Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

Welcome to Our Reality

June 18, 2012

Prologue – Pyramid Scheme

I don’t know anything about the world riding on the back of a turtle, but I do know that the world isn’t round. It’s a pyramid where hope and strength overflow from the bottom up the pyramid and fear, terror, and hate are brought step-by-step down the pyramid. This is the story of our world, our reality.

Chapter 1 – The Burning Man Becomes a Dragon, and Rises

Its ambition is immense. Perhaps this is self-delusion, no one can truly say. The human’s raging ambition caused infernal fires to rise in its bowels, bloating it, crusting its skin with scales, and transforming it into a dragon.

It could not hold the fire in. Too hot, too much. First it tried to fly away from the fire, from itself. But the fire moved with it, and soon the dragon’s sleek form fattened as the dragon resigned itself to the flame.

The humans and their limitations are to blame for the dragon’s ambition. So the dragon says. Their villages are burned. Their crops destroyed, their women raped, their men tortured, their children transformed into slaves. All for the greater good.

The bottom of the pyramid is what the dragon hates most. That’s where the people live as one, together in happiness. So now it burns with eternal fire, roasting unborn babies alive in their womb now a tomb.

And the dragon rises. Away from the pathetic humans emaciated by poverty, riddled with disease, bloody with the wars the dragon causes. The dragon dreams of a world filled with peaceful humans who have no fire in their bellies. It believes, truly believes, that it will be the one to create such a world, while the humans with their love, tenderness, and compassion are only standing in the way.

So the dragon rises. It takes its place among the stars, high up on the pyramid, looking down at the terror and chaos far below, thinking that it will be the one to fix all of that, all the while creating it. The dragon sits on its piles of gold and waits for its fires to roar up again.

Chapter 2 – Meet Bob, a Dragon’s Minion

Meet Bob. Hi Bob! Bob dresses casually, is very relaxed and friendly and well-liked, does what he’s told, has a wife and kids, and is one key cog in the dragon’s empire. Bob lives high up on the pyramid, far above the burning plains where the land is green and plush, if fraying a bit at the edges. He’s of course far below the dragon’s lair, and knows his place.

Bob is a terrible beast. He has a knack for remaining ignorant. He surrounds himself with other Bobs, who nod and smile and laugh at his jokes. They feast on dragon scraps, a far better diet than most get. Bob is a “family man”, which is code for not wanting to know too much, do too much, think too much. He succeeds, collects his sizeable paycheck, and calls it a life. The other Bobs nod and smile, and anyone who objects to Bob is written off as being envious. Bob defines success as “nearness to the dragon”, or he would if he were even that astute. He calls it “making money”, and given how little Bob understands the economic conditions of his life he thinks his awesomeness is the reason for his income.

The dragons need managers to run their operations, and Bob is one such. He doesn’t really know what he’s doing and is careful to remain ignorant of the outcomes of his actions, but he’s quite good at running the numbers and getting them to rise. That’s all that really matters to the dragon and Bob sees no reason to disagree with the creature he aspires towards.

That’s all there is to say about Bob. That’s his life story. I wish I were joking. In order to have a narrative for this story I’ll have to follow a far more interesting character, on whose shoulders we can ride the rest of the way.

Chapter 3 – The Healer

There was a boy, sad and broken. Of joy he was dead but of tragedy keen. Two sides were fighting, their fists and words hateful and he embraced them, loved them, and they dissolved.

Chapter 4 – The Explorer

Hobolicious was never in the same place twice. His plastic face moved under his skin as across the ground he skimmed. Everyone looks different to him each day, except for Bob, who always looks the same.

Hobolicious loves the woods and other dark places, where the sun has not whitewashed and burned away. He joins the Healer on his special journey.

Chapter 5 – The Lonely Man becomes a Zombie, and joins the Team

There was a boy who could not see the souls of people, and frantically wondered if he was blind. He tested his vision however many times and it was fine. Then he ate his own skin, hoping it would knit inside him into something worthwhile. He just threw it up, and started to eat the flesh of others.

Hobolicious, who had served as a meal to so many people before, was scared of the Zombie, but the Healer insisted he join. Hobolicious might be a little too sweet.

Chapter 6 – We Do Magic

Our group watched tons of industrial weapons being dropped on Vietnam by the West, a precursor to economic domination that only was partially realized but still well worthwhile given the benefit to the arms merchants and associated forces. The zombie cried the most as he gnawed on a limb.

Supposedly this was all very horrifying. I mean that with no disrespect to the people, now the corpses and partial bodies, of Vietnam. I mean that the West pretended it was horrifying to themselves in order to pretend to have a conscience. One of the results of this pretense was the formation of the Society for Creative Anachronism, which sought to escape the horrifying 20th century into a vaguely re-defined Middle Ages.

Deriving from this resignation, this fleeing from the latest supposed terror (following the terror of the industrial revolution, the terror of the masses, the terror of totalitarianism, and the terror of nuclear holocaust) led to the insular removed position of Timothy Leary, of “turn on, tune in, drop out”. The idea was to refashion a dead world into a digital world, of removing humans and their fatal limitations and replacing them with spectres inside a digital ether. Politely termed “cyberspace” now the even less informative “internet”.

This new magical realm was said to be the real world, leaving behind the old, corrupted world where nothing but people grabbing for power exists.

The wizards of this new world, certain in themselves and their destiny, are called “computer programmers” among other related titles. They do magic, bringing new worlds to life while shunning “traditional reality”.

It is perhaps excessively logical and boring for me to point out that abandoning a problematic real world does not help solve the problems of the real world, and whatever magical grandeur resides in the dreams of wizards does not amount to much.

Our group of three is not so lacking in tact as I am, and their compassion overflowed as they called out to the wizards sitting in front of their monitors with their sickly yellow glow. The wizards ignored them, far too busy saving the world by reinventing it.

Chapter 7 – Kawaii Sensation

The androgenous male shined with belt buckle and lips glistening no matter the light source. He was the sun, all others fed off his energy. Wielding a wicked hat his brow smiled straight at you.

Walt Disney, that sad lonely man granted cultural fame by the equally sad Great Depression, creating his maternal Kawaii, the great Mickey Mouse. After so much terror, so much capitalism, so much death and wars, little of which we feel but much of which we cause, we need a return to innocence and life.

Enter the Kawaii Sensation, whose desperation for goodness is so deep that he becomes what we need – a superstar of joy but of course not the real thing, as The Mouse is just an image on the screen.

The Healer is taken aback by such a monster as this, the Zombie cannot eat such artificial flesh, while Hobolicious politely nods and records the Kawaii Sensation in his notebook, perhaps for later entry into a story.

Chapter 8 – We Take our Medicine

It is said that alcohol is a poison, by me no less, but it truly is a medicine.

What better way to cure the need for a lot than by drinking a little? We all need oblivion but what would our family say? So we drink our medicine and dream of drinking so much more.

Chapter 9 – Something More

One plus one used to equal two. Back when that was all we needed. But now we need the whole to be more than the sum of the parts. So one plus one equals three.

Chapter 10 – Seduced by Art

Oscar Wilde and David Bowie have the right idea, to wage a war between art and life to see which wins. The feeble strivings of art are nothing compared to life, which nurtures and sustains us all.

Chapter 11 – Enter the Dollhouse

She sat there terrified and motionless, her hair carefully structured to calm her nerves and her face a stone mask. She had become just what the world wants which has objectified women, a toy to be played with and pitied. She dares us to wallow in our misery and celebrates when we treat her well despite her challenge.

Chapter 12 – Reprogrammed for Hate

If you’re going to kill someone, or rob them, or rape them, it’s best to hate them first. That way there’s no guilt to stand in the way. Hate is therefore quite temporary. Once the crime has been committed and there’s no desire for future crimes, hate goes away.

So now the West is being reprogrammed to hate Arabs. The basic idea is that there’s a lot of our oil under their soil. We want to steal it, so we should hate them in order to lubricate the act since the violated passage will provide little lubrication of it’s own. Once we have our oil, we won’t hate them anymore, and the world can be at peace. Doesn’t everyone want peace?

Chapter 13 – Stretching the Legs

Our group got out of the car, complaining of inactivity and stretching their legs. The Zombie lunged for me but I dodged, having some idea of what he would do beforehand. I felt guilty, thinking that I should at least give him a toe. The Healer and Hobolicious glared murderously at me. I felt terrible pain and looked at my new arm, now missing a chunk which was being introduced to the Zombie’s intestines. I don’t have the heart to tell them that they and I don’t matter, so I pretend to be angry to make them happy.

Chapter 14 – Love Still Lost

“I am not mine to give.” So says – well, just about everyone. We are no longer ourselves. Bodies still fuck bodies of course – that will only stop when we are in our separate pods. The love is gone, which is what happens when the self is gone. There is a bit of honesty in modern linguistics when we no longer call it a “love life” but rather a “sex life”. True dat.

Chapter 15 – NGO Insertion

The idea is nobility and assistance, the reality is soft domination. NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are the man who offers you help with one hand and puts on the shackles with the other.

NGOs are perfect for countries desperate for help but lacking the resources necessary to bother with receiving a military invasion.

Chapter 16 – Quarantine

One of the possible methods of direct population control on behalf of the ruling structure of banks and corporations is to say the people are terribly diseased and must be divided in order to be protected. “Divide and conquer”, literally. The people will either furiously rage and attack in which case they can be called crazed madmen by the media to further justify the quarantine or they will non-violently resist, which begs the question of the quality of the resistance.

Chapter 17 – The Lives of Others

So fascinating – putting hope in other people when we feel hope in ourselves is gone. We call it “voyeurism” or “people watching”. I call it – well, I call it reality.

Chapter 18 – Life and Death

My slowly rotting flesh has been rotting faster than usual, thanks to The Zombie. I’d like to say it was a good life, but who am I kidding – I’m a modern American. Zombies don’t need to worry about things like the quality of their life.

Chapter 19 – The Laughing Man

Chuckles McJoe laughed like a broken record. He danced to his own tune and laughed at the “humans, all too humans” living here on earth. He called laughter super-awesome just in case there were any lingering doubts.

Chapter 20 – Nyan Cat Undead Emperor

ALL BOW BEFORE NYAN CAT!

The Healer, Hobolicious, The Zombie, myself, and everyone else did so. The pop-tart engine, the rainbow of immature joy while it lasts, the insipid metallic catchy pop music, and the feline Kawaii have forced us to put a crown on it’s adorable head, and like any good Lich it never dies. Or lives.

Chapter 21 – Gazing upon the Burning Plains

The Healer cried as he saw me be transformed from a state of non-life into a zombie. His journey had been so pathetic, so he tuned into internet news and gazed upon the burning plains, that place far down on the pyramid where the people have the misfortune of having our material resources under their soil and thus get to receive lots of American made military hardware fired from planes and guns. They say that lemonade can be made from lemons, but lemonade cannot be made from cluster bombs.

So he gazed, and gazed, and then tuned out. Hobolicious became another meal for another lover of sweets while the Zombie continued feasting on we humans.

Goodbye.

Advertisements

On Power and Why Truth is not so Common in the United States

September 14, 2011

With truth comes power. With power comes responsibility. Responsibility is a choice. People who don’t want responsibility decide not to know the truth.

None of this is commonly known in the United States (an example which proves the point). Tragically, this is not commonly known by educators themselves, those irresponsible Americans who claim to want to help people become more knowledgeable, but really merely want to feel AS IF they are helping people become more knowledgeable.

The common argument against my position is that power corrupts. Therefore, so the argument goes, we should not be powerful, hence not have truth.

My counter-argument is another clear truth – that only with power can any GOOD be done, as well as any bad. The recent uprising in Egypt largely failed, resulting in military control of the country, not because of insufficient raw humanity on the side of the uprising but because those humans themselves lacked power – lacked the willingness to understand the world. Therefore they celebrated their meager accomplishment in Tahrir Square without winning the war. Therefore they are losing the war.

Power does not necessarily corrupt. The people of Egypt are not corrupt, although they showed that they have some power. What corrupts is not power itself but the line of actions one might take to gain and retain power. An example follows:

Two powerful men. One attains power through fear and domination, brutal murdering, ruthless manipulation. That is the method he employs and must continue to employ to sustain power.

Another attains power through capable assistance. That is the method he employs and must continue to employ to sustain power.

We have no problem granting power to things which are helpful. Consider how powerful cell phones are in today’s world, yet there is nothing corrupt about them.

Since Americans in addition to being irresponsible are irrationally cynical, their response is that humans are corrupt while cell phones, being non-human, are not. This is one of the foundations for the American support for technology.

The reason for this belief, in truth, is that capitalism makes money from selling things, and America remains the center of high technology, so largely in order to support capitalism Americans support technology.

Capitalism also provides an understanding of the nature of modern corruption. There is no such thing as a non-corrupt CEO due to what a CEO must be to attain and retain his position of power – a ruthless pursuer of maximum profit for his corporation.

Nietzsche and suffering

August 10, 2010

Nietzsche blamed humanity in general and Western culture in particular for the death of God. His philosophy was one of punishment and sacrifice – he celebrated suffering and thereby killed it (suffering requires the hatred of suffering).

Nietzsche said he was living for the people of the future and not the present, and in that he was correct. His solution was to destroy the people of his present and transform them into the people of his future.

Examine the 20th century. There has never been a more irresponsible and insane time. The 20th century featured tremendous physical damage but little true suffering, because the present was so pathetic as to be deemed irrelevant. Monty Python understood this through their “tis a flesh wound” sketch.

Westerner after westerner post-Nietzsche speaks of suffering as “character-building” and “artistically creative”, to such an extent that they sought to suffer. But this perverted suffering, because true suffering always requires an opposition toward suffering. Nietzsche *falsified* suffering.

For all his claims, what Nietzsche lacked most was a deep understanding of human nature. Nietzsche assumed he could control everything. Control suffering, control human progress, control the future. The truth is very close to the exact opposite.

This desire for control in Nietzsche results from his terror – he is the most terrified philosopher in history. Unable to face his own fears, he invented “will to power”, supermen, his own persona as a sacrificial Jesus-clone, his persona as an explorer and mountain-climber, to console himself. This perverted his mind and rendered his philosophy valueless. Which, unfortunately, didn’t stop it’s influence.

One of the key concepts Nietzsche lacked that might have saved him was that human reality does not emerge out of the human soul but out of human structures. Exxon Mobil, for example, is a human structure with a set of outcomes. Nietzsche’s lack of political analysis made him use a religious treatment whereby humanity is unified with one soul with all outcomes emerging from that.

Nietzsche and others demonized their own present and the results were horrifying, so terrible that the world will never recover.

Nietzsche may well be the Great Destroyer. But… why do so? Build again? After devastating the means of doing so?

Milton – “It’s better to reign in hell than serve in heaven”

Long Live Emperor Nietzsche!

On “Nietzsche is dead”

July 11, 2010

Nietzsche’s solution to the “Death of God” was to punish the people available at the time (the living). His was the philosophy of self-punishment – the celibacy which he fantasized was moral strength in an immoral world or romantic as the day saw fit – the ascetic removal from the human world into the world of superior animals (those particular ones he supposed to be for no good reason) and the world of his fantasies (the superman). Nietzsche’s idea was that this removal would give humanity the freedom to create the next step in human development.

The natural extension of Nietzsche’s philosophy is the removal from the world into an artificial world. JRR Tolkien and World of Warcraft are direct descendants of Nietzsche’s philosophy.

People are supposed to enter these worlds, learn from them, and then *come back* to the real world with the knowledge gained and triumph over the problems of the real world. That’s why it’s ridiculous to call these worlds “escapes” – they were never intended as such. JRR Tolkien intended (as I interpret him) his world as an analogy for the real world, and hoped it would help people learn about and deal with the real world.

People recognize the joke, they recognize the impossibility of this at the same time as holding the conviction that maybe, just maybe, it’s not completely impossible. And if it’s not completely impossible, then maybe, like Neo in the Matrix, they are “The One” who will save the real world after entering a fake one.

So both the joke and the impossible hope build their own cultures and realities, and the two are mutually incompatible. Those who honor the impossible enter fake worlds and strive, while those who honor the joke enter the world of humanity, as seen broadly. Cell phones and constant communication are aspects of this world.

The problem, and why I’m on the side of understanding Nietzsche as a joke, is that EVEN IF I’m wrong and it’s not impossible to achieve this method of triumphing over the real world, how many corpses, how many failed attempts, will it require before the triumph is obtained? How many wasted lives will it require before success? How many would-be Neos will be required before the real one happens?

It’s like playing the lottery. There are 10 million losers for every winner, and that’s not a ratio that any sane human being can accept.

But we don’t even know that it IS a lottery. We don’t even know that there *can be* a Neo. So there may be millions and then billions of wasted lives, for nothing at all.

Those who understand Nietzsche as a joke are building a solution not through the “triumph of the will”, but through a new social reality. Building a new appreciation of humanity, a new human intimacy. Despite their problems, projects like Facebook, Twitter, cell phones and constant communication are part of this culture.

More and more, that’s what I believe. So, Nietzsche is dead.

On the role of Existentialism and Psychoanalysis in Western Civilization

August 3, 2009

The 19th century saw the rise of two related phenomena – a global imperialist network dominated by the West and existentialist philosophy. This philosophy was taken for THE modern problem, and psychoanalysis developed soon after to solve the problem.

Nietzsche and Freud were the two great servants of the Western ruling class – one to invent a grand reason for existential despair (the Death of God) and the second to invent a perpetual machine to keep Westerners focused on themselves and not on the world they are in the process of destroying.

The point of psychoanalysis is not to work or to cure, but to act as a shower, washing neurotic dirt off the body (real or perceived, it hardly matters) which due to the corrupt West simply piles up again. Psychoanalysis is a game.

The neurotic perpetually seeks to “cure himself” – the most successful neurotic turns inward to such an extent that the outside world barely exists at all – hence the rise in asceticism in the West.

Existentialism has been ridiculously profitable for Western capitalists – it’s progress enabled Western corporations to run rampant over the world, gaining great power and wealth.

The point of Existentialism is not to *describe* Western culture as meaningless, but to *invent* Western culture as meaningless – to will that the world as dominated by that culture be meaningless. Existentialism didn’t describe a world in despair but created a world in despair, to depress it’s victims (who believe themselves *enlightened*!) and make sure they wouldn’t stand in the way of world domination by global capital.

We now live in existentialism’s aftermath. A corporate totalitarian nightmare.

On Nietzsche and slaves as revolutionaries

March 26, 2009

Slaves do not have a slave (craven) mentality – they have a revolutionary mentality.

If someone holds a gun to one’s head one acts as a slave toward that person, that’s a form of wisdom. Notice that the phrase “give me liberty or give me death” has the outcome of death whenever liberty is not achieved. Death is the *antithesis* of slave values, thus death is the greatest threat to make against a slave, which masters well understand. Corporeal bravery, a devaluation of death, is largely held by masters not as a mark of their superiority over slaves (as they and their lackeys have long pretended), but as one of inferiority.

Every revolution has three possible outcomes – death (for the revolter), freedom (for the revolter), or a return to slavery (for the revolter). I’ve never seen any reason to believe that slaves are against *wise* revolution – the disagreement among slaves is about *how* and *when* to revolt, not whether to revolt.

One of Nietzsche’s tragic outcomes is the false assertion that humanity is cowed slaves. It’s not surprising that the 20th century featured so much fascism – Nietzsche was not an antidote to fascism but a *cause* of it.

Nietzsche said that humanity needed saving and he would provide the philosophy of salvation. But if humanity in fact does NOT need saving then his assertion degrades humanity. Nietzsche made humanity *into* pathetic slaves rather than recognized it.

A slave by necessity is deceitful. Master is always watching so the slave can never give away his revolutionary movement and intent, or he will be punished, perhaps even killed, and there goes the revolution.

So Western slaves watch TV, while retaining an ascetic distance toward TV. These slaves play video games, while retaining an ascetic distance. These slaves never enjoy the world as crafted by master, not because they ARE slaves but because this lack of enjoyment maintains an emotional distance from the master’s tools, does not lure him into the master’s tools, and maintains his revolutionary processes.

The normal Western slave, according to modern slave morality, is to pretend to be a happy slave while acting toward revolution.

Masters can speak openly with each other, deceiving each other only with respect to competition for profit and control. For slaves deceit is far deeper and more meaningful – slaves must always keep their true power a secret, from master. Slaves have hidden secret languages among themselves – a slave’s glance is nothing like the look of a master. For a master, truth is what is spoken. For a slave, truth is always what is not spoken.

The role of Nietzsche is not to save slaves, but to seduce them. To mock their weakness, to cause them to lose their composure, to make them insecure, to cause them to rage out and lose the fight for their freedom.

Slaves do not form freedom organizations or freedom structures until they openly revolt. Slave culture is completely amorphous and mostly involves interactions between individuals – family and friends. It’s primary language is comprised of empathy and emotion.

One way to exterminate slave culture is to kill these interactions. The final extermination of slaves will be by science – for science (and thus the elite) to gain control of human reproduction and take that control away from slaves.

Nietzsche ignored the identity of slaves, slave culture (for which Christianity is largely a front), and slave desires, so he could degrade humanity and offer his “redemption” for it.

Nietzsche wanted slaves to *express* power, to threaten the elite, and then for the elite to predictably respond. Nietzsche is harmful at worst and a fool at best.

Love is the greatest slave interaction and forms the core of slave culture.

The religion of slaves is not Christianity – it’s fellowship, friendship, love, and life.

Nietzsche is dead

September 12, 2008

Nietzsche has serious flaws. One is that he is abusive – he’s an intellectual bully which killed his morality and led to him being (rightfully) claimed by the full spectrum of ideologies, including Nazism. Probably the most serious flaw in his philosophy is that it’s entirely personalized – he focuses on psychology, linguistics, and psychohistory. The complete absence of any structural analysis (analysis of the state, for example) meant he ultimately is just writing bourgeois and pro-status quo nonsense. Nietzsche is the last of the individualists – no meaningful philosophy can possibly be derived in modern times absent structural analysis.

Nietzsche is utterly naive, and believes in the triumph or failure of the individual will. He offers a romantic vision for the Libertarian Right, those people who have no attachment to reality.

Orwell killed Nietzsche not only because of his profound understanding of the meaninglessness of the individual but because of his destruction of Nietzsche’s romanticization of schizophrenia. For Nietzsche, schizophrenia was a sign of strength, of the individual fighting himself (after all, what does not kill me only makes me stronger). For Orwell, schizophrenia was a sign of weakness, a fundamental break from access to objective reality (Nietzsche denies objective reality) and a kind of self-serving departure from the world.

Nietzsche is not only himself immature but he has left a devastated world in his wake – a world where adults have the minds and aspirations of children, a world of “parallel worlds”, “inner worlds”, and “trips to the other side”, a world where debate is impossible because culture no longer believes in the objective reality that makes debate meaningful. “To each his own”, “you believe what you want to and I’ll beileve what I want to” are derived from Nietzsche.

Nietzsche is a terrible error, and the world may never recover. If it does it will find other philosophers, other ways to follow.

Nietzsche is dead.

Quote of the Day

May 25, 2008

I refuse to believe in a world in which I am unwilling to live.

Slavoj Zizek – Democracy Now Interview

May 19, 2008

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Welcome to Hell

March 24, 2008

Americans are so deep in despair right now that they are hoping the world is like Dante’s Inferno – heaven is found only by a path through hell. So while ostensibly opposing the machinations of Rove , Cheney, and others they are immobilized and rendered impotent not by fear, but by hope. They believe that only when life becomes bleakest, when apocalypse is on the doorstep, when a constant nightmare is their waking life, will the people rise up and instigate a utopian (socialist) revolution. In this sick way Rove, Cheney, and the Neocons are doing them a service, guiding them through hell so that they may reach heaven. It is this fatal mixture of Orwellian doublethink, Marxist permanent revolution, and Dante’s perversion and religious superstition that is the social reality of the moment.

In the Rocky series of movies Rocky explodes and wins the fight only when the fight seems lost – it’s the very definition of “comeback of the underdog”. When the fight is competitive Rocky is lame, taking punch after punch.

The Left in America is not so much weak as believes themselves to be weak so as to conform to their perverted vision of hope. Self-righteously they take punch after punch, calling out “Fascist!”, “Police State!”, or “9/11 Truth!”, while enjoying every blow they receive since according to them it enables their hate and fear to grow with the end result of socialist revolution.

The most effective members of the left, not surprisingly, are those who (subconsciously) denounce this worldview – Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein. The problem is that this worldview is so pervasive that the left is emotionally fractured and cannot come together in a mass, or even a semi-mass, social movement.

Torture: Orwell’s destruction of Nietzsche

December 28, 2007

Nietzsche: “What does not kill us only makes us stronger”

Derived from Orwell: “Torture only makes us weaker”

Nietzsche’s statement is demonstrably false, not only in relation to torture but all other forms of abuse. Society’s recognition of such and it’s concurrent recognition of the abusive nature of Nietzsche himself have caused the end of the era of Nietzsche and the beginning of that of Orwell.

Nietzsche the Synthesizer

December 25, 2007

Don’t worry if you’re a rapist
Don’t worry if you’re a saint
Don’t worry if you’re an average joe
Nietzsche will bring you all together

Some wonder how Nietzsche can be both a Western apologist and a critic
He saw a shattered world with him the glue
Nothing was too terrible or tragic or banal to be a part
His vessel passed through all waters while claiming excellence

Nietzsche inspired fascism, the 20th century was all his
Though he has his defenders, of course he does
You can find anything in Nietzsche, anything you want

I was born tired of the 20th century, now I’m exhausted
The manipulation, the coercion, the fear, the war, the torture
It’s a part of society now, it’s invisible but the repercussions are all too real
Now it’s Orwell’s time, now it’s time for a decades-long struggle

How the Insane becomes Sane

December 12, 2007

It’s called a philosophy.

Speaks this prophet without honor to a land without memory

October 16, 2007

Men say they want sex when they really want love.

Women say they want a man when they really want a shield.

We say we want to kill when we really want to live.

When will humans say what they really want?

What America is about

September 30, 2007

Having what you want, and not having what you need.

Understanding Brian Koontz

September 14, 2007

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.

Destroying the term “political activist”

August 31, 2007

Activist derives from “active”, which means engaged in activity, energetic, moving.

That’s a big problem: too many people think that the point is to be active and energetic.

Here’s another term: political agent. This term invokes the point of politics – to have political effect.

Lots of people in America, that is to say the political activists, believe in protest. They believe it matters.

And it does. Sometimes. Often in small ways, very inefficient ways given the large number of people engaged. Meanwhile, just a few members of the elite ruin entire countries in a month, a week, sometimes a day. The elite never need to “protest” anything. Why is it so easy for the elite to ruin the world and so hard for the rest of us to fix it? Why can the elite ruin the world without blinking while the rest of us have to hem and haw and wring our hands over some little crime we commit in stopping that ruination?

What we need is a machine. A machine of political agency, to grind the elite to dust.

You might say – hmm, that doesn’t sound very democratic. The political activists say that.

WAKE UP! We are not living in a democracy and never have. Good luck with your fucking protests and demonstrations, your poor uses of time. Good luck congratulating yourselves on some small gain, some minor concession made by the elite, which they’ll roll back as soon as you blink.

If the problem is the elite themselves, the solution is to eliminate the problem. There’s plenty of research done to “cure cancer”, but for the present doctors do the simple, effective thing: they remove the tumor.

The next time someone tells you he is a political activist, ask him why he’s not a political agent instead.

After a democracy is created, then we can all be mere political activists. For now neither we nor our children can afford such ignorance.

You know what being active and energetic is? – it’s calling being alive. You don’t get a fucking reward for being the same thing you’ve been since you were born. You’d better only treat accomplishment when you achieve actual accomplishment – that is to say making the world, or your country, or your community, a better place. Not for a day until an elite comes along and ruins it – permanently. And if that requires the permanent removal of a tumor, then share the ways of doctors.

Oh, one more thing: doctors also reexamine the patient later to make sure a tumor doesn’t reemerge. And if it does, they remove it again. And again, if necessary, and yet again. Tumors have no place in the human body.

Why are doctors so much more vigilant than American citizens? Why do doctors see themselves as agents of health, instead of being activists of health?

On Sacco and Vanzetti

August 25, 2007

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

The destruction of equality within Feminism, the destruction of tolerance within Liberalism

June 29, 2007

Feminism has made an error. It says it wants gender equality. That’s an error because equality is tenuous, as the entire history of humanity shows, and equality is also just another position of power relations (a balance of relations).

Feminism is better off taking the position that gender power relations should be annihilated. There simply should be no power relations at all based on gender, “equal” or otherwise. In other words, there needs to be a breakdown of gender identity, such that the world is no longer divided into “men” and “women”, sharply defined, whereby logical groups can be established and therefore power relations established.

The problem, for those espousing “equality” between the sexes, is that there has to be a lot of effort put into attaining and then continuous effort in maintaining that equality. It’s bound to go wrong, probably within just a few decades.

Louis Farrakhan in his appearance on The Donahue Show in 1990 http://tinyurl.com/2858ul introduced the idea that tolerance should be destroyed in America. Instead, he proposed that we should love. Many white people in the audience were outraged at this notion – they cleared prefer tolerance to love, at least where blacks are concerned. Many black people in the audience were very happy with the idea. I wonder how many of the people outraged by this idea consider themselves to not be racist. Many of them expressed tremendous outrage at the words of Don Imus, showing in their great volume how non-racist they indeed are.

17 years after this appearance, it’s clear that there is still only tolerance (if that) in America and not love. And then people have the idiocy to wonder why America still “struggles mightily” with racism and race relations. You didn’t listen to Farrakhan and you paid, and will continue to pay, the price. Well done, America. Well done. There’s no need to struggle with racism unless you’re a racist. For racists, the only sensible struggle is one that can work.

Puritarianism doesn’t want to cleanse America of smoking, of racism, of sexism, of drunk driving… it simply wants to make it appear to the world that it wants it. Hence the shouting about Don Imus… what better way to express outrage? How many of these people never shout about the annihilation of social programs which actually severely hurts black people, but present a Don Imus and they go crazy with indignation.

Just as with Farrakhan’s message, my message that this flavor of American is completely hypocritical, monstrous, and impotent will fall on intentionally deaf ears. And in 2024 America will be “struggling mightily” with racism and claiming to be wondering why.

We denounced Don Imus! Isn’t that the way to defeat racism?? Wah… we don’t understand!!!

We humiliated Michael Richards! Isn’t that the path to defeating racism?

We mock Mel Gibson! Isn’t that…

Say what you will about bigots: at least they admit they’re racists. Bigots can actually become non-racist with help. Hypocrits on the other hand will, to their dying breath, deny their racism.

Racist, at Decibel level 100: “MEL GIBSON IS A HORRIBLE PERSON!!!!”

The really horrible thing about racist hypocrits, besides their obvious racism, is that they make bigots like Mel Gibson look good, by begging the comparison. Acts like Gibson’s, Richards’s, and Imus’s, are another kind of Outing, coming out of the closet. The difference between homosexuality and racism and hence the difference in attitude of mainstream society toward those two kinds of outings is obvious: mainstream society is heterosexual and hence is not threatened by clear displays of homosexuality. Since mainstream society is racist and in the closet they are threatened by clear displays of racism, and hence those displays must be oppressed. The underlying racism, however, carries on receiving no objection at all.

The real crime according to the monsters that dominate American society is that Don Imus reminds America of itself -he held up a mirror. America doesn’t like what it sees, but of course instead of changing the image it kills the holder of the mirror. It works the same way every time. For now.

It worked the same way in the Salem Witch trials and burnings. Perhaps we should burn Michael Richards at the stake, or burn a R into his forehead. You know, in order to terrorize Americans into avoiding all such displays of racism in the future.

Yeah, that’s the way to end racism in America. Why bother reading what I have to say when Americans obviously have everything under control? Why bother ending racism when it’s so much easier to pretend to?

Hypocrit: “What’s 2024 going to look like in America?”

NO. What’s 2024 going to be in America? That’s the real question – since if you’re successful in your oppression America will certainly look completely non-racist in 2024. The sterile, clean, pure, facade of a thing that you want to make America into, where noone ever says racist things or appears racist but they live racist. What better way, after all, to perpetuate racism?

Olbermann: “Imus only got a suspension! WHY DOES HE STILL HAVE A JOB??!!!”

Why does Olbermann only care about American deaths, not Iraqis?

Why does the left in America praise Olbermann?

The answers are not pleasant, but they need to be acknowledged. Or maybe not. Whether Americans can “handle the truth” will determine that.

Perhaps I need a T branded into my forehead.

Perhaps Olbermann needs to lose his job. Chomsky can fill it – or Lakoff – or Goodman – or, you know, someone actually on the left. Someone who’s not a racist.

Communication, truth, and the destruction of “truth”

June 26, 2007

I don’t agree with the people who say “everything’s already been done”, one outcome of which is “everything is already known”. These people follow that up with “the truth no longer matters”, since all truth is already known. All that remains is entertainment, manipulation, and deception. Or, “truth”.

It’s this very concept that has led to a high degree of willful ignorance in modern society. It’s not that people are stupid, it’s that they want to be stupid. If they no longer desired that they would have to give up on “the truth no longer matters” and change their entire worldview. Truth is a lot of hard work. “Truth” is easy because you just creatively extrapolate from your desires, as Rush Limbaugh illustrates clearly. Truth requires scholarship. “Truth” requires art.

People think that the only objection to truth is when people don’t believe it to be true. That’s completely wrong. The common objection to truth in modern society is that truth is inferior to “truth”. Hence the equivalent of 1+1=2 is inferior to Rush Limbaugh’s “truth” for listeners of Rush Limbaugh, because his words make them happy while “1+1=2” does nothing for them. Others prefer Al Franken. “To each his own”.

Truth doesn’t care who says it. However, truth needs someone to say it. Furthermore, it needs many people to believe it. A society of 1+1=3 has many terrible repercussions that are eliminated when that society follows 1+1=2, but if 1+1=3 makes people happy (according to them) then the person saying 1+1=2 may be very lonely and desperate. Desperate because he knows how much better society would be if 1+1=2 was believed and followed.

Take a male sexist, for example. It makes him very happy to hear “women are pathetic” but he doesn’t actually believe that women are pathetic. (Male sexists hate and fear women) But his happiness may cause him to say “women are pathetic”. In other words, he is pursuing “truth” instead of truth.

Another name for “truth” is propaganda. This is often thought to be the domain of mass media or governments, but in fact every human who uses “truth” is using propaganda. When that woman-hater says “women are pathetic” he is propagandizing. If some human who hears him believes he is saying truth instead of “truth” that person may be inclined to believe the truth that women are pathetic. If some human hears him who also hates women that person may be inclined to further the “truth” that women are pathetic. This is exactly how any propaganda works.

Propaganda itself needs to be legislated against. Again, one of the effects of propaganda: whenever a human believes that “truth” is truth he is vulnerable for that “truth” becoming his actual truth.

One example of this: how many of you believe that pit bulls are a horrible species of dog that cause large numbers of injuries to humans? The vast majority of humans who actually believe that are a classic case of “truth” becoming truth. This has horrible repercussions, such as people believing that “pit bulls should be killed off”.

I’m becoming very tired of the mantra of “freedom of speech” trumping everything. These people are directly permitting propaganda in society… they can be blamed for propaganda.

Propaganda is not speech, no more than a stabbing is social relations. Propaganda harms society’s reality, as well as the reality of individuals.

Any American should be able to call another American on something they say. It then needs to be shown to be true or it needs to stop being presented as truth. It would be fine for Rush Limbaugh to add a disclaimer that says that what he says isn’t true, it’s just propaganda designed to make his listeners happy.

The Bush Administration would long since have been sent to jail if propaganda was outlawed in America. But, see, the Bushies are just exerting their “freedom of speech”. We can’t take that away!

Speech should only be free so long as it is not abused.

Welcome to Your Reality

June 20, 2007

http://tinyurl.com/6y4om

Covert operations are continuously ongoing and are the primary means by which the US government gains war-related intelligence. Again, the primary purpose and overwhelming purpose of torture is to terrorize the populace that self-identifies with the actual people being tortured (who are not, unlike what the Bush Administration claims, often terrorists or “evil-doers”). The US government doesn’t mind when it seizes a random Arab-Iraqi citizen for torture, as long as the media doesn’t acknowledge it. It counts on the tormented family to spread the terrible news in the community, fueling a kind of underground fear that any fascist government thrives on. As long as the media continues to be “properly” controlled, there’s no reason that behavior can’t be transported to other countries, including the U.S. Create enough fear and it no longer even matters if the media does report it, but we’ll know before that happens because “security forces” will be patrolling throughout America.

I keep having to repeat the purpose of torture because even respected public figures like Seymour Hersh don’t acknowledge it… I have never ever heard the purpose of torture spoken even by anti-war dissidents or by anti-torture advocates… all they say is “torture doesn’t work”, as if the debate was about whether or not torture works. YES, it doesn’t fucking work (usually), but that’s not even the point of torture. Until we start addressing the real issue the torture debate will go nowhere.

In serious fascist regimes that torture people they follow-up the torture by killing the tortured, and then leave the bodies to be found by the populace. Again – the point is to terrorize – granted, killing someone is terrifying but when you show the public the terrible pain someone goes through prior to death it multiplies the terror. And hey, if they happen to gain some intelligence before killing the guy then that’s a nice bonus, but it’s quite rare.

If you wonder why the propaganda of “intelligence gathering” exists as the ostensible motivation for torture, it should be obvious. Every citizen who is convinced that torture “protects us from the enemy” is one citizen that isn’t objecting to torture. Every citizen who is convinced that torture doesn’t protect us from the enemy but who thinks that the government’s motive is to do so thinks their best course of action is to argue against that motivation – not understanding that it makes little difference at all even if they win the argument.

(An unfortunate truth: torture can make us safer, but not because of intelligence gained. If we can torture so many people in such terrible fashion that our enemies, instead of multiplying are cowed, are terrified into inaction, then indeed we will be safer. Of course, at that point the world will become a Fascist state, which is the only way to maintain that terror and the inaction of our enemies.)

Now, you might say: wait a second, if torture is a conspiracy to terrorize the self-identifying populace why hasn’t the secret come to light? The easy answer is: there is no conspiracy. Just like George Bush really does believe himself to be a spiritual cowboy, the torturers at Abu-Ghraib and everywhere else in the world really do believe the point of torture is to collect information – they try very hard to collect information! Torturers are under the thrall of “torture as information collection” propaganda more than anyone else is, just like George Bush is more propagandized about his nature as a spiritual cowboy than is anyone else.

There’s a pragmatic value to this deception of the torturers themselves – since it’s so incredibly difficult to collect valuable information from prisoners torturers believe they have to go to extreme lengths in their torture… and when once again they fail they have to get even more extreme… in the case of American torturers who try to be civilized they get more and more psychological – more and more eager to control the mind of the tortured. This sort of ego-driving of the torturer really allows the propaganda to sink in – he only gets an ego-boost and has success if the tortured yields valuable information – he therefore becomes convinced that this purpose, which has the potential to give him such a happy rush of pleasure and a possible raise in pay, is the real purpose of the torture. You see… he gets nothing, no ego-boost, no raise in pay, if he believes that the purpose of torture is to terrorize the self-identifying populace. All he gets then is the pain of acknowledging his self-delusion. All he gets then is shame at what he has done. All he gets then is the truth.

You might say: wait a second, then there’s still a conspiracy – it’s just a conspiracy to delude the torturers. No, no, no. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY.

Why do you think people go to work at organizations they know are Fascist? Millions of Americans after all work at Corporations, and they often seem fairly happy about it. Why do you think the leaders of Western civilization in the 1920s and 1930s, the highly civilized people of the nation of Germany, quickly descended into barbarism and Fascism? Were they transformed? Or are you willing to admit the truth: that they weren’t willing to pay the costs required of dissidents and resisters?

Truth actually has a cost. For the torturer, the cost of self-realization means he can no longer justify his job. He loses his identity – he loses his job – he becomes lost. For George Bush, the cost of self-realization, of believing he is a Ivy League flunkie instead of a heralded cowboy, is that he no longer can convince other people of sharing in the cowboy-belief and hence becomes less popular, quite probably not being electable as President of the United States of America.

The Neoconservatives were the first to truly appreciate this. Liberals still don’t get it. When someone says something, some new “truth”, neoconservatives analyze whether or not they can use that “truth” to benefit themselves. Maybe it’s a friend of Bush talking to him about how noble cowboys are. Maybe it’s a soon-to-be-torturer hearing about how torturers can “save America from the terrorists” by collecting information. Regardless of whether the “truth” is the truth, the “truth” is FUNCTIONAL. “Truths” can be used, and precisely because they aren’t the truth they can give a kind of competitive advantage, especially when stupid liberals aren’t able to respond because they don’t understand what’s going on.

What liberals need to understand is that the enemy is “truth”, and the ally is truth. Truth has to be imposed on society. It cannot be assumed that truth will be accepted… there must be a war against “truth”.

What we need to do is make sure that “truth” is expensive, and truth is cheap. The only reason that there is a war in the first place is that postmodernism made “truth” cheap.

Stop calling Bush a moron. Stop underestimating “truth”. Do that and you create horrors, of which the many US-run or supported torture centers around the world are merely one.

Destroy “truth” with truth. Make sure you’re willing to pay for truth to be victorious.

It won’t be cheap.

The types of modern ascetics

June 16, 2007

There has previously been a false definition of asceticism. It was defined as rejection of the world. In fact, asceticism is the ascetic’s rejection of the world of the ascetic. Note that regardless of the type of ascetic, the only true way to cure asceticism is for the ascetic to live in a world which he accepts. This *can* be done through drugs, in the same way that a cocaine addict can achieve “happiness”. Yes, our wonderful medical practioners really are as cynical as drug pushers. Take your pills!

Monks are old school. Nowadays asceticism has branched into several different types.

The mentally ill – mental illness is tied to your environment. Prisoners go to jail sane and leave jail not so sane. Likewise with any other torture victim. Mental illness is arguably the most extreme method of rejecting the world.

The virgin – the most intimate relationship with most environments is sexual – the virgin disavows intimacy and thus maintains a distance from his world. This is arguably a more extreme form than mental illness.

The nerd – note the overlap between several of these types. The nerd is a kind of walking social critic, far less subtle than the virgin.

The addict – the addict is nothing other than a despairing ascetic – he uses his addiction to replace his painful emotions.

The loser – once you reject your world, losing becomes the new Win.

The philosopher – he takes the next step with his asceticism – forming a new world for himself.

Those are the only “pure ascetics” as far as I am aware. Then there are the semi-ascetics:

The flamer/dandy – rejects part of his world.

The goth – likewise.

The freak – likewise.

The punk – likewise.

The geek – a nerd without the balls.

The hobo

ALL of these types amount to a kind of public criticism of the ascetic’s world. This makes it extremely easy to see how much dissent there is in society… simply track the percentage of humans who are ascetics.

Note one more thing about all of these types, however… most are individualistic. Few of them have strong group identities, although many do group in like-types.

More so than ever before, asceticism is very culturally powerful. So powerful that political ascetics like Chomsky become popular.

The future is looking more and more interesting.

Understanding the Irrational

May 27, 2007

The largest problem with the treatment of people like Rush Limbaugh and conspiracy theorists is that they are treated like everyone else.

Despite that these people use words, they aren’t rational. This doesn’t mean they are meaningless… both the demagogues and the hysterical crazies serve one very important purpose: they express emotion. What they are is constant raw emotion on display (on their best days). Listeners respond to the emotion, often mimicing it with raw emotion of their own.

This serves an interesting purpose: rationalists are turned off by it, or they laugh at it as I did back in the early ’90s when I heard Limbaugh. Yet the IRrationalists, which as we’ve seen are quite numerous especially in American society, are excited by it as long as the person expresses something close to their own emotion and framed words.

It’s really a kind of performance art, what Limbaugh does. Yet of course at no time does Limbaugh inform his listeners of this, in fact he’s happy to project himself as “telling the real truth about America”. And his listeners, bless their hearts, are too irrational to care.

Yet does anyone attack Limbaugh with that understanding, or do we see attacks on him from a rational perspective? And then people wonder why the attacks don’t work.

This brings up some dark truths about the supposed “good” people of America: they are afraid to take on the irrational. People like Limbaugh are (or were) confident, not in their words but in their shared *emotion*. The words, again, are just art that supports the emotion. The rationalists don’t understand how to deal with Limbaugh and therefore shun him, or make excuses like “he’s polluting the airwaves”.

Keith Olbermann, let’s say, who is on a campaign of oppression and suppression of the Limbaughs of the world. Just like racists or smokers, he hopes that there is enough room under the rug to fit Limbaugh.

But if Limbaugh is indeed swept under the rug, the problem is merely swept under and not dealt with. Thus, just as with racism, it will continue to underlie American culture instead of being *destroyed*. Olbermann will thus be directly responsible for perpetuating irrationality in American society.

So will Olbermann inform his listeners about HOW to listen to Limbaugh, how to analyze him and nullify all deception and see him for what he is, or will he continue to ignorantly put him in flashing color on his “Worst People in the Worrrrrld!” list again and again, hoping through repetition to work the viewers into a frenzy of fear and hate?

It will be pure irony and a horrible defeat for rationality if a mob forms outside Limbaugh’s studio and demands his head.  And his severed head? It will bear a smile.

Keith Olbermann is becoming what he hates. He’s becoming what I warned about several years ago… the rise of the Irrational Left (he’s centrist actually, but close enough).

Stewart and Chomsky are more important than they are given credit for. It’s not the LEFT that needs to be defended today in America… it’s rationality. Let issues like left and right take care of themselves.

Mr. Olbermann may find himself on his own list soon.

Alternate Reality: Three Interpretations

May 3, 2007

It’s apt that alternate reality itself has multiple interpretations. The major interpretations:

Neoconservative: to each his own “alternate” reality, every reality is in a constant pitched battle against all others for supremacy. There is no objective truth, just the truth that you can manufacture by some variety of guile or force or fail to manufacture due to weakness. Force is morally equal to all other forms of interaction (such as diplomacy).

Progressive: alternate reality is a form of creation allowing for emergence from hierarchical domination.

Traditional (mainstream): alternate reality is an escape from traditional reality, temporary as a refresher before again immersing yourself in the exploitive and lucrative world.

Progressives have the only honorable interpretation of the concept.

How Hitler is Destroying America

April 4, 2007

Perhaps the Neoconservative technique of generating social change through reaction against a created monstrosity had it’s roots in Hitler’s Germany (and the Cold War).

Hitler was not realistic. Nor, however, was he insane. Hitler was a pure idealist. He established his ideal world in his mind and did everything in his ability to render that ideal a reality.

Or so the story goes. That’s what you’re taught in school, anyway.

I’ll begin by offering support for the notion of Hitler as straightforward:

An agenda of White Supremacy resonated throughout the white world in the 1930s, as did Fascism. It was reasonable to think that enough of the power centers of the world might follow along to allow military and civil success for Nazism. The normal procedure of gathering allies PRIOR to military aggression probably was not followed due to the idea that such a radical plan would be met with anger or disdain: the plan then was to “shock and awe” the world to the power of the Nazi military and then through a measure of fear to get governments to join.

That Hitler was following this outline is not a terrible theory by any means. If it didn’t have one glaring flaw I’d have no problem whatsoever with it.

It wasn’t likely to work. While Fascism was big in the 1920s and 1930s, especially in Imperalist cultures like those in Western Europe and the United States, it still was too new, too weak, and too small to expect success in such an endeavor. The rational approach would have been to slowly strengthen Fascism within the world and then undertake military expansion when the situation was *confident*. Also bear in mind that Nazi Fascism was a specific brand of Fascism, and Hitler wasn’t open to other brands.

There are reasons, in turn, why a rational approach could not be undertaken. Hitler had his domestic situation to consider: how tenuous would his hold on his country be if his policy was patient world-building instead of repression and military expansionism? Rightly or wrongly, he considered only himself capable of leading Nazism and thus a loss of power for him meant a loss of possibility for his vision.

But that in turn leads to questions: why, if it was such a grand vision, was only Hitler capable of producing it? Why couldn’t he simply convince others of his cause and thus create a perpetuating culture with perpetuating leaders for Nazi fascism?

What turned the world against Hitler was not Nazism, but military expansion. If he had just taken over a couple countries, stopped, and instituted a 10-year program of ethnic cleansing and Nazi philosophy, he would have both gained experience in Nazi civil control, gained human and industrial resources to increase military potential, and if successful at that would have perhaps turned world opinion (among the white elites anyway) in his favor.

The end result of premature aggression was that Nazism was proceeded with in an environment where it was not likely to succeed. This raises a lot of questions about the *real* motivations, rather than the ostensible ones we hear about.

Here’s something that will always be true: a powerful enemy, once defeated, is demonized. Anything considered the OPPOSITE to such a demonized enemy is lionized. Therefore, I ask you, what is the best manner of controlling what is lionized in society?

It’s the obvious: present a powerful enemy with an identity that you want to demonize, destroy the enemy, and watch the people themselves even without propaganda celebrate and lionize themselves as “opposites”.

What did Hitler ACTUALLY create in the world? Notice that after Hitler America turned intensely anti-homogenous. Twenty years after Hitler the first major improvement for minorities since the Civil War occurred. Affirmative Action, the most radical pro-minority movement in America’s history, followed soon after. America turned intensely democratic in attitude, following the defeat of Hitler almost immediately with high tensions toward the repressive powerful regime of the Soviet Union.

The effect on Europe was much the same.

Americans, in all walks of life, all classes, all races, were HAPPY with the changes Hitler wrought. They were so happy in fact that they, again in all walks of life, all classes, all races, hopped on board with the Anti-Communist movement which when defeated was supposed to produce the same thing. MORE democratic excitement, more capitalist fervor, more opposite happiness.

It was *this* approach, this attitude, this methodology, that unified the American people… but take close note of what this requires.

It requires a powerful “opposite” enemy. Hitler, check. Soviets, check. But what does this mean for individualism?

You are no longer self-sufficient as a person or as a nation if you need someone else to fulfill yourself.

America had become co-dependent.

Isn’t democracy so exciting, so liberating, so wonderful, that there is no need to reinforce it through destroying powerful opposites?

But furthermore, isn’t that sort of thing an *artificial* support system? If there does come a day when capitalism, or even democracy, cannot stand in America *without* the lionization effect, then shouldn’t we happily wave it goodbye?

Nothing should last forever.

Did we defeat Hitler, or did Hitler corrupt us?

Let’s put the final nail in Hitler’s coffin by destroying the lionization need in America, thus saving America.