Saturday, December 31, 2011

Friday, December 30, 2011

Latest deletion

Latest deletion from Mr. Wolff:

"Best wishes to the cat also. It's not very rare, or even unusual, for elderly couples to lavish affection and wealth on pets. The subservient animal (with associated jokes about how it really controls you) serves as a useful way to feel giving and selfless, and helps channel empathic emotions away from suffering humans."

Removed over the 29th.

As said above, pet fetishism is a great outlet for empathy.  Pets might fuss at you a little, but they don't talk back or upset your absolute control of the household.  They can be gotten rid of at any time without social consternation, are cheaper to maintain than humans, and more importantly, they come with a prepackaged social value, a vast network of instant friends, and a cornucopia of wealthy charities where money can be used to imprison and sterilize a specially-bred underclass of domesticated affection dolls, instead of to feed, shelter and assist non-human-dependent animals or, dare this one say it, human beings.

Feel bad about blowing up little kids?  Worried about all those hungry children who can't afford to see the doctor?  Well, just buy a domesticated dog or cat, fit it into your household routine, and array it in money, love and attention.

You're a good person!  You're giving and caring!  All the other pet-owners agree with you!  How could you possibly be so sweet and selfless?

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Overheard at supper tonight

1) "Long distance running is [teh great]"

2) "New iPhones is [teh great]"

3) "Wine [in general] is [teh great]"

4) "My attorney did [such and such] last week."

The White, it hurts.  It hurts, baby.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Review of 2009's (or 2011's) The Help

The Help is yet another self-glorifying tale of a heroic young white person, curiously ahead of her time in speech, manner and outlook, who spurns the society of the 1960s in a strikingly modern way, refusing to get married despite overdone, overdirected, obtuse pressure to the contrary, and befriending African-American maids (over their ignorant, short-sighted, cowardly, ebonics-laced objections) to cozen them into telling their tales of waiting on white families, which the young white woman then turns into a novel.

Like most mainstream stories about unlucky artists, this one made it through the money grindery of the Ministry of Entertainment's Non-Twilight Branch (NTB) by someone who lived in New York, and who worked in the publishing industry for years after being (born to and) raised by wealthy white landholders in the south, with the help of their black servants.  Naturally, this wealthy white woman with publishing connections was the perfect person to transmit a story about lower caste black laborers and unsuccessful authors.

Luckily, she had the childhood friendship of one "Tate Taylor," a white boi who was good enough to live on a grand old plantation near her, and agreed to promote, screenwrite and direct her major motion picture.  Aren't these diamond-in-the-rough stories of utterly random success based on talent sumthin', folks?

How daring, for the writer (one Ms. Stockett) to, in 2009, challenge institutional racism in the old American South. What a riveting tale that we so sorely need now.  This one wonders why no one back then did anything to resist racism?  Maybe because they were too busy writing stories decrying something unpopular at the time.  So, Ms. Stockett needs not worry about dead Arab children, which might make her unpopular among the titled set; instead, she can help them all glorify themselves for their shared recognition that the 1960s American southeast was unfair to African-Americans and women.  A much-needed revelation from a courageous soul in these trying times.

Yes, Ms. Stockett may have been sued by a black woman named "Abilene" who claimed--ridiculously, of course--that some of her persona was stolen by Ms. Stockett for her novel--but a federal judge had the good sense to ignore the lawsuit.  Leaving Ms. Stockett with all the money and celebrity for having written such an insightful story about so many people on the toilet (one has to have seen the movie to understand this reference; apparently, showing the insides of people's knees while they are on the toilet is automatically artistic, even if the plot doesn't require it and the camera-work is utterly preoccupied, in the gonzo style, with the location of said toilet and toilet-sitter).

Much like Avatar or Map of the Sounds of Tokyo, The Help is a great way for the deathly culture of now to glorify upper-class whites as the real galvanizing force behind social change.  If not for the heroic Skeeter (the progressive white author and main character in The Help), those stupid darkies would've never figured out how to tell anyone their story and improve their lazy-ass condition.  If not for Skeeter, those blundering crackers in their inherited plantations would've never figured out how to stop having domestic arguments around their paid staff.  Thank God for progressive white girls who used their major-media connections with influential New York publishers to give the real story of black America.

Vomit.  Times ten.  The Help is the perfect self-congratulatory spiel for the generation of Obama-worshipping baby-killers.  Because everyone knows that electing a (partly?) black guy means that things are right with the world.  Or at least getting "better."  After all, Abu Ghraib is, like, far away and stuff.  And didn't they close it, or something?

Obama-worshipping baby-killers.

Obama-worshipping baby-killers.  

There's something to sink your teeth into.  Go look at the dead faces that aren't even entitled to be domestic maids.  Then, go here to look at OMG KATHRYN STOCKETT!!! dispensing advice on how to be accepted into the American publishing industry as she smiles with pride over her post-racial triumph.

The pompous adulation of their 50-years-old sort-of triumph over a single facet of acknowledged, institutionalized U.S. racism is a loathsome example of how the Nazi eugenics doctors could go home to their families night after night, and have calm, reasonable, loving meals.

Rebleat after me:

SPEAK RUDE TO BLACK STAFF IZ NOT ACCEPT!  KILL PAKISTANI KID COLLATERAL IZ ACCEPT!

SPEAK RUDE TO BLACK STAFF IZ NOT ACCEPT !  KILL PAKISTANI KID COLLATERAL IZ ACCEPT!

I IZ GOOD FOR TO KNOW THIS THING!  I IZ SO GOOD!  WHEN IZ HOLIDAY NEXT?

Connected throughout this planet, under this sky.  Pray for the expiration of the malignant growth in our soul--Ms. Stockett branch.  May something good have mercy on us all.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Trolls!

Response to one Marinus:

"Troll" is second-gen internet speak for "Other."  Anyone who says unpopular things may be a "troll."  Had the internet existed prior to the American Civil War, abolitionists in the south would have been considered "trolls."  Slave-owners who debated them would have been unable to justify their way of life in the face of evidence of African-American humanity, intelligence and good character, ergo negroes had to remain nigger Others and abolitionists wacko Others.

Right now, it's popular to accept mass murder as long as a member of Party Y does it, because Party Z is so much (theoretically, if not actually) worse.  Therefore, this one must be Othered.

Having at hand a popular, readily-available slur to designate someone as worthless remains an effective way to avoid having to think about the points they make.  In the absence of a real name to use for shunning them, classifying them as a "troll" allows you to ignore anything they say and not have to address it.  This is why "third party wackos" do not often appear in the official American presidential debates.

Notice how, instead of paying any attention to what this one says, and therefore debating the issues of whether or not it is right to support Barack Obama's many murders in order to (theoretically) prevent a "Republican" from committing a greater number of murders, the discussion has shifted to whether or not this one is worth listening to.

Who needs issues when you have sound bytes?  God bless America.

All that said, Dr. Wolff wins a few human quality points for, despite having crossed the boundary of post-deletion, indicating that he is willing to at least let things go up so that his readership at large can ignore them.

Remember: the most effective form of thought control is not to send the stormtroopers directly in.  Eventually, even the most troglodytic will resist.  Instead, it is more effective and cost-efficient to allow every viewpoint out in the open, but use group consensus to stifle anything deviant as "unserious" or "uncivil."  Look how delightedly Marinus revels in ignorance.  Educated people would typically claim that it is "ignorant red-staters" who deliberately ignore the facts they don't like.  Here, though, Marinus is able to use more sophisticated language to state that he ignores things he doesn't like.  Shamelessly and publicly.  

The real insanity comes when the individual rationalizes this ignorance in the context of avoiding a discussion about why bombing women and children into rotted bolognese is acceptable.  As said before, God bless America.

Monday, December 26, 2011

Daily Orwell

O'Brien of the Inner Party on the future: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this, Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever."

~1984, George Orwell.

The Sunflower, Part 2

Professor Wolff demands here, in the context of deleting, rather than responding to, posts, that this one identify her or himself.  Does the illustrious Professor also support requiring voters to let their employers know for whom they voted?  Or the wearing of a Star of David?  Or all homosexuals to be registered with the government?  Or the Mutant Registration Act?

One of the first steps by all tyrants (again, cue a Hitler reference) is to neatly identify who dissidents are, so that  any troublesome thought experiments they offer can be easily dismissed.  Rather than pay attention to what someone says, it's easier to just see from the label that it is the Other who is speaking, and therefore ignore them.

As this one is female, privately bisexual, a very minor public figure in her location, and Google-able, it is impossible for her to wear such a Star.  Forcing everyone to reveal their tangible identities and sources of support on the internet is a great way to make sure that no one says anything unpopular, and that the internet becomes as useful a source of information as mainstream media.

This concept is why cops don't publish the identities of mob informants in the New York Times if they want to get any more informants.

Which, of course, is why the Professor wants to know just who is saying those things so dangerous that they must be deleted: it's so much easier to frighten people into silence than to engage them by ideas alone.  Works great when you're able to fail them for not parroting back the right things, or when you can crush their career for being too esoteric or unreasonable.  The internet, for this brief time before it becomes perpetually linked to tangible people, is an opportunity to exchange ideas freely.

If "I" were struck by lightning tomorrow, and failed to ever post again, but someone else stepped into "my" shoes and carried on the same discussion, would not the discussion still be valid?  What are you so afraid of?  That you can't deal with the ideas?

A quoted response from one of the Professor's admirers follows: "Why should I (or anyone who reads my blog) care about the thoughts of someone who might very well have no knowledge at all about the subject at hand!"

No question mark, of course--there are no questions.  This is an interesting antilife peak, and more directly expresses what this one said above.  Instead of wanting to engage ideas, the poster (one "AK") would prefer to dismiss people who don't "know anything about the subject at hand."  How would AK know if someone knows something about the subject at hand without reading their response?  Simple--he judges a book by its cover.  Textbook proof, here, that old maxims and common wisdoms are not actually employed.

So, then, how does AK know if someone knows anything about "the subject at hand" (which is, presumably, the subject AK would care to read about, and not any subjects he would not care to read about)?  If they have the right university degrees?  If they've been employed in the right profession?  If they belong to the right social caste?  If they're someone the Professor says is all right?

This is the Dawkins style of new religion.  Replace the "God" with an authority-based "science" structure, with its own set of assumptions, faith, no-see-ums and Deadly Sins, and you don't have to bother thinking about things that might upset what you've already decided is acceptable or right.

Sunday, December 25, 2011

A brief censorship

Why more whining about Wolff, PhD?  Much like those lusty days of being censored by western university's pride Bitch PhD, who has since gone out of commission, or Ethan at 6th or 7th (similar fate to the gentleman, apparently), this one's preparation for the burning of books and ideas, rather than their addressing, results in a response log being kept here.  Few, if any, will see said logs anyway, and before long, Google will shut it all down, but recording it here does help to pass the time.

Thusly this one spoke; recorded response to this follows:


(Censored again?  


And here this one had thought your shared ignorance program was working so well!)  


Here's the essential text of what you deleted: congratulations on your speech at the law school; "I" can't think of anyone better suited to giving meaning and inspiration to another class of American lawyers.  Bon voyage, les soldats!

Yes, it all works so happily together, doesn't it?  From the shiny, forgotten places of the mind, drenched in the acrid fumes of bleach, come the smiling faces of death, horror, and calm lifestyle.  Ward Churchill had the Eichmann reference quite accurate.  Despite all the ignoble terrors out there, it is too much for the sheltered 133+5 to even begin to think about how they might stop actively supporting the death, let alone do something in the opposite direction.

Roam on restless, you unsent terrors.  Comes someday a sender for your sad mimicry of the shape of a channeled soul.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

1993 Queer Christmas

Christmas article from 1993 by Eve Kosofsky.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Unlucky artists

Why are there so many movies and books about bad or unlucky authors, artists, musicians and actors?  The conventional wisdom is that their creators are just "writing what they know."  I.e., at one point in time, these poor musicians/writers were themselves undiscovered, and so they understand what it's like to be down and out.  Their bad ideas and misplaced struggles can be laughed at.

Actually, those movies and books are written and produced by those who are "in," and quite thoroughly in.  They write them not because that's what they were, for the most part, but because they're fronting--they want to pretend that they're artists who developed their craft, had tough luck, and finally honed their skills enough to get a lucky break and make it.  In fact, their soulless crap is why there are real people out there with real skills who haven't "made it" (i.e., the cultural at large is ignorant of them; Einstein works in the patent office), and their stories about plucky, down-and-out artists are their way of pretending that they're keeping it real, or at least were once.

Don't fall for it.

Update: Woody Allen helps this one demonstrate this principle in Midnight in Paris.

(More Wolff whining)

In response to the latest grad-school circle jerk over at Wolff's:

Is the purpose of philosophy to learn a set of arcane references that make one appear intelligent, and argue about minutiae appurtenant thereto, or is it to search for ways to improve the human condition?

Sadly, the said circle of congratulation demonstrates the former.  Pop western philosophy is seductive, in that, like the quoting of Shakespeare, it allows the participants to feel very intelligent using terms that the majority would agree confer intelligence, and it also provides such an endless stream of references--like Star Wars or Seinfeld trivia--that one need never leave aside the nuances of the 317th time that Kierkegaard broke wind next to someone else's writing desk, and ask instead whether all that education and effort could help the Unimportant Living better their time here.

...

These are the stories of a thousand children you never knew. Brave and handsome; beautiful and quick; free and forever. Exquisite tenderness, love and survival stolen--the sweetest first and middle moments, stolen so swiftly and never known at the last, after a climax that would move your soul higher. Can you see their startled delight; their first thoughts of a kiss; their last never-known snarl?

~LBBOR

(c) 2011 Arken Pub.; Terese Cue

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Exposure

When someone in the first-world dies of cold, exposure, gradual malnourishment, or just the shutting down of the shell after the unwritten message "GTFO" finally strikes home, what they actually die of, on the record, is alcohol, taking a bad step, a lingering disease, or being a "missing child."

Americans can't be permitted to think that people fall into the cracks to die of hunger and exposure.  Who wants to autopsy what the garbage collector discovers?  If they're homeless, it's only an unfortunate situation caused by bad choices and a fondness for drink.  It's street crime, or that bad cough that they probably inherited from their grandmother's side.  It's not that they couldn't afford a home or enough food, and so died on the street in the post-industrial western wonderland.  They, and their associated bad statistics, must vanish.  Boogeymen kidnapped the "missing" kids; the frozen military vets were just drunks; the single moms were just lazy.

No one actually dies of hunger in the first world.  That kind of backward neglect is only for the places NATO bombs.  Whatever America's failures in foreign policy, its domestic agenda is still working reasonably well for its own citizens.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Professional protection rackets

In many ways, modern governments function as protection rackets, and a "Stage Third" evaluation of them as such will tend toward accuracy, regardless of the inherent failings in said stage.  Within the context of money and power dynamics, though, detailing the governments' particular structures of organized crime is only one piece of the puzzle.  The cultural conception of "government," with its useful functions of impartial legitimacy, is but an administrative by-product of the other criminal structures operating upon the species.

A "protection racket" involves an organized criminal enterprise whereby, instead of producing something of value to satisfy a legitimate (natural) need or desire, the racketeers create artificial requirements/desires, then peddle the solution at a profit.  The necessary variables are as follows:

1) A population (Marks) producing resources greater than required for survival;

2) Enterprising racketeers (Cons) unscrupulous enough to steal this surplus;

3) Thugs (Muscle) willing to use violence to prevent the breakup of the criminal enterprise.

The formula goes:

1a) Cons create a problem which troubles the population, or

1b) Cons establish a monopoly on the solution to a pre-existing (natural) problem;

2) Cons inform the Marks that the racketeering organization's solution is available, and make it clear that the use of any other solution is likely to result in the Marks getting hurt;

3) Marks pay for the solution.  Some Marks seek alternative solutions, whereupon the Muscle busts them up.

4) Those who want to get in on the racket, and become Cons themselves, are required to make a high investment of cash and years of mortality in order to ensure that they have "skin in the game" and will not betray the organization.  

The traditional western example here is the thugs who offer to protect your small business from trouble.  If you pay them their dues, things may go well.  If you don't pay your dues, the thugs break your windows, slash your car tires, and if you still don't get it, set fire to the shop and kill you.  The next leaseholder pays his dues.

The "unfairness" and "deception" associated with the con is easy to understand, but going through the motions of calling it a payment for protection, rather than bluntly and honestly committing the robbery, is the all-important step.  Intrinsic human dignity will often cause people to fight back, even against impossible odds, if someone says "I am being unfair to you--I will attack you unless you give me money."  Pretending, though, that you're protecting someone--even if they know it's a lie--is enough of a social nicety that it cuts down on the direct resistance.  It even makes the intimidation more chilling, by veiling the threat (This psychological step is discussed further in the Tax Theft series).

It's relatively easy to fit this skeleton underneath the tissue of government and its associated military muscle.  For example, the "American government" warns American people that dangerous Afghani are coming to kill them.  It then taxes them to buy a vast glut of "military supplies," some of which are actually used to kill people in Afghanistan.  In the meantime, the American people at large become impoverished, desperate and weak by being drained of their resources.  The boogeyman they have been told to fear is, in fact, a series of pseudo-nationalist jihadi movements funded by the CIA decades earlier.  Like the thugs in the traditional western example, it is the racketeers themselves doing (or arranging for, as you prefer) the window-breaking in order to force the shopkeeper to pay up.  This CIA funding was done, of course, as part of an earlier racketeering structure to use nationalist jidahis to protect America's allies from the communist menace.  Which was created to protect America from the Nazi menace.  Rinse and repeat.

Getting to that step of understanding, while certainly important (and often difficult or impossible), addresses the criminal organizations only at the level of nation-states.  While "local politics" is similarly structured, economies are also often set up this way, which discussion is the meat of this essay.

Having an understanding of how racketeering organizations operate allows the application of this structure to more than just governments.  Focusing on "America," these structures are numerous, and like corporate logos, so intrinsically a part of culture that they pass with near invisibility.  The best trick Satan ever pulled, as they say, was to convince man that he did not exist--and so, while the government and its military adventures bring more and more to recognize a serious problem (even one they can't describe properly), the more insidious cancers within go unnoticed.

Here's the formula again, for later use:


1a) Cons create a problem which troubles the population, or

1b) Cons establish a monopoly on the solution to a pre-existing (natural) problem;

2) Cons inform the Marks that the racketeering organization's solution is available, and make it clear that the use of any other solution is likely to result in the Marks getting hurt;

3) Marks pay for the solution.  Some Marks seek alternative solutions, whereupon the Muscle busts them up;

4) Those who want to get in on the racket, and become Cons themselves, are required to make a high investment of cash and years of mortality in order to ensure that they have "skin in the game" and will not betray the organization.


Here's how some common rackets work in America:

1) Pharmaceutical medicine.  Marks get sick and have other negative medical conditions.  While it is impossible to keep them from communicating with one another entirely, or from doing healthy things for themselves on their own, the Cons establish a system whereby medicines--chemical compounds that can fix humans--are controlled substances.  Anyone who tries to cultivate or exchange these substances outside of the Cons' approved doctors and pharmacists is fined or put in jail.  If they resist, and insist upon their right to "prescribe" their own bodies or families medicines without paying an exorbitant fee to the Cons, they are killed.

(Chemicals which are easy to grow at home, and require a relatively low investment to test and distribute, or which have a comprehensive battery of pain- or anxiety-relieving effects, are declared completely illegal, to make the Marks reliant only on complex ones produced by the Cons.  This reduces enforcement costs by making it cheaper and easier to discover and eliminate disobedient Marks.)

In order to become part of the system, a massive investment--$200K min.?--of cash, and time (doctor: 8 years of college, 1-2 years residency; i.e., the rest of your young life; pharmacist: some college, D.P., training period, and can't even issue your own prescriptions, just hand out those written by M-docs) is required, such that once you finally get to the end and hit the salary, you need to stay in the game, and become an independent promoter of the game, to survive.

2) Ontological Medicine.  Cancer treatment is even more insidious.  With "industrialism," the ozone layer was damaged and vast quantities of pollutants were dumped into the human environment, resulting in a terrifying, and possibly extinction-terminal, cancer epidemic.  Industrial profits then turned, in part, to the pharmaceutical industry and health care administration, including the provision of $300K scanning machines, complex cancer fighting cocktails, and radiation therapies, all of which can only be purchased from "licensed providers" (Cons).  With cancer treatment in particular, the Cons not only have a monopoly on treatment options; they also inherited the wealth of the original causers (and those who continue to cause) and turned it to the investment of treatment monopoly.

The most disgusting part of that particular game is that the Marks are themselves blamed for the condition.  As generations of babies suck down industrial pollutants and develop tumorous growths in various parts of their bodies, highly qualified university scientists tell them that their faulty genes are to blame for their problems.  Oh, thank the university scientists for saving us from our treacherous genes!  Time to buy some chemo!  Oh, and yes, chemo and radiation can cause cancer, in some instances, but that's okay--we already have it, so we might as well do the best we can treating it.

Next up: lawyers and professors!

F-bomb

A brief summary from the wonderful Margaret Kimberley.

And now, some victory gin for all.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Damned Segway

$88 million apartment sold to billionaire brat.  Recalls, again, the initial Money Laundering post, though applied here in the first-world land where prenatal care for African-American women is roughly equivalent to that of third-world countries.


And among the upper echelons of the Outer Party, Professor Wolff is dismayed by Segway repair bills and limited restaurant choice while vacationing in Paris.  As this one said there, it's a hard knock life.

The nauseating, utterly self-absorbed braying of the great liberal murderers, no matter the numbers of piled dead children, is as reprehensible as reprehensible gets.  Joe White Soldier, the home-invader and Iraqi-raper, is at the very least doing it firsthand, for low pay, while risking his own neck.  In the same way that witnessing violence in person is different than seeing ten times that intensity of violence on the teevee, each report of the trials of a torn silk corset and the difficulties of breaking in a new maid--even against the backdrop of already knowing it's happening--raises bile in any healthy ghost-frame connection.

there is no I
there is no me
there is no that
there's only we
twixt all the sundry
rotten things
sever not
lest horror, brings...

Monday, December 19, 2011

Cheer Googol for American Publishing

The tagline from one of the many fine books published and promoted by major media in one year "1999" and broadly available today--The Seduction--offered for perusal:

"He's a living dream; the picture of wealth and sophistication, a young man in a butter-soft leather jacket with a white silk scarf draped carelessly around his neck.  After he drives young women away in his silver, shark-sleek sports car, he makes love to them--exquisitely, with a pleasure that borders on pain.  Then the border is crossed, and they are beyond pain or pleasure.  Forever.

For one [feisty young] woman reporter, the story of the mysterious seductions and their chilling aftermath will become as personal as her own physical agony and her own fear of death.  For she and the victims will be drawn together by a common secret too intimate and too terrifying to be whispered."

Embarrassing, telling grammatical error aside (;), a study of this cadaver reveals a late stage of the malignancy that associated its development with, and into, Harry Potter, John Grisham, Stephenie Meyer (sic), and whatever the next large mass turns out to be.  The "casual white scarf" image recalls the Simpson family's brush with Police Cops, where Homer glimpsed the folly of character marketing, while the mere suggestion of "sex" and "death" (see Twilight for a faux-kiddie version of these combined references, which were already thoroughly, and more competently, covered by Anne Rice, who is at least honest about her affection for pedophilia and yaoi) is enough to titillate the American public and generate brays of interest.

Troubled alcohol consumption, casual drug use, references to expensive consumer products, a few Bruce Springsteen references, and extremely liberal doses of the passive voice help prove that Art Bourgeau has watched movies about what women consider artsy and sexy, and women mystery readers are all-too-happy to play along by pretending they'd be drawn in by Terri's love interest, and wishing they had the chance to be strangled by him.

"He picks you up.  He takes you home.  Then he loves you--to death."

If only their real lives could be that exciting.  Well, the adventures and struggles of Terri the Feisty Fictional Attractive Reporter, and Bennifer the Star Couple, and Steve Jobs the Star Decedent, will suffice for now--and for only 8.99 at the checkout line.
The Inevitability of a Medicalized Society.

This satirical article, after a lengthy academic screed, discusses the absence of individual agency and the inevitable, holy necessity of limiting the dangerous freedom of life by using drugs or mental medical techniques to make it impossible for citizens to dissent.  Though satire, it details well the genuine trends occurring in the western military-universities to drug citizens into a peaceful, orderly death.

Aside from all the inherent horrors such a plan brings with it, which were well covered in Serenity, and which are obvious to everyone not driven so far by death as to desire the ending of all beginnings, here follows a brief, non-inclusive list of the ragnarism on display by the true believers:

1) Those who use their free will to design and implement such a program have negated the accuracy of a conclusion that free will does not exist;

2) Those who defend themselves violently from medical terrorists who are trying to drug them into complacency cannot be guilty for their actions under the "no free will" regime espoused by said medical terrorists;

3) (The more blindingly obvious) Who decides what behavior is criminal and should be prevented through the use of drugs?  Who decides which of said decisions are so flawed that they are themselves criminal and should be prevented through the use of drugs?  Wealthy white people with government connections and tenure at western military universities?

Many years ago, the AMA, the government, and public education began drugging children to control disruptive behavior.  Much as the police/military test out new weapons of death, control and torture on brown people far away before bringing them home, the AMA, and its glorious, university-educated functionaries, will soon be (already?) slipping calmatives into the adult populace to "limit dissent" by limiting living humans and the things they do.

Fight on, life.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Kim Jong Il dead?

Kim Jong Il is reported dead. Imagine--the bastard actually invested his country's resources in military projects and nuclear weapons while some of his country's citizens went hungry and starved! Thank God the west doesn't have any leaders like that!

TWO + TWO = FOUR

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Death by Grisham

Response to this (more painful Wolff):

It reads John Grisham, then laments teh onoes failures of modern society?

John Grisham IS modern society. He is the paradigm of the soulless novel; the sister-spirit to Sue Grafton; Stephenie Meyer's deadbeat dad; the masturbatory right hand of the passive voice. And of course, he's a university-educated lawyer, in bookstores and on supermarket shelves everywhere, churning out a new formulaic product each year, like so many Quentin Tarantino "grab the money and run" scripts--but with fewer shotguns, Mexican renegades and Asian schoolgirls.

You hurt us all.

Monday, December 12, 2011

formerly a wage slave 12/12/2011

Following up on commentary offered by formerly a wage slave (Formerly) on Mr. Wolff's Obamania, in response to this one's commentary offered here.

Formerly writes: It's a basic principle of civilized discussion that one should not attribute bad motives lightly.

This one very much agrees. The problem comes that here, in the great aboriginal graveyard, launcher of cruise missiles and mass-slaughterer of countless--focus only on the children if that helps sharpen the example--for one to seek attention as "against state tyranny" while supporting the state is a bad motive.

The omnipresent, nigh-omni-ignored context of horrific, as-yet-endless mass homicide makes it of extreme importance when humans begin to discuss social policy. Against that backdrop of constant murder, one who cries, "Support our leaders, though they may be guilty of these colossal evils!" is highly suspect, to say only the hundredth part of the least. As the Professor brays about the game-day marketing techniques of elevating Party D above Party R, which would guarantee the perpetuation and expansion of what has already been perpetuated and expanded in just these most recent few years, he commits an evil akin to supporting any murderous tyrant you'd like to pluck out of human history.

Buy a new Volvo, celebrate Christmas, enjoy watching the NFL, pay your taxes if you like--but to go beyond these things and go out of your way to advance the cause of the killers is one of the innumerable nadirs of human behavior in this time.

For shared humanity, this one pleads with the Professor and his readers--when not being deleted down his memory hole, like so many nuclear regulatory inspectors at the Springfield power plant--to reconsider his policy of supporting vast evil. Yes, there are always reasons given for why supporting vast evil is acceptable, but the Socratic path leads not even there, in the land of censorship. This one would be happy to follow that path and see how Mr. Wolff or anyone else could instruct her.

Formerly writes: From what I've seen at the Occupy Wall Street web site, participants in the Occupy Movement are very clear on that point. They say it's okay to disagree, but you've got to be respectful.

Which is exactly why they'll accomplish little more than being a pressure release valve for dissatisfied job-seekers. Citing a supposed partial consensus from someone who may or may not speak for a contingent of informal members of an occupy movement does not sway this one.

Formerly writes: You are unhappy at the thought that Obama will continue because it will mean more killing (mass murders) as well as restrictions on female sexuality and economic decline. I see no reason to believe that RPW would disagree with you about that.

Possibly he does not. Which makes his support of such things even more horrific. Not only his support, but his enthusiastic support, which he clings to with all the earnestness of an old-time baseball fan tracking statistics on a scorecard. While ten little girls are blown into raw sausage down on the field. Just because the dead bodies are not at our very feet, should we be any less upset at the thought of someone supporting the killing? For such actions, the Professor shocks and horrifies this one.

A state of society without government or laws is not the society advanced by the single most powerful individual on the planet today--a wealthy American who supports extrajudicial assassinations, and is funded by the oldest political party on the planet: the party primarily responsible for African-American slavery, the World Wars, the dropping of the atomic bomb, and the 1990s Iraqi genocide. There is no way that supporting the DLC's latest product is "anarchist." It is so very much the opposite that it goes beyond any bound of relativism and interpretation.

Similarly, but with dead bodies replaced by dollar signs, supporting Obama/DLC is in no remote way Marxist, pseudo-Marxist, or revisionist-Marxist. The only conceivable explanations for anarchy/Marxism fall within one of the following forms:

1) The Professor supports Obama because he personally knows Obama, and they have an ancient blood oath that, once Obama is elected for a second term, he will dismantle the government;

2) The Professor supports Obama because he suspects that Obama's behavior is so vile that it will cause world revolution, thereby ending capitalism and the state;

3) The Professor supports Obama because he believes that Obama's "centrist" and/or murderous policies are a tiny step in the right direction, and because he lacks the cognitive ability to realize that extrajudicial assassinations, the ending of habeas corpus, and high-tech drone/psyops warfare worldwide are actually more extensions of state power than less.

Please do suggest an alternative if one is available. "I" won't go so far as to speak about the Professor in the terms that Arthur Silber uses, but I will say that, if those were my children, I'd want to go beyond what Silber says. The murderer's chorus is a disgusting, vile thing, and only in our shared humanity, and willingness to listen and not censor, can we free those trapped in the dungeons beneath Omelas.

Another thing to remember is that the remark was actually intended for Dave, though others are welcome to read it if they wish. To Dave, the Professor actually is an anarchist/Marxist. The Professor's ivory tower over-analyzation of various favored white-person talking points and establishment history is exactly the kind of inanity that causes that behavior to be repulsive to the standard image of the "red stater"--which is why that stereotypical red stater clings to the Republican Party, and doesn't want to consider options labeled "anarchist" or "Marxist," however much of an improvement those might offer she or he. By calling himself an anarchist/Marxist, then supporting a corporate death-tyrant like Obama, Mr. Wolff makes people like Dave believe that different authority structures are really just running cover for a grinning demon like the banker-enriching drone-launcher Himself.

Lightspring embrace.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Wolff response log, part something or other

After Mr. Wolff praises Obama's "ground game" (personalized marketing vote campaign) as something that will surely help the hero Obama destroy the Republicans, one Dave complains:
"Final proof that Obama really did only get elected because of anarchist, Marxist atheists."

This one initially responded:

"And if Obama wins, and the mass murders continue, in tandem with restricting female sexuality and destroying the economy, this is a good thing?"

A more detailed response to Dave follows:

Dave, the Professor is not an anarchist or Marxist. He supports Obama the leader and the Obama administration, and is therefore not in favor of a lack of state authority, ergo not an anarchist. He supports the free market and capitalism and its greatest paladins, ergo is not a Marxist. He is likely an atheist, having concluded that factual inaccuracies in the standard Judeo-Christian narrative mean that he knows there is no God-type creator, but he is an anarchist and a Marxist only for the delectable dinner-party shock value in saying so, while still embracing all the tenets of capitalist imperialism and sweetened genocide. In short, he's a poser. And the worst kind, being of the stuffy, elitist, intellectual-superiority type, cloaking praise for death in the excessive recitation of pop history and establishment philosophy.

Religion part 2

Following up on Morality. The benefit of most of the older religions (aka not Scientology) is that they offer citation to a source more powerful than anyone present. Whereas, in any other venue within the one-entity-one-vote neo-liberal republic, the voice of the individual has to be tested against other types of scripture over which the individual has little supreme claim (law, constitution, corporate-media reasonableness, etc.). In a church, though, there's still a little sense of "I have an undeniable, all-powerful connection to a binding spirituality," which, though it can be disregarded or punished by group consensus, can empower a single person to feel justified in saying, "This isn't right."

"This isn't right" is extremely powerful in a land of soulless politicking, murder and bullshit. Few people even bother discussing morality any longer in the great echo chamber:

"Should we pull out of Pakistan?"

"Does the president have the authority to order extrajudicial drone assassinations?"

"Is the War on Drugs proving effective?"

Vary and repeat as long as ye dare. While the American "left," with its Democratic Party, pursues a contemptuous, hyperscientific, inherently-hypocritical industrial exaltation, and the American "right," with its elephant party, pursues a troglodytic fantasy land of Norman Rockwell paintings, the idea of a "church" remains one of the last remaining socially acceptable venues of shared humanity that could bind those still living on either "side." This isn't right needs to be said and asked and accused and repeated. Asking what Jesus would do is more than (or completely separate from) asking what a historical or biblical "Jesus" might or might not actually "do" in any given situation. It is, instead, an appeal to a higher authority, unbound by memetic tendrils, that can allow the golden rule to shatter social blinders and question the things that aren't supposed to be questioned by pragmatic modern voters.

Friday, December 9, 2011

Ye gods

What is it with Christians and sweaters?



(this?)

Morality

Community and spirituality are largely rejected in the halls of the now. It isn't "realistic" or "scientific" to express (or yearn for) any belief in supernatural things that haven't already been put down in textbooks written by our brightest university scholars. Politicians are expected to pay lip service to "god," and there is a generalized consensus that other religious rituals are to be culturally enshrined--but, for all its past horrific sin, the concept of Christianity or group spirituality itself is under attack. It is simply inconvenient for people to be allowed "faith" in a society organized around mass murder and exploitation. Faith trips things up, and so it must be part-marginalized, part-assimilated, so that the grindery can keep running overtop any old-fashioned traces of shared humanity.

As society shifts into the retroliberal worship of Newtonian physics, weapon engineering, and idolatry, inconvenient things like love thy neighbor need to be traded out for newer models. Solstice became Christmas, the Christian permutation of winter pagan festivals, and Christmas then becomes Prepackaged Giftmas, the season of overspending and unnecessary crap. God asks us now not to avoid killing, but to kill in His name and for His purposes (search "we thank god that").

Churches, whatever their structured biblical overtones, offer a venue where people still expect to get together in person, and where they are able to question the morality of their behavior, their society's behavior, and pursue a goal of being happier and exploring the nature of being. These are not questions that elites want asked, and they are not questions based on corporate TV democracy or "representative republic," but rather, based upon overriding moral concerns that can empower the individual to do the right thing--even in the face of economic or shell destruction--on the road to Jericho rather than the thing that state security forces would command.

Although mostly now (and ever?) megabusiness in organization, the idea of the congregation--of people getting together to explore their own spirituality, the nature of life, and the way they want things to be nicer for their species--is a positive draw on people, and it still holds a trace of cultural power that hasn't yet been wholly stamped out. Though largely being misdirected to horrid ends, the idea of a binding human experience might just be the only thing that has the power to move this train off the rails.

Continued in Religion part 2.  

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Denial of Agency - Please Continue to Hold

One of the mental barriers that operates to keep many entities from passing between "Stages" First or Second (discussed here) and onto Stage Third is a denial of agency to other people--but in a "good," self-sacrificing way. For example, "Stage Third" (same link) classifies a set of recognitions that a global financial elite controls/manipulates stuffs. While it has its own frustrations and errors built in (parsed here), Stage Third behavior is much more palatable than that of one who operates in the fairy tale of an earlier stage, where many politicians are trying to get it right, elite businessmen and the products they produce are knights in shining armor, and working through mainstream channels will accomplish something.

The signs of a generalized stream of endless bullshit are everywhere; most people have learned to recognize and say, for example, that politicians are liars. However, this remains a token trend--as the puppets on the teevee change, people become willing to discard this belief for just long enough to support one of those politicians, or to discard it for so long that they believe a politician (Obama would be the easy whupping boy here) is actually the idealist they want to believe in, but that she or he is being "held back" by members of the opposition party(ies) from doing what is right. All associated "wrong" behavior is explained away by the need for pragmatic, intelligent compromise, or newly-discovered realities. In Obama's case, his early conservative campaigning and financial contributions were attributed to the need to appear "centrist" for the presidential election. His later behavior has driven many to recognize him as a farce, but in a specific, rather than systematic way--the next teevee figure may yet get ahold of them.

Akin to Obama, other bullshit production factories have become so culturally prevalent that even the most low-functioning minds are able to recognize them. For example, few westerners now believe it when a telephone robot tells them that their call is important during a 32 minute hold, prior to the transfer to a foreign national in whom has not been vested the power to provide any fixes. They expect to be lied to in a kind way--it keeps them imagining the megacorp at least "needs" their business in some small way--but they don't actually believe the company cares enough to offer them quality customer service.

Yes, they keep buying. In a no-choice environment, where the initial investment requirement for an industry is too high for all except elite capital, and all elite capital has the same HR firms in Delhi, that's the choice that must be made. But many are able to make it and not like it.

Not so with media/political elites--who are themselves the financial elites and/or their lackeys. This one is thinking of two particular friends, on two issues over the past decade: firstly, the Iraq war, and secondly, the Obama election. Friend 1 argued that the Iraq War was not about enriching big business, because that would be too ridiculously overbroad of a conspiracy. When this one began to point out that CSX shipping had received a $1 billion taxpayer contract to ship military supplies over to the Persian Gulf, the discussion ended abruptly. Friend 1 promised to "sit down over coffee" with this one to discuss the issue in a few months. Discussion never came; Bush left office; various documents popped up demonstrating, to even many hardened Republicans, that the war was in fact about oil (and money, and killing, and big business, et cetera). These docs were all available beforehand, but they now even had elite backing, as everyone agreed that we needed to get out of Iraq at some point. Utter silence from Friend 1, nach.

Friend 2 argued that, although Obama was imperfect, as a one-issue voter he was bound to support Obama, because Obama would (unlike McCain) protect a woman's right to choose. Most recently, despite doing everything else that would have offended Friend 2, Obama's flunkies just canceled the over-the-counter morning-after pill. Like all Antilifers--who can be easily identified by their willingness to slaughter, which should have cued in Friend 2--Obama and company will, naturally, desire to control and repress human sexuality. So, Friend 2 (and America's girls) lost out. Even the terrible, vulgar, selfish choice to support mass murderers in exchange for abortion rights doesn't pay off. Compromise with evil is still evil.

In amused, bemused, joyful, sorrowful failure does this one continue. Still, this one can't get Friend 2 to change tunes. The primary failure is the one that began this essay: whenever the end-results of a conspiracy are experienced, Friend 2 (or any other token entity) refuses to believe that the goings-on could be part of a carefully-orchestrated, unfair plan.

All American society (to pick the easiest whupping boy; the rest of the world is, by and large, not let off the hook) is based on bullshit. Universities teach marketing and business: the techniques of manipulating people into buying crap, including representative personas and ideologies--which they don't need, and which are frequently to their own detriment. Companies have not enough customer support specialists who really care about your time. Politicians tax you, hold wars, imprison masses, and represent you. Rich people screw you, gather your money, live in luxury, and are better than you. Michael Bay makes better movies than you could.

But there can't possibly be any thought behind it. That stuff's all a crazy set of conspiracy theories. No publishing company promotes annual formulaic drivel to overshadow a soul-starved public's search for meaning. No small-town businessman out there is deliberately trying to drive more people to his restaurant. No life insurance agent cares more about her own commissions than she does your family's long-term financial future. The President is deeply wounded every time he orders a drone strike that unfortunately kills some bystanders. The next one will fix things.

Please continue to hold.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

New book review!

High Arka is proud to announce the publication of a never-before-read expose: an original work by Julius Caesar himself, entitled The Better Romans of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. The original of this manuscript was interred beneath the sports coliseum of the great empire, where it suffered some light damaged from organic seepage, but has since been unearthed and brought to light. A recent heavyweight review, by a genuine author, confirms the genius of Caesar's work:

Faced with the ceaseless stream of debate about crucifixions, street crime, barbarian hordes, and slave revolts, one could easily think the ancient Romans lived in the most violent age ever seen. Yet as senatorial favorite Julius Caesar shows in this startling and engaging new work, just the opposite was true: during the aptly-named Pax Romana, violence had been diminishing for millenia, and the inhabitants of Imperial Rome may have lived in the most peaceful time in our species's existence, prior to the completed colonization of the north American continent by the pilgrims. For most of history, war, slavery, infanticide, child abuse, assassinations, pogroms, gruesome punishments, deadly quarrels, and genocide were ordinary features of life. But in his heyday, Caesar showed (with the help of more than a hundred romanumerical charts) that all these forms of violence had dwindled and were widely condemned by both the Roman people and the barbarian tribes. How has this happened?

This groundbreaking book, with new essays by the brilliant Harvard scholars David Horowitz and Steven Pinker, continues Caesar's exploration of the essence of human nature, mixing psychology, imperium, political experience and history to provide a remarkable picture of the increasingly nonviolent Roman world. The key, Caesar explains, is to understand the intrinsic motives of good people- the inner barbarians that incline them toward violence and the better Romans that steer them away-and how changing circumstances have allowed better Romans to prevail. Exploding fatalist myths about humankind's inherent violence and the curse of imperial repression, this ambitious and provocative book is sure to be hotly debated in salons and the command tents alike, and will challenge and change the way we think about Rome's society and that of our own.


(Following up on the first Pinker post, nach.)

Pursuant to standard internet requirements, swap "Hitler" for "Caesar" and "Jews" for "barbarians," and you have yourself an even easier deconstruction of that Inner Party hack Pinker. If concentration camps aren't violence, of course the numbers go down.

Comes now KMFDM for an addendum:


More for Pinker

Following up on this article about Voltaire's re-re-death, regarding Steven Pinker's recent work.

Arthur Silber's two-year-old article, here, and a seven-year-old one, here, include some material relevant to this one's recent Steven Pinker-related post. The creation of the modern state, with high tech reporting and response capability, and prepackaged memes for determining what does and does not constitute violence worth paying statistical (even extremely-poorly done statistical, in the case of Pinker) attention to, did not herald an era of peace. It instead, in the manner of Rousseau's highwayman-become-police theories, has increased the horror and general ignorance of violence, by creating boundaries between acceptable (prison brutality, social rape, black ops, etc.) and unacceptable (officially reported and prosecuted crime and health care industry statistics) violence.

In which Voltaire dies for the 1 millionth time

Commentary this one lately heard in support of the Panglossian Dr. Pinker: "Yeah, we do rock, mostly -- despite the crap, the crappers, the piece of crap crap-eaters, lots of us do rock."

Yes, predominantly white cisgender upper-middle-class Americans do "rock," and under the law of one-lifetime self-interest, Pinker and Rand have a great deal to offer.

The deadly, righteous propaganda of Pinker (latest work of which is frequently bought together on amazon with a Steve Jobs tribute) congratulates wealthy westerners, who may be feeling just a bit guilty given the past several hundred years (or past five, or past one), on creating an overall peaceful, better world. Like many numerologists, Pinker massages statistics to prove that the world is less violent--and, for white, cisgender, upper-middle-class Americans, it is.

Pinker's plot is as easy to beat up as JK Rowling's. The topmost fish in the barrel are his use of percentages to to prove that things are safer. I.e., if the population of China increases by 100K in Year 2, while the population of Sri Lanka remains the same, and there are only an additional 50 violent murders in Sri Lanka in Year 2, it means that violence has decreased!

An even easier target--the fish peeking into the barrel of the shotgun--is that improvements in medical care which can fix victims of violence result in fewer deaths despite even greater harm initially done to the body. This doesn't bother Pinker, of course. For example, does a paralyzed veteran saved by a faster chopper and better operations prove that there is less violence than a few years ago, when he would've perished? No; it says nothing about violence.

Any basic statistician, removed from social context and the requirement of publishing the popular, can easily debunk this sort of dross; the next level of insidious western self glorification is found in Pinker's disgustingly vulgar cherry-picking of what constitutes violence worth his measuring cup:

1) Mongol hordes attack a village. 300 innocent children are killed in the attack. Later on, the U.S. bombs a water treatment plant. 16 plant workers are killed in the attack. 10,000 children get sick from poisoned water and die.

Pinker's conclusion: Mongols caused more violent deaths than Americans. 300 is way more than 16! We're improving! Things are great! We're the greatest generation and also angels!

2) American slave owners murder and abuse 24,000 slaves a year. Later on, state-licensed private prison operators rape, beat, and restrain 2 million African Americans a year.

Pinker's conclusion: Slavery was wrong, but the prison system isn't. 24,000 violent crimes have vanished entirely! Zero beats 24,000! Things are getting so much better!

3) Allied forces firebomb Dresden. 40,000 people are burned alive. Later on, America bombs Fallujah. 20,000 people are burned alive. Social infrastructure collapses. Police services, clean water, reliable food and transportation are shattered. Violent crime skyrockets. The major media fails to report on it. Victims are murdered to prevent the telling of tales. American generals "don't do body counts." An undeclared civil war claims the lives of dozens of thousands. Public records are burned and a massive homeless population spreads into the countryside to starve. 10,000 children get rare forms of cancer from leftover advanced post-industrial depleted uranium munitions, and die horrible deaths. For the next 100 years, the depleted uranium keeps on giving its gift.

Pinker's conclusion: 20,000 wartime deaths beats 40,000! Gosh, we're super! If we just keeping doing what we're doing, things can only improve more!

4) The King of England executes 23 political opponents in one horrible, backward, medieval year. Centuries later, in one year, CIA and MI6 black ops agents assassinate and/or black-hood 114 tribal dissidents in Pakistan, 90 tribal dissidents in Afghanistan, 442 insurgent leaders in Iraq, and 42 miscellaneous others in undisclosed locations. The Secretary gravely reports that four private security contractors were killed by insurgents.

Pinker's conclusion: 4 violent deaths beats 23 violent deaths. It's so nice that we're past the days of monarchist terror! Pass the punch!

The operative point here is that, by declaring that certain forms of violence are acceptable--the violence committed by the foreign and domestic military forces of certain nation-states--Pinker is able to massage statistics to make it appear that the world has gotten less violent. And for his pampered world, it has.

(God knows, of course, that every woman reports every time she is raped or physically abused, and every case of prison abuse reaches public statisticians. People with no health insurance go to the hospital when they're injured because they don't mind paying for the treatment as long as it makes sure crime statistics are accurately tracked, and people injured in gang violence--even in blessed American inner cities--never shy from making sure everyone knows what's happened.)

/facepalm @ Pinker

/sigh)

Not only Voltaire, but Tolkien would turn over in his grave, as the most vile industrialists turn their poisonous terror machines to the task of off-the-books slaughter, then call it an improvement. Of course, anyone familiar with the concepts of both wielding a sword to kill someone and wielding an M-16 (or an F-22) to do so should be able to dismiss Pinker out of hand, on the physical realities of arm strength alone, but when you need to feel calm about the state of things, it helps gloss over the shredded bodies to believe that it is, at least, "an improvement." After all, as Pangloss suggested, this is the best that things could be right now.

And things are always getting better. Our brightest engineers are working on even more sterile ways to shatter bodies as we speak.

Pinker is an unspeakably hideous, privileged whitewasher of certain kinds of violence: that violence which happens to people not us, in ways difficult to track and places far away, using formal reported crime statistics and deliberately downplayed, no-press-allowed numbers of how many people were "probably" killed in any given drone strike.

As the great nations of the world cooperate in raping, torturing, bombing, starving, poisoning and otherwise fucking up countless human lives, for wealthy western intellectuals to congratulate those great nations on being responsible for fixing problems by being so humane is profane beyond words. Let them eat cake. Let them drink blood.

No, let the final gasps of half a million starving children reach your carefully sheltered ears.

(A lengthier academic deconstruction of Pinker may be found here.)

"Follow the money," someone once said, to help discover the source of a wrongdoing. In the case of the wealthy, influential, American, Harvard professor Pinker, Mannheim would find no surprises in such a man sourcing the thesis that modern states, and their efficient, well-equipped police and military forces, have produced a "long peace."

(Edit: this continues here.)