Having what you want, and not having what you need.
Archive for September, 2007
Masculinity is a threat to every oppressive system. In every fascist state masculinity is the first victim.
The method of pornography is to decontextualize sex. Pornography is about sexual imagery and removing all emotional reality. It’s an expression of sexual poverty.
Reality is not so much about what is there as what is not there. In pornography yet another close up is shown of yet another penis entering yet another vagina. That these parts are attached to humans is barely relevant. That pornography more often shows a woman’s vagina than her face says a lot.
Pornography reduces sex to it’s barest physical components. Gone is love. Gone is exploration. Gone is lust. Gone is passion. Gone is reality, replaced by sex as a base universal.
In every fascist system poverty is created, because an impoverished human is easily controlled. The best things to control are the bare basics of human existence – shelter, food, dignity, sex. Once sex is rendered pornographic in the minds of the victims they become sexually impoverished, regardless of the amount of sex they have. The more sex they have the worse the impoverishment, because they get more and more desperate, more and more confused about why the sex isn’t working for them, isn’t helping.
In puritan culture which features sexual repression, of the four basic control elements sex is by far the best to use, since it confuses the victim and the elite is sure the victim will not ask for help, unlike their response to poverty of any of the other basic types.
What horror the face of fascism
They carry out their plans with
knife-like precision …
For them, blood equals medals …
How hard it is to sing
When I must sing of horror …
In which silence and screams
Are the end of my song.
“We seldom resort to anything illegal because the system itself is built on subterfuge, and the system is by definition legitimate.”
According to American society only people can be criminals. When will we see that American society is the real criminal?
Per Stephen Colbert: “The bible is true, and we know this because the bible tells us so”.
Who’s telling us American society is legitimate besides the elite who profit from it? I suspect in a global vote of the legitimacy of the American government over 90% would vote to end the American government, including most of the people in the United States. Hence if the world was democratic there would be no American government (at least nothing that resembles in any way the current one). I guess that’s why the elite tell us the US government is legitimate.
When will the system be put on trial?
Another quote, from Page 16:
“Claudine and I openly discussed the deceptive nature of GNP. For instance the growth of GNP may result even when it profits only one person, such as an individual who owns a utility company, and even if the majority of the population is burdened with debt. The rich get richer and the poor grow poorer. Yet, from a statistical standpoint, this is recorded as economic progress.”
From Page 18:
“The decisive moment occurred in 1951, when Iran rebelled against a British oil company that was exploiting Iranian natural resources and its people. The company was the forerunner of British Petroleum, today’s BP. In response, the highly popular, democratically elected Iranian prime minister (and TIME magazine’s Man of the Year in 1951), Mohammad Mossadegh, nationalized all Iranian petroleum assets. An outraged England sought the help of her World War II ally, the United States. However, both countries feared that military retaliation would provoke the Soviet Union into taking action on behalf of Iran.
Instead of sending in the Marines, therefore, Washington dispatched CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt (Theodore’s grandson). He performed brilliantly, winning people over through payoffs and threats. He then enlisted them to organize a series of street riots and violent demonstrations, which created the impression that Mossadegh was both unpopular and inept. In the end, Mossadegh went down, and he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. The pro-American Mohammad Reza Shah became the unchallenged dictator. Kermit Roosevelt had set the stage for a new profession, the one whose ranks I was joining.”
Communicating fear is what gets me called evil and shunned by pretty much everybody.
We live in a time of a fear so vast that people cannot express it. Only after World War II, when nuclear holocaust became a constant threat, does everyone smile. Now everyone is happy, or should I say “happy”. This “happiness” began in America, and radiated outward (as you might expect, Europe caught on next, and Japan). Before World War II people smiled much less often – you can verify this by studying old pictures of Americans. There are parts of the world where the people still don’t often smile – they are called “uncivilized” by the apparently “civilized” people who are so fearful of modern life that they suppress it.
While most humans place happiness on their surface and despair below the surface, for me it’s just the opposite. Because I communicate despair and great fear people believe I’m encouraging them to despair and be fearful – little do they know that I already know they are despairing and fearful. What I’m encouraging them to do is to bring despair and fear to their surface, to express it, to communicate it.
My approach is not only outside the mainstream, it’s outside the appreciation of all but a very small number of people I’ve met, and none of those people really had an understanding of what I was doing (they just had a kind of sense of comraderie).
Try to understand what it’s like to have to decide when you meet a person whether you’re going to help them and be shunned by them or leave them to their surface “happiness” and inner despair and be welcomed by them. That’s the choice I am met with every day – and people then wonder why I seem to not like people sometimes.
What humans really hate about me is that I poke and prod and recognize and bring to light things about their own emotions that they would rather not deal with – they worry that the fear will consume them.
I’m nothing special, and the fear that I live with constantly does not consume me. There is no need to smile. There is no need to be “happy”. It’s precisely because I communicate fear that I live a life of hope and happiness. That is to say, it’s precisely because I don’t live a life of fake happiness that I can live a life of real happiness.
But every time a human shuns me, it causes me greater despair. Because by shunning me they are rejecting hope, they are rejecting the bringing to their surface all of their fear and unhappiness.
Humans have no idea how much trouble they are in. They have no idea what tremendous damage they are doing to themselves and to society by this fake happiness, this constant smiling. Take a look at George W. Bush to see the future of America – the future of a society so self-deluded, so invested in the concept that they must be happy at all costs and for any reason that they lose all concept of Rationality and true reality.
I hope that on my gravestone it can be written that I taught the world how to frown. But perhaps, if the rest of my life is any indication, my gravestone too will be shunned.
Stop taking your happy pills, America.
This is an excerpt from an email, so it’s thematically awkward.
I know where the Left is coming from. They have just a few governing ideals: Justice, Freedom, Equality. I understand that very well. I just can’t understand the conspiracy theorists with their Illuminati/One World Government/Trilateral Commission/Evil Bankers/Masons/Order of the Cincinnati Grand Theory. The idea of some Super-Rational conspiracy to take over the world is completely ridiculous under just a cursory glance at humanity – these people just don’t seem to understand that humans with a large amount of money are just humans very good at making money (very ruthless in making money). They seem to grant them all kinds of other abilities like the ability to maintain vast secrets, the desire to rule the world (above and beyond profiting from it). It’s some kind of Rationality Worship combined with a misunderstanding of the nature of the elite. The elite are dangerous not because of their rationality (which I’ll talk about below) but because of their wealth, which in the society we live in translates to power. With this power they control governments (not exactly secretly), so other than perhaps greater efficiency I don’t see why they would care about a one-world government (in other words, a one government world).
Precisely because they assign these people Masters of the World status based on their Super-Rationality, they assume everyday people to be Irrational, or at least Rationality-Lite. Hence the need for Conspiracy Theories – to provide the Irrational basis to appeal to Irrational people.
But it’s just the other way around – they have the psychology backwards. It’s normal people who are Rational, and it’s the elite who are power-hungry monsters (it’s not rational to desire to attain vast power, as anyone like that who has met an angry mob can attest to). Precisely because they are power-hungry monsters they endure massive propaganda campaigns that they and others of the elite wage on themselves. They turn themselves into pathological liars – they become blind to the pain and suffering they directly cause. It’s only in their ability to lie, deceive, distort, and misrepresent that they can continue their ways. The elite do not gather together and share bouts of evil laughter while they rub their hands together and decide how best to destroy the world – they gather together and share ideas for how best to help the world by profiting from it. To their thinking, their profit is the world’s profit. Their system helps people even if it kills them. This isn’t a con, it isn’t a conspiracy, it’s just the ultimate in self-delusion. The elite aren’t Super-Rational, they are Super-Irrational. They are insane. A reason they aren’t institutionalized is that society tells us that by definition people who make money must be sane. Poverty can be an indication of insanity but wealth never is, because the greatest example of rationality is money-making ability, according to the society we live in. If you don’t believe me do a research project mapping poverty to institutionalization (either in the prison system or the mental health system). Rich people except in very rare cases can’t be criminals or crazies. Rich crazy people are called “eccentric”.
Or look at it this way – does anyone who creates vast pain and suffering tell himself he’s creating vast pain and suffering? Hitler was saving the world, according to Hitler. Aren’t the elite of the world just saving the world, whether it’s from Communism, or Capitalism (for the old Communist elite), or the Liberals, or the Collectivists, or the Socialists, or the Left, or the Bleeding-Hearts, or the Weak, or the Chinese, or the Russians, or the Savages? It’s the elite who make up (and then force themselves to believe) vast fictions to justify their actions – it’s the elite who are Super-Irrational. It’s the everyday human who is Rational, who works for a living, who plans his finances, who plans his time. The elite can go on a rape spree and get off with a high-priced lawyer… for what use is Rationality to them? That they’ve departed the world of the Rational is a sign of their exalted status – so Tom Cruise acts crazy on Oprah’s couch (or otherwise) – Paris Hilton tapes one of her sex sessions and puts it out to the world. Fox News is pure self-delusion – there is no “leftist” version of Fox News because the true left, the Populist left, is Rational.
I’m correct about all of this as far as I can tell, but it hardly matters. Most truths people just aren’t ready to accept. Hopefully at least the Conspiracy Theorists will listen and give their Conspiracy Theories some thought.
I judge intentions from controlled outcomes. So if someone puts a gun to my head and shoots, I assume he’s trying to kill me. If someone has control over society and creates an Authoritarian government, I assume they are trying to create that. Any other assumption seems to me to be quite illogical. The main difficulty is in determining who exactly is in control, to assign which effects to which people/ideologies/institutions/movements. Once that is done the analysis is usually easy.
It’s funny that Americans who are so jaded about their own government can be so trusting of others. Just because the American elite are the world masters of propaganda doesn’t mean they hold a monopoly on it’s use.
The only movements that I trust are those that refuse to take power, those that empower the people, those that enable the people to take power.
Chomsky’s famous phrase can be made more accurate with this version:
“Never trust *any* State”.
It looks like the WordPress problem where replies cannot be made is time-specific – it always seems to happen to me between 12 Noon and 1 PM Eastern Time.
“Yes, exactly. Of course, the very best cops are the ones who think like criminals anyway, who could have gone either way.”
That’s reassuring. “To protect and serve” or “To rob and murder”. Either way.
That’s me – Brian Koontz.
Since, to me, everything is open to debate and destruction, if you read this and understand the words (not difficult if I do a good job) my identity itself becomes open to debate and destruction.
Some people point to the first application of the Atomic Bomb by the US government in Japan as a terrible horror. That’s a superficial argument. By creating something, it’s application becomes implied. Therefore what has to be examined and destroyed is the will that led to the creation of nuclear weaponry.
Some people point to the potential global warming catastrophe as a terrible horror. That’s a superficial argument. By creating something, it’s application becomes implied. Therefore what has to be examined and destroyed is the will that led to the generation of the potential global warming catastrophe.
Some people point to war as a terrible horror. The logic I used above follows likewise. It’s not the act of war that’s the problem, it’s the elements that necessarily lead to war that is the problem. It’s not the bully that’s the problem, it’s what creates the bully.
What I have done throughout my life is to pursue a radical proposal that seeks to change humanity by means of domination and subjugation. Domination is the means, human survival is the end. Here I will argue for the necessity thereof:
Reality produced nuclear weaponry (which can only result in either global domination or global destruction). Reality produced the upcoming global warming catastrophe. Reality produced war. That is to say, humanity eagerly, time and again, does things that will lead to its own annihilation if not stopped and reversed.
So then the question becomes, will humanity, “on it’s own”, stop and reverse these things? The problem is that there is no historical precedent for this, except in one area: war. For the entire history of recognized humanity (organized humanity at least) there has been war. In scope and damage and destruction, war has only gotten worse over time, as the 20th century demonstrated all too clearly. Will humanity treat nuclear annihilation and global warming like they do war: for reality to get worse and worse?
I want the world to follow an alternative approach to my own. I want to world to, within a context of freedom and liberty, succeed in destroying nuclear weaponry, to succeed in stopping and reversing global warming, to succeed in ending war. But I also want to implement my own approach, so that if freedom and liberty as a methodology fails humanity will not annihilate itself. Let’s call my approach Plan B.
This begs the question of why I don’t simply join the struggle within a context of freedom and liberty to change the world. And I have joined that. But I don’t believe it will succeed, so I need to also pursue a different methodology. I love freedom and liberty, but they have never proven they can succeed in this way and I believe in history, not false optimism.
I spent three years studying Domination (of the will). By “studying” it I mean I spent three years using and observing my use of domination. Domination works (not automatically, but given the correctly crafted context it works). Or I should say it “works”, since I nearly destroyed my own psyche in turning humans into sheep. But I could care less if I destroy myself as long as humanity is preserved.
This begs a lot of questions, questions that I’m still in the process of answering. Such as, is it worth preserving humanity if they are turned into sheep, with no will of their own? My answer is yes, again with an examination of history. Life can go on for a very long time. Species can exist for millions of years. Also, species change over time. If humans have to be turned into sheep in the short term to get past a species-ending crisis (multiple crises), that gives them plenty of time after the crisis is averted to revert to freedom and liberty. No aspect of humanity is permanent. If this is the stated plan, if this is followed self-consciously as it should be, then the conversion back to freedom and liberty after the crises are ended should be quick. “Quick” might take hundreds or even thousands of years, but that’s just a blip in a long life-cycle for many species.
For those of you without much imagination, I’ll state the basics of Plan B: human domination by a movement using domination to gain control of humans and then using those humans to end and reverse the crises that plague humanity. I’d rather not discuss techniques of domination here but if requested I can do so. The difference between domination and persuasion is that domination does not yield to the answer “no”.
So I recommend, I recommend, that we all work to make Plan A a success, and if this means exterminating the people who stand in the way of Plan A like the capitalists, then that’s just what that means. Exterminating a few people is a whole lot better than subjugating everyone. But we need to put Plan B in place so that if Plan A fails we have a backup.
It may seem strange for me to work on Plan A and Plan B at the same time, but don’t all tacticians do that? What does the tactician care if Plan A and Plan B are so different? They are just two ways of achieving the same thing.
It’s kind of funny: for working on Plan A I’m deemed a radical. For working on Plan B I’m deemed a monster. I’ve spent most of my life around people who hate both radicals and monsters. Ironically, it might be the very hatred of the people around me for Plan A that led me to pursue Plan B. If they’re going to hate me anyway, I might as well maximize my tactical results. As Dr. Frankenstein might conclude – if you’re going to pass a certain point, you might as well go all the way.
One of the major problems in the pursuit of Plan B has been the utter devastation of my social life. It’s difficult for someone who uses humanity as a means of experimenting with and encouraging domination to make and maintain friends. As far as I can tell, I’m the only one in the world pursuing “Plan B” (at least self-consciously) so I get a lot of hate-filled comments like “Fascist!” and “Authoritarian!”. The ironic thing is, it would be much easier on me if I was a fascist or authoritarian. At least those concepts people understand. Fascists and authoritarians always seek to subjugate humanity for some direct purpose. I seek to teach humanity how to become subjugated so that they can more easily embrace that mode if Plan B becomes necessary. Regardless of the intellectual arguments, unless people are emotionally prepared to be subjugated they won’t be, even if it means the annihilation of the species. Domination is a relationship between two people.
Another troubling question for me over time has been, “Does the pursuit of Plan B hinder the pursuit of Plan A?” In preparing humanity for subjugation have I made it more difficult for them to succeed in solving their problems in a context of freedom and liberty? I suspect the answer is yes. There’s no way around that.
In short, I pursue freedom, liberty, *and* subjugation. Because the continuation of the human species is more important than any of that.
The pursuit of Plan B will kill me. Either sooner or later. Humanity is a social animal, and noone in the world has given me any support or even any tolerance in my pursuit of Plan B. The only way to save me is for Plan A to be pursued so effectively that I no longer see value in pursuing Plan B. Noone in the world wants Plan A to succeed more than I do, if partially for selfish reasons.
I don’t think humanity itself can be charged with a murder. That’s too bad. If Plan A fails it will be people like me who will possibly save humanity.
Take care. For the first time in the history of humanity, actually take care.
A recent trend not normally mentioned in Major League Baseball is the increase in the number of hit batsmen. Being hit by a pitch is a common way for a batter to be injured, and is by far the most common way for fights to break out, leading to occasional injuries as well as fines and suspensions.
Rather than fights and pitchers being thrown out of the game by umpires, another solution can be implemented: give hit batsmen second base instead of first. This increased penalty for hitting a batter should reduce the number hit sufficiently to return the number of players hit to traditional levels as well as substantially reduce of number of batters intentionally hit by pitchers.
One reason is as a legacy of imperial expansion concerning the extermination of the indigenous population. However, I see that as itself a mere application of the underlying issues.
In America everyone is self-righteous. Every American sees himself as “good”. Jostle someone off-balance in a crowded area and you often get an angry response, as if the jostling was a personal affront. To Americans I guess it is. Americans act as if there is no solidarity, and they therefore have to constantly defend themselves against an aggressive or at least uncaring world. Ironically, this process and pre-consideration *creates* an aggressive and uncaring world.
There is tremendous insecurity in Americans. They act as if tomorrow they could wake up to a shattered life, that their destiny is entirely out of their hands. This feeds into greed, the feeling that one always has to have more more more, to secure oneself against the considerable possibility of having less, less, less. The Hoarding instinct is strong with them.
The combination of Individual Goodness and Insecurity is a fatal mix for society. While Americans inevitably believe themselves to be always good, they have no such feelings about the rest of Americans, especially ones with obvious differences from them (such as a different ethnicity). They are more than ready to interpret any action they don’t like as being *Evil*, and more than ready to show their Good selves by taking matters into their own hands. This is done for an obvious reason: they are the only ones they are *sure* are Good. Maybe the police won’t see the evil for what it really is and let them go. Maybe the police will be too lenient on them when Evil always deserves a horrible fate. Maybe a tolerant jury won’t exact the right justice. Maybe a rich lawyer will get them off, and then the Evil will return to destroy the Good (themselves). Evil is devious… maybe their hesitation in not immediately destroying the Evil will allow it to continue.
The Bible’s influence should not be neglected: American culture is steeped in religion and Christianity. God is schizophrenic, but God can certainly be vengeful, and there are no limits to the ways in which Evil is treated. Evil, one can say, brings out the Evil in God.
So they, necessarily Good Americans, need to be agents of good, agents of God. And they are honored by God when an opportunity arises, when Evil emerges, to display their Goodness and ease their insecurity regarding their morality by exterminating the Evil. Killing Evil is like taking a really good shower. Cleansed in God’s love.
Exterminating evil then serves two purposes: fulfilling the will of God and securing one’s own moral and material status. Calvinism links the moral with the material – a poor life is necessarily an immoral one.
Because the law deems all Americans non-evil (or at least to have equal rights), most Americans fear to act on their own assessment of the evil of some of their neighbors, that others will not see the evil as they do. So they take out their wishes vicariously, by watching righteous violence on television or at the movie theater. How lucky these people are, Americans think, to not have an oppressive law to stop them from fighting evil. When Americans know the law is weakly enforced, such as in the American South with respect to black people, there’s no need to applaud for violence on the movie screen and they can take on a more pleasing role. The blood can be on their hands.
It should be obvious at this point that the American culture I’m describing has no hope of solidarity. It’s a culture quite directly opposed to solidarity. Which means that before we can have socialism in America we need to transform the culture into something conducive to it.
When I was on a messageboard called Quarter to Three I was always amazed at the many stories of neighbors doing something the speaker didn’t like, but instead of talking to the neighbor about it the speaker would plot some sort of revenge, or wring their hands about what to do. It was apparent that their view of the neighbor was very negative, with some mixture of fear and antipathy, perhaps hatred for this bad person, Evil person. They considered talking a kind of quaint notion which only served to display their own ignorance regarding evil and their weakness at displaying this ignorance would just make the evil person more aggressive.
God bless America. That is to say, God, you’d better fucking bless America to try to make up for all the shit you’ve caused it.
This is the best videogame parody in film history, better than Crank. I’d like to think an RPG parody is coming along, but unlike Grand Theft Auto and First-Person Shooters, RPGs don’t have the kind of public awareness to necessarily lead to such a thing.
Film critics are stupid on it. A critic needs to have played First-Person Shooters, probably at least 100 hours worth covering several games, to appreciate this film. A lot of the “weaknesses” noted by the critics is just the movie staying true to the parodied material.
It might be saying something that the best videogame-inspired films are satires. What it’s saying is probably not that game developers have great designs for their games.
As Shoot ‘Em Up might say: “Mr. Smith, you hate everything”. Yep, that’s the only logical conclusion of a game where the main character is essentially a gun that shoots, and kills, and shoots, and kills. The End.
Oh, and calling the lactating hottie “DQ” for Dairy Queen. Somehow the critics missed that one.
Again due to WordPress maintenance that’s not allowing the reply to go through…
That’s not necessarily true. There’s a lot of things that can go into groupthink. It can be based on a fascist system, or it can be based on a kind of militant panic (like the US government in wartime), or it can be based on a desire for consensus (like where the political system requires consensus).
Individualism is one of the things that opposes groupthink, but another is a democratic system where everyone has a say, and everyone’s different say is worked into reality in an effective way.
I hate groupthink because I’ve never learned anything from groupthink. Everything I’ve ever learned in my life has come from people thinking for themselves and understanding some aspect of the world in a new way.
Groupthink is where ideas go to die.