the rain drainage. However they ended up only helping the persons they personally knew. Still, they weren’t fired, because if they did get fired, they would go back to doing nothing at all, and The State would be losing almost the same amount of money on them.”

“This proves that if you go by this altruist concept of freedom,” I concluded, “that you will be left out in the cold after already having given everything away to others. Therefore this altruistic mindset is unreasonable. However the other pole is also unreasonable. Thus we are moving between the extremes of the unreasonable.”

The conclusion of the examples discussed during the demonstration, and afterwards in the fastfood restaurant, is that The State does everything that it does with the eye towards social stability, regardless of any values such as Justice. The values are only relevant to the state as operationals – that is, it asks itself whether certain values can move people to start up antagonism towards The State. Values are conceived as a priori subjective personal preferences, and as such as irrelevant to The State. Their only relevancy exists in the effects of values upon public perception.

This is proven by the case of O. J. Simpson (the case of the supposed double homicide). Everyone pretty much thought he was guilty and the evidence also pointed to this, however to serve Justice was irrelevant to The State. Its priority is self-sustenance, and as such social stability. Therefore it prioritized to quench the possibility of race riots over the actual content of the Simpson case.

“I know how The State reasons,” my friend said; “Order is good. The State provides order. Therefore The State is good.”

“Wrong.” I said, “The State reasons as follows: Good is a private opinion, but order is a fact. You have to submit to this order, not because this order is justified, but because you agreed upon the conditions of this order by being in it. Because before you entered this order you were somehow free, and from this original position of freedom you chose to be a part of this order.”

“Lastly,” my friend said, “from everything we’ve learned by watching this protest, don’t you think that it always comes down to the exact same thought. A thought shared by everyone at the bottom of their hearts, whether they’re left or right, Socialist or Liberal, progressive or conservative.”

“What’s the thought?” I asked.

“The thought goes somewhat like this: Everyone, in the end, works to make life a little more pleasurable to himself. Money and pleasure are our final drives. All humans are comparable in this, and therefore it’s a shame there’s poverty in the world, and hunger, and nobody would have to live that way because it sure is possible to provide a sensible basic living for everyone.”

“And that’s exactly how The State reasons,” I concluded: “The State, in essence, wants you to cherish wishes and preferences that are primarily related to the material sphere. Preferences that can easily be satisfied by the consumer society. The State doesn’t want to take away your freedom – it wants you to envisage that freedom in small-scale objectives that you can easily meet without an impact on the larger whole. The State wants to give you freedom of expression so that you, by expressing your visions and goals, affirm them as personally held (read: subjective) visions and ambitions, thus nullifying the impact of those ideals upon society. So that those ideals won’t get in the way of the bonds of cooperation that try to manage us. That’s the whole point: The protesters are entirely free to protest as long as they don’t get in anybody’s way. Which means: As long as the protests don’t hamper the essential functions that hold The State together. The finance sector is part of those functions.” 

All of this is to accommodate for larger quantities of life without ascribing qualitative classifications to the mode of life. So that society can hold larger amounts of people without all hell breaking loose. It wants us to be easy to manage. Relativism permeates everything.

(The Man, The System, The Order, The State, etc; the vast institutions of governments, political parties, banks, insurance companies, psychologists, media network and education system, are ultimately comprised of individuals.

Of course I understand that the actions of each organization in the end stands and falls with the actions of the member individuals. Their existence as entities is a status as bond of cooperation. As a bond of cooperation they can work infinitely more powerfully than as individuals, which is why they work as a bond of cooperation.

However the chance that one or several individuals within those bonds of cooperation will stand up, is negligible as long as that individual has debts to pay and a family to feed. If he does speak up, he will easily be replaced by a more compliant drone. That’s the way the cookie crumbles.)

On the inside of the stock market building, the cleric continued to fill in the columns of his excel page. Light rain trickled on the window, triggering him to look up for a second. He saw the stands of the protesters and their tents. Faint music rose up from the site. The cleric sighed. “What will they ever achieve?” he whispered in himself. Then his gaze returned to the monitor, slumped in his office cubicle, wearing his deftly grey suit. Perhaps tonight he would be able to buy that exquisite handbag, so that his wife’s temper would be eased for a few days. Maybe, if he worked very hard this month, he could have a Friday off, so that he could go camping and finally spend some real time with his children.  

The rain poured down heavily on the makeshift tents, that nevertheless had been holding up for weeks. One of the hippies lit a joint, and the smell of marijuana filled the moistly air. He passed it to his comrade and began to play his banjo again. He looked at the stock market building, where he caught a glimpse of a man wearing a deftly grey suit.

Parts: I  II III IV

The problem is you

Monday, August 15th, 2011

The world has become small to too many people, as it’s too easy to communicate across countries for just about anyone.

Blogger account? Check. Facebook posts about the travesties going on in Kashmir, in the DMZ between the two Koreas, about finally freeing Tibet from the evil Chinese government? Check.

We leave behind something more important when we choose to take on the causes of people who probably don’t even want our help. Even simply paying too much attention to what’s going on across borders and not within them can be damaging.

We should strive to maintain our connection to our own neighborhoods. When that’s lost, people lose touch with what’s going on in their vicinity, stop caring, and watch idly as it falls apart in bad economic times.

It’s easier to put on the headphones and post to Facebook using an iPhone app about the travesties of human trafficking in Russia, than to try and solve the problem of the drug dealers who live down the street and are ruining the neighborhood. That might require confrontation or unpleasant discussions with the police; you may be identified as a snitch.

The problem is twofold, because not only is the motivation gone on the part of the offended to help fix the problem, but there’s not enough solidarity in the community to back such an action and protect the initial complainer.

We wonder, for example, how police officers are given so much leeway leading to corruption.  It starts with you.  Local culture would be stronger in rural areas and suburbs if the people living there would indulge it a bit more.

Town pride days, parades, the local high school football game.  These create a sense of solidarity among citizens of a town or county, and shows the local leaders that if these people, who all stick together through a strong, common bond, aren’t happy with certain decisions or the direction of politics in the town, accountability will be sought.

As individuals, we need to stop distracting ourselves with far-off places and instead focus on (a) our local communities and (b) the nation we have in common. We treat this situation like a binary zero-sum choice, where either we look locally and ignore the world, or look at one part of the world and ignore locally. We can focus both on local things and the parts of the world over which we as voters have influence.

This practice starts by reversing the twofold problem of lack of motivation and lack of local support. Start by focusing on your neighbors, starting a town-sponsored local event or even a reading group. Support local businesses and show your appreciation for the town employees who do whatever it is they do with gusto.  We need to understand that force-fitting the world into the size of the TV screen in our living room is not in our best interests.

Until this catches on again, local culture will continue to disintegrate. We’re left wondering how our federal government became as powerful as an empire, yet we stay in our houses and lock the doors for no other reason than to look at glowing screens of various sizes.

The problem begins with you, but so does the solution.

Frailty, what is thy name?

Tuesday, May 24th, 2011

In a dream, it was this morning revealed to me at long last what women are really like. So as soon as I rinsed me from my slumber, I decided to come to this website to write down the most valuable findings of my revelation.

I dreamed that I was visiting some young, soft and appealing woman. We sat down at her kitchen and she poured us some lemonade. I was apparently very familiar with her. As she held her cup to her chest I was informed by her that she wasn’t at a suitable moment in her life to be in a serious relationship. Because she said she wasn’t ready to deal with all the complications that would bring.

She did stress, however, that she was open to a casual romance, or non-committing encounters with handsome young men. When I took hold of her body to caress and cuddle her, she at first seemed to enjoy it. Considering both of our ages – the age to fall in love, to lie in the grass and hug as the midsummer sun sets behind blossoming trees, it felt only as the most suiting and natural thing to do, although outside of my dream I would normally be much more reserved in making such a move.

As I embraced this young woman the warmth of her tender flesh radiated pleasingly through the fabric of our clothes. Then she suddenly changed her mind and said she wasn’t ready for it. At that instant it hit me.

“You women want everything!” I yelled. “You want AND the freedom AND the romance AND the sex. You want deep erotic passion and emotional endearment, and at the same time you want no strings attached. You want to feel loved and understood, but you also want to go shopping when it enters your mind, call your friends at will to have long chit-chat conversations and go clubbing, or sleep until noon when it pleases you. And a man in a life would put restrictions on all of that. You want both the naughty boy AND the cultivated intellectual who offers a listening ear as well as a refined sense of culture and quality wine. And that combined with the untamed caveman-bodybuilder brute hankering for female flesh. You want AND to abandon yourself to reckless sweeping love AND to keep your distance. You want AND the knight in shining armor on his white horse AND the caring, understanding best friend. You want AND to be made to submit to his ardent amorous conquest AND you want to keep things in your control to do them at your own pace. You women want it all at the same time and yet nothing at all!” At that moment, when I had peered through the female facade and sharply revealed the secret, the girl stood bewildered and started to fade. I woke up.

Perhaps this problem of the woman has always been there, and is it not just a result of today’s age, where everything, including relationships, is seen as a product that needs to be satisfying yet fleeting. At the age the woman is most sexually attractive, that is from her puberty to her adolescence, she also tends to randomly enter into destructive emotional outbursts, to attract people only to then violently push them away, and to display conceited and self-overestimating behavior.

In primitive societies however, where everyone needed to cooperate if the harvests were to be readied in time, this behavior was quickly smothered; the adolescent girl had to work to earn her keep so her elders were quick to direct her towards the milking cow. And if she persisted in her unreliable moods they had her locked up in her room.

A man is different in this than a woman: he will settle for a reliable partner with a fresh face or that he can otherwise have a laugh with. He has tangible, definite goals that he solidifies by working towards them step by step. The woman counts on the man to do this for her – a part of her counts on him to give direction to her life. She will unconsciously resent him if he doesn’t, but she will also resent him if he doesn’t respect her capricious choices as autonomous wishes.

Therefore he will never do it right, and always suffer the fallout. She wants to able to count on their man to sustain her and provide for her wishes, yet she wants to be independent and self-supplying. In this sense, her psychological instability and the corresponding moodswings can be accounted for by the fact that the urges of our primal tribal genes conflict with the needs of an emancipated society. In hunter gatherer societies, an age where the human being as a species spent 99,9% of his time developing as opposed to the industrial society where he spent only 00,1% of his existence, women often relied on men to find food for them as hunters. Especially in the ice-age, where the perpetual frost made fruits hard to come by.

Human beings share genes with primates, and in societies of primates the females always seek to hook up with the men at the top of the ladder; the female uses her sexuality to rise along with her man on the social ladder and lets him ‘do the work’, so to say. If her mate is overthrown by a newcomer she will also try to replace him. In comparison to human societies we see that a woman pushes her demands until the extreme and insists that it must all be perfect – “everything must feel right”. With other words, she is unable to form a realistic self-image and tends to overrate her value on what Brett Stevens calls ‘the sexual market’.

Our ancestors in their tribal and agricultural traditions understood this, and they knew that it would lead to sexual frustration and social instability. Therefore they always made it pretty clear whom was to marry with whom and when. Difference of religion and class as well as distance played a role in narrowing down the amount of possible partners. But today egalitarianism has dismantled these differences and with the increased mobility brought by the car and the internet the distance became also less of a restraining factor. This further accelerated the expectations and dreams of women which have now become extreme demands. Whereas women who have no standards at all frequently engage in casual sex while forgetting anticonception, and in this way out-procreate the rest.

Today however, in a society where the means to satisfy individual wishes are so readily available, temporary as these wishes may be, the flimsiness of the female psyche is no longer held in check. The broad emphasis on individual sovereignty has removed all boundaries that the juvenile girl needs to develop into a dutiful woman. In this way, contemporary society has unleashed the unrestrained whimsicalness of the woman upon the world. And because a pretty and youthful female body will hardly encounter a man not ready and eager to do her bidding and win her sympathy, her tenuous wishes are accelerated and magnified, not reduced to sensible proportions. God help us all.

(Oh, and ladies, by the way, this all comes from a guy who passed with ++ scores on the university courses genderstudies and emancipation-history.)

The Simulacra Male

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

The concept of simulacra boggles the mind – a copy without an original?  How is that possible?  To put it more simply:  a simulacrum can be defined as a copy of a copy of an original or similarly, a model of a model of an original.  But still this is too abstract.  How does this concept apply to real life?

The Men’s Rights Movement provides an interesting laboratory to study the concept of simulacra.  Although the MRM is characterized by several things, the phenomeGamesternon of “Game” seems to be one of its most popular aspects.  With this in mind, let us concentrate on Game for the time being.  Game is essentially a codified model based on Evolutionary Psychology that helps men flirt with, date, and understand modern women.  Some advocates of Game will say that Game, properly understood, is more than about picking up women, it is a general approach to life.  This is true, as a tool is reliant on its user.  However, critiquing Game on a moral level is not our concern today.  Our concern is critiquing Game on a structural level.  The structure is simple.  Evolutionary Psychology, as true as it may be, is merely a model of reality.  Game, as true as it may be, is a model of Evolutionary Psychology.  Game is a model of a model.  And the practitioner of Game runs the risk of modeling his life on the model of a model.  Forget the Alpha Male/Beta Male divide; I give you the Simulacra Male.

Actually, understanding the “Alpha” Male/”Beta” Male divide provides insight into the simulacrum of Game.  Indeed, there is no doubt that in reality there are Alpha Males and Beta Males.  In fact, the hierarchy should probably be divided even further.  But for our purposes, let’s keep things simple.  Broadly speaking, in its rudimentary form, Game is a way to teach Betas how to mimic Alphas.  How they talk, body language, what their general attitudes are.  The Beta simulates the Alpha.  Now a thought experiment:  forget Alpha/Beta; let us imagine simply a male encountering Game.  This theoretical male will now act like a Beta, acting like an Alpha.  God forbid this undefined male was actually an Alpha to begin with!  The model now precedes the man.  Can we imagine a possible future where boys encounter Game before they encounter girls?

But is this so bad?  All men want to be Alpha Males, right?  Yes we do, but how is the Alpha Male being defined in the world of Game?  Theories, definitions and models abound.  Rather than sum up what Alpha Males are, let’s sum up what is notably absent.  According to the Game world, the one thing that Alphas do not do is “follow the rules.”  This is admirable in a time when the rules are made by feminists and liberals.  But is the impulse or instinct to follow the rules “Beta?”

It is interesting that on the one hand, men who encounter the MRM/Game community are told to “break the rules,” and essentially revolt, but on the other hand, there is a general call for male solidarity and for men “sticking together.”  Notice the omnipresence of the “wing man” in the Game community.  Beta Males are told to be manlier, and men, in general, are being told to break the rules.  But don’t be too above-it-all, don’t be too intimidating, don’t be too aggressive, don’t be too violent.  Then you might lose the proverbial girl.  Don’t forget to “calibrate.”

By now it should also be noticed how often the word “male” is used in the Game world.  Do not underestimate this.  The Game world is obsessed with defining Alpha Male and Beta Male.  What about Man?  ARebel male and a man are not the same thing.  We need a new conception of Man.

Brave, unconcerned, mocking, violent – thus wisdom wants us: she is a woman, and loves only a warrior.”  Nietzsche was pretty macho.  Of course, in the Game world, however, you wouldn’t want to be too unconcerned, you wouldn’t want to be too mocking.  But rather than dwell on what Man is, as the Game world dwells on what an Alpha Male is, let us consider what Man strives for.  “Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that.”  Only Nietzsche could be so simultaneously violent and funny.  This is a critique of Utilitarianism, but it strikes a chord beyond that.  Happiness seems to be a goal beneath Man.  Nietzsche parallels the Game community by telling us to break the rules and reclaim our manly virtues.  But would the Game community balk at Nietzsche?  “We will break the rules but only insofar as it costs us not too much happiness,” they might reply.  In the Game community, the general conception of the “bad boy” is hardly dangerous.

Let us return to the impulse to follow the rules.  In order to understand this better we need a new animal beside the Alpha Male and the Beta Male.  Behold – the Alpha Boy!  The stereotypes and clichés of the hyperactive, rebellious boy that just wants to go outside and play need not be expounded upon.  It is not at all hard to imagine a different kind of boy in addition to the stereotype.  What does this “Alpha Boy” do?  He beats up bullies, he follows the rules, he respects and defers to his elders, he is polite, he doesn’t fight every battle, despite being a boy he can see a bigger picture, he is all business, he gets good grades, and he doesn’t get kicked off the football team.  You get the idea.  In a cruel and ironic twist, these impulses to follow the rules, obey elders, and co-operate are also the same qualities that make Alpha Boys so susceptible to indoctrination, unfortunately.  Plato agrees:

…in youth good men often appear to be simple, and are easily practiced upon by the dishonest, because they have no examples of what evil is in their own soul. [The Republic, Book III, Section 409a]

The world is in trouble when trust, loyalty, and taking people at face value are considered “Beta.”  But this is the indoctrination that boys face and complaining will get us nowhere.  However, it is not inconceivable to imagine that this rare creature, the Alpha Boy, upon learning of his own subtle, subterranean indoctrination by the hands of modernity, could be far more dangerous than any rebel, badboy, or Gamester.  Game responded to feminism in a very logical way – let’s use science and truth to find our way back.  But in a simulacrum, truth is not even an option; theoretical violence is the only weapon left. "Bad boy"

So how do men find their way back to Man?  Models, instructions, and lists of qualities start to make one weary.  Instead of a model (of a model) of Man, perhaps images of Boy can do just enough to suggest something to us, but not turn us into models.  Could it be that simple?  Do we reclaim our manhood by reclaiming our boyhood?  Images of Boy:  boys build snow forts, boys dig for dinosaur bones, boys draw monsters in the afternoon, boys wear their costume every day before Halloween, boys terrorize girls, boys read stories of heroes and villains, boys read the Book of Revelations, boys believe that spirits inhabit trees, boys contemplate death, boys fantasize of the destruction of the world, boys try to understand God, boys play in the backyard and proclaim themselves the King of the Beasts!  In a word, this is called simplicity.

In the world, when people call anyone simple, they generally mean a foolish, ignorant, credulous person.  But real simplicity, so far from being foolish, is almost sublime.  All good men like and admire it, are conscious of sinning against it, observe it in others and know what it involves; and yet they could not precisely define it.  I should say that simplicity is an uprightness of soul which prevents self-consciousness.  It is not the same as sincerity, which is a much humbler virtue.  Many people are sincere who are not simple.  They say nothing but what they believe to be true, and do not aim at appearing anything but what they are.  But they are forever thinking about themselves, weighing their every word and thought, and dwelling upon themselves in apprehension of having done too much or too little.  These people are sincere but they are not simple.  They are not at ease with others, nor others with them.  There is nothing easy, frank, unrestrained or natural about them.  One feels that one would like less admirable people better, who were not so stiff. –Fenelon

The Simulacra male will never be simple; he will be lucky for the moments he is sincere.

Rethinking individualism

Tuesday, October 19th, 2010

Say you walk into a building at which you’re employed. You feel businesslike – coat, computer bag over shoulder, maybe a cup of coffee or tea in hand. Others look similar and climb into the elevator with you. Buttons are pressed.

Your eyes venture, but never into other eyes. Stainless steel walls in this contraption affirm your businesslike presence. At this point, are you not just an extension of these mechanisms with which you interact and rely on just to begin a day of productivity?

Then you salivate, swallow, cough. Others in the elevator pretend not to notice, but they do. Germs? Is that guy sick? Did he cover his mouth? Maybe you feel more human now.

Many of us leave the workplace each day only to catch up on television or hit a local bar. Either of those activities may make us feel alive but when the TV is turned off or the bar closed, most simply limp home to bed. This allows us to turn off further thought until the next morning, when the process repeats.

This type of “individualism” may ultimately lead to collectivism, because many of us want the same thing with different labels. For example, we believe the Polo socks, Banana Republic pants, and Claiborne shirt are enough to announce us as different, even while we herd into metal elevators and stroll over to our cubicle space.

From bodily functions to unplanned social interactions, we are human to the core. The lack of balance in our lives is embodied in that steel cage-like elevator and mindless job fit enough for a robot. We don’t try to fix what’s wrong with our processes – the ones that drive us each day to get up, shower, arrive at work dreary-eyed. That is human to a tee, and unfortunately it’s all too normal.

Most of the time we spend is on mindless work, and as a result, we lash out when we can in bursts – junk food, entertainment, the bar scene. It’s like an extension of modern-day education: you know you’re stuck in a building for eight hours (sound familiar?), but it doesn’t make you accept it any less because deep down, you feel passion in your life burning out.

Maybe when you’re young, you don’t feel it burning out in quite as pronounced a fashion, but there’s something off with eight hours of boredom day in, day out. That’s the reason children look forward to recess, and only resent authority more as they grow older and more intelligent. Even recess is regulated now. No physical contact was a big recess rule over twenty years ago; one hesitates to imagine what recess must be like in 2010.

In denying humanity from an early age, and over socializing the individual snowflakes we call our children, we create robots who are beaten into submission to do what they’re told, only to find that some of them are in fact individuals – more individual than we’ve planned.

These would be your shoot-em-up types, the ones that get sick of the mindless game and feel no opportunity at home or at school to lash out or be human – so if guns are nearby, why not end it in a blaze of glory? Unfortunately, options are limited at a young age, so lashing out involves a wide spectrum – not just conforming or shooting people.

Diagnoses of ADD and ADHD have skyrocketed in recent years, but when you think about how much more careful most people are with issues of reproduction – not drinking wine, not doing anything to damage a fetus – it’s unlikely these are new chemical imbalances in chlidren manifesting themselves in the classroom. Education hasn’t changed significantly in over 50 years. So what’s new?

Perhaps its our evolving methodology about how to deal with children. We think back to individualism actually leading to collectivism, and it makes some more sense. Modern kids go into a classroom, many from different backgrounds and no real common cultural thread. Some are more tolerant of eight-hour work days at the ripe age of six years old, some not so much. Those who are not are treated as the special snowflakes they are with specialized instruction, individual time with the teacher so they can catch up to everyone else – and be the same as everyone else. If they continue to resist, they are labeled problem children, or worse, assigned “special education”.

Never mind that the material doesn’t change to suit different needs – and never mind that would be more useful: find the strengths of people and focus on those strengths, while addressing weaknesses.

Instead, we do what’s easy and label it as pandering to the individual student mind. All this despite the widening disconnect between parents who want education to be day care and education, and educators who want to get through the next school year without having to stash whiskey in their desks.

Ignoring the patterns of nature

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

Modern life takes effort. Just getting through to the end of the day — fighting egos and layers of management at work, then ignoring family drama, then a few hours of TV before bed — can take all you’ve got. But the last thing you need is some idiot telling you that “life is precious,” as if he wanted to raise your blood pressure.

Almost everyone has a slightly different idea of what “life is precious” really means. Since everyone has a voice, we naturally take this to mean that life is precious because all of us are here, and we each have an equally valid opinion! The problem with this view is that it ignores the larger patterns of nature, in which we are participants but not “in control” as we like to assume we are.

Our entire society suffers from this illusion of control. When we think about it, life being precious means the exact opposite of catering to the individual ego. Life itself is precious, not our interpretation of what we want right now. Life is the bigger natural process, a pattern of nature more than a tangible thing, and if we don’t pay attention to it, it’ll slip right on past while we zone out.

Even twenty to thirty years ago, growing up in a suburb meant playing kickball with the neighborhood kids; parents didn’t even have to watch every move you made; before the busy-ness of full time school started a kid could wander into the woods and let his imagination run wild – with or without friends or supervision.  Those days are over in favor of two years of preschool so Mommy can get her hair done and “have a life.”

Think about a supermarket. Buy the raw ingredients that require someone to cook them, or just stock up on the convenient products of an industry conveniently based around the things cheapest to make, like grains and sugars? The vitality of nature is removed from a Twinkie, or from machines draining hormone-bloated cows or squeezing eggs out of debeaked GM chickens.

Yet it’s easy to space out and ignore all of this. There’s a nice cool breeze in the supermarket, and pleasantly vapid music, and people who are paid to smile when you greet them. So you pile all the crap in the cart, swipe the card and head off home — one more thing checked off the list! One fewer obligation! Now you’ve got time for yourself again, to do something you really want to do instead of have to do.

The alternative is not so easy. Instead of thinking about what you want, as if the world is an optional part of yourself, think about how you fit into the world. Think about the patterns of nature, which evolved over billions of years, and how you’d live harmoniously with them. If we look at the food industry, we can see how we’d do that.

Replace centralized food production with self-sufficient, smaller communities. Don’t eat peaches in the middle of winter; eat them in season, when they grow around you. Grow tomatoes in the summer and eat them in the summer. Then grow your squash, tubers, grains and fruit and store them for the winter. Squeeze yourself back into the patterns of nature.

In doing away with the idea of not having certain foods in certain seasons, we disengage ourselves from nature – and hence, reality.  We have used our technology to obliterate the patterns of nature  because it “seems like” the individual wants more convenience and more options, even if that individual has no idea what to do with all those options. But if you want peaches in winter, you’ll need a globalized economy and centralized food production.

Before we decided to replace reality with a fake reality, the summer solstice and winter solstice were celebrated precisely because the summer gave us bounty and the winter was a sign of prolonged sleep for most of the food that gives us life.  But everyone knew it was a cycle, and a few short months from winter we’d once again be celebrating longer, warmer days.

As part of local communities, we inherently understood how much the land could bear and kept our populations low. We didn’t need so many laws, because what should and should not be done was clearer. We followed the rhythm of the seasons, and were less manic about staying in touch or checking in with the news. We didn’t need to be told what was real or important — we lived it.

To people who were raised to ignore and even fear natural processes, these ideas are sacrilege. Following natural patterns means we need to give up the idea that we are in control. But if we ignore these natural patterns, we become a species that is more tumor or virus than animal, and our sense of detachment heightens as we wonder if we will ever find anything “real” again.

Brainslug owns you

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

When you wake up to this planet, you realise one thing sticking out the side of people’s heads; their thoughts are not their own but are subservient toward a domesticating agent, a memetic Brainslug.

We can coalesce many ill thought out ideologies with little substance and stereotype them as Crowdism. Crowdism contains memes such as but not limited to; liberalism, egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, communism and greenism.

What unifies these revolting ideologies is that they do not benefit the individual although they claim to be doing so, they are a Brainslug that prefers its own survival over yours individually, because it manipulates you into believing passive lies.

Brainslug owns the population, the majority do not think for themselves and have this parasite wedged into their skull awaiting big daddy Technium to erupt from the Hivemind – or in terms the above average human should understand, ecocide and death, whatever prevails after that is not concerned with the ecology as we know it, if anything.

The rules of the game are simple;

  • Do not think for yourself – be subservient toward the Brainslug, although it disables your self awareness and concern for sanity, it tells you that you’re innocent and nothing is your fault, therefore you can call people RACIST when they disagree with your altruistic, all loving Brainslug.
  • If you attempt to think for yourself – that would mean removing of the Brainslug, therefore, if you dare touch it, it will call other infested individuals over to shout RACIST into intimidating you into keeping the Brainslug in control of your thoughts, perhaps not so altruistic?
  • If you manage to think for yourself – this would be an indirect threat to other Brainslugs, therefore, the Hivemind of Brainslugs will synchronise with each other collectively, to crush you in Crowdism, making you unpopular through bias, they hate you with a vengeance.
  • If you attempt to get others to think for themselves – that would mean removing of the Brainslugs from the source, the great media and entertainment Hivemind sending out memetic software to the antennaes of your Brainslug. Killing the parasite at the core would allow the Brainslugs to be picked off individually, so this is a direct threat to the Brainslugs collectively. Therefore, they will use whatever means, dirty tricks and immoral means into getting rid of you, despite their passive lies of altruistic moralism – as clearly the intellectuals form the greatest antibody resistance to this infection. The easiest, more short term route is to banish you from your native homeland, the toughest but more long term solution is to kill you, and kill you they will if it gets them what they want.
  • If you manage to get others to think for themselves – you can slay the Brainslugs from specific territories whilst establishing antibody resistance to prevent future infections. However, in the mean time, thanks to hardwired genetics, many are prone to re-infection on first contact, as they’ve now become industrially farmed by their Brainslugs from over 300 years ago in the so called ‘Enlightenment era’, the stemming spores out of the hollow headed corpse of rotten cultures.

Now on a more serious note, for those who have removed their Brainslug, here is the introduction to a text which covers much ground on the psychology of Crowdism;

IN its ordinary sense the word “crowd” means a gathering of individuals of whatever nationality, profession, or sex, and whatever be the chances that have brought them together. From the psychological point of view the expression “crowd” assumes quite a different signification. Under certain given circumstances, and only under those circumstances, an agglomeration of men presents new characteristics very different from those of the individuals composing it. The sentiments and ideas of all the persons in the gathering take one and the same direction, and their conscious personality vanishes. A collective mind is formed, doubtless transitory, but presenting very clearly defined characteristics. The gathering has thus become what, in the absence of a better expression, I will call an organised crowd, or, if the term is considered preferable, a psychological crowd. It forms a single being, and is subjected to the law of the mental unity of crowds.

Le Bon, Gustave. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind

Abandoning reality

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010


I’m just going to dive right in with this one. Here is how the mendacious semantics we are offered destroys the credibility of the liberal democratic views of our time. The following popular statements and assertions deserve exposure:

  • blend humanity to end all conflict

Implication: race is hereditary.
Why then are we asked to celebrate diversity if it is the cause of conflict, such conflict is to be avoided, and conflict is avoidable by eliminating diversity?

  • race is a social construct

Implication: race is only appearances.
Are we then to value or to shun these social construct appearances called diversity?

  • it is racist to mention race, a social construct
  • a cruel triviality, diversity, is our greatest strength

Implication: only select positions regarding race, which is either hereditary or appearances by definition as convenient, are acceptable.

Let’s assume race is trivial criteria, meaning race is little more than image or aesthetic appeal. Then, choosing McDonald’s rather than Burger King is about as trivial, but strangely this choice provokes no controversy.

Stranger still, we certainly aren’t required by the central government, by way of a non-discrimination act, to select McDonald’s, Burger King, and several other diverse fast food restaurants during the same lunch hour!

Failing to choose all during the same lunch hour logically means the remainder are left out. The implications of everyone leaving out all but the same of these trivial fast food choices then are likely manifold.

People would be harmed by unemployment. Fast food business discrimination is therefore an economic problem for society at large and harmful to the owners and employees victimized.

These trivial fast food discriminations then lead to the very same consequences offered as justifications when race is the selection criteria.

But, back in reality there are people who favor McDonald’s, others who favor Burger King, and still others who choose the less known competitors. Fast food selections in reality occur in parallel and are not uniform with only one ever chosen.

Nonetheless, there’s a supreme victor, a runner up, and several other surviving contenders. It’s economic natural selection and supremacism at work in another form.

Because people are directly involved, the same human consequences of success or mass suffering occur should any of these businesses rise or fail as a result of discrimination. For this example, we’re just swapping the labels for races for the names of fast food businesses.

Next, we come to the growing conflict between established science and the inconsistent public reality outlined above.

Paradoxically, while the Religious Right engages in attacks on Darwin’s theory of what animals evolved from, the left and center clamps down upon Darwin’s theory of what humans evolved to.

Nor do many liberal commentators know that much of Darwin’s second most important book, The Descent of Man, consists of an evolutionary explanation of human racial differences.


We can easily move beyond human biodiversity to examine the consequences of sheer numbers. Once again we witness a consistent parting of company between public reality embodied in liberal politicians and the facts that science bears out.

SUPER-sizing Australia’s population may have grave consequences on our health, boosting rates of obesity, asthma and depression, a new study warns.

The findings, published online in the Medical Journal of Australia, come amid a debate on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s call for a “Big Australia”.


In the midst of ongoing financial stress threatening to curtail vital public services, our dangerously out of touch humanitarian idealists simultaneously encourage thousands of new arrivals.

Science with economic reality and public opinion are completely out of contact with one another even as they share the same society. It is as if the presently irreconcilable dynamics of Dionysian and Apollonian flavored metaphysics overshadows all modern civilization.

Ignorance is bliss?

Sunday, May 23rd, 2010

The common quote for underpriveledged brains is ‘ignorance is bliss’. This popular argument of self irresponsibility complements a complete inversion of natural order that allows them to continue feeling superior above everyone else regardless of whether it is real or not.

They think that if we can invert the meaning of happiness, instead of the few achieving it, then the many can enjoy unlimited happiness because it’s their right and because we know nothing, we are innocent and it’s not our problem! They will talk about happiness as if they have achieved something in life, as if achieving ‘ignorance’ were a goal in itself. They’ll believe this even though they are sitting and watching TV or typing a few genius words on facebook not too dissimilar from ‘LOLZ i luv mi nu consumer piece of trash!! <3 <3’ followed by 30 comments about sod all.

These individuals, they are worthless. Thankfully they identify themselves with the words of wisdom by some hipster ‘Ignorance is bliss’, they say this time and time again, they say it so often that they actually believe it – then a disaster kills off their society and they die, what a shame. I’ve asked many ‘friends’ how they perceive the threats to society, and find it pathetic that they respond ‘i don’t care’ or ‘ignorance is bliss’.

Ignorance isn’t bliss, Nothingness is bliss.

So why is nothingness bliss, and not ignorance? Well simply because – with nothingness you have actually overcome surrounding problems that threaten your continued play time, if you ignore these threats, evil nature will steal your play things and play time will be over. Nothingness is the deviant child that keeps the toys from being taken away, ignorance is that child that fails to realise the tyranny of his parents and loses his toys. Therefore, for continued bliss, we must achieve a state of nothingness through civilization rather than the ‘do nothing at all’ decayed thinking attitude. We can continue to exist as a happy species by maximising our play time on this Earth instead of ignoring the fact that playtime has become shorter and shorter to the point of it being abused, to the brink of our species losing play time forever – meaning extinction.

So, there are two main routes to reach a state of nothingness, and they can only come about by adapting to this environment and going beyond its limitations, those are the views of nihilism; to champion civilization through nature – and the views of primitivism; to champion socialization through naturalization only, discarding abstractions and excess tools made from civilization.

There are two sides of nothingness, nothingness as a process, like weather – and nothing, as in absolutely nothing, abstracting nothing and doing nothing other than what is immediately required.

  • Active Nihilismas a process of recycling idealism consistently instead of clinging on to hardened coffin-like ideologies of equality that bury us before we have even died. This is not a running away from civilization, but is an overcoming of it – it is the process of evolution similar to when marine animals first began to climb onto land, although they have to keep returning to that ocean of nothingness they came from, or they will dry out and die – we as humans have not evolved properly to be sufficiently responsible to maintain a civilization – few elites have evolved onto this land, yet many more still cling to the past and threaten us all by down-breeding instead of supporting those who go further.
  • Primitive ‘Do Nothing’ – this is the opposite of an active nihilism, and is the natural variant of the ‘ignorance’ we see through the decay of civilization – the ‘i can’t be bothered to feed my family, coz it int cool LOL!’ decayed attitude. That attitude in civilization can be seen as a path of nothing to achieve bliss, but is surrounded by a rock of immovable civilization, so what does it do? It transnaturally evolves little pools of nothingness that insect like things called proles begin to evolve into. Whereas in the wilderness they would have an entire ocean of nothing to enjoy, instead of a little rock pool of nothing.

Because we exist in a civilization, we are going to be limited to how ‘free’ and spontaneous we can be. Therefore knowing that you’re in ignorance of major problems is solipsistic denial. It’s a form of cognitive dissonance, a small, elite part of the brain will say ‘hey, you better take care of your environment, what will you eat when there is no supermarket?’, the other, greatly oversocialized and bulked up prole part of the brain will say to them ‘oh, you don’t have to think LOL, thinking iz for geeks LOL!! not cool dudez’.

We can all pretend that playing the ignorance game is going to make us happy, but in the long run, if we don’t know where we are going to get the resources to ensure our continued survival, we die, simple as. And others who did prepare certainly won’t help them in the crunch time when the shit hits the fan – this is natural selection, you may have been sheltered from it for the past 60 years, but the next decade or so, 90% of the population is likely to die (hopefully! – Oh whoops.. sorry, i’m ignorant of their ‘underpriveledged potential’).

Here is the most IMPORTANT video you will ever see

The link provided is to the lecture by Albert Bartlett and is focused on the key issue of overpopulation and peak oil, energy, food and what not. Any idiot will find this ‘extremely’ boring, and this is the source of our problems right now – the crowd finds everything boring because their brains are underpriveledged.

What really is bliss? If we have something that is causing us a threat to our continued survival, and we remove that threat – we achieve a collective goal, and nothing can feel greater and more assured then knowing that your species is going to survive the next 100 or 1000 years after you are gone.

Once our problems have been taken care of, then we can address our secondary needs, the needs for fulfillment. You cannot get this through ‘ignorance’ but through an understanding and accepting of necessary natural limits, adapting to these and only then can you begin to understand that it isn’t denying a problem to create nothingness that is blissful, but it is solving a problem to create real nothingness.

‘Consciousness’ is seen as a disease and a cure to many problems, it’s seen as a disease by Nietzschean philosophy and primitive thought as a kind of falsification, symbolisation of an otherwise pleasant existence. Such is the nature of civilization, it is the illusory, hardened, frozen surface that misrepresents the entire core beneath it, the subconscious, and the unconscious.

Consciousness necessarily destroys true individuality – to who we are beyond the shallowness of our sense of ‘I’ and to others perception of ‘you’. Nietzsche spoke of it as a consequence of the need to socialize, to tame individual unconscience and subconscious to maintain a group together. Anything from the deep oceans of our minds, anything that comes out of the blue toward an age old socialization of liberal, ‘blissful’ stupidity is going to be pushed back beneath the surface of consciousness, being surrounded by the media of symbolic rocks who self destructively trance about upon the civilization that the ancients built.

Civilization was the island of symbols and abstractions from an overabundance; a lavishing of naturalization and socialization. But now as socialization is more popular, it is slowly eroding this island away creating with it a lagoon of shallowness, a little transnatural pool for midget subterraneans and other cowards to enjoy an overabundance of radiation. Whereas in pure wilderness, in the open ocean, the natures of animals not supported by ‘consciousness’ or this island of abstractions, has to tred water just to stay alive! Here, they are ‘blissful’ Oh there is no worry here, no worry at all about all kinds of predators coming from beneath it – that is, until the rocks tumble into the ocean, leaving it open for predators, draining the prole pool of blissful water out into nature!

These crustaceous proles! Hiding in their little pools of ‘ignorance’ – how they laze up there, sheltered from the harsh, crushing, racist waves of the ocean. What does the island of civilization mean to them? They don’t care, they will never climb the heights of the pinnacle – they just want to hide beneath the surface of the fresh air – within a safe haven, a little world they can call their own! A damp socialization, a subconscious civilization, a reactionary civilization. It’s scary up there, on the rock – ‘the flying racists that attack us!’ they cry, those who soar above the grounded fools.

So, fearing for their continued existence, what do they do? They evolve a shell, a thick stupid, inconsiderate shell – because their brains are not concerned for building  great things, they just want to lavish themselves in the ‘here and now’, in the little pool of sunshine bliss, whilst the entire rock crumbles around them – they fear the volcano that created civilization, ‘that’s extreme!’ say the crustaceans, sheltering under their hardened insect-like opinions.

Nothingness is the only true bliss, the abyss of infinite, dangerous possibilities – not the limitations of the prole pool of safety, of ‘bliss’. If we wish not to evolve into little crabs with opinionated pincers that attack every detail with a socialized grip, awaiting the herd of scavengers to outnumber it, then we must climb from this pool of ignorance and then we may either over-come the pinnacle of civilization to become land based predators and forests, mastering the true potential of what is civil – Or we clear the wall of this rock pool, and face the ocean – evolving into that solvent that connects the continents of this cosmos by shoreline, down-going into the abyss of naturalization, the cold nutrient rich, harsh extremity of naturalization.

Recommended Reading