Friday, December 30, 2016

In Defense of our Functionaries; Oprah; Trump; Stalin

In my very early childhood, I paid witness to one of Oprah's programs, and thought, "She's one of those nice ladies they have on TV." In my mid-early childhood, I ran across her again, and concluded, "Oh, she's the devil." Not with any drama did I draw the latter conclusion, but rather, in the childhood manner of simply accepting what is seen. For years that explanation satisfied me; I can still see how, if the Prince of Darkness actually existed, and actually wished to have a negative impact on the mortal plane during the late 20th/early 21st centuries, he would adopt the form of a disadvantaged overweight black female, become a powerful and wealthy media figure, and lead people into various idiocies, all the while congratulating himself on how he was defeating God by proving the futility and/or wrongness of creation itself.

I still largely stand by that assessment of Oprah, except that greater/lesser powers of discernment have caused me to see the devil acting not specifically through Oprah, but through Oprah®. Oprah is probably just some poor dummy they trained for the job, who, by a reasonable twist of fate, could be avidly watching her alternately-realitied replacement, believing in everything that was said, and getting ruined by it without understanding why or how. In that, I see a similarity between the Oprah/Oprah® relationship, and the respective relationships between, say, Trump and Trump®, Rowling and Rowling®, or Stalin and Stalin®. It's certainly sad and shameful what the person is participating in, but are the peculiarities of the puppet either necessary or contributory toward the syncretic result? Does the person actually understand what it is the persona is doing?

Like I can see an Oprah in a different multiverse watching WomanShow® (or whatever you wanna call it) and completely, totally, purely trusting in and believing it, I can see Trump in Best Buy trying to get people to upgrade from DVD to Blu Ray, or Rowling fingering herself to 50 Shades of Grey (actually, that scene may occur in this multi also, but for purposes of example, assume the first encounter occurs in the multi in which someone else was tapped for Harry Potter, and Rowling remained poor and unknown), or Private Stalin vomiting on his ranking sergeant in Kursk 1943 and being beaten and stripped of future vodka privileges.

What makes my own social function, if any, ultimately different from this world's Oprah®? Oprah couldn't have planned Oprah® herself, anymore than Trump could write Art of the Deal or sell anything bigger than a car without someone else's assistance. And if I were offered the opportunity to become Oprah® or Trump® at their rate (even their starting rate), I'd take it. Would I have the power to, once I had a few years' apartment-managing (or talk show) money saved up, quietly leave the scene, thereby forfeiting my place to someone equally bad? Or would I have the resolve to use my position to speak out against my public persona? I'd like to think so--that, once I had some savings, I could expose the system that had used me--but I think that when people do that, they end up with an unforeseen or rapidly-concluding medical condition, suicide, or car crash.

I guess that gives me hope. Celebrity functionaries who die like that might be the proof of living redemption--people eliminated before they can admit what they know, because they really were good people, and they managed to resist the allure of power for power's sake, once they had enough to put Ferrari on the table, excuse me, food on the table. Or, maybe weird drug interactions and small plane crashes just happen to people like that, and once you've completed your first assignment and gotten paid, you're already so corrupted that there's no turning back.

Given that, what do we do? Do we hate Oprah because she became Oprah®, peddler of things too big and stupid and evil for her to understand? We can righteously hate, say, Clinton or Leibowitz or Dershowitz, or people who understand what it is they're doing...or do they? Does higher verbal ability mean that, unlike a Trump or an Oprah, they actually understand the cosmic significance of their role, or their intended prescriptions? If they actually did (or could have) written their own books, does that mean they're actually their persona®? And, that said, should we revile them for ongoing participation in the persona, or for, instead, the one choice that really mattered--that first, "sell your soul" choice, in which they agreed to, for one season, be that persona?

Viscerally, I tend to want to make an intelligence-based and sexed-base assessment. I'd like to find fault with Clinton (Hillary/Chelsea), because they crack a certain level of projective intelligence, while not finding fault with Oprah, who is simply too dim to be anything other than the luckiest one of her audience members. Trump, by contrast--while less intelligent and perhaps less willfully-evil than Hillary/Chelsea, I'd still fault, since that's what you sign up for when you choose male. But am I doing him an injustice? Should he--a trans-Oprah, sub-Chelsea phenomenon--be adjudged evil, even if he's merely the most-blessed would-be Walmart night manager in existence? Or poor Stalin, another historically powerful dunce, unable to craft or comprehend the works of a Mao or a Lenin, be charged with responsibility for what any moronic enlisted would do if suddenly handed the reins to a rampaging bear, merely because he was the reverse-piƱata attached to latter-day Bolshevism?


  1. Nice, but you have to be kidding about Stalin. he was anything but dunce, and succesfully postponed the colonization of Russia for more than half a century. He is a hero, or if that is too much to swallow - certainly one of the greatest statesmen of all time. Unlike all rusian leaders before and after him, he actually cared about Russia, and transformed into a superpower in amazingly short period of time, with amazingly little violence, comparatively speaking.

    In spite of all the best efforts of the liberal swamp, new Stalin monuments are popping up all over Russia, and his existing monuments are always buried in flowers on the day of his birth.

    1. Stalin's effectiveness as a leader doesn't contradict any of this; most average soldiers, if suddenly given unchecked (or less-checked, non-democratic or -aristocratic) power, would be vastly effective. They'd liquidate the unpopular, viciously pursue commonsense stuff, and accomplish a lot, whether for good or for evil. There are downsides with that success, of course, but one of the great problems of modernity has been that it prevents actual people from having unchecked power to change society. In the case of Oprah, for example, she is so managed she can't ever accomplish what she would've done if she were free. Our politics now, in contrast to, say, Stalin's, are an example of sterility and artificiality. Has its plusses (more polite) and its minuses (more horrible; less actual accomplishment).

    2. Oh, since you mentioned Stalin's postponing of colonization--yes, absolutely. That is what a dunce--in the sense of a person who doesn't excel in the atrocious modern classroom--is so good at. People who demand to be paid up front don't fall victim to scams as easily as your average future-time-oriented Aryan, and people with a demanding streak of vindictiveness do not accept mealy-mouthed apologies and bullshit explanations for theft. This makes them poor targets for central bankers. It's a form of intelligence that about 1,000 years of European humanities has overlooked.

    3. Sure, he was in some way "given" this power, but he did escape management - which peeved all of his external wannabe handlers, and internal enemies.

      Here are two minor anecdotes that though superficial, provide a glimpse into why he was worshipped by the average peon:

      1) Soon after the war, Stalin and team are invited to party at someone of the highest functionary's dacha (Rokosowski), a pretty good size facility. Stalin parties hard with everybody, and in the morning says to the "owner" - "you've built a great orphanage here". Indeed, a few days later the building is filled with orphans.

      2. At one of the numerous drunken parties in the Kremlin, Stalin looks at his posse with contempt and says: "Look at you, little darlings. As soon as I'm dead, the anglos will drown you like dirty kittens". which is exactly what happened.

      Yes, he was meant to be a dunce-in, but wasn't.

  2. Another one i love (it is very basic, but it is fun to imagine the mental states of the participants:

    During one of 'winner's' high level informal meetings in 1945 Truman informs Stalin that the US now has the nuclear bomb ready to go. Stalin doesn't say anything, and the information seemingly has absolutely no effect on him, and the whole point was to gauge his reaction, but all they got was a poker face.

    After the meeting is over and they retreat in their quarters, the only words that come out of Stalin's mouth towards his handlers are "Get me Kurchatov on the phone".

    (Kurchatov was not only the soviet physicist in charge of the nuclear programs, but he was also one of the 3 people who had access to all of top-secret intelligence. The other two were Stalin himself and Beria)

    (As you know, the USSR was behind in the nuclear arms race. Yet, they had the first nuclear power plant)