Tuesday, January 31, 2012

On the Hypocrisy of Doing Nothing, Part 2

In response to Part 1, JM writes:

Like supporting or participating in an OWS event for instance? Oh wait..never mind. It's only physical confrontation that's acceptable for any sort of rebellion, right?


Rebellion is always going to be "unacceptable" inasmuch as the powers-that-be are concerned; if the question is whether or not this one believes that any sort of rebellion is acceptable that does not include violence, most certainly.  Acceptable, but unlikely to accomplish anything other than pressure release and the overall maintenance of the system.

The boggle here is likely how difficult it is to accept that nothing will tip the system without violence.  It took the panthers shooting back and fear of race war to shake off token civil rights; it took the socialists fighting strikebreakers to do the same for labor laws in the early chunk of the 20th century.  All of this one's whining and accurate criticism about Obama/Bush/Whoever will accomplish nothing except personal stress relief and intellectual development, just like the accumulated complaints of Silber, Floyd and IOZ.  Worthy--very worthy, and of priceless human value, and not in any way bad, yes--but the fact remains that it will not change anything.  The little brown kids are still being starved and murdered, and all we're doing in Anglo-America is whining about how bad it is.  To no geopolitical end.

Take a cue from the NRA on this one--politicians DO prefer unarmed peasants.  And for a very good reason.  Like, Robespierre and stuff.  Nach, a few pea-shooters will do little-to-nothing against the current FIRE/MIC without herd theory, but the essence of the message is true.  They're going to keep slaughtering the planet until someone makes them stop.

The angry reaction here comes from someone who has convinced her or himself that by posting on blogs, sharing articles describing horrible things, chatting up friends or reading books, one will help "build awareness" and be able to positively influence the policy of nation-states without the shedding of blood.  Nope.  This train ain't stoppin' until it's blown off the rails.

No harsh judgment to those who read/share/exchange, or who exhibit private horror.  That's human, good, priceless, and should never be stopped.  What should drop, however, is the illusion that, by being peacefully outraged by things, even in the company of physical or internet friends, one will fix the problem.  Accept that you're doing nothing, or perhaps, that you can do nothing--that you're powerless to change things, even if you did start breaking the rules, or that you're not willing to make change because you don't want to get yourself or your loved ones hurt.

It seems like a tough pill to swallow.  The cognitive dissonance, and resulting fury for some in realizing that, is caused by their defensive subconscious belief that some form of raising awareness is going to help stop the killing.  The "I believe in peaceful talking to stop the murderers from committing further genocide and environmental suicide for the entire species" ruse is as desperately important to most of these bloggers as is the beaten wife's belief that her husband really cares deep down, and will soon stop drinking.  Hey, good for you.  I hope it works out that way.  Why so serious?

The choice myself > murdered little Afghani kids or my family > murdered little Pakistani kids is like the hypothetical, "If there was only one coconut on the island, enough to sustain you or the other lost traveler until help arrived, but not enough for both of you, would you kill her/him to get the coconut for yourself?"

Yes?  No?  Would you sit there and die while complaining about it?  Noble--but then, paying your taxes to the MIC to fund nukes and soldier salaries and armored humvees is not just sitting there.  Refusing to lift strong arms to stop someone from murdering thousands of innocent children a year is not just.

The selfish, horrible choices are being made here, too.

Therein lies a solution: let's all be honest about it.  Go on the news, or just in your social circle, and stop dicking around.  Instead, say, "God yes, Obama's a murderer, but I'm not going to stop him; I'm too afraid of his security forces."  Let's have a large population of acknowledged realists, instead of an internet population-in-hiding of people pretending they're accomplishing something just by typing and whining.  This one is comfortable with it--this one's choice is to take that coconut, baby.  Get enough people in a country with that attitude, not hiding it behind silk, and that's where the mob comes from.  Vague notions of white social justice touched with "don't hurt a flower"-style pacifism have a zero percent record of accomplishing anything.

Sharpen your aim--don't hate the player; hate the game.




Not a very good piece on the whole, but the refrain sentiment echoes real: you're playing the game too, in your own interest, and you have the luxury and freedom to whine about why Obama is beating you.

On The Hypocrisy of Doing Nothing, Part 1

Elsewhere on IOZ this one said:

All the commentary here, or Floyd, or Silber (would he allow it) or similar seems to be endlessly swirling around the concept "We're screwed; let's complain about it." Which does indeed have some value. Yet, is there the nexus of a change here?

To which responded an anonymous as follows:

"We're screwed; let's complain about it."
Or let's post, hmmm...pictures of armed mercs, a helmeted skull, a fat guy kissing a cross, a medieval crucifixion scene, prisoners at Guantanamo, dead children, American flag draped coffins, more dead children with bullet holes in their heads, a portrait of a war criminal,...
And Tupac. Oh yeah, "Fuck all y'all"

Response log:

Note the "which does again have some value"  Complaining about it is good.  There might, though, be more fun for all beyond complaining.
The things you are mocking, incidentally, are things that you may find of value in reaching those who don't already agree with you.  Have the courage to help your lesser-aware sisters and brothers come to see some of the things that most people reading IOZ already know.  Even if they scorn you at first.
There is a certain level of elitism among the IOZ/Silber/Floyd crowd that, while deserved (as much so as the Jon Stewart audience "knowing" more than the Hannity & Colmes audience), serves only to separate them in dialogue and action from their fellow humans who are not quite as intelligent.  Or, alternatively, who may have different life experiences and pressures that don't allow them the time or freedom to follow certain avenues of learning and inquiry.
We are our sisters' keepers.  The clannishness developing here risks evolving into the same deadly morass that has ensnared most everyone else.  Reach back into the tar pit, baby.  You might be a little closer to the edge, but you're sinking anyway.  It's going to take one hell of a human chain to have any chance of getting out.
Lastly, 2Pac pwns you.  

Issues here orbit the traditional realization of the Stage Third entity: "I live in a planet controlled by violent, selfish elites and the idiots who serve them.  I know that there is no way to stop them save by force, but am unable to risk my life and/or property in doing so."

Which is fine.  Elites do tend to kill and steal from those who oppose them.  The choice to limit one's actions and tolerate the brutalizing of others may need to be made.  Making that choice, and yet still lamenting the awful state of the world, is just fine.  There's no inherent hypocrisy in it.  Pay your taxes, or you go to jail.  Don't defend your fellow humans in the Middle East, or you will be killed/tortured.

The pointing out of the sad state of only being able to whine about it, though, is not a bad thing.  It is true that all "we" can do is whine about it, unless we want to increase the risk to our lives/property.  There's no shame to admitting that--unless one feels, well, shame, deep down, about not doing something more than whining.  It is morally permissible to not start a revolution in order to preserve one's life or the life of those who depend upon one.

Which is to say, of course, that it is terrible and morally impermissible.  Let there be no illusions about the selfishness of the partially-enlightened American choice to whine on blogs but never pick up the pitchforks and torches.

Hypocrites.  Because if it was your family or loved ones, you'd probably fight back.  So where's the human connection?  It should be just as strong for others.  That lack of connection is why we're all suffering.  If we all fought back when sick tyrants like Obama killed our families and children far away, the tyrants wouldn't last.  So lament our sickness.  Treat it.  Hope it can be cured; work at curing it.  But don't pretend there's no built-in hypocrisy and cowardice in the decision.  This one lives contentedly with it.  In the jungle, you fight as hard and as nastily as you can.  Which is why it's always going to be the jungle.  Lightspring embrace.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

On-site University Link

Good long article on the university aspect of the MIC assisting in smarter and better academic torture, to provide an on-site reference in case Brin, Wolff, or their scientific ilk ever sniff their way here:

Psychologists and Torture.

Mercs on Parade!

Just when you thought cops were bad, wait'll the heavier artillery starts patrolling a street near you.  The heavier artillery is already there, of course; it's just limited to S.W.A.T. and military bases for the time being.  Wait for it...wait for it...private entourages of guys in suits riding around with the few remaining richies in town, keeping the rabble from disturbing the peace.  Kind of like medieval times, but with assault rifles replacing broadswords.

Security's a growing business, baby.  Get your degree in justice studies before the depression deepens.  'Tis better to be shooting people for money than starving in an alley, amirite?





Young Ameriboy Jake comments:
"Love the gear!!!!! Can you guys design up a hoodie....."Two to the chest, one to the head"???"




Bring the Mozambique home to the poor saps who thought killing enough darkies would at least make their own families safe.

Update.  A recent exchange between mercs and potential customer on facebook:


Do you do large quantity orders for schools or charities at discount?
 ·  · 9 hours ago · 

    • 308 Ghillies LLC Value of Cart Discount
      from $ 200.00 5.00 %
      from $ 500.00 7.50 %
      from $ 750.00 10.00 %


Wowza.  And here this one thought the "schools" part would at least make them take notice.  But nope--war wear for the school-kiddies does come at a discount.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Forgiving Jesus

How popular it is nowadays to bash Jesus.  Many bad things have been done in the name of Jesus, such as the Crusades, anything an American President has done, or the Third Reich.  As the religion of science begins to ascend the latest absolute empire on wings of liberalism, the crucifix has become a symbol of backwardness; of close-mindedness; of everything wrong with the past.  Hip urban yuppies quiver at the thought of meeting someone god-fearing while hiking in one of the flyover states, while scorning the backward attitudes of religious types who do appropriately stupid conservative things.

The crucifix, then, is to the modern, enlightened person, the epitome of a phase of religious humanity that is best passed over.


Jesus, the neoliberal's pinnacle of stupidity, is the ignorant patriarch of 0 A.D., personifying anti-semitism, motivating wacky Baptist social movements, and always trying to put up wooden idols of himself on state property to force children to pray and ignore science.

This conception is grossly in error, and Jesus--or the image thereof--needs forgiveness.

How?  Why?  Well, take a look at the world.  The first true and useful questions to consider in evaluating any human society over the past 10,000 years are:

1) who has the money and the food?
2) who's starving?
3) who's being killed?

Once the pioneering life of humanity had begun to spread from Africa around the globe, a particularly noxious ideology began to coalesce in the northern regions of Africa.  This religious movement was dangerous; deliberately genocidal; horribly racist, ethnocentrist, homophobic, violently sexist; intolerant; exclusive.

Relying on the deadly justice of its all-powerful masculine god-figure, the Torah-based religion began doing a number of highly troublesome things:

1) Mutilating the genitals of all its male children;
2) Subordinating all its women to the authority of those with testicles;
3) Expanding a racist empire where those who resisted the superior People of the Book were murdered, "down to the last child";
4) Attributing spiritual, racial and cultural superiority to its members.

Spreading out in this holy war against infidels, the followers of the Torah murdered the inhabitants of various city-states across the Middle East ("God" did it by raining fire and stone on their buildings) ran into some hiccups against the brutal Egyptian Empire, spent some time as slaves, then escaped to continue the crusade in other realms.  By mandating inbreeding, excluding non-ethnic members from the club, and monopolizing various professions, early expansionist Judaism survived.

In the meantime, Greek city-states formed little empires to extract resources from less-fortunate city-states; Athens won the crown for a while, and then came Imperial Rome.  The city-state Rome managed to take over a large chunk of the known world.  Those who resisted the Romans were tortured horribly to death on crosses: nailed up to die slowly as a warning to those who resisted the empire.  A little known fact about death by crucifix (which those wonderful, classical, creators-of-western-civilization Greeks had been using before Rome adopted the technique) is that death generally came not from bleeding, but from the compression of breath due to the weakened chin falling onto the chest of the crucified--or from the impalement, through the anus, of the homoerotic Roman soldiery's penchant for supporting the majority of body weight anally upon the central crucifix shaft.


Die slow.  Die in incredible pain, as your body sinks by its own weight onto a wooden contraption roughly in the shape of a man.  Die rotten, and hang there, so that everyone can see what happens when you fuck with the empire.

"Jesus" may never have existed, but human or deity or social construct, he was a backlash against the most visibly horrifying sins of the imperial project.  From Torah to Athens to Rome, the mass genocide and brutal torture of those who resisted expanding groups of "superior" civilizations, reached its culmination, then, in Jesus upon the cross.

Here was a man--or an image--who threw corrupt moneychangers from temples.  Here was a man who went through all of the pain and death experienced by the victims of empire, and in a marvelous tale of hope, came back from it to promise people that they would someday be delivered from horror.  Whether or not one particular guy named Jesus actually did these things is irrelevant to the story and the power behind it.  In the standard historical record, there are countless men, women, elders, and little kids that the Romans, and their predecessors, brutalized on the cross.

Not only did people want to believe that a higher power, in the form of a human, had gone through this suffering that they had endured, they also knew--or wanted to know--a Jesus who finally cracked the restrictive barriers of the Torah.  Like Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King, or Susan B. Anthony, Jesus crashed the barriers of a bigoted, restrictive system of membership and expansion.  Jesus proclaimed that all people could properly worship God, even if they were not semitic "children of Israel" lucky enough to have been born in a certain place and been raised within a certain cultural subset.  All could be saved, for God so loved the world that He gave His son to save it.  All. 

Naturally, this did not sit well with imperialists.  The people of the Torah did not approve of such attitudes, whether or not personified in one guy named Jesus; nor did Imperial Rome like it very much--obviously.

The "barbarians" finally overthrew Rome.  And thank God--there, at last, a surge of victory over the most horrific empire yet to rape the planet.  Crosses came down.

Time passed.  Filthy opportunists saw an opportunity to co-opt Jesus' movement, and produced the Catholic church--a church where Jesus/God was not everywhere, and available to everyone, but accessible only through a closed, formal church structure, which handed out salvation and sold redemption from sins for cash.  Centuries passed; Martin Luther put up his proclamation, Protestants fought Catholics.  Eventually, the British Crown came up with its own version of "Christianity" to justify its own bloated horrors, America slapped crosses and "under God" on everything, and began using the graven idol of Jesus and His suffering to justify carpet bombing, like, a lot of little kids.

But back to the cross.  The cross is the symbol of imperial horror.  To wear a cross is--even if the wearer doesn't realize it--to say, "I feel the horrors of empire.  I bear a tangible reminder of the vile tortures that brutal murderers committed against so many of my kind, even before my parents were born.  I will not forget them."

There is, nach, an irony of the utmost sadness in the golden crosses dangling around the necks of our valiant soldiers as they gun down little brown children in dusty streets far away.  Or in Obama so much as pretending to mention the term "God" when people think he's talking about something related to what dream Christianity might once have been.  It's as profane as anything verbal can be.

Someday, two thousand years from now, people of a new religion may wear about their necks little golden symbols of a hooded man kneeling in the Cuban sun.


...and they may wear those symbols while orbital saucer-ships blow the everliving hell out of forty billion alien children in Planet 242 just off the Horsehead Nebula.  But that doesn't mean it's not something worth remembering.  Jesus, and the cross of the suffering of so many thousands of people, was bought out and sold by the latest generation of evil murderers and torturers.

Buying and selling, though, can't change meaning.  Keep hating the hypocrisy, ignorance and murderous ways of the imperial American "Christians" now, if you must, but don't blame "Jesus," or the story of Jesus, or learn to think of the cross as emblematic of anything other than the human suffering caused by empire.

Jesus, today, would be hanging from a wall by the ankles in Guantanamo Bay, hooded in black, waterboarded every day, and beaten until he admitted he used to be bin Laden's cabana boy and helped plan the 9/11 attacks.  Then he'd be executed, and his memory lost, until someone came up with the story of a human whose spirit was not crushed by the horrors of empire.  So give Him or him or it a break.

Go Ayn Rand!

A rather disgusting, telling interview with an Objectivist, found here.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Which Preschoolers Go?

You're walking down the street one day when shots ring out at a nearby preschool. You rush in and find two guys standing in there with preschool students as hostages: Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama. Immediately, they turn their guns on you.

 "Oh, tough guy, eh?" chortles Newt.  "Come in here to save the kids?"

"Err, not really, Newt...well, I heard shots...I guess it would be nice if I could save them."

Obama chuckles merrily.  "Heehee--look, Newt, he's scared! Whadda ya think we should do with him, huh? Whadda ya think we should do?"

You: "Mr. Obama, please, you don't have to do this."

 "Ooh, I got it!"  Barack walks over and puts the gun against the head of the nearest preschooler.  "You can decide who's gonna die, tough guy! How about these kids?" He waves his gun at the nearest three children.  "Want them to die?"



Gingrich grabs another group of kids.  "Ha! Maybe you want these kids to die, instead!"  Gingrich waves his gun at the five kids he has before him.  "Who's it gonna be, tough guy? Who's it gonna be?"

So--who are you going to vote for? The difference in the example is that, if you choose Obama, only 3 innocent children will die. In the real world, if you go with Obama, it will be thousands. Possibly tens of; possibly hundreds of, depending on how ejaculatory he and his buddies get re: Iran. Another difference between reality and the example above is that in the example, you have no choice. In the situation above, you have to choose between either Obama or Gingrich, or else both of them will kill the children. You have no choice except to pick one. Obama/Gingrich is like the Green Goblin in the recent Spiderman movie. Who dies? The woman you love or the trolley full of people? In the real world, you don't have to pick one of them. This isn't Spiderman.

You can refuse to play either of their terrible games. You can resist them. Most of all, you have the power to give up the deception that Barack Obama is a hero because he might murder "fewer" innocent people. The crucial difference between voting for Obama in the real world, and choosing to allow him to murder only 3 preschoolers in the example above, is that the example above describes a terrible choice being made one time only. The presidential farce is recurring. Imagine the preschool example, but this time imagine that it happens every day.  Times ten or fifty or a hundred.  Every day, you go by the preschool, and every day the madmen execute either 3 or 5 children--your choice. At what point do you stop choosing? At what point do you stop playing along and say, "Enough"? At some point, it must become apparent to you that the game is never going to end.

The children are going to keep dying--there will always be new madmen willing to take the hostages, make the speeches, and carry out the killings. Choose your decade. Choose your war. Choose your murders. Choose your "party."  How long can you justify this morbid farce? How long will you play the terrible game with the killer? Go back to Vietnam, if you like. Go back to Hiroshima and "choose" which rich, powerful national leader you want to press the button. Go back to the invasion of the Philippines. Go back to the Mexican American War. The fucking crusades, or the genocide of the neanderthals. Count the bodies. Is it ever going to end? Are you ever going to say, "Enough"?

Every day you walk by the school. Every day the madmen are there. When are you going to stop giving them what they want? When are you going to stop validating not only the deaths they cause, but their entire horrific game? It will never stop unless we stop it. If we keep supporting it, year after year, always justifying it as "a little less murder than we could otherwise commit," it will never end. When you refuse to vote, or vote for someone else, you are a grain of sand. But at some point, change has to happen, and it will take individual people willing to refuse to support the killing. A few crazies, at first, who refuse to compromise by saying, "I guess it's fine if Obama kills people, because he'll kill fewer than Gingrich will." (This is, essentially, what that haughty piece of shit George Clooney is saying as the televised 2012 contest approaches) A few crazies, and maybe someday, more. It's as daunting a task as any, but it has to happen for the killing to stop: human individuals--without an automatic, reassuring group consensus--refusing to support killing any longer.

You can do it. You can stand for peace and justice--you can refuse to play the terrible game of choosing who will die, and in what quantity. Leave the sadists with nothing but their own fantasies, and they will shrivel away. If everyone is afraid to take the step away from killing because "it will make no difference; I'm only one person" then no one will ever step away. And the killing will never end.


Who's it gonna be?  Gingrich?  Romney?  Obama?  What's the difference?  A few points in your "domestic policy"?  Marginal tax adjustments to the salaries of people lucky enough to have been born on the North American continent?

Oh, Obama!


How irresponsible of you to not vote for the latest model of political killers.  How could you be so unpatriotic?  Everyone knows Mitt or Newt would do a little "more."  Because numbers are really what matters.

So off "just" three of the preschoolers.  And tell yourself it's all you can do.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

2Pac on the SOTU

See you got some niggas on your side
that say they're your friends
but in real life they your enemies...


see the enemies will say they true
but in real life those niggas will be the snitches
its a dirty game y'all



from Supersomonerandom: "sickest film ever...his mother was his biggest influence, and he adored strong minded women. in tupac: resurrection he says "id right songs about the strong women in the world, songs like 'keep ya head up' then id make songs about the girls i see everyday who have no respect for themselves, songs like 'i get around'


Tupac Amaru Shakur: son of a black panther activist who got things done the real way in the 1960s, and gave her son and herself Incan names, then used his music proceeds after he was murdered to fund art education for poor kids.  2Pac, calling out the fakes, the snitches, the cowards, who imitate blackness to get in good with bankers and black churches, then stab everyone in the back and continue genocidal war in Africa to murder countless black children, while cutting business taxes and blathering about domestic jobs.

Oh, and don't forget the endless black ghetto drug war, gutted social services, and racist attacks on bad black men.

Bless you, Tupac.  Al Gore's prissy white worry about your naughty lyrics aside, you knew how to call out lying, scumbag, sellout phonies like Obama before this latest one slithered his way onto the world stage.  Like MLK and Malcolm X, your nascent political activism got you shot suspiciously to death, after which it was time to blame the killing on "black gangsters."  It's always convenient to have angry black men lurking in the shadows, when you can't pin sudden high-profile assassinations on mentally troubled crackers.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Oxford Comma Crusades



The latest antilife strike on language is the instantly traditional reverence for the Oxford comma, said strike being well exemplified in the picture above.  Oxford comma crusades tend to include the implied message "enough absolute grammatical rules can eliminate all nuances of meaning, thereby perfecting communication."  "Accurate" communication, though, will always require humans sharing understanding, which can be done with or without any given grammatical rule.  It's "Oxford" because it's Humperdinckian; the inheritor of the absolutist expansion of deathlust across the world--as described here before, from Torahtic to Athenian to Roman to British to American.

Burning aside the strawmen of speaking in tongues or misusing their, they're and there, the flow of sensations and wonders between humans is well-facilitated by language.  Language, though, relies on a number of set assumptions: primary among these that an always varying, imperfect set of guttural emissions, paired with cultural understanding, looks and gestures, dress and situation, et cetera, will aid humans in communicating complex things to "one" another.

Humans have abused the notion of language during its development, though, spawning thereby a number of malignant trends that threaten to make language, and everything it aspired toward, a terminal condition for living communication.  Like the fall of the Tower of Babel, chieftains and resettling societies have partitioned off their own intellectual property, turning, over generations, mutating dialects into "new languages," until now, thousands of years later, instead of having a vast language of mankind--filled with innumerable joyous synonyms, all with new meanings waiting to be learned and discovered, and a basic set of assumptions that can get any two people learning about one another--we have humankind separated from itself by the barriers of different languages, with rules that exclude one another's rules and make communication between even two different language groups difficult for anyone except the rarely educated, or the elites who can afford to buy their services.  Multiply that by the number of living languages for some fun.

Like all antilife systems, restrictive linguistic structuring relies heavily on classification, or the propertizing of regulations that limit communication and put up toll barriers between and through different individuals and social groupings.

Grammar is good.  Guidelines are good.  Shared sets of understanding for what things probably mean--i.e., language--are good.

However, they all rely upon context.  The absolute language of warlike Germanic tribes that rose to become English, without the wonderful nuances of meaning and dropped pronouns of many Asiatic tongues, has evolved into a very good, but very restrictive, means of communication.  Many native English speakers find themselves unable to express deep thoughts without resorting to poetry and reveling in a lack of structure.  English itself, like many languages that ascended worldwide under the guidance of their imperial masters during the age of discovery, is centered around absolutes, such as "I" and "you" and "mine" and "yours," and "life," "death," "best," "worst," et cetera.

Even so, context is required for effective, efficient communication.  Without cultural context and many "understood" things, the language in and of itself is only of marginal worth.

Where Oxford comma-worship comes in is the continuing surge of antilife: by saying that, in the pictured example above, humans require a comma after "toast" to understand the sentence, the Oxford comma suggests that in a discussion about breakfast foods, two humans would require the comma's services to realize that one of them wasn't speaking to toast and orange juice.  Which, of course, two humans talking about breakfast foods do not require.

It's a clever pun to admit that something "could" be taken in a different way, but it should be treated no more seriously than the wealthy blatherings of Jerry Seinfeld making the drunk laugh about airline peanuts.

Why, then, the reverence for the Oxford comma to "prevent ambiguity"?  Because believing that grammatical notation, and not the meeting of two ghosts in a moment of shared understanding, is what causes effective communication, sends the message that two discrete points of light cannot meet and empathize without a committee of verbal authorities offering them guidance on how to understand one another.  Most masters of style, manner, diplomacy, law, medicine and financial transactions prefer everyone being required to come to them to be told how they should manage something.  And I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you, while we're on the subject.  Trust me.

An American and an Iraqi could sit down together and work out their grievances much more effectively than sub-delegating the task to George W. Bush and a legion of Senate staffers and Pentagon contractors, as we've all recently seen.

Grammar is a tool--not our master.  The purpose of language is "communication"--not "to have a proper language."  Language itself is a means to an end, and though a wonderful one, should flow as we have it.  Beware the insidious, subtle hints of absolutists whispering that you would be nothing without their rules.

The meal consisted of soup, salad, and macaroni and cheese. 

What's a meal?  Is it a macaroni soup?  Was the first "and" included by a poor speaker, referring to a party where sliced brie was served on separate plates from dried macaroni?  Is a "soup, salad" anything like a "trout, fried"?  How do we know that the macaroni and cheese were combined?

We assume the (likely) right answer to all of these questions because we have a shared cultural understanding that "macaroni" and "cheese" are commonly served together as a single dish known as "macaroni and cheese."  Without this shared cultural understanding, the editors of The Chicago Manual of Style would not have been able to come up with that example to demonstrate why the Oxford comma is necessary--they have, with that example, shot themselves in the foot by exhibiting the very point that destroys their insistence upon the serial comma.  There is no dictionary, encyclopedia set or accompanying style book big enough to include all the shared references in the universe, excepting the universe itself.  Their grand treatises are but tiny suggestions for something we might try, and are not themselves necessary for us to share our lives with one another.

So, while it might be cute or cool or, more importantly, more clear in any given instance to use the royals' trademarked comma, no one is ever actually going to think that you're addressing the toast and the orange juice.

Language points the direction.  It is not itself the end.  We are.  Arise, humans: love and live one another.  Make not false idols of your hammer and chisel.

Food continues

Continuing from Masking Tape - Substitutes for Soul:

seyrah writes:

To add to your thoughts about the "filler" diet--babies have been pushed onto soy-based infant formula for years, with the full compliance of pediatricians who ought to know better. In this case, too, they have managed to rob the peasants of not just the prime produce of farms, but that *of their own bodies*--women's bodies produce perfect milk for infants on their own. That milk is incredibly cheaper than the toxin-laced (http://www.ewg.org/reports/infantformula) and sometimes deliberately poisoned (http://news.injuryboard.com/two-arrests-in-widening-china-formula-scandal.aspx?googleid=247470) formula that costs $7 a quart, and yet breastfeeding skews towards the elite on the socioeconomic scale (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5512a3.htm) There's some suspicion that the soy-based diets of our kids from infancy onward may have a role in early menarche in girls (http://www.westonaprice.org/soy-alert/tragedy-of-soy-formula). Maybe that fits into the whole picture you're painting here, as well.
Absolutely.  One of antilife's most effective means of destroying humans is destroying the mother-child bond.  Feeding adults filler make them less happy, less satisfied, and less healthy; feeding infants filler not only accomplishes these same effects, but also helps damage their connections to other humans.  When the mammalian infant is separated from its inherent right to nurse from its mammalian mother, it loses not only optimal nourishment, skin-to-skin connection, breathing and heart-rhythm training, and warmth, but also the development of a healthy soul that has learned to identify its state of being through comparison to the mother's state of being.

The result of destroying the infant-child connection has been a strengthened severance of all humans from all humans, leading to things like Others and wars and acceptable collateral damage.  If there's no connection to mother, and we're all just on our own, why not blow the hell out of people far away, who probably don't really exist anyway?  Cutting off nursing is a very effective way to begin the "individualization" of a crushed, detached, lonely soul, bouncing around on a billiard table of sociopolitical death.

anne writes:

hi' arka , i had a look over on your last trying to explain more of something that you wrote on the last post here , .. . you seem to like to read on the how things go of food , wondering what your thoughts are on the adding of gluten to make more palatable to.. too much ? .., i'm putting my question to you on this here for more to see ..if they have any thoughts on the way things are going with gluten .. / and of ..foods,whole chain.. your mention .. remember it's still a chain .. so best not to mention , a lot of bad behaviour there .. and best to know what you are dealing with.. in many ways , as you are going around the aisles there .. .,those with money aren't better off with this in just having money , best to know of ..what you are eating , ..

anne, gluten is a substance humans evolved eating just fine. Intolerance to it is a modern condition brought on by what this one discussed in Masking Tape. You are accurate that having money doesn't make one (necessarily) better off with regard to food choices within the context of American middle caste v. upper; however, the belief that it does is an integral part of selling class war to the elites and their middle managers.

That's the very danger discussed there: produce a bunch of McDonald's restaurants to poison the populace, and your own rich kid might end up actually eating there, enjoying it, and getting a heart attack.  Produce a bunch of bad movies to slay souls, and you might find yourself watching them.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

DMCA/SOPA


The DMCA is irrelevant.  The concept of intellectual property, and before that, the concept of property (traced back to antilife), is the sickness of which SOPA is only a minor modern symptom.

Even within the lala-realities of this culture, though, the vast reach and duration of current international copyright law are so ludicrous that SOPA is but one flea among a host of thousands.

That said, still do swat the fucking flea.  Followed by burying the festering corpse that has drawn it nigh.

Friday, January 20, 2012

Masking Tape - Substitutes for Soul

(Justin requests detail on the "extractive apparatus."  A discussion of food introduces the structure later applied to entertainment.)

From Berkeley Breathed, we have the quote from a government agent to Bill the Cat: "Are you sure you're not a murderer, a Communist or somebody who thinks McDonald's hamburgers taste like masking tape?"

Food Part

People seek food to satisfy the need for calories to maintain their shells, and also to satisfy the desires for experiencing through taste sensations the variations in the living world.  Fearful minds of sick consciousness lead to the accumulation of human capital in a deathly overcaste (the "elites" of most American post-party-politics perspectives), which maintains its bloated self by legitimizing methods of extracting resources (including labor) from the rest of the world.

One of these resources is food.  Rather than producing it themselves, elites come up with the idea of nation-states, races, economies, et cetera, thereby justifying why some people work to produce food and others don't have to.  To further the division, and free up even more niceties for the elites, economics are adjusted to make it more plausible (and even desirable, through the use of marketing) for laborers to eat, instead of the quality food they produce, junk like fast food, chips, industrial soy, genetically-stuffed meat, et cetera.

It would break the system--the extractive apparatus--if people were all to begin demanding to eat "real" (high quality; healthy) food.  To maintain the extractive apparatus, elites have to maintain a society where the good stuff is reserved for the elites, attainable only rarely by others, and where everyone else ("have nots" or "production class," if you prefer) consumes mostly filler.

This was once accomplished by simply having the serfs grow everything, then cherry-picking the choicest items.  However, the evolving notion of "freedom" and "property" required using money, "modern economies," and accounting tricks, rather than chiefship or nobility, to explain why some people would have fancy organic stuff all the time, and others would swing by the KFC on the way home from Job #3.  McDonald's and the other fast food chains used laziness (drive-thrus, highways, et cetera), sodium, colorful imagery, notions of Whiteness and grease by-products to popularize eating a different form of crap for sustenance.  This was nothing new, except in window-dressing; in medieval times, serfs would eat the tumor-laced piglets while the lords supped on the healthiest boars.

Walmart and Doritos-equivalents still run this model today, with a helpful McDonald's still nearby or inside.  The mass production, low quality element of fast food went through another efficient, unhealthy change in the latter half of the 20th century, where chemical cocktails and genetic tampering produced even faster, even crappier beef laced with nastier stuff than even neglected, domesticated nature could provide.  It took a few decades for that to work through the system, and is now in the process of evolving its way out.

What's next in being screwed over by food?  Just like American liberalism, the monster is an insidious one that you wouldn't expect.  It's presented as rebellious, independent, free, and responsible, just like drive-thrus and women's lib and Barack Obama.  In reality, it's just a way to popularize a different version of cheap filler to keep a new few generations of workers working.  And, like all others at the beginning, it's a hot topic--one sure to rile the sensibilities of anyone who's been following the mainstream line and ready to be defensive about the new best-ever product.  It's as un-subtly subtle as the implicit message in the early 2000s to "own your own home," where all forms of media make a protracted show of resistance, then gradually come around to admitting that it's all right, then more than all right, then perfect, to carry on the desired output habit.

Plant-based, nach.  By promoting various forms of "vegetable" diet as super-healthy, elites are preparing the laboring masses for the transition away from tens of thousands of years of omnivorous human development and humans' symbiotic relationship with the organisms of planet Earth, and toward the primary consumption of proportionately cheap filler that doubles as an industrial by-product.  Just as fluoride was added to toothpaste, so will corn and soy continue to permeate food until they and their associated neurotoxin processing residue are in everything (whoops, they are already) the lower classes are eating.

High fructose corn syrup has started receiving some exposure, which will only make its ultimate ascension seem all the more deserved ("it was challenged, but that's in the past!  we got beyond that!"); all the vegan soy goodies out there, laced with hexane residue, are ready to feed 5.8 billion people on post-processing industrial growth.  Talk about ruining one of the best natural foods available to man--but hey, when in Rome.  Hexane succeeds RBST succeeds plague succeeds slave-cannibalism succeeds infantophagia.

(The big, spooky no-say-um here is the belief that various forms of plant-based diet originated from loving, open-spirited free-thinkers, who created a grassroots movement to respect the Earth and be healthy by eating plant-based foods.  That's as cunning a narrative as the idea that the Tea Party was created by hard-working red-staters who realized that something needed to be done.  In actuality, the seeds of different forms of veganism were sown by far-seeing elites who knew that it would cut too much into hoarded power to allow everyone open choice in diet.  The subtle belief that veganism is "necessary" because there are "too many people" will one day morph into majority, and perhaps requirement, though unthinking majority is far more likely.)

Extractive Structure Modeling

The model for the natural world:

Humans possess need; 

Humans produce enough, in symbiosis with their living environment, to satisfy their natural need.

Aaaaaand, we stir elites in:

Humans possess need; 

Elites contrive to sate the need with filler material in order to extract the surplus for hoarding; 

Everyone else produces even more in a desperate desire to sate the need that doesn't seem to be filled, no matter the quantity; 

Elites party; humans suffer, but believe that even more of the same filler will surely fix the void.

This model works for the "food" situation discussed above.  It's obvious, but here are some blanks filled in for fun:


Humans possess the need for food; 

Elites contrive to sate others' hunger with Budweiser, KFC, protein bars and the occasional trip to Chili's, leaving all the good stuff at "Whole Foods" and finer restaurants and catering services in the world's higher per-capita spots; 

Confused by their lack of health and lack of feeling whole and satisfied despite all the crap they shovel into their throats, people work even harder and eat even more crap in a desperate desire to find satisfaction; they also buy diet pills, read diet books, do the yo-yo thing, and start reading about interesting trends in "plant-based" that will surely fix things; 

Elites party; everyone else suffers, but believes that choosing the "right" things will start turning that feeling from bad to good.


And for abusive relationships, too:


Sally possesses the need for love and human companionship; 

Bob contrives to isolate her from others to force her to work hard to please him, allowing him to receive extra consideration, and also to beat Sally to vent his own frustration; he refuses to let Sally go out with friends, but punches her when she suggests he miss a poker night to be with her; 

Confused by how empty it feels when Bob apologizes and swears that he really does love her and is going to change things, Sally tries even harder to be the perfect wife and mother; she visits a self-help bookstore and finds a great new book about relationships that will help her fix things; 

Bob drinks and beats Sally to hell; Sally promises her friends that he's changed and things will start turning around as soon as he gets that new promotion.


Entertainment & Creativity

And now, the moment Justin's been waiting for: the extractive apparatus applied to entertainment.  The key here is the recognition that the vast majority of available artistic product, like the vast majority of available food product, is filler.  People "need" imagination, wonder and creative expression, just as they need companionship.  It's not on the same level as "air," perhaps, for the maintenance of the shell, but it is on said level for the maintenance of the ghost.

Here's the model with the variables switched:


Humans possess the need for expression and appreciation of expression; 

Elites contrive to sate this need with showy art, droves of instantly popular books and magazines, and Hollywood movies; 

Confused by the lack of feeling whole and satisfied despite all the crap they shovel into their throats, people wait even more fervently for the next serial by John Author (TM), the next Transformers movie, the next issue of People, or by God, fill in anything you like here, sure that enough fanfiction and critical reviews published in major newspapers mean they are experiencing great stuff.  

The danger for elites, just as with abusive yet wealthy husbands or Bill Gates buying a Big Mac, is that marketing is a two-edged sword.  Enough cultural acceptance can get Oprah actually falling for her own line and believing that Dr. Phil's new book, Woody Allen's new movie, or Bennifer's latest breakup, are things of import that help create a rewarding shared culture.

There are very talented, very skilled artists out there who struggle, and do the best anyone could, within the constraints of a filler economy, just as there are very talented chefs who struggle--within the limited confines of the available ingredients and cost-per-unit--to make the latest Sara Lee frozen dessert taste good.  Sometimes they even do better than you might expect.


Nonetheless, there the apparatus is.  This entire discussion swirls around the point that, if everyone began demanding quality, the system would break.  The extractive apparatus can only survive if it is extracting--there aren't any spare billions for fat old investors to go to rap parties with if the rest of the human race is sharing in those billions.

How do we demand quality?  To demand quality, one must know it.  The vast majority of people, as evidenced by, say, the latest set of movies (applies to any American time period) or the latest Official Major Publication's Bestseller List (or the New York Times,' if you must), are incapable of judging quality.  And McDonald's still exists, despite decades of tasting like crap, and coming in a distant second even to a burger at the Joe's Grill in Anytown, U.S.A.

So how do we know it?  We experience it.  Let a lot of people, without the shame of the price tag, enjoy an organic bison burger a few times, and it might gradually creep into their head that this is something they want.  Insert preferred food here.  Or to experience the sublime joy of a truly great work of art; to find the soul moved, rather than the mind merely casually entertained by explosions and farts.  A culture that experienced those things enough would become accustomed to them, and start rejecting the filler and demanding more from life.

Ergo Sally will never be allowed to have man-friends.  And Joe the Plumber will not be doing much shopping at Whole Foods.  Bob, or the IMF, stand ready to make sure of that.

Of course, we have the numbers.  Ergo this one's original point: the extractive apparatus will not allow much, if any, creativity to come through the pipeline, because if the sans culottes get any kind of a taste for it, the dam breaks.

Enter Twilight.

It's by design.  They're not going to let good stuff through, except by rare accident.  And when it does come through, they use successively-worsening ghostwritten sequels, or post-author-death bastardization, to suck out any remaining soul and squelch that expression as a rallying cry.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

That Ass Brin

The great religious ass David Brin, who is an Author (TM) and Science Aficionado (R), begs us worship a different idol than the crucifix or mitre: the amorphous concept of "science," as defined by those people that David Brin and influential westerners define as "real scientists."

Similar to another High Priest of Science, Dawkins, Brin seeks the restructuring of society away from a God-based worship model, and toward a Science-based one.  The religious concept of science advocated by these papists is very like other religions:

1) Absolute reverence for the faith.  Anything which is "scientific" is good; anything which is "not scientific" is bad.  Not just "bad," but so bad that it does not merit serious consideration in any way.  Once a theory has been proven or disproven, whammo--debate over.  Science hath spoken.

2) Worship of a priestly caste.  Following the German-derived authority-based university model, high priests are granted PhDs or other advanced degrees, indicating their command of secret knowledge.  Some glimpses of this knowledge may be shared with members of the congregation, who will cede to the superior understanding of those with the degrees.  Any "serious" scientist will have a degree, grants, university backing, and institutional support for hypotheses, experiments or claims, and will be published by major journals if they have anything worthwhile to say.  Any serious scientist will also not be permitted even rudimentary access to the upper levels of the caste without years (and a lot of money) spent painstakingly researching the writings of those who came before.  Once you've bought in that much, you ruin your career and social standing to challenge the dogma, ergo why self-sustaining racketeering models always require a high investment of character and resources to become a member.

3) All-encompassing adherence to the faith.  You can walk around chanting "Jesus!  Jesus!" and find ways to twist any number of centuries of biblical references and interpretations to justify what you want.  Or, you can walk around chanting "Science!  Science!" and find ways to twist any number of centuries of scientific references and interpretations to justify what you want.  Not convinced?  What's dark matter?  How many dimensions does a superstring-based universe possess?  What happened before the (single, absolute, masculine) Big Bang?  Why can't HIV satisfy all of Koch's postulates in a reliable fashion?

4) Unquestioning reliance on other assumptions.  Science relies upon foregone conclusions to justify itself: all science "experiments" derive value based upon having faith that human perception of "time" allows "cause" and "effect" to exist, providing valuable insights into all science experiments, conclusions, and later hypotheses.  Having failed to philosophically solve the ancient problem, later expressed in The Matrix, of "what if a demon is manipulating our thoughts and nothing we think is real actually is?" science skips ahead, begs the question, assumes that our perceptions are accurate, and makes those perceptions the basis for, well, everything it says.

This isn't to say that having ideas (theories) and testing them (experiment) are "bad."  Where science goes wrong is in the creation of a dogma: where people, like That Ass Brin or his buddy Dawkins and their millions of wealthy neoliberal adherents in the Great American Empire, begin demeaning everything that is "not scientific," heralding everything that is "scientific," and drawing caste distinctions between "Brights" and "those crazy heretics who just haven't received enough education at western universities."

Because, goodness knows, a lot of people educated under the modern scientific model at western universities couldn't be responsible for committing horrible acts that trump the Crusades in terms of both numbers and hypocritical terror.

The new religion replaces the old, always with different terminology; always nothing but a different skull's mask on the same old dogmatic butchery.  And this time, they've got a lot more than fucking swords, people.  Because their God is a big God, and a powerful God, and He can fuck up the entire world with a button.  And if you don't get it, you're just not "scientific enough."

So put down that Bible, you backward-thinking ape!  We need you to get some serious schooling!  Time to get back to the university, get your MS in propulsion engineering, and fix up that latest hybrid fighter-bomber.  There are some unscientific religious zealots out there who need re-engineering.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Ya Shoulda Killed Me Last Year

Long before it became popular to hate Dubya; long before white liberals began to realize that Obama was nothing different; long before Clinton was starving little Iraqi kids to death; before all of these things, America was carrying on another white crusade in Iraq under Poppy Bush, killing both Arabs and lower caste Americans with fervent glee.

Back then, that backwards, foul-mouthed, non-PC, sexist, inappropriate man Tracy Marrow was offering commentary long ago espoused by Mark Twain, who did it long, long after other wise humans.  Here from Ice T, well worth a listen, and equally applicable from the genocidal empires of Torah, to Athens, to Rome, to England, to America:

Monday, January 16, 2012

Land of Humperdinck

Spaketh Prince Humperdinck: "My people, a month from now...sundown, I shall marry a lady who was once a commoner like yourselves. But perhaps you will not find her common now. Would you like to meet her?"

Ahh, Prince Humperdinck, you loathsome beast, you.  If anything can possibly match--or exceed--the extreme foulness and deathly pestilence of the American Empire, it is its creator, predecessor, and bitch-at-ready, that loathsome island of cess known as England.  England: the victor of the slave wars; the culminator of colonialism.  The genocidal mass-murderer of the Celts, Irish and Scots, so layered in the rancid blood of slain infants that a hundred years of Ajax could not scrub it away, still slimes its way across the world stage, showing off its Torture Tower and, even worse, its obscenely wealthy figureheads, who have even less reason to be famous than Paris Hilton's dog.

No phrase referring to "indecency" is low enough for Humperdinck and his ilk.  Anytime the castoff, wealthy, title-less nobles of America need someone to get their back on a murderous rampage, England can be counted upon to lend accents and the pretense of "international agreement" to the venture.  The inbred progeny of its little populace culminates in the excessively inbred wreck of its "royal family," that throwback of throwbacks to a time even darker than tribal patriarch-chiefs, blood sacrifices and cannibalism.  The immense wealth stolen from the mainland European continent, Africa, South America and North America, then locked up in that psychopath's  gallery of velvet and stupid-ass hats, rivals Hollywood: if not for quantity, then for a nadir of quality in output and its effect on the world.

That little Nazi shit and his similarly-inclined brother are but the barest modern references to the connections between the British Throne and the Third Reich.  But Hitler and the British royals are just the 20th century connection; almost all the tyrants of European history, by virtue of that wonderful lordly concept of inbreeding, can connect their power and horrors to British lineage and/or meddling.

Wars of succession; genocides of peasants, gypsies, and numerous underclasses; the pawnbrokering of various rulerships across the continent: all can be laid at the feet of that pestilent horde.  If any justification of racism exists in the world today, it is the scientific conclusion that century after century of genetic-limited royal breeding, culminating in the current crop of English Royals, and those of their trapped island populace after the last purge of Northern Ireland, resulted in the proportionately worst chance for limited genetic exchange in the test subjects.  There's a stereotype you can hang your calculator on, if you're in the market for forming one.  Imperial America is trying to get there now, with exclusionary immigration policies, but nothing can currently match the hundreds of years of horror that've had time to stew on that nasty little island across the channel.

Resistance to the inbred horrors has found some wonderful outlets, such as Chumbawamba, yet even now the Battle of Britain continues.  Harry Potter is the tale of British exceptionalism spelled out perfectly: the story of a roguish young white boy who discovers that his blood entitles him to the instant inheritance of wealth, power, vast social respect, and the mandate to govern the affairs of the world.  Like the true British noble, Mr. Potter inherits a rapport with Headmaster Dumbledore, uses it to become involved in world affairs despite being 12, and smacks down that upstart noble Draco Malfoy, who refuses to get with the times and realize that everyone, even mudbloods, has the right to be led by Harry Potter.

But MI6's orgasmic superfantasy, James Bond, had it covered first: the secret, sexy British spy-man who travels the world taking possession of foreign pussy and shooting people without requiring court approval.  After all, the Crown gave him a license, and he's a roguish Englishman.  The kind that any Celtic girl wouldn't mind being raped to death by.

Quoting JardinCeltic Europe was for its time highly democratic. Women had considerable power. There were women warriors. Every member of the society had dignity and rights. Yet we are taught that the cradle of democracy in Europe is Greece, in a society whose economy was entirely based on slave labor, and whose social organization evolved to constantly expand, incorporating “allies” as colonies and progressively parasitizing and castrating them culturally. Our history books tell us about Socrates, Euripides and Pericles, but little mention is made of the Athenian Empire.  

Of course, once the Celts had been fucked dry and impressed as serfs into the expanding Anglo-Germanic imperial order, it was time to go murder the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, who simply didn't understand how to use masculine noble bloodlines and private property to commit extended auto-specicide. And of course, to do that, we'll need labor: send the working class to the dark continent to kill off the ones who managed to survive our various crusades!

So get out there, Will Humperdinck, and pull a 007 on the latest commoner to grace your bed.  Can I plz to get tickets now to teh fancy wedding?  Oooh, what a dress!  Gush gush.  If there aren't any Gypsies or Irish or Celts or Iroquois or Jews or Muslims left to kill, or if it starts getting scary when they shoot back, just go shoot some animals on your estate, you fucking punk bastards.  You can always have one of your suits send the commoners off to handle the bigger game.

(Reading further in the Jardin link contains an excellent breakdown of the ways that the artificial, conglomerated "white" identity was fabricated in order to conceal the genocidal horrors committed against various cold-weather-pale-skinned civilizations in the past by the descendants of Imperial Rome.  This is what Obama is in the process now of finalizing to "black" after the slave trade and colonialism effectively turned everyone from a massive continent into a single "race," and made the modern world entirely forget more nuanced tribal and ethnic groupings.)

Stuff Cis People Say To Trans People


Sunday, January 15, 2012

Sleep, Sally, Sleep


Iron pegs stick into the earth, lashing fast the hard vinyl nooses of beige.  The scent of wildflowers carries her down the hill, past posies pink and dead nightshades, like embers, wrapped over by the fresh clover.  At the southwest corner rests a giant wolf, white as snow and as tired as tomorrow.  His head raises; a yellow-eyed gaze meets hers.  There she pauses.  His tongue lolls out; he keens once before dropping jowls to paws, eyes growing more wide.

The breeze stirs the tawny canvas flaps.  In she goes to find the tent's sides open on both ends: open to a sweet, balmy breeze, atop sheets of soft cotton, the air just touched with a hint of wolf.  She lays to sleep, her dreams forever guarded.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Haha, Sacha! The Dictator Review 2

While you're laughing at The Dictator, and its depiction (as afore-noted) of more of those dummy third-worlders with swarthy skin and how they can't run their lives well, do recall that the U.S. put Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq.  Similar to Osama Bin Laden the heroic fighter against Soviet communism, Saddam was a CIA assassin charged with murdering a local leader to stop said local leader from nationalizing Iraq's oil reserves, which would've caused them to be more expensive for NATO's military/highway complexes.  Saddam is rumored to have bungled the assassination, but a different stooge did manage to kill the mark, and Saddam, being obedient, was put in power with U.S. funds and support so that he could lean Iraq into the Iran-Iraq war and use chemical weapons against not only "his own people," but also the people of Iran.  He got those chemical weapons, of course, from that great supplier to the world, the U.S.  It was only when, after decades of power, Saddam began to consider standing up to America that his country was invaded, and Saddam killed.

Naturally, it wasn't that long after Saddam's death before wealthy white people began getting together to satirize Saddam, and the rest of those idiot Arabs (for "allowing him to rule").  So, we now have The Dictator, which will poke some mild fun at the geopolitical ignorance of the American bystander while including the more telling, rock-solid undercurrent: Arabs are really, really stupid.  Look at how stupid their leader is, and look at how silly they are for putting up with his rule. 

Another homer for Hollywood, the entertainment branch of the greatest military state yet birthed by this planet. Not only does the great White Man's Burden meddle in the affairs of Africa for centuries, broker the creation of the artificial state of "Iraq" as a colonialist division, sell nasty weapons to it and incite several massive proxy wars, use it to justify more Israeli arms transfers, then invade, then spend years sanctioning and bombing it, then invade again, then trigger a civil war and piss on the corpses: even after all that, it's not enough.  We now need Sacha Baron Cohen mocking the very idea that such a place existed at all, however briefly.

What next?  The logical step seems to be Sacha Baron Cohen winning a respectable award for his mockey, and using some of the money to fund a charity to assist underprivileged Iraqi and/or Arab children.  Then, when Mr. Cohen passes away in a few decades, western publications can herald him as the man of the year for his glorious, self-sacrificing charity work.

Write the most despicably ironic story you can imagine of one group of people obliviously fucking over and abusing the memory of another, and you will not be able to equal the profound suckitude of America's behavior.

Cuentame


Cure for Cancer

There will never be a "cure" for cancer.  Cancer is the reaction of a healthy cellular structure to the imposition of environmental toxins upon the body.

Industrialism destroyed the ozone layer.  It fabricated never-before-seen-on-this-planet types of volatile chemicals for use in production, which chemicals soon littered the air, water and molecular structure of most things in the Earth's ecosystem.  As humans eat, drink, breathe and bathe in poison, their structure begins to break down, resulting in a massive post-industrial cancer epidemic.

The tumorous growth is a new form of life evolving to live upon the new forms of energy and structure being provided.  We can cut out tumors; we can poison them with radiation and succeed at weakening or killing them, but we will not stop them from being created until we eliminate the anti-human poisons with which we have filled our environment.  As the cancers grow within our bodies, nourished in their growth on our nutrients, they are a part of us--a deadly symbiote.  They are distinct from "viruses" and other old-fashioned invaders, because it is our very blood that transmits nutrients to the tumor and allows it to continue growing.  Follow the money--it's the economy, stupid.  We are funding the "cancer," once it appears within us.

Blaming our "genes" for cancer is rather like blaming the rape victim for wearing a short skirt.  Driving gas-burning cars to the charity walk for prostate cancer is a terrible irony.  There is no "cure" to what we, and prior generations, have done to ourselves.

"Cure" is a word we used to use to refer to destroying alien viruses that existed somewhere else, then came into us.  Cancer is not that way; cancer is created in and by us.  Cancer is us.  We cannot "cure" it anymore than we can "cure" ourselves.  The medical industry built itself up on offering cures, but that concept no longer applies in the same way people would like to believe once they get out of their history-class lesson on tuberculosis.

Some lifestyle behaviors, like working in a nuclear plant, smoking, or hanging out in the tanning tube, can expose one to more poisons than otherwise, but we're all being constantly exposed, and no one--not even Steve Jobs--is "safe."  We are all poisoned--we are all carriers.  Random chance will determine whether or not our cells begin to mutate in a certain way, operating under a different structure of rules, to birth a new entity inside "our" bodies that will grow and develop and overtake "us."

Remember all that stuff that washed away when the ents tore down Isengard's factories and mines?  Pouring that stuff into our bodies is what causes cancer.  The Foul will continue to reward our children's children with these afflictions.  Our selfish borrowing for fancy machines, which we took out on credit rather than cleaning up as we went, is coming back to haunt us--with interest we can't afford.

The way "out" is to accept the symbiotic relationship.  We've given birth to something that now lives inside our shells.  Embrace; love; accept.  Eventually, perhaps we'll be able to make ourselves a part of the new life we've created, rather than being the husk which it leaves behind.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Little Divisibles

The first and most important step in wounding the human soul is the instillation of a "self."  So unacknowledged by innumerable social systems that it need not be discussed--so completely outside the bounds of anything considered allowable for "debate"--is the idea that, once the human infant is "born," it must be hammered in the ghost with the understanding that it is a separate entity.

"Oh, hello, baby!  YOU are a good baby!  YOU are a wonderful baby!  YOUR name is Frank Myers.

MY name is Mommy.  YOU are baby.  YOU are little Frank.  THIS is your father.  HE is over there."

This segregation, over the course of first days, first years, first lifetimes, or forever, is, much like shutting the infant in a room without food or human touch, a way to wound the connections between all souls and the lightspring; to isolate that point of light and create, forever and away, an "individual" that will think of itself as separate from other "individuals," and other things, like "air" or "water" or "vacuum" or "rock."

All human culture developed by fearful consciousnesses is based upon the idea of "humans."  Imagining humans, and playing with them as such, is delightful, and makes a lot of point-to-point interaction fun; like a virtual reality game, it provides for cute "and then this one does THIS while that one does THAT" situations that can make "life" interesting.  But believing in humans, like believing in "angels" or "deities" or "anything"--depending on the context in which the absolute term "to believe" is used--is the second step in the dangerous disillusionment of severing ghost from spring.

Over the course of a "lifetime," or much quicker, the wound can result in a death, leaving behind the animated dead: the callous movers in Forms, who find far too little difficulty, or no difficulty at all, in ending life, while being disarmingly good at "fitting in" (no surprise) to a society designed by and for walking shells.  Concepts like property ("ME own THIS"), capitalism (property to its logical conclusion), and "lesser evil" flow naturally from this trend.  Here is called to mind Monsieur IOZ's masterful breakdown of the current American President: "Interestingly, Obama has always struck me with an almost identical impression, a human personality reduced entirely to its formal, gestural elements, Commedia dell'arte where the soul's 'sposed to be."

Math fail.  Any "one" or "1" is never a 1, and requires a leap of faith akin to creationism or talking bushes to be believed in.  Any quantity or designation "one," whether "one person" or "one integer" is composed of two quantities "1/2" or "one-half," and any other similar formulas, including three quantities of one-third, four quantities of one-fourth, et cetera.  All math is, therefore, dependent on circular logic: in order to define "1" or any other integer or quantity of any kind, we have to use the very number we're trying to define.  "One" avocado is equal to two quantities each defined as being "one" half of an avocado, or three quantities each defined as being "one" third of an avocado; et cetera.

All mathematics is an attempt, like the conjuring of the "atom" or the "quark" or the "big bang," to reduce the flow to a limited set of laws or things constituting (a) reality(ies), which theories depend on their own postulations to explain or justify themselves.

More later.  For now, a lengthy Chris Rea, the gist of which can be gained in 70ish seconds:



Lightspring embrace.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

How I Learned To Stop Worrying

Succeeding this:

"After much consideration, I support your decision. We all have the right to express our own desires in our own places. Allowing these kinds of extremists venues to communicate their radicalism only empowers them further and exposes their message to more people. They need to be repressed and sealed away so that the rest of us can get on with what's important in the higher echelons of the mind."

More from this one a little later.  :-)

Update: continued here.

Monday, January 9, 2012

More Floyd

More of Floyd's readers resist the idea of debating "Martin Timothy" (or "Timothy Martin," as the order may be, for saying things so dangerous that they must not be spoken.

In response to this, readers suggest that because paid political operatives sometimes post annoying comments on websites, any website operator must delete viewpoints that go out of bounds.  Response follows:

Your examples are akin to saying, "You don't like drone strikes?  Well, what if Muslim terrorists killed YOUR family??!  What would you do then, huh?!" 

If we adopt the policies of ignoring, marginalizing, and shutting out, then those policies govern a stagnant consensus, and we or our children will find ourselves unable to address the next set of concerns to come, just because they won't fit within a preexisting set. 

Censorship is what creates the very echo chamber Chris decries.  Mainstream media and major blogs censor in order to maintain a stasis charade.  By adopting these policies here, we are merely being a different part of the same system, rather than a rejection of what it stands for. 

"I" have confidence in your ability to counter Mr. Martin-Timothy's arguments, and to expose genocide as wrong for a tangible reason that he can understand.  Genocide isn't wrong because it's spelled G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E.  It's wrong because it's evil.  Exposing it and dealing with it is how it is stopped--unless you'd prefer drone strikes. 

Is all you really want here to get together and agree with other people that the Anglo-American Empire is violent?  Or do you want to have ready the tools to always face injustice with humanity?  When injustice walks in the door to speak to you, why shut it out?  That's your chance to engage it.  To help Marty/Tim/whatever and perhaps turn him into an ally.  It's the very human interaction that has the power to turn this grindery off.