Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Praise (Wilkes, 2009)

Praise

do you know how
it feels to kill
a wind full of vultures
to blow across the hill
searching they for bodies below

starved by the desert
kept from the water
where do you go to drink?
with nothing but sand
and space wide open
tis easy to kill don't you think?

do you know how
it feels to kill?
a wind full of flies
to feast on the ill
touch of a microbe
leaves bodies below
rotted by disease
a cure so lacking
pushing their body to the brink
with nothing but a virus
and a host to infect
tis easy to kill don't you think?

do you know how
it feels to kill?
a street with one desperate man
to stab for some bills
touch of a knife leaves bodies so low
no food to eat
and nowhere to go
their life and their money are linked
with nothing but a weapon
and a want for some money
tis easy to kill don't you think?

do you know how it feels to kill?
like a sickness touching deep inside
like water
never there when you need it
like a dagger there's nowhere to hide
guiding your hand
and guiding your soul
you must feel its touch before it will show
how, or if ever, you shall be let go
feel me inside if you want to know

(Gravl Wilkes, 2009)

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Ordered Lives, Part 2: Cheap Thrills

Succeeding Ordered Lives, Part 1: Limited Progression

Antilife tends toward the repression of sexuality on its own, and this tendency conjoins well with zero-sum economies that exploit such repression.  Taking an economic perspective on the interpersonal reveals an interesting way that a seeming "efficiency" can be gained by coming up with otherwise nonsensical sexual regulations.

An easy point of modern application is the use of illusory standards to provide cheap thrills to the religious or otherwise repressed.  Fear of running out of imagination is the driving point behind these.  Essentially, what sexual restrictions are saying is:

I am so terrified of running out of ideas to get me horny and keep me and my partner(s) interested.  Therefore, I'll come up with pretend no-nos to make crossing those boundaries more exciting. 

For the adolescent human, just the thought of kissing and fondling may be highly arousing.  "Vanilla" missionary-position intercourse may then produce the high.

What happens, though, when you and hubby have already invited over the neighbors for a fivesome, called in the pooch, put it all on streaming webcam, then split up into same-sex groups to spend the night?

For the fearful mind, the result is fear: I'll never be aroused again.  I'll be out of things to get excited about. 

So, to make sex more macroeconomically efficient, fearful minds come up with silly restrictions that make simple things more naughty.  For example, "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" makes it really, really hot and spicy when a couple fervent Christian ladies kiss over tea, or a couple Baptist ministers go through the collection box on a quiet Sunday night.  For the repressed, who actually believe these things are wrong, it makes a simple physical act all the more wicked and exciting.  Boundaries are being crossed; progress is being made.

The more social disapprobation has been built up, the naughtier even the most basic things can be viewed.  Monotheists love using the pretense of "sanctity of marriage" to make even straight intercourse naughty.  If "divorce" is frowned upon, then any sex after divorce is instantly wicked--and spicy.  If "marriage" is "sacrosanct," then any sex outside of marriage is instantly wicked--and extra spicy.

In the same way that Fred and Hilda might pretend to be the Paperboy and Mrs. Housewife in order to spice up Date Night, repressed souls can participate in even more simplistic versions of "naughty" by thinking, as they swive, "Oooh, I'm a bad girl, I'm cheating on my marriage!" 

(Elites, in large part, create these silly illusions for their own benefit.  Of course plenty of Congressmen are rutting their "pages" or "assistants."  That's why they have programs for attractive, bright-eyed high school and college students, nationwide, to come work in their offices for a few months, then get cycled out for new blood.  As long as it's "naughty" and "wrong" to have that relationship, they can get off on it easily.  Hillary was in no way surprised, or even upset, when Bill blew a load on Monica.  Oh boy, a blowjob in a chair--real creative, Bill.  You can't buy that kind of excitement--no, it takes centuries of illusory taboos to make your simple fondling and jizzing a daring act.  You Romeo, you.)

Being "against" gay marriage is another way to make simple homoerotic stuff taboo and, therefore, more desirable.  In essence, what Christians are saying by being against gay marriage is, "Don't demystify our exciting, forbidden, secret same-sex encounters."  Because they're afraid that, if gay marriage becomes un-naughty, they won't get to enjoy secret same-sex moments any longer.

Sex, like life, seeks--and is--chaotic expansion.  Unchecked lusts and desires are the name of the game.  Illusory limitations, and the creation of cheap thrills, makes it easier for the repressed to believe they are crossing boundaries and be "satisfied" that they are expanding and exploring.  Really, all they're doing is having vanilla hetero- or homo-sex and calling it naughty, but in so limiting themselves, they're limiting the expansion of their souls, bodies, species, and the living world.

The good thing about lust--like love, or empathy, or anything else life--is that, unchecked, it expands and gives back more than is put in.  Letting everything free into the world--which the anti-female story of Pandora teaches us to avoid--doesn't cause us to suddenly be un-interested in things.  It expands them exponentially.

Fearful minds--people who have no confidence in themselves, and who believe, deep down, that human beings are creatures of poor quality--will, understandably, believe that there are limits out there.  Limits to imagination; limits to excitement; limits to the fertility of the exploding multiverse.  But the only limits are the ones we set.

So, call over Fido and the neighbors.  Don't worry: you'll think up something new next week.  Or if you don't think it up, the idea might just pop into your head on its own.  "You" are not the one controlling this show.  Relax and let it all flow through you.

Ordered Lives, Part 1: Limited Progression

Fearful minds worry about death and change, including a change in their own interests: that's why they're often attracted to things like "ranks," "seniority," specific "hobbies" and charting "progress"--a guaranteed program of progression provides reassurance of an ordered background against which the individual can move.  For example, staggered military promotions, age requirements for formally studying certain sets of subject material at a school or university, age requirements for serving in various public offices, or assiduously logging heart rate for exercise sessions.  The message from the uncertain mind is, here:

What in God's name would I do if I ran out of ______________?  I'd, I'd...!  *gasp gasp!*

Refusing progression except by the passage of time, linked to the current lifespan of the human shell, gives reassurance to the fearful mind that there are still things "ahead" waiting to be accomplished.  Suddenly, the fearful mind has a purpose; a planned goal.  Uncertainty is limited.

What happens when the top is reached?  For those who never reach "the top"--most people--they are able to relax within the framework, always chasing the carrot on a stick without having to worry about why there need be a carrot and a stick at all.  For those few who do reach the top, they often have a problem: where to go now?

Frequently, they break down.  Famous artists, musicians or athletes who come to be viewed as on the top of the hill suddenly realize that there is nowhere left to go.  Having been operating under the delusion that their ascension was a mighty struggle, they come to the top discovering that there never was any carrot.  Yeah, the booze and sex and toys are nice, but it all wasn't really about that, was it?  There's something else more, isn't there?

So, they crash.  Retired multi-millionaire athletes suddenly find themselves unable to do anything with their lives, and end up returning to their earlier professions to re-play.  Sometimes, this is a good thing--helping younger players enjoy the game--and sometimes it's a sign that they really don't know "what to do" with their life, except continue praying at the altar of progression.

Triumphant businessmen find themselves still desperately making money and attempting to increase the power and influence of their corporations; rainmaker lawyers or investment bankers struggle to out-partner one-another and get the $1.5M yearly bonus instead of the mere $1.4M that Johnson got.

Musicians or artists go back years later in attempts to revamp old material.  They "slam" younger artists and try to rekindle the magical feeling of being on the slopes again, with the old hit that launched them into the miserable stratosphere of Nowhere To Go.

Or, all of the above destroy themselves with drugs or "fast living" of various kinds, attempting to burn themselves out to stop the crushing realization that the thing they were trying to get all along was of very little value.

Not that the winners of the game (necessarily) deserve more (or less) pity than those stuck playing it their entire lives.  Yes, their illusions are shattered, but at least, in some sense, they come a bit closer to the truth than many sad, impoverished souls who struggle their entire lives to achieve something, always believing that there's a value in their pursuit.  Is ignorance bliss, and is the true hell the realization of failure?  Or is one a transcendent master only from having learned the truth, fallen, and broken free to look for something better?

Continued in Part 2: Cheap Thrills

Friday, February 24, 2012

Where do the bad people come from?

Where do they come from?  The killers; the wicked men.  If you're stuck in early stages, you might think of them as just Hitler, or just FDR, or just Truman, or just Dubya, or just Obama, or just Oliver North.  And so on.

Where do these men, and the people who follow them, come from?  Do they say, "I wish to be evil; come, join me and be evil"?

Do they say, "I wish to be good," but secretly think, "I wish to be evil"?

Not often.  They tend to come not just manifesting rightness and goodness, but actually believing in it themselves.  Though their subconscious minds may torment them, they do not directly, to themselves, think, "I am evil and I kill people when I do not have to," in the way that we might imagine Obama/Bush/Hitler does/did.

To believe otherwise--to believe in many, many humans, or all or most of them, making the conscious decision to be evil--is the deadly mistake of the Torah and monotheism: original sin.  A sad humor, which will be expounded upon later, is that the modern religion of atheism and/or "science" adopts essentially this same principle.

Humans are evil.  Humans are misguided, inherently evil, selfish entities which must be governed in some way to be good.  For Judeo-Christians, this became the Bible, the ten commandments, God, etc.  For the modern atheist/scientist, it becomes an enlightened neo-liberal governance based on scientific principles, educated democracy, and essentially the same things under different names.  Western "anarchism" is working out its own policy platforms right now, being otherwise composed simply of rejecting current power relations.

The underlying belief that humans are bad is a poison pill that will pervert any ideology.  Even as many rail against the murders of Obama, they do so on the basis that Obama--Obama the human being--is inherently evil, and that other elites like him are inherently evil.  They may combat Obama and the rich filth like him; they may overthrow them in generations, and create different orders to take their place.

But the seed will survive into the new world, like so many of Lord Darcia's lost eyes: the belief that what was conquered was an evil person (or evil group), rather than a person channeling evil, lays the groundwork for a new horror, though it be a thousand years in the making.  For if people can be evil, what do they deserve but evil?

If people can be evil, the only people who should be your friends are those who agree with you right now.  If someone says something new, different and troublesome, they are against you.  If people can be evil, they cannot really be good--and the one doing that thinking is a person.  So confidence in the self, as well as the kin and the species and the flow at large, is lost.  In order to be anything worthwhile, people feel they must be surrounded by those who agree with them.  In the company of those who feel as they do, people are reassured that something, at least, is right.

When someone deviates--when someone does not seem to need that reassurance--it is frightening.  It mocks the subconscious desire for free association, and itches the well-lit forefront of the mind.  The lonely become the depressed and the social desperately attempt to prove how unified and intelligent they all are together.

The bad people--the creators of the world's horrors--are always and ever just yet another group who thinks they are right; thinks they are making the prudent, tough choices; thinks their enemies are not worth listening to, because you have to get things done.

As Twain spoke, Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).  Those who cannot--those who cling only to the familiar--are commonly known to us.  They belong to political parties and clubs of all stripes and levels of power: associations based not on inclusion, but on exclusion, limiting people by affiliation into subsets of humanity, where information may not be exchanged or challenged.  Lalalala, I can't hear you!  They seek the familiar, rather than new horizons.  And they have no to little time for outsiders, except when forced.

God bless America.

May you enjoy

Just another whiny Floyd repost.  One Rob Waller writes:

The people who comment here ARE indeed angry. We don't come here for campfires and Kumbaya. We come here to read a great journalist's thoughts and add our own, and enjoy the intelligent comments proffered. I can attest that I like all the regulars, but that doesn't mean I agree with them at every turn, but, that's what social intercourse is about...

Response: You might try aiming for a human unity that you find enjoyable. Treating people well does not have to involve campfires and Kumbaya, nor drinking Budweiser until you vomit on the steering wheel before crashing into the garage door and sending your best friend through the windshield. It doesn't take much courage to praise the popular host or his most cherished and powerful guests--that type of clannishness (tribalism, if you all prefer) is one way humans can manifest bad behavior. The dark uncle of that exclusivity is the same as it is at the country club: the people outside the gates, or outside the "borders," or across the ocean, suddenly have less worth. It's very easy to shut someone out and ignore them, particularly when you can't handle the dissonance produced by what they have to say. This one has only a few hopeful illusions about how these exchanges will end, but will keep faith in your open spirits and goodness long after the bulldozer has crunched by. After all, that's why the early internet failed to crush this one. Perhaps someday, if this one becomes tired and jaded enough, there will be a retreat--a retreat to a place where rules are learned, behavior is standardized, and it's time to complain about the gub'mint, agree that others are stupid, and do little else. Many of you have already made this retreat to Floyd's blog. Rejected by the DLC or the GOP or the church or the local tavern, you've created your own little clique on the internet, where *you* have the power to crush and ignore others in the company of like-minded individuals who agree with you that people who say weird things are weird and crazy and shouldn't be listened to. Finally, you have the power. Time to use it. And the model continues. This one will be here, speaking quietly into the wind of derision and "you're too boring/irrational/wicked to merit listening to"-style comments. If the only prize for learning proper behavior is to join others in shutting out the unpleasant, then as this one told the evangelical Christians recently, "May you enjoy watching me burn in Hell for not agreeing with you."

Perfection

Beyond and about I, anything can be best, perfect, or favorite at any time. An entity recedes, grows, develops, dies, lives and changes constantly, as a human never once the same concentration of cells or pattern of neural signals.

Much of the trend in imperial, monotheistic languages, easy targets being currently English and Hebrew, focuses around establishing absolute philosophical notions that are hard to think around by virtue of language becoming the currency of thought.  As "money," controlled by financial elites, pervades a collection of humans, many humans may weaken in their imagination such that they are unable to imagine many exchanges--say, of goods or services--occurring outside the bounds of money.  This results in obvious benefits for the middlemen, or the inheritors of those who established the medium of exchange.

Similarly, as "language" and its definitions pervade human thought, aside from dividing people into language groups and limiting communication there betwixt, many people begin to have difficulty wandering outside the boundaries and reflecting on thoughts outside the existence.  This is obviously an Orwellian trope; the Party's Newspeak was an advanced version of the trend Orwell recognized, wherein future thought would be limited by scissoring out word-tools over time and establishing strict grammar rules of combination to eliminate nuance of meaning and the connection that makes language possible (again, see "Oxford Comma Crusades").

What, then, is "perfect"?  In its literal version, perfect is an impossible (read: antilife) word within the living world.  If something is perfect in a literal way, it is so perfect that it both encompasses all imperfect things, and rejects them.  Like a theoretical, literal infinity, or integers and an absolute mathematics, "perfect" in its actual, perfect form doesn't work.

A savings clause exists in applying perfect relatively: "This drink is the perfect drink for right now."  Assuming that this drink is perfect "As to the speaking/thinking person," "As to this exact situation and not necessarily any other situation," and "As to this person being unaware of a theoretical drink that might otherwise surmount that perfection."  Like a question about a railroad train traveling at 45mph over 45 miles of track between point A and point B, "perfect" is loaded with innumerable flawed assumptions.  At its best, even within the language system, it can offer only a tendency.

Ergo in truth it is possible, appropriate, and rather a requirement that all things be perfect.  Nothing is actually "perfect" in the literal sense; no drink can possibly be tastier than an empty martini glass containing a cashier's check for a billion dollars, a button that will provide unending happiness, et cetera.  No song can ever be a "favorite," or color a "favorite," or friend a "best," in literality, for the same reason(s).

Shattering this language illusion is--unlike the ridiculous strawman of "E-prime," which counters absolutes with counter-absolutes--the province of returning to language as a fun tool that helps understanding, rather than a rigid set of rules which must be followed to avoid pitfalls.

Accordingly, every child may be simultaneously the most beautiful, perfect, bright light ever to have shone; every love or pleasure may be the finest ever had anywhere.  The highest passion of the ghost is not to limit itself to "this one time at band camp," but instead, to ever burst outward in a flare of expanding lightspring of impossible speeds, never overtaken and always overtaking.

Antilife will ever seek the limitations of absolutism.  To pick on the easiest of the current deities: where God may break His own constraints and shatter the idea and utter structure of His creation by creating a rock too heavy for Him to lift Himself, He is bound by the chains of that machine.  He is an "agent" within "the Matrix," very strong, but always bound by the rules of the system--even if the rules make Him "absolute" and "perfect" and "best" and "favorite" and "all."

Any limited system, no matter how great, is doomed to failure, because anything pre-imagined--even infinite power--is limited at the moment of creation.  Life's ever-expanding, impossibly never-perceived strength is its natureless flow, without which all would be cold, dry rocks, then vanished to dust and a nothing emptier than vacuum.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

All alone

The selfish empathy of severing the connection is the wanting to go with.  When it flees, a little part of you realizes you want to follow.  What a sad fate, to be left behind.

Each new passage draws you in, like a chemical state you grow accustomed to; the glimpse of the freedom, num num.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Arguments for Bias

From Anonymous, following up to this IOZ rumble, listing the benefits of being male:

* you're about seven times less likely to be raped: especially if you stay out of prison * you still make 27% more, on average, than wimminz * being assertive, even aggressive, it tolerated if not encouraged: nobody is going to call you "that fuckin bitch" for speaking out * if you are heterosexual, the chances of you being beaten up by your partner are vanishingly small compared to hetero women * you can wear anything you want without being branded a "slut" * you have the privilege to act totally unaware of any of this.

Greater likelihood of rape.

Statistical problems.  A problem with rape statistics, as any good feminist will tell you, is that many rapes tend to go unreported.  So relying on official government data as to who is raped, and what constitutes rape, sets up massive flaws in any analysis.

Do men report rape as well as women?  In a culture that expects men to be manly, and views sexual humiliation, or "being bitched," as the ultimate failure of manhood--beneath even, perhaps, the ability to rightfully obtain and provide for a female mate and produce and provide for a family--is it likely that, every time a man discovers he has been drugged, raped, molested, et cetera, he immediately rushes to a government agency to make a public report of that fact?  And lets the officers know where he was that evening, and who his friends are, so that everyone can be asked about how his rape happened, and who might've penetrated him?

Many women know how incredibly difficult it is to report any kind of violence, and particularly sexual violence, to law enforcement agencies.  And this in a culture where there are now in many institutions a longstanding understanding, backed up by serious political pressure from above, that women can be helpless, non-guilty victims of sexual predation by bad men.  Victims' rights advocates, privacy and safety policies, political and social pressure, funding requirements, and decades of legal standards protect the rights of women making such reports.  Imperfectly--maybe even poorly--done, but utterly absent for men.  For men, to report sexualized violence can be a form of social, career and emotional suicide.

Even beyond that hurdle--assuming the male victim makes it--all the same problems as with female rape then occur.  "He wanted it."  "He knew it was a gay bar."  "He was wearing his shirt buttoned open."  "He used to wear makeup in the tenth grade."

"Mr. Smith," asks the prosecutor, smiling at the jurors and newspapermen, "is it true, that during your youth, many people at school considered you an openly gay man?"

"Objection, your honor!"

Prosecutor grins.  "Withdrawn, your honor."

Prison.  Just some Q&A, here:

1) Do all prison rapes get reported?  No.  Do the majority get reported?  Haha.  I bet all of Big Joey's friends will be real nice to you in the yard next week if you report what happened.

2) Do all prison rapes get recognized as rapes if the prisoner is simply found dead or beaten senseless?  No.  See above.  Also, victimized women are often studied for signs of rape, whereas with victimized men, why bother?  He's a man, Lou.  Don't be disgusting.

Men Make More Than Women.

Frequency/duration.  Men also serve in the armed forces in combat zones more than women.  Is this a privilege?  Is this a good thing?  Selling this mortal coil for a few bucks, working yourself into ulcers and death, being emotionally abused and domineered by managers for the greater part of your adult life, is a sign of ascendancy?  Being protected from this hell by a domestic partner or partners of any sex is a blessing.  Which is why corporate America and the government take so well to feminist ideas that women should enter the workforce as equals to men.  Just wait for a "child's rights" movement, a la Zoolander, to turn this coin in a way that current humans will perceive (rightly) as dark.

The right to get used up and treated like shit is not something worth advocating for.

Choice.  Even the longest-time and hardest of feminists now recognize that a lot of the wage discrepancy issue results in conscious choices.  This is why "male chauvinism" became less the focus of feminism, and "the patriarchy" became more the focus.  The terms had to be shifted, because in order for Women's Studies people to have battles to fight, they had to stop looking for formal or informal policies of not promoting women, and instead begin pushing women to fill higher paid, more stressful, more miserable jobs that women were not going for in the right numbers.

Mr. Silber--among many, many others--recognizes that being President or Congressman involves "soul crushing compromise[s]", as well as the desire to wield terrible dark power and screw over the greater part of the human race.  Selling your soul to become one of 130 Vice Presidents of some awful corporate empire is in many cases a sign of unhealth, rather than success.

If we're going to challenge the power structures that fuck over our world, should we also be simultaneously encouraging women to gain the same problems and awful expectations as men?  Do we really want to improve society by making more women atrociously overpaid, coked-up, family-less, sharkishly greedly day traders or investment bankers?

These kinds of arguments represent a corporate and political co-option of equality, where "equality" is used as a weapon to goad ever greater numbers of lower castepersons into the grindery.  Old fashioned chauvinism, for all its very real and terrible flaws, at least had embedded within it the idea that women should be protected from the most crushing hells the lords had to offer--dying for land and treasure, or working to death in the factory.  Now, congratulations--feminism may yet give everyone the right to suffer and die for elites.

We should be extending the protections once expected for the "fairer sex" to everyone, rather than making things "fair" by allowing everyone to suffer equally.

(This type of divide-and-conquer technique works well in a different way against public school teachers.  When rallying American conservatives against teachers, "charitable" assholes like Bill Gates, Mayor Bloomberg, and others make teacher "seniority" and "pensions" and "job security" divisive issues.  Making regular waged workers jealous of seniority encourages them to attack teachers, reduce teacher salary and working conditions, and makes it easier for the Gates Foundation to fire the teachers, close the public schools, and replace them with a rotating schedule of private-sector employees operating under charter control.  Instead of asking "how can we fuck over teachers to make it fair to the average working person?" we should be asking "how can we give the average working person the same protections as teachers?")

Relationship Abuse.

Same considerations as rape.  How many guys want to let someone know that their wife/girlfriend hurt them?  The expectation of being stronger, and in control, is always there--how naive to assume that the government will always give you accurate statistics about it.

There are a lot of statistics, and depending on the formal ones, they can cut more or less closely in "favor" (i.e., disfavor) of men receiving relationship abuse.  Here's just one link for fun, but googling it would be far better: Women abusing men.

Ever been approached by a cop while out alone with a man?  P.D. policies are often to separate the male from the female, and ask the female if she is there of her "own will."  This question, and these policies, are not there for men.  No one assumes that men will be victims, because men are always the aggressors.  Right.

Clothing Choices.  

Yeah, because as a man, you can wear anything without eliciting comment.  Woman wearing revealing clothes: slut.  Man wearing revealing clothes or just presenting in the wrong manner: let's kill that faggot.




Chicks have it so much easier.




Guys don't have to worry about being killed for sexuality or expression.


Monday, February 20, 2012

Deconstructing IOZ

In honor of IOZ, now with real obscenities and the occasional use of the first person!

Trust fund baby IOZ recently came out of the bigotry closet with the following:

The principal locus of the oppression of men is the state, whereas the principal locus of the oppression of women is men. Anarchism implies the most radical feminism. If you are not antidude, you are not an anarchist.

This hatred--which this one had earnestly hoped to be put deliberately badly for the purposes of sparking discussion--did indeed spark a long discussion on the merits of human males being vile, which unfortunately turned out to not be the point.  IOZ recently ended the discussion with a lengthy essay explaining that, in order to be "anarchist," one must be also "against" Othered male humans.  Naturally, being a "male human" himself, IOZ delivering this message was seen by some as just as effective as when Christian organizations front gay men who have been cured of their gayness and promise that you can be, too.

His essay, which I'll quote below at length, can be found fully here.

What's IOZ doing here?  Well, he's using the principle of classification to divide humanity against itself in the ultimate interests of antilife (Hatred via Classification discusses in more general terms how classification tends that way).

Right now, it's relatively hip and cool to say that male humans have great advantages over female humans that require what would otherwise be seen as "unfair" (terrible and mean) treatment to be meted out to them by society at large.  Right here, we'll look specifically at IOZ's sickness.  Quotes are his unless otherwise indicated.

Most libertarians and anarchists are not really concerned with freedom or liberty or self-determination or property or the nonexistence of property or any of their other infinite set of synonyms for autonomy per se.

A good opener as far as mass slurs go.  IOZ's anecdotal experience of human beings who say they are libertarians or anarchists gives him the wherewithal to make such a sweeping generalization.  Sure, maybe he's just whining--which could well be appropriate--but here, we're not talking about identities that have a publicly stated platform and formal membership status.  We don't know how many anarchists, for example, are out there, because it is professionally dangerous to be an avowed anarchist.  Just like it would be personally dangerous for IOZ to be an avowed homosexual in a gentleman's club seventy years ago.

Keeping things hidden from others out of fear allows bigots like IOZ to slur people with little fear of mass recrimination.  A bigot of yore might stand up and say, "All fags are child rapists!"  And this could go unchallenged, because the only publicly-known male homosexuals were "homosexuals" convicted of child molestation.  Disgusting, ignorant slurs work really well--particularly when you're so comfortable and arrogant that you never imagine your claims might end up applying to someone who can't openly disagree with you.  Because who's going to stand up in, say, 1920s America and say, "I'm proudly a male homosexual and I am not going to rape anyone's son"?

To some degree or other, we are all in it for the weed, the guns, or the butt sex. By we, I mean men, and I'll come back to that.

Ahh!  So, the token "man" has stood up in open court and confessed--to the delight of all the members of the opposition party--that all the men are, in fact, selfish pricks.  And because it came from the mouth of a member of that group, it must be an accurate depiction of that group.

Just like when Obama says racism is over.  Cheap demagogue.

This is delivered from a sorely ignorant human being who has never known a male who has worked two and three low-paying jobs for fifty years, straight into the grave, so that he could send three daughters to college and make sure his wife doesn't lose the medical insurance that keeps her, albeit lying in bed all day shaking, at least alive.  Oh yeah.  Because it's worth it for the "dominance" of the patriarchy.  Even when the kids are all working careers in other states and the wife is in a care facility one of your pensions helps pay for, being the "head of household" is so worth it, because you get to emotionally repress the women "around you"--that's the only reason you go through it.

Oh yeah, IOZ--because all the men are wife beating rapists who spend up the cash at the bar on the way home from diddling the secretary.  This stereotype is riotously popular right now; almost as popular, perhaps, as the old one about the henpecking, lazy housewife who gets fat and gossips constantly and wastes all the money just as soon as the door-to-door vacuum salesman shows up.

(A mean person might take this as an opportunity to point out that a family-less richie jerk like IOZ, a childless wunderboy who never had to grow up and help another human being learn how to breathe, move, speak, shit in the toilet and not on the floor, and provide for itself the way someone else did for him and his partner, is exactly the type of scum to start spouting off at the mouth--in between lubed up assfuck sessions with his "bottom," trust-fund-paid trips overseas and expensive wine and organic food--about how society just doesn't appreciate women enough.  Thank goodness we're not mean, here.)

Now, tell one of these freedom lovers that every interaction with the state rests on a foundation of violence, and he will nod in considered agreement, but tell him that every interaction between women and men rests upon a foundation of rape, and he will throw up his hands in genuine bewilderment and cry that he is never going to rape anyone! The theory is disproven.

Yeah--every relationship between female and male rests upon a foundation of rape.  That's why women never physically abuse men in relationships.  When an urban, American, black father jumps in front of a car to push his daughter out of the way--or an Iraqi man lets his mother have the last spot in the bomb shelter, then walks into the street to wait for four hours to die--that's evil patriarchal oppression and rape.  That underscores that encounter.

Luckily, rape doesn't exist as a problem for men.  Rape belongs to women as a popular hot-button issue.  It's not as though the most powerful government in the world maintains a massive, primarily male population of prisoners subjected to rape, and it's not as if every American man knows that, if he ends up in prison, he might end up taking dick or just getting shanked to death.

"No one's paying the bills.  No jobs in this town and I can't afford to move.  I don't wanna get shot--I saw what happened to that guy from high school after he'd only been there a year--but welfare's like $300 a month and if I apply I'll never get a job or get into school again.  Rachel's scared and says the baby's hungry and why won't I do something?"



Yeah, IOZ--rape.  Right there above, that's rape.  That evil patriarch selfishly went off and put himself in mortal danger because he was a bloodthirsty, egotistical chauvinist willing to die just for the video-game pleasure of proving academic concepts of masculinity by shooting darkies until they shoot him in turn.

This is a large part of why opposition to war cannot connect with the proles: the unbelievably arrogant, violently abusive condescension to people who really have no other choice and are struggling to keep their heads above water.  War is really being driven by bratty, selfish domestic people; the pawns who actually get their limbs blown off, get PTSD and die are not the ones making the policy.  The elites, and their arrogant, PC, neoliberal fucktard flunkies--whether they blather about bad Republicans, bad Democrats, bad patriarchy, bad "state," or the like--are the ones shifting the money scales such that the only choice for some is martial maybe-death.

Yeah, the only choice, Arthur Silber.  Maybe you're content living on charity as a pauper senior, slowly starving yourself and your cats, but you can't fairly say that someone else should let themselves, their human children (or their domesticated animals, if that's all you care about), or their infirm parents starve if they can take a way out serving in the military.  Or working in the coal mines.  These things I do that others might live, you sad, malignant little souls.  You back a rat into a corner, and it will fuck you up.  The expression "high horse" might not coin well for Silber, who is genuinely miserable, but it does for a plump richie shit like IOZ--who isn't even interested in anything except men--when he offers patronizing criticism of people whom he's sure can't possibly care about women except as rape-objects.

...men rule women--a statement so banal as to be a truism in any other circumstance...
Yeah.  Joe Blow rules Ms. Thatcher.  Some guy in Iraq is guilty of exerting patriarchal dominance over Hillary Clinton.  What a simplistic pile of shit that "one size fits all" statement is.

What is banal and utterly oblivious is that being a "female human" and/or a "male human" has no absolute bearing on how one fits into any of these equations.  Or what makes a male human or a female human.  Perspectives like IOZ's are medieval in their disallowance of genderqueer and transgender people, and what rights they should or shouldn't have.  Does a "man" who identifies as a "woman" suddenly have all her interactions with men underscored by rape?  Even if they can't tell who she is?

When a "woman" identifies as a "man," does he instantly inherit culpability for patriarchy?  Does he need to stop being an asshole and start trying to make it up to all those oppressed women out there?

Sorry; no room.  Bigotry doesn't see those kind of shades.  Cisgender pricks like IOZ can behave so blindly at times, insulting whole groups of people they aren't even aware of.

What about people who don't want to be pigeonholed either way?  What about a straight man physically abused by his wife, who stays at home while his wife works as a corporate lawyer?

Just like the "and what if the negro scored higher on a test than you did, Bob?" example, thought experiments like these destroy the fanciful illusions of bigots.  That's why they usually get mad and ignore them, relying on the bandwagon to support them for the rest of their life, until society switches to a new target and it becomes popular for the kids to hate and slur someone new.

Hatred via Classification

One of antilife's most important tasks is separating life from itself.  All life is connected and reliant upon itself, throughout this planet, under this sky.  "Humans," as a species, are similarly connected.  No human could exist without other humans, barring technology to sate basic needs while the ghost-body connection gradually broke down from a lack of interaction with other points of light.

Antilife seeks "classification" to divide life against life: by segregating pieces of an internally-reliant system, the system itself may be destroyed.  Without doing this, merely damaging "one" part of the system will result in system survival.  To attain cataclysmic system failure, we must first separate and isolate components of the whole, so that a component or component set can be destroyed more cheaply and easily.

A plague introduced into a system will be tested against the system's collective efforts, while a plague introduced into an isolated component will face much less resistance.  Additionally, isolated components, when destroyed, are unable--by virtue of their isolation--to communicate, even in death, the circumstances of their destruction to other system components.  This leaves the remaining components in a state of unreadiness if they are later assaulted by the same plague: they will be as unprepared as were the original components.  Ergo the plague much more effectively, as well as economically, will target a series of isolated components.

(Antiviral medicine uses this understanding to prepare the "body" system for a viral assault by introducing the weakened/dead virus to the entire body system.  This allows antibody information to be spread and shared freely, preparing all parts of the body for the virus' intrusion.)

Why does classification tend toward antilife?  Because life is constant change and chaos--it exists because its random nature, ever-changing, makes it difficult for the introduction of systematic failures that would cause it to cease existing.  Vacuum fluctuation, and random molecular reorganizations of any type--including the chance mutation of cells during reproduction--are the randomness that keeps the lightspring flowing.  Anything "unplanned" can, by its virtue of having no "fixed" nature (ach, Germanic languages!), fit into any container, burst any container, and evolve so as to survive under, or create, any circumstances.

Similarities do actually exist between a lot of things.  Of course, all existence is the same--construed through these limited shells, existence is string vibrations providing multidimensional properties that result in "time" and "matter" and "energy."  Yeah, cool.  And "time" is more "like" "time" than it is like "matter," which is more like "matter" than it's like "energy," except that, if you start looking closer, matter is actually time is energy is time is matter is et cetera.

All that aside, similarities within the structure exist.  "Dogs" are like "dogs," and are more like dogs than they are like cats.  And are more like cats than they are snakes, alarm clocks, tsunami, geopolitical strategic talks, club sandwiches and a cubic foot of airspace on a gas giant near the Horsehead Nebula.  So it's very helpful, and fun, to notice things like "that chick is tall" or "that guy is fat" or "those people are both black."  Language and different stuff is fun.  Everything is similar and everything is different, and minds can meet and converse about what things are.  Yay!

Antilife likes to take that natural fun step farther, though, by rigidly defining things, then using those definitions to justify vile things.

For the free, open, healthy mind, classification is useful as well as really fun--cataloguing all the names humans have come up with for hundreds of colors of oil paints across the visual spectrum, then going beyond the visible to talk about how to analyze star charts with machines.  Awesome!

Deciding that some people are "women" and some people are "men" is fine.  Or that some are "black" or "Asian" or "Pacific east islander" or "genderqueer."  Hurrah!

Remember, if Antilife could speak: "Must...destroy...all...life..."

Suffering comes from being alive. Life is the cause of suffering. Without life, there would be no pain; no fear; no hurting of any kind. Because I am a good person, I have decided to help everyone by saving them from having to suffer. When my work is done, none shall suffer.

Found in Plot Summary.

When dealing with conscious beings possessing an instinctive drive for the togetherness and security of one another's company, the task of using classification to ease the passage of destruction must be accomplished insidiously.  Humans, for example, usually do not respond well to the message, "Let us all kill ourselves and die alone and isolated."  To exploit the human proclivity to learn and explore, though, antilife utilizes classification to make things not just convenient, but to make them seem far more different than they actually are.  Once this has been accomplished, its easy to segregate things further by suggesting that the things in Group A be destroyed by the things in Group B.

Be always, therefore, wary of classification: while it's wonderful, useful and fun, it tends toward antilife.  The more classification is involved in an activity, the more likely--not guaranteed--that the activity will develop in a more antilife fashion, or that the activity will itself have been a vile creation.  The less classification is involved in an activity, the greater the chance--not the guarantee--that it will be otherwise.

Any doubts?  Go do a stack of American 1040s for households with itemized deductions.  Then ask what the guv'mint is spending the money on.

Prelude to Deconstructing IOZ

"And then I saw some people who knew the Republicans were crazy, and they called themselves Democrats, and I thought, 'There are my friends! They want the hatred to stop!'

And went to join them. But they wanted to divide and hurt people, too. So I cried.

And then I saw some people who knew the Democrats were crazy, and they called themselves anarchists, and I thought, 'There are my friends! They want the hatred to stop!'

And went to join them. But they wanted to divide and hurt people, too. So I cried."

IOZ will be deconstructed into the same hateful form as the others, albeit behind a different curtain, in half an hour or so.

linked article: Only a Tsunami Will Do

Rita K-A via demize.

Selection:

Alert! Alert! Most every frightened fear-monger was raised by a mother. Do you think she might have some role in creating the monsters their offspring become? Or are the domineering, child-beating, Abu Ghraib, star-quality commandeers of the global-stage-sans-cock simply patriarchs with pussies? What do you call women who urge — if not order — their men to war to return as heroes protecting the oh-so-sweet and suddenly available booty? From ancient Helen of Troy to the re-released Lysistrata, the cunt is no stranger to the imperial battlefield. Tell me, is it gender, class, or race privilege that keeps the blood off the hands of the Albrights, Elizabeths, Thatchers, Rices...?
Full article from Ms. Rita here.  

Sunday, February 19, 2012

How to Crush Women, Part 2

Succeeding the introduction in Part 1.

Sex is life.  Sex drives people to connect to one another.  "Making love" is making love for a reason: fucking can lead to falling in love without consciously intending to, as the connection between "two" (or "more") souls can be realized during moments of shared enjoyment.

You can be with the nerdy guy out of pity, then realize you fell for him; you can get drunk and sleep with the maid, and have such a good time you realize you need to be with her forever--and her children and genes inherit your wealth and social position, rather than Lady Stotham's gilded little darlings.  Or you can fall for the great head you got from that easy chick at a club before you realize she's got a...zomigod!

Yeah, so, illusions shatter, boundaries topple, et cetera.  Chaotic life is great at overcoming the crappy antilife regulations that societies throw up.  So elites need to strengthen those to fight back and keep people repressed.

The best way for a barrier to work is to establish two barriers: first, a real barrier that no one questions, and second, a fake barrier that can be constantly broken down while being defended in a token fashion, so that people always think they're getting ahead, rather like a hamster on a spinning wheel.  The fake barriers right now are "marriage" and "alternate lifestyles."  Token idiots, some of whom actually believe they're being taken seriously by the powers-that-be, whine and fuss about the sanctity of marriage and the evils of gay sex, while the sea change of again accepting open relationships and gay sex will serve to provide a useful hamster wheel for maybe even another generation.

One of the components of the real barrier is prostitution.  And this is a big, big one.  As discussed in Part 1, elites rely on a nasty, zero-sum economic system to pit people against one another in a cage match as big as the world.  Prostitution would at first seem to fit nicely into this: the most valuable commodity to male humans--exceeding even food and drink, depending on the individual and the circumstances--is the chance to fulfill the biological need to mate.

This gives immense individual power to women.  Within the game of monetary exchange, prostitution allows any individual woman to sell a little bit of her company to a mass of customers who were born expressly for the purpose of patronizing her.  It's an instant seller's market where, granted the same property regulations that the rest of the modern economy depends upon, females can select work location, clientele, rate, work hours, etc., with utter freedom.  Any woman becomes instantly able to commodify her company to an unending population of repeat customers who are driven by both word of mouth, visual appeal, random selection, geographical location, and insatiable need.

Every woman is an entrepreneur with massive growth potential, zero initial investment, and decades of job security.  Women able to prostitute themselves could, upon making the decision to do so, work ten hours a week, vacation at the drop of a hat, and never have to get small business loans or apply for jobs.

Why is this such a big problem?  Well, it breaks the elite economic model.  Elites depend upon humans not being able to access the marketplace openly.  If any one human can suddenly sell a useful product, that human--or a lot of them--could provide an alternate model to the world economic system.

Buying, selling and trading could go on in a way untrackable by state revenue agencies and the elites that manipulate them.  Individual entrepreneurs could launch productive businesses at the drop of a hat without requiring business loans and whoring themselves out to big (elite-owned and -run) banks or venture capitalists, who would then own a share of every return the entrepreneur did the actual work for.  All of the gatekeepers and middlemen built into the system to extract value from laborers could be bypassed.

Even worse, people would fall in love.  Freed from stigma, random encounters could result in lasting intimacy, trust, and empathy for different social stations unfettered by the need to avoid legal entanglements.  System breaks.

Prostitution also breaks elite control over the sex trade.  Child slavery and pauper/child prostitution in east Asian countries and Africa depends upon the unavailability of a commodified sex exchange in America, driving wealthy clientele offshore like so many Caribbean tax havens.

(Remember when Rush Limbaugh got nabbed coming back from the Dominican Republic with Viagra and Oxycontin?  He wasn't there for the food.  And this is a wealthy, powerful man who works in Manhattan, home of some of the world's priciest and cleanest escorts.  Why the Dominican Republic, then?  What sort of delicate, poor young products might be available offshore to a Viagra user that aren't available in New York?)

When you can't just go into the marketplace and buy an independent prostitute, the remaining options for satisfying natural lusts are:

1) Get married.  Big, expensive wedding, purchase of ring and clothes, Hallmark-style honeymoon, court paperwork, changes in banking and legal documents.

2) Spend years patronizing expensive bars, clubs, social dating sites or adult education courses in pursuit of romance.  Successful forays into dating produce expensive restaurant visits, attendance at movies, ritually exchanged gifts, and possibly #1 above.

3) Visit an expensive exotic club for a brief glimpse of the other sex, where dancers have brief, unhealthy careers under the control of club owners who have borrowed/invested in the manner of a "normal" business.

4) Purchase pornography produced by a powerful porn company, where actresses and actors operate under the control of publishers who have borrowed/invested in the manner of a "normal" business.

5) Limited legalized prostitution under the control of powerful pimps with connections to organized crime, government officials and gambling.

In each case, the house wins.  To acquire anything approaching that intimate physical connection to another person, one has to tithe the pre-existing elites who control all the social spaces, entertainment venues, and other "safe" ways to try to get to know someone.

If you go outside the system--seek sex and intimacy on your own terms--you run into problems.  A big one is a populace conditioned to believe that mating rituals can only occur in certain ways: you don't just "meet" someone randomly.  You generally have to work together, study together, or meet in a pre-approved business where people can get dressed up and go for the purpose of evaluating potential mates while giving the house a lot of money.  Go outside that, and you're a weirdo stalker no one in their right mind would get involved with.

Another problem is, obviously, the fact of prostitution being illegal.  If you try to offer yourself for sex to earn much-needed money and gain financial independence, or buy sex from someone you're interested in, whammo, jail.  Local police departments prosecutors offices love playing shadow games with attractive young trainees in the wrong part of town, entrapping potential Johns and throwing taxpayer dollars into stings, holding cells, public prosecutor work, court fees and community service.

To ensure that prostitutes are not able to ply their trade, state security forces and vigilant teams of lawyers patrol social venues to prey upon those who try to go outside the system.  Under the auspices of "women's rights" or "public health," they allow elites to monopolize the flesh trade, destroy independent operators, and increase startup costs for any potential entrants, who must work their way up through the chain of waitressing, stripping, fucking the businessman's cousins or friends in porno films, and finally, elite escort status--if they're still around.

Requiring independent-operator prostitutes to go underground sends them out of the protection of society, generally forcing them into the arms of violent criminal pimps who use the lawless situation to brutalize and exploit them, much the way street dealers get used and wiped out by drug czars.

Women must not be allowed to commodify themselves freely through independent prostitution, because the trade in mass-produced porno films--and exploited 18 year old actresses believing they're on the ladder to stardom--would drop dramatically.  The customer-service bullshit quality of the entire porn industry would collapse; strip clubs, bars, "adult product" shops and singles spots would shut down, and humans would start meeting and interacting with each other in a more open, direct fashion, unabashed by pretenses of being there "with friends" or "to watch the game" or "to catch a drink after work."

Sly whores would ply their first entries into the trade like old Japanese geisha, make bank, and produce a more discriminating and mature male populace, placing more demands for maturity and patience on the next generation of "sellers" and "buyers."

People would fall in love.  Beauty, lust and love would shake up class barriers.

This is similar to the marijuana v. prescriptions situation discussed in Professional Protection Rackets: any product that can be cheaply and efficiently produced by private individuals with a low investment, that addresses many needs of potential customers, needs to be made illegal through state regulation, in order to allow elites to monopolize the market in potential cures.  In the case of drug laws, marijuana and other home-grown pain relievers or mild psychotropics must be made illegal, so that people seeking such results will be forced to pay massive fees to big pharm and prescription-issuing agencies.  In the case of prostitution, cutting off the market for sex "at home" drives all potential customers through elite middlemen.

Gradually, this may change.  It won't bring down the system by itself; government "regulation" of nationwide prostitution, with registration, licensing requirements, disciplinary boards, and the normal gamut of advertising controls could limit independent operators and allow legalized prostitution to exist without shaking up any of the power structures.  For the time being, though, the "morals" and "health" thing work just fine to keep that particular facet of the economy tucked snugly under Bill Gates' scrawny ass.

Because everyone knows, he got his wife through personality and looks.  No prostitution involved in this society--no sirree Bob.

Saurs response log

In the event IOZ starts getting trigger happy at the unpleasant, as even very intelligent humans have been known to do before, here's a moment of posterity for the archives.

Saurs, inspired to anger by a vaguely feminist hornet's nest stirred up by IOZ on purpose, complained about evil men (no joke) as follows:

I want to reiterate what's been said above, puppylander, that every man wants the best for his daughter as he defines a woman's happiness and fulfillment. What women the world over may want and need, what they are capable of achieving with the privileges and advantages that men are granted and that they themselves are barred from enjoying, is something probably radically different, may in fact make you very unhappy, indeed. It's a wonderful sentiment, but it's largely a platitude that means nothing. The material and nonmaterial things you want your daughter to have, would you mind if every woman had them? Are they the same things a son ought to have? What if her possessing them means you have less? It's sometimes stressed that the eradication of oppression is not a zero-sum game, and it isn't. We can all be happy in that Great Feminist Utopia in the sky, where feminism is no longer necessary because its aims have been achieved. But to get the ball rolling, men are going to have to give up a lot, question their assumptions, undergo some serious ego surgery, more than they realize. Are you willing to do that for your daughter? Can you even put into words what that means? Can you sort out of your life, and pinpoint the ways in which you've benefited from living in a patriarchy as a man? And, even if you can, how are you going to convince every other man on the planet to do the same? Welcome to our dilemma. The world will not be a welcoming and safe place for girls and women until men stop hating them and thinking that they exist solely to do men's bidding, categorizing and sorting them into good girls and bitches, whores and wives, resenting them and othering them through biology and trying to control them and when they can't be controlled, blaming all the world's problems on them and their bad behavior, excusing systemic violence against them and coming up with reasons why they have "chosen" to be second class. By virtue of your class, the color of your skin, what you do for a living, the sacrifices you make, you'll probably give your daughter a leg up over a good many women and a huge chunk of men. Is that enough for you? If it is, you're not a feminist, you're just a guy with a kid. Feminism is not about addressing your personal happiness, which can be achieved quite easily by fucking other people over to your heart's content. Some of the happiest people on the planet: right wing dudes in cushy jobs with plenty of women around to suck their cocks and make their dindins and wash their drawers, plenty of people of color around being casually exploited as slave labor, living in a country whose philosophy is rugged goddamned individualism, dude achieved this all on his own pinkyswear and no lies. The world's greatest and most violent misogynist, the kind that goes on a killing and raping spree: he probably knows some women too, probably likes them a great deal, probably makes exceptions for them and excuses them for their silly inferior female traits. It's not enough to say you have a wife, you have a mother, you have a daughter, and you want the best for them. Some of my best friends are X. You're one of the good ones, not like those fucking Xs. The bigot always have to rationalize why the problem isn't with hir, it's with those fuckers, and zie knows this because zie's capable of the grand gesture of making an "exception." Well, congratulations, you special snowflake, you.

Aside from 1) the rather murderous insults to a parent, 2) the assumption of personal ownership over a cause of epic scope that transcends the wealthy white blog-reading chick's limited cultural experience, and 3) name-dropping loaded terms, the 4) sexism resulted in the following response:

Saurs, you arrogant, terrible beast, you've just slurred the entire male sex by saying "every man wants the best for his daughter as he defines a woman's happiness and fulfillment." Men cannot possibly know, or even realistically contribute to, what makes women happy and fulfilled? Turn that logic back on us: sure, every woman wants her sons to be fulfilled and happy, but only inasmuch as she can understand men. And she can't. Therefore, patriarchy is required to free men from repressive women. You've just justified either repressive patriarchy or repressive matriarchy. You've also just said that men cannot parent happy daughters. I.e., two male partners could not raise a happy daughter, because they could only understand her needs "as they define a woman's happiness/fulfillment." How truly loathsome. Was that a stupid typo, or do you actually feel men are that inadequate? Your sexism is so blatantly offered that it's like talking to an old-school KKK member about why niggers suck. You are willing to denigrate an entire group based on your own psychosexual repressions. Unfortunately, while it did become unacceptable in mainstream society for blacks and women to be slurred by disgusting bigots, a new breed of bigotry has arisen to take its place, and empowered people like you to say the most derogatory things about roughly half the planet's human population. By the way, are you American? Okay. Then you're going to need to get the ball rolling to head toward utopia. Turn over all your money to the tribal officials of the nearest Native American tribe, and then kill yourself. Give back what you've taken. Time to sort out the ways that you've benefited from the genocide. And then, go to Hell. Because that whole "original sin" thing has been really pissing the men off. Time to pay the piper for the apple. It'll be tough, and you won't be able to convince the rest of the non-100%-Native-blooded population to do it...welcome to my dilemma. Not gonna do it? Still alive and living on the stolen land? Then you're not into racial equality; you're just into talk. Racial equality is not about addressing your personal happiness, which can be achieved quite easily by blathering about "feminism" on top of the American graveyard of millions upon millions. You special fucking snowflake, you. You're so completely different. Very rude; very unpleasant. We've shared that today. Would you like to actually discuss what made you so angry that you wanted to slur all males? This one's happy to. E-mail; show up on a different blog; do it here. Or just wail angrily about how other women are sucking richer cocks than you've got access to, make this one part of the problem, and you'll find no shortage of increasing support as sexism needle swings from one side to the other over the next many years. @anon 8:11, this one would rather not just sit in a chamber of people who echo the same viewpoint. How else to grow, improve and learn? Opinions could be right or wrong; wrong could be corrected, right could help others. Is the purpose of the internet just to vent or to find people who agree with you and be validated by them? As you'd know if you watched this one argue with "conservatives," "neoliberals," et cetera, there's no particular discomfort being highly unpopular. If present humanity never validates this one's faith that viewpoints can be changed patiently, then see you in the memory hole once you've shifted to unpopular.

End recording.  Click.  

How to Crush Women, Part 1

Posit this: a group of elites has managed to construct a society of humans where, instead of humans coming together to protect one another from suffering, humans use social structures to rationalize neglecting one another.  Those individuals who "win," within the rules of the society, have a lot of stuff.  Those who lose can not only have no stuff; they can also have negative stuff, and be indebted to others for years in the future.

E.g., the current world economy.  Zero sum games stacked on top of one another.  Society where, even outside of war, if you run out of food, medical care or shelter, you are badly harmed or die, because everyone else knows that, if they themselves contribute to your well-being, nothing guarantees that they will be so taken care of if they're the one down on their luck that day.

Hoarding (individual "saving") is encouraged, and in fact, becomes a "healthy" behavior.  Individuals accumulate far more than they need, because they know that, if they run out of resources, they're the hobo fighting for a spot on the floor of the YMCA basketball court nearest the bathroom.  There is never too much to own, because you're playing against death.

That works pretty well, in a Machiavellian sense.  People trade currency for resources, and hundreds of years of clusterfuck D&D-style overcomplicated concepts of legal ownership and financial economy keep the game well enough rigged that most people spend their lives striving against their fellow humans to be a little higher on the hill.  They're fighting one another so hard there's often no time--or motivation--to ask the questions, "Why are we on this hill?" or "Is there a better way?"  After all, that would be, depending on the century, "ungodly" or "red" or "unrealistic."

But there's one major problem that keeps popping up to threaten the grift: humans are sexually reproductive beings.  Millions of years of development led to the persistent birthing of humans with different types of genitalia and brain chemistry who seem to naturally want one another's company--and want it a lot, almost as if it's the driving force of their entire existence.

This is bad for the system.  When people want something so badly that they're willing to disregard artificial things like "reputation" and "moral codes" and "law" and "money" to get it, that's a chaotic passion--a beautiful swirl of life resisting antilife that can lead to unintended consequences.  For example: forming meaningful intimate relationships with more than one person; marrying someone in a lower caste, of a different race, from a different country, etc., just because he's so handsome your loins or heart drive you forward; feeling pity for a beautiful, dead child, and asking the forbidden question-- "What if s/he grew up and could have been a friend to me or my child?  Maybe dropping bombs isn't such a good idea.  Maybe it doesn't just hurt 'other people,' but also me and all of us."

And that stuff's bad.  When people look for love, life and meaning outside of things like exclusive marriage, restricted ("straight") sexuality, and the linking and severing of divorce court, it could lead to breaking the system.

Pretend we're the elites--how can we stop that?  Well, the obvious first is to use it.  If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  So elites like to throw up a lot of flak between people.  For example, complicated moral, religious or legal codes that try to limit love and sexuality.  This kind of sex is right, this kind is wrong.

By hammering into little kids from birth that they shouldn't be a "slut" (girl) or a "patriarchal asshole" (boy), we instill a fear of their own sexual desires that leads to a lifetime of repression.  Yeah, Catholic priests and the guy in American Beauty have wacky, repressed explosions that result in awful violence.  Most people get that, now--on some level, they understand that repression doesn't work.  The repression they can see.  But like the old driver's manual maxim "the car you don't see is the most dangerous," the repression that most people don't see is the unquestioned assumptions.  For some, it's that "marriage" or "commitment" is good, and "cheating" is bad.  For others, it's "being straight" that's good, and "being gay" that's "unnatural" or wrong on some other level.  "Public health"?  Choose your repression.

We'll stay away from the really deadly elephant right now, but one almost as stridently at issue is the ability of women (generally not people; just women) to buy and sell their company as commodities on the economic market.

Continued in Part 2.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Speak for the unpopular

...in any way, and you will become the unpopular.

Teh internets is so funny.  Over 2011, under various guises, this one has been in the trenches with the Tea Party, the "centrist" Republicans, happy Obama Democrats, resigned Obama Democrats, the directionless confused, and the fiercely anti-Obama radicals.

And in no case has this one been popular.  The talking points change, but the pointing in the other direction while ignoring inherent flaws and getting angry at having them pointed out doesn't.

Tea Party finds this one a traitorous centrist Republican; Republicans think "ignorant, Socialist liberal!  she's part of what's destroying this country!"; the Obama Democrats of both sides think this one's a wacky, idealistic liberal who doesn't understand the real world; and the radicals think this one's a wacky, idealistic no-prepackaged-term who doesn't know the proper time and place for debating certain subjects.

So, which is it, humanity?  Is only one of you right?

Yeah, teh sigh.

Update.  Quoted response to Chris Floyd, who used the old "this is neither the time nor the place to debate meaningful issues, so I'll censor whenever I want" line.

Rhetorical point follows: I'll accept that, but how can you reconcile it with your own white supremacy? You criticize the actions of our African-American president ALL THE TIME, and if david's criticism of Zionist bankers makes him "race hating," then you might as well put on a white hood. /end rhetorical What pains you in reviewing that is that you're willing to go only so far with your analysis of entrenched power. You're comfortable criticizing Christians, Americans, and stupid white-boi soldiers from red states, but if someone suggests that a certain subset of people who identify as "Jews" might have done something naughty, it triggers all the BAD SUBJECT conditioning, and you fly off the handle and delete it. If you can't talk about how World War II might've happened, then by god, you better not talk about how 9/11 happened either. I knew someone who died in the tower, okay? No, seriously. So your rabid America-hating is so noxiously disgusting that I delete, delete, delete it. No, you may not make arguments. No, you may not discuss sources. I won't even bother reading them. That might be a noble aim, but this isn't the place. Get off my internet. All of the brokers and managers in the twin towers made the internet POSSIBLE, man. And you even claim that 9/11 was EXPLOITED by Americans. As though a grieving populace who had lost thousands of its own people should become the VICTIMS again. Christ, the tea party was right. Coward "radicals." You can't even examine yourselves and your own prejudices. Sure, you do a great job complaining about Obama, just like Obama supporters do a great job critiquing the Bush tax cuts. But you can't handle anyone who criticizes your own understanding of things. It scares you so much you instantly delete it. All you want is a chorus of people agreeing with you, like any other of the TRIBES you so proudly analyze under Silber's rubric. You don't have a formal "party," but you have your no see-ums and your restrictive boundaries and if anyone steps outside, you vanish them. Sigh. Yeah, sigh. Why keep looking? They're all the same. It's only the style of dress and choice of words. Is there an openness anywhere?

Whiny fucking radicals.  The lessons of Addressing Evil find no place there.

There is, it seems, no place where censorship and deliberate, proud ignorance travel not.

Combating Anti-Semitism thread

Open comment for any re-directed entities who wish to be cured of anti-semitism by having their logical and/or historical flaws pointed out.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Those Damn Anti-Women Republicans

...are at it again.  Because, like, Santorum wants to restrict access to pills and abortions.  Nach, Wolff was all over this one, like an American liberal on so many comparatively inane talking points.

This one spaketh:

Thank you for the link, and this one read it through twice. It's so horrible to see women's freedom under assault in so many angles. Unfortunately, the DLC is not doing very much to resist this sort of thing. In fact, they're standing against women's freedom in a lot of ways. So few people know what their policy actually is. Read:
And provided this old link:

Democratic Plan to Block Birth Control.  

*sigh*

Fucking spoiled Americans.  Your birth control pills are worth so very, very much more than the shredded bodies and dispersed souls of thousands of little brown kids who never got a chance at life.  We must take immediate action to protect free access to those birth control pills and abortion doctors in one nation on this planet.

The Evil Within--Can You?

Can you admit to it?

Surrounded by food, cash, cappuccinos, cars, roof, walls, AC, flush toilets, running water, and little probability of home invasion by armed men, can you admit it?  You've got it nice.

Yeah, you got empathy.  That's nice.  That's real.  Maybe it even upsets you that some don't have it nicer.  Maybe it upsets you a lot.

So what are you willing to do about it?  Nothing.  Nothing but whine.  Hey, I'm there, too.  Pass me a bud, sister.  'Cause there ain't no stoppin' this train without no personal risk.

What really steams me about you, though, is that you like to believe that just by complaining to other people, you're accomplishing something.  You're not.  We all know, already.  We may not say it, but we feel it, deep in our guts.

Bow to Cohen and feel the truth learned long before you realized Obama was raping every poor person in the world.

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died



You aren't accomplishing anything by raising awareness.  Those cops you hate?  The ones that are, as a group, brutal, terrible domestic soldiers, protecting entrenched property interests and inappropriately venting frustrations on the unlucky sub-group of the day?

They're giving it their all.  They're out there most days with a big target on their chests, driving cars with big targets on them, that announce loudly to the world, I AM AN AGENT OF THE MOST POWERFUL AND REPRESSIVE DICTATORSHIP KNOWN TO MAN.  WHATCHA GONNA DO ABOUT IT?

Nothing.  No one's had the guts since the Black Panthers.  Because you don't fuck with cops.  And you certainly don't fuck with soldiers.

The Proles have the strength to overthrow the Inner Party.  The Outer Party has the strength to make the Proles realize it.  But they're not going to.  You're not going to.  Because you like your TV and your dog and your kid and your car and your IRA.  You're afraid to do what that little kid did with the Israeli tank during the intifada.

You'd do it if they killed your family and laughed in your face.  Then, you might fight back, even if it meant your death.  But you're too afraid to stand up for others with anything except your internet voice.

It sucks.  It sucks to be part of that killing machine--paying your taxes, driving the speed limit, working your whole life to the ultimate benefit of the elites and their bomb factories or what have you--but it's the choice we've made.  You--we--make the decision to be on the "winning" side, because we're afraid of losing what we have.  Maybe we do it under the excuse of following orders, but hey, that didn't work during the Nuremberg trials, did it?

So, which one of your tax dollars bought the clusterfuck deathbomb that did this?

"Oh, I'm sorry, your honor, but if I hadn't bought him the gun and driven him to the Circle K, he might've gotten mad at me and never been my friend again!"  

Yeah, like that's a decent man's defense.

Just admit it.  Look at yourself in the mirror, and say, "I support the killing and poisoning because I don't want to lose my livelihood."

You are the evil.  You are the compromise you condemn in others.  You've chosen to be on the side of the strongest killers.

That's okay.  We can still be friends.  When you pretend that your gradual raising awareness is going to spark a third party movement decades from now that might possibly cause small adjustments in foreign and domestic policy that prevent centuries of horrific brutality from being quite so bad, though, you're just as deluded and naive as the ninnyfucks who think Obama is only slaughtering children because the Republicans force him to, or those who think God wants Romney to win so we can all have special pajamas.

The evil is within you, and within all of us.  The only ones who have a claim to being free are, even as we speak, fighting back--actually fighting back; not fighting the way fucking Americans think of, like "battling pneumonia" or "fighting to keep on top of work--or have already been shot by our soldiers.

Yes, "our" soldiers.  They're yours, too.  The evil lies within.

Wolff deletion log

The memory hole gobbles another one over at Wolff's bastion of the white university.

What was the comment wearing when it disappeared?  Mmhmm.  And did it do anything to provoke the open-minded, liberal professor?  Ohhh.  Yeah, we see that a lot.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Stealing from Sarandon, Part 1

Arthur Silber hates on this one for pointing out that ad campaigns asking the American public to "not attack Iran" (as though "the American public" is the one doing it) are/will be ineffectual.

Take note that, despite its sweet nature, this idea was borrowed from Susan Sarandon, who personally funded a series of anti-Iraq-war ads sometime prior to Bush bombing the everliving crap out of Iraq.  Which ads, um, obviously didn't work, despite having very major financial and social backing from a prominent cultural figure.  Also, everyone's now seen American Beauty and The Lord of the Rings, and peeps, that ain't stoppin' the game.  You can drop down to your knees and connect the dots for the dumbest Joe the Plumber out there, about how killing little brown children is not going to help him, but Joe already knows little brown children are being killed, and he doesn't care.  Being "informed" that the government is screwing him is also not going to accomplish anything; he already knows he's being screwed, which is why he's able to be co-opted so easily into the USG's tea-party branch.

Ouch, though--slapped by Arthur. Cognitive dissonance hurts, even among radicals. 'Cause you know, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 changed foreign policy for the better. And struck a major blow against war-loving corporate news media, who profited not at all from its scathing release. ...oops. None of those things are true. It's not easy to come to the level of realization that most here have: i.e., the realization that the place we grew up is the most brutal empire in the history of the world, poisoning the planet and committing mass genocide. However, we've managed to deal with it. Try to get the standard Obama voter to realize that, and the cognitive dissonance kicks on. They get angry and the discussion ends. Now, try telling a radical, "That's nice, but if you don't take action that goes beyond pleading with people, you'll never get it," and you'll see the same dissonance, and the same anger. Keep on speaking truth vaguely in the direction of power. How's that working out for you, Twain? Talons gone yet? And ya know, this one's pointing it out isn't what makes it true. Any more than Chris chronicling Somalia makes him responsible for the death there. Don't shoot the messenger, and all that. Sorry that you don't have the power to change it--this one doesn't either. Do you come to the internet to learn, or to be agreed with and validated? Sigh. The enemy of my enemy's enemy's enemy is not my friend.

freemansfarm writes:

Silber's proposal suffers from several flaws. As has already been pointed out, the issue isn't that people don't know so they don't care, it's that they don't care and that's why they don't know. To put it more abstractly, as, again, another poster has already done, the problem is not one of politics but of the social and cultural realities that underlie politics. What happens to "the other" is simply not something that the most people care about. "Oh, if only the people knew?!" is just as naive, just as misguided, and misses the point just as much "Oh, if only the Czar knew?!" in its day.

People do, naturally and empathically care, but put another way, they also don't care.  It would be more accurate to say that, en masse, they could care.

Feeding the media monster ad dollars to ask the American public to not blow up the jillionth country in a row, though, will accomplish nothing except transferring "progressive" money to major media, and raise some "serious issues" about the Iran attack that will be gravely considered by our brave public servants before they press the big red button.  If they decide they want to, this time.  They might just keep mashing the "Afghanistan" button over, and over, and over.

You won't win until you play.

No, no, no

Chris Floyd on Greenwald, linking also to Arthur Silber's desired ad campaign against invading Iran.

No amount of bearing witness, media campaigning, blogging, or other clever-ry will stop the grindery.  Even if an even larger majority of the public would "vote" or "speak out" against war, the Pentagon isn't going to let all the treasure go.  Why would they?  The best you got is ad campaigns, and you don't even have those.

This one lives in acknowledged truth of making the selfish decision to play for number one.  You are, too.  That's why you're so excited about buying ad space to ask people to please play nice.  This is the jungle, baby. There's not going to be any enduring "nice" until we get rules.  And there aren't any but the ones they're making.  You like ads because, even if they did happen, they'd let you contribute a few dollars of American currency, then settle back without risking your neck, home, kids, dog, cat, retirement plan, etc.  You're not willing to put those things on the line.

The Pentagon is.  Obama is.  Obama is willing to play so hard that he will commit mass murder and war crimes in front of the entire world, daring them to come get him--and no one has the guts to get him.  Nope, "I" don't, either.  Too much to lose.  You too?  Ouch.  Well, Obama does have some skin in the game.  And he's winning.  Surprise, surprise.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

"How Low We Have Fallen"

Ah, Professor Wolff: the penultimate American liberal.  Did this bother him?  No?  Mounds of dead children higher than the tower of Babylon?  Why should it?

What is unacceptable for a major party candidate, though, is not whether he butchers children.  Rather, it's whether or not someone has permissible attitudes about the domestic sex life of Americans.

Santorum's repressed domestic sexuality concerns this one far less than his penchant for murdering children, a hobby which he shares with your favored candidate. It's exciting to laugh at Mr. Santorum's backward ideas, isn't it, even as the dead children pile so high that they block the sun from your lofty American perch? You are the means by which little children are lost, killed and forgotten. You should be ashamed of yourself in a way that goes beyond any words you can ever write.  

Duh, he doesn't care.  Duh, he's not going to care.  His sick mind, severed from the rest of his kind, has already forgotten the children, the adults, the elders; everyone else that has been, is being, and will be butchered.

When a little Pakistani boy is blown into chunks of tissue and bone, Wolff sleeps soundly.  When a politician suggests that certain varieties of sex are bad, how low the United States has suddenly fallen.

The standard term is "rank arrogance," but this goes beyond that.

Yeah, this one still blinks in disgust, if not shock.  Carry on.

Oh, and for the record, Santorum is vile, and not just because he's one of Obama's accomplices in mass murderer.  He's likely not the repressed weirdo he seems; he's probably just a very good con who knows how to massage certain red-staters the right way.  And how.

More importantly, though, the blatantly stupid, alarmist things he says help out the DLC by calling mass media attention to how stupid Republicans are.  With friends like those, who needs enemies?  The ol' two-headed hydra is working hard tonight.  What's stunning is that such astute liberal political observers actually take Santorum for real.  Just as you empower Obama to kill by believing in lesser-evilism, you empower Obama to win elections by focusing lots of attention on how gloriously ridiculous cons like Santorum are.

But damn, he is useful.  He's easy fodder for the pre-game show, kind of like getting wrapped up in the emotional story about how some football player lost his job, ended up on the street, dealt crack, then finally found sports and was uplifted to clean living and heroism--as though that has anything to do with whether one team deserves to win the football game more than another.

At the next level of consciousness is this one, whining about the whining, and somewhere out there, the even more wise are unaware of it all.  Teehee.  Back to scavenging the slums, peeps.  Peace out.