Colonizing the mind and self-propaganda

Even though WW2 was a fight for control of the world, which the Americans primarily won and thus became the most powerful empire in human history, it can be reimagined as a fight against the evil Nazis – just like the war in Iraq, which is primarily about regional domination and control of key resources (especially oil) can be reimagined as a fight against irrational terrorists or for the pseudo-intellectuals a fight against an emergent global caliphate.

Nazis made WW2 colonizable to the fantasies and imaginations of Americans who long to believe themselves noble. This colonizing has been such a success that “evil Hitler” became “evil Saddam Hussein” when Americans needed to feel noble over their actions in Iraq and “evil Osama bin Laden” when Americans needed to feel noble over their actions in Afghanistan.

The successful result of marketing shapes the definition of future marketing. The purpose is to construct a version of history useful to the beneficiaries of war – this version is neither true nor false – truth and lies become judged for how useful they are within the propaganda model and accepted, rejected, or more often twisted, accordingly.

One of the most terrifying aspects of reality to me is that individual Americans do precisely the same thing. They establish a propaganda model *for themselves* and then each piece of reality or fiction that they experience is manipulated to benefit the model, which fuels their sense of well-being. When confronted they explain that there’s something called “subjectivity” which accounts for this – it’s therefore totally fine. Reality serves US, not the other way around. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply not a “good citizen”.

A followup to “Zombification in the 21st century”

Noone believes what they actually believe, including the rulers. All of human communication and understanding is translated from reality into a socio-political construct which people both believe and communicate to others.

The leaders of the American fossil fuel companies believe that global warming either doesn’t exist or isn’t primarily caused by burning certain fuel sources. That’s what exists consciously inside their minds and is what they communicate to others. They actually believe that global warming does exist and is caused by burning fuel, but this belief is sub-conscious due to their belief that it’s better for them to believe otherwise.

This is the reason why there was a “shift” in white American attitudes from racist to anti-racist following the triumph of global over national capital in the 1960s. It’s not like a person was deeply racist one day and deeply anti-racist the next – his actual beliefs never changed. What changed was the balance of power within capitalism and therefore the dominant hegemonic attitude, with Americans merely shifting to the “winning attitude”. This is why American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are terribly racist toward the people they are dominating and stealing from, but those same soldiers can become anti-racist when they return to the United States and take on a life which doesn’t benefit from their direct racism. This is why there were lots of Nazis in Nazi Germany and not very many Nazis afterward. The same person, wearing the swastika one day and the dove the next (although in both cases the dollar sign is paramount but never worn).

One can detect the actual beliefs of humans from their actions, which underlie their conscious position. The Pentagon for example is preparing for the construction of zombies – but if you read what they say about the zombies they make up a lot of nonsense – like the creation of zombies by occult means and vegetarian zombies. So consciously the Pentagon believes it’s merely being cautious, and if pressed perhaps would say that popular culture influenced the way in which they framed their project. The reality, however, which underlies their actions, is that they themselves actually believe (regardless of their conscious belief) that the 21st century will be dire, and humans can be socio-politically transformed into zombies by the wealthy people of the world in order to justify their mass murder or deep enslavement.

How much more successful would the Nazi Holocaust have been if before sending those people to the gas chambers they had first transformed them into zombies. Then Americans would have cheered – exterminating the monsters to “save the world” for the rest of us, to allow us to “make the desert bloom”, to “repopulate the human race”.

Dehumanization is nothing new – the native Americans were “savages” to the European colonialists. When people with some political goal want to kill someone, dehumanization greases the wheels of the extermination. My point is that these European colonialists never actually believed that the native Americans were savages – their actual belief didn’t really matter. What mattered was getting the land from them – all of their “beliefs” were in service to that goal. This is why now, when the goal has been accomplished, native Americans can be viewed as “noble” and “unfairly treated in the past”. Slaves can be treated well, and pitied, while weak people with oil need to have the revenues from that oil taken from them, and then later they too can be treated well, and pitied.

The NEETs of Japan are a proto-zombie group. Given the right political framework in Japan, these people might become zombies to the “good people” of Japan, and if a persuasive argument was made perhaps these “good people” could convince others of the same.

Whenever someone is fascinated by something that doesn’t exist, that thing actually exists. This can be seen in science fiction, where one day people are fascinated by something that’s “not real”, and the next day it exists.

Zombies are “fictional” – that is to say they don’t exist, but our fascination with them implies that they do exist. So then the question becomes the precise nature of their existence.

“Addiction”

Addiction is a modern invention for purpose of creating fear. The purpose of fear is social control. Addicts “struggle” with addiction but addiction is the secondary symptom, fear is the primary symptom, and desire to participate in the system of social control the disease.

Treating addiction, therefore, is a matter of breaking the addict’s fear of a break in the social order. The problem is that most doctors and psychologists very much want to maintain the social order, so desire to maintain or if possible worsen the disease of the patient.

Addicts are able to “break” their addiction and congratulate themselves heartedly at the supposedly monumental task, yet lapse back into addiction since they aren’t curing the disease that gives birth to it.

The American fear of misery

“Misery loves company” is said to be satanic. Thus, according to English and American morality, one must eliminate one’s misery. In modern times this is commonly done through the consumption of entertainment.

“Misery is satanic” enters into a host of other American beliefs – it’s the core reason why Americans are materialistic, in the sense that to them, poverty is evil.

When challenged on their consumption of entertainment articulate Americans simply state that they are alleviating their misery, consoling themselves. To examine the morality of consolation never occurs to them.

The Century of the Self

video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+century+of+the+self+part+1&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

 

video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+century+of+the+self+part+2&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

 

video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+century+of+the+self+part+3&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

 

video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+century+of+the+self+part+4&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

Self-deluded journalists and Nixon’s/GWB’s real crime

(Taken from an email to a friend):

Most journalists are not aware of their corruption – my argument does not require them to not be concerned about their reputation nor to attempt to hide or subvert the truth. Gary Webb, the journalist I mentioned to you in Ann Arbor, saw “the truth” about journalism and it drove him to commit suicide. He’s a typical example of the self-delusion of journalists regarding the honor of their profession. Most journalists have defense mechanisms in place which prevent them from traveling down the road Webb did which would result in their disillusionment.

Who creates the reputation of journalists? Surely not people like me – people like their bosses do – people like their co-workers. People like their willing readers.

Journalists are self-deluded. They are self-deluded in order to continue to maintain (and perhaps “improve”) their imperial lifestyles, which they could not do if they accepted facts about the world into their conscience. So tens of thousands of corpses per day created by the economic system the West invented and rules – irrelevant or “reinterpreted”. So mountains of corpses in Iraq and Afghanistan caused by imperial invasion and occupation – the same. So corporate totalitarian rule – laughed at.

Examine racism for a moment. Racism isn’t inherent in humanity – noone is born a racist. The primary point of racism is to lubricate the passage of colonization and imperialism. So for example the indigenous Americans the white settlers planned to exterminate were “Savages, horrifically uncivilized”, and therefore justified in being exterminated. Blacks from Africa imported for chattel slave labor, likewise. This is the exact reason why during imperial wars the enemy is given derogatory names (like kike, limey, gook, hajji) but then those names are forgotten and they return to their previous names when they are no longer being violently stolen from (just tacitly so).

Take a look at the Bush Administration for a moment. This is only the 2nd administration in history (Nixon’s being the first) to recognize on a level approaching consciousness it’s own deep corruption. Both administrations were punished for this terrible social blasphemy with extremely low poll numbers and Nixon’s impeachment. Though curiously, an examination of the actual effects of each administration places Reagan as arguably the worst president in modern history, and Clinton fares little better. Yet because Reagan was oblivious, optimistic, and smiled a whole lot, he’s applauded. Applauded by many of the same people who believe they are journalists crusading for the truth. If a president appears to be corrupt he sends the wrong message to the people.

This is why there is endless video mocking George W. Bush for his various verbal games and silly antics. It’s quite ok to destroy the world in imperial fashion, as Reagan and Clinton also did – the real crime is to know you’re doing it.

The roots of existentialism and psychoanalysis

Existentialism and psychoanalysis were invented by the West in order to turn Western society’s attention inward, toward “it’s problems” rather than the problems it was causing in the world through world capitalism of which it was (and is) the imperial center. Existentialism is the leading cultural cause of Western global destruction. The neurotic is not waging a battle for his soul between wealthy dominator and compassionate decency, but endlessly self-absorbed, with ongoing “issues”, which serve as a perpetual bubble keeping the world at bay. The neurotic wants one of two things – either endless attempts at reconciliation, whereby he visits psychoanalysts, takes pills which don’t work, talks about his “feelings” over and over, or he’s “cured”, where he feels “peace of mind” with no substantial change in his identity.

Far from radicals, Nietzsche, Kafka and others are servants of imperial power, turning the West’s attention inward at the very time it was exerting increasing control through global capital networks. Existentialism fully succeeded in it’s tasks, and global capital reigned throughout the 20th century and so far into the 21st. Only the covert socialist Neoconservatives have thus far threatened global capital, and they’ve been shut down.

The myth of entertainment

A funny thing about entertainment is how not-entertaining it is. Yet people are seemingly quite convinced that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are endlessly fascinating.

Let’s assume for a moment that you’re a slave. Your master tells you to look inside a box, and keep looking inside it indefinitely. Perhaps you object, noting that there’s nothing in the box. But given that your master is brandishing his sword and glancing meaningfully to several decaying sword-slashed corpses next to him, you decide that looking in the box is a good option.

But this situation is interminable! How shall this slave gain some relief from his predicament?

Simply pretend that the box is entertaining. And so the myth of entertainment is born.

We know that our masters, the elite, want us to stay out of their business. We likewise want to respect ourselves and not tell ourselves there is nothing in the box. These two factors combine to make looking in the box “entertaining”.

Entertainment is a totalitarian reality. It’s a slave consolation notion – it says that “I find this fascinating of it’s own accord” in order to remove the reality from the consciousness – the reality that one is a slave looking inside an empty box at the behest of those who have power over one’s life.

So Paris Hilton and Britney Spears? Quite fascinating. Or perhaps the slave sniffs with his nose high in the air and derides these people as pathetic, and thus turns the channel to the show “Lost” or plays his favorite video game. Merely other boxes, different colors of nothingness.

It’s this latter treatment, this “negative” treatment of Hilton and Spears, that are the real danger. The mass media doesn’t provide entertainment even by slave standards – it provides crap in order for the slaves to believe they are experiencing REAL entertainment by “choosing” their own box to look into.

The slaves have many words for people who deride all boxes – nihilistic is their favorite. The slaves turn on anyone calling what they call entertainment an empty myth instead of turning on their masters.

You believe in nothing, they claim.

That’s completely false. I believe in killing my master. Nothing else is worthwhile while I am a slave.

The primary purpose of television and video games

Television is largely about protecting oneself from reality. It’s the intentional interaction with unreal events – artificial creations, people pretending to be other people (acting), people and events which have no relationship to one except through the poverty of the television screen.

Two cultural creations were invented at about the same time – television remote controls and video games. The similarities are striking – both increase a “user’s” control over this technological environment. Video games take the next step in domination – enabling the “player” to possess a digital agent, controlling his every move. It is this power and control over the digital environment that is the primary source of pleasure found in playing video games.

A substantial aspect of culture over the past few thousand years has been the struggle to free oneself from slavery of various forms – the current form of slavery is capitalist slavery, otherwise known as wage slavery. One of the most insidious methods the elite currently use to ward off attempts at freedom is to corrupt the slaves by making them masters of their own little worlds. So people click away with their remote controls, enjoying their power and control over what appears on the television screen, or progress through a game – they are masters of those domains.

In this way the elite are training the slaves – teaching them to become masters, teaching them the thrill of mastery, of control, of domination, but always in an environment controlled by the elite themselves.

Addiction – eternal struggle

The point of addiction is not the substance of the addiction – it’s the eternal struggle against the addiction. The addict needs the addiction in order to control the process of his own conflict, his own overcoming. When the addict finds a new addiction, he “defeats” his existing addiction, feels a sense of accomplishment, and moves on to the new addiction, where the process repeats itself.

Many addicts become linked to the substance of the addiction out of loyalty to this thing which has gained such meaning in their lives.

Because the relationship with the substance of the addiction is eternal struggle against, it’s always a relationship that results in death, in divorce. It’s always a relationship strife with conflict, with recrimination, with regret, with anger, with resentment.

Addiction derives from a culture of luxury, of metaphorical pillows, of overwhelming material security, of totalitarian social control, of the LACK of any real conflict, overcoming, or accomplishment.

In this sterile cultural void, the self generates it’s own perpetual conflict through the technique of addiction.

On George W. Bush’s verbal affectation

This is a reply to Myles Hoenig on Dissident Voice:

” Fool me once shame on you.
You fool me you can’t get fooled again.
– GWB

Spoken like the true idiot that he is. ”

No, spoken like an affectation.

This way of speaking by GWB is an affectation, occurring only in his recent years. GWB is a political monster and made the calculation that speaking in this way would be beneficial to the Neoconservative cause (by condescending to the American public and thus angering and depressing them).

It is a way for GWB to say: “See, this is what I think of how Americans speak”. The media got in on it, saying that GWB is trying to “talk like Americans do”. What an odd remark – I’ve never heard an American speak like GWB does, not even drunk ones.

By repeating calling GWB an “idiot”, Americans justify not doing anything about him. Him being an “idiot” is a substantial amount of the reason why GWB isn’t sitting in jail. Who’s the real idiot?

Modern US presidents are primarily PR spokespeople. Developing a condescending way to speak is (potentially) a very potent way of conducting the presidency. And since Americans were manipulated successfully, taking the bait and thus the hook of GWB being an “idiot”, we might as well take our hats off to a man who has gotten the best of us.

GWB did exactly what he wanted to do in office – help his cronies and buddies get richer, be re-elected for a second term, and get away with it scot free. He succeeded in all of this with flying colors. Yet somehow he’s the idiot?

So indeed, “Fool me once shame on you. You fool me you can’t get fooled again”.

Public Relations isn’t about speaking *clearly* or *articulately*, it’s about speaking *powerfully*. Americans fell into the trap GWB laid.

The Destruction of Marxism

This is a reply to Timber on Dissident Voice. Timber’s words are in italics.

“You could also ask why so many poor people choose to participate in the exploitation of other poor people around the world by wearing Nike sweatshop apparel or by shopping at WalMart. I’m sorry to say it, but I think a lot of them just don’t care.”

No – it’s that downtrodden people enjoy lording over those even lower than themselves – the vast majority of people in the world are both below someone else and above someone else. By wearing the work of terrible slave labor they can constantly remind themselves that there are people in the world of a lower social caste than themselves – sweatshop apparel is a status symbol.

The poor of the world are by and large not more moral than the rich. They simply have less power and thus less ability to fuck things up.

This is how capitalism works – divide and conquer. It creates innumerable striations of social classes – one populous class of which is mini-lords who either directly control bottom-feeding slaves or who have some access to the output of low slaves (poor Americans wearing sweatshop gear).

The vast majority of Americans support worldwide slavery because ALL Americans, even indigenous Americans living in concentration camps (reservations) are mini-lords, who reap imperial benefits derived from slaves lower on the power rung than themselves.

This is the truth about abuse that few on the left have come to terms with – the abused become abusers themselves (think Zionists as a result of the Holocaust in their treatment of Palestinians) in order to paper-over their own feelings of impotence. Jews were impotent during the Holocaust so they are “potent” now, and Walmart shoppers are impotent in the social construct of America so they are “potent” with respect to sweatshop workers.

Marxists are deluded in that they treat the world as a dual construct of capitalists/workers. This utter travesty of extreme over-simplification has mind-fucked the left into abandoning the world’s poor – since they treat all workers equally, as “slaves of capitalism”.

Many of the supposedly downtrodden workers are mini-lords, with slaves below them who toil endlessly to provide benefits to themselves. Low slaves in Africa and Asia serve the needs of their “poor” masters in America, Western Europe and Japan, personified by a member of the “working class” wearing Nike apparel.

The global power structure is not capitalist/worker – it’s a ladder with many rungs. Unless you’re on the very top or the very bottom, you’re BOTH a slave and a master.

Marxism and it’s many “errors” have prevented the overthrow of capitalism. Marxism is a belief held by masters who pretend to be slaves. Anyone serious about destroying capitalism has had just about enough of that.

Marxism supports capitalism since it’s constituency (First world workers) benefits from it – the output of low slaves feeds their material well-being.

Defense Intelligence Agency Seeking "Mind Control" Weapons

Link

Torture and the Strategic Helplessness of the American Psychological Association

Link

Mental Illness or Social Sickness?

Link

On self-interest, capitalism, and survival of the fittest – a reply to Clinton Callahan

Clinton Callahan’s words are in italics:

“One might ask if the weak point of our society has been our tolerance of psychopathic behavior? Our disbelief that someone could seem like an intelligent leader and still be acting deceptively on their own behalf without conscience? Or is it merely ignorance?”

The weak point is that psychopathic behavior is explained away – most commonly as “self-interest” – corporations explain away their actions as “profitable”. Individuals explain their actions as “feeding their family”. In this sense the mob boss, the CEO, and the factory worker have the same motivation.

In other words, self-interest is a justification for just about anything short of criminal. And since worshipers of self-interest write the laws in the first place, not a whole lot is criminal.

For example, because Americans need to “feed their families” much of the 3rd world is malnourished and dies of disease and starvation. This can either be called psychopathy or it can be called self-interest.

The secondary weak point is that a psychopathic system is one of centralized power and hence of controlled wealth. Thus it’s one that feeds greed – in a democratic system there isn’t much way to “get ahead”. In a criminal hierarchy it is possible to gain great wealth. It’s the same difference reflected in capitalism vs. socialism.

Here’s an example of capitalism at work – food speculators have recently murdered thousands of people, probably millions, by using the free market to buy up staple foodstuffs, restricting effective supply and increasing the price which poor people pay, thus restricting their consumption, leading to in many cases their death. If murder is criminal these speculators would either be behind bars or sentenced to the death penalty. But only *physical* murder is considered criminal (and not always such, depending on the degree of power of the murderer – GWB and the Neocons for example are immune from prosecution regardless of the death count) – ALL other forms of murder are quite acceptable, even lauded by such publications as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Economic murder such as was done and is being done by speculators is called “good business” or “survival of the fittest” or “profitable” or whatever term is used next week.

Bear in mind that under Darwin’s conception the definition of “fit” is “what survives”. That is to say, if you murder your neighbor and survive (get away with it) you are fit and your neighbor is unfit. Psychopaths are merely following Darwin’s logic.

Darwin introduced the conception of fitness as a competitive historical reality. That is to say, he who controls life and death controls fitness itself. “Fitness” is seen as a historical end-in-itself. Modern war in part is about defining who is “fit” for the rest of history.

How the psychological industry is built on mass media and propaganda

This is a reply to an email. My reply is in regular print, the quote of the person I’m replying to is in italics.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying, but what I think I understand I disagree with. It sounds like you’re saying that many people who are suffering psychologically are actually, although they don’t recognize it, suffering from all the cruelty going on in the world that it’s beyond their control to stop. It would be pretty easy to empirically evaluate this thesis (perhaps it’s already been done). I think many more people suffer from “real” psychological problems such as manic-depression or from “real-world” problems like drug or alcohol abuse.

I very much doubt that anyone has evaluated that thesis – your stance on this matter is the status quo one. Very little of reality is ever evaluated. Systems of power have no interest in evaluation unless it serves their purpose. You said it quite well yourself in the mid ’90s when you commented about how much time was spent developing video games (unreality) – what is advertising and propaganda if not un-reality? How much time is spent on that versus analyzing truth? The Neoconservative mantra is “We create reality”. That is to say, their mantra is “Our propaganda becomes your truth”.

My thesis is based on the observation that “psychological abnormality” increased greatly during the 20th century, to the point where a shrink is on every streetcorner and the pharmaceutical industry is a behemoth.

By “real” psychological problems I assume you believe there to be primarily a genetic basis for the problems. If I’m correct about a great rise in psychological problems in the 20th century there cannot be a genetic basis for it, since the genetic profiles in question changed very little over such a short time span.

An argument against my position is that there are not more psychological problems than there used to be – it’s just that what used to be non-diagnosed now has been given a label – so what used to be a “normal” or an “unlabeled” human now might be called a “manic-depressive”.

My argument is that psychological profiles, including what are deemed “problems”, are primarily caused by the environment. My argument identifies several factors as providing major psychological and social traumas which result in “psychological abnormality”. After listing these factors I will explain why the 20th century is unique and why the problems of past centuries did not have the same psychological results.

One is the schizophrenic factor of a populace which simultaneously applauds freedom while engaging in imperialism. This factor accelerated in the mid 20th century when much of the third world gained a measure of independence.

The twin terrors of constant threats of nuclear annihilation and global environmental collapse (which boil down to the same thing) cause a kind of darkness and perpetual depression.

Massive endemic propaganda and schizophrenic doublethink, as outlined by Orwell.

More schizophrenia – support for corporations (unaccountable private tyrannies – command economies like mini-versions of the communist state) and simultaneously support for democracy.

The military-industrial complex and the notion of “perpetual war for perpetual peace”.

It’s funny how we have no problem identifying elements specific to the 20th century in some ways (like pertaining to culture) but somehow can’t quite grasp that psychology is also derived from the environment.

Propaganda derives from the rise of mass media and the public relations industry, which only became systematized by the elite in the early 20th century. Propaganda directly targets the mind – seeking to colonize it with disinformation and irrational directives. Somehow, though, the status quo position, such as outlined by yourself, which is allied with this propaganda, doesn’t seem to understand that propaganda affects psychology.

Prior to the 20th century, the major projection of power was done by force. Psychology is fairly irrelevant when facing a gun. With the “civilizing” of the state in the 20th century it switched to propaganda as the primary means of control of the populace – therefore psychological control – therefore psychological resistance by the populace – therefore psychological problems deriving from the battle over control of the mind.

Take the example of Argentina in the 1970s. This culture had perhaps the highest per capita rate of psychologists/psychiatrists in the world. It was also a fascist state which tortured and terrorized it’s citizens – and in terms of propaganda was neo-nazi. The mass media state churns out psychological victims who are then serviced by the psychology industry. It’s no surprise at all that the psychology industry and the mass media industry rose to prominence at the same time.

The role of psychologists is to control the interpretation of psychic victims – to say that “it’s all in your head” and that talking, coming to “realizations” which never have to do with the state (usually have to do with the family and/or personal traumas), and/or use of drugs is the solution. Of course the state doesn’t pay the fee despite causing the event – the fee goes to people who are accredited by the state itself (through the educational system).

There is a kind of comfort in your position. Humans always blame something they can attack – the ruling class is nearly immune from attack and therefore can’t possibly be the problem, according to the logic of comfort and convenience. However, if enough humans recognize the truth of my evaluation they will find that the ruling class can indeed be attacked, and perhaps fatally.

To Fire 5/1/08 – the truth about psychological “diseases”

Hi Fire,

Learning is suffering. This process of learning can be ongoing, sporadic, or it can be turned off entirely. Most humans turn it off from an early age and throw away the key.

Criminals are those who need to change, not victims. When doctors prescribe pills for those people who “haven’t adjusted”, that’s like treating a stabbing by only focusing on the victim. Society commits crimes just as individuals do, and society must be held just as responsible as individuals for any such crimes.

Psychologically, taking pills for a problem “fixes” the problem. But the problem is like a stabbing – it doesn’t fix the problem because the perpetrator is not brought to justice, doesn’t learn from his crime, and most likely continues to commit like crimes. By taking pills the victim not only ruins his own perception of the incident(s) which led to the pills, he is himself committing a crime against humanity, since he is not bringing to justice the criminal who abused him. This leads to more crimes, more victims, and more people who think the best solution is for them to take pills.

Various psychological terms used by doctors are not objective or any other kind of truth – they are explanations. Here’s a better truth than that used by anyone who proscribes pills – humans find happiness in different ways and humans respond differently to the world. Humans who “suffer” from a “psychological disease” are instead humans who are sensitive to the crimes of society. They suffer not so much from the world but from the complete lack of help they receive in the world, a world that prefers to let the criminal continue to rampage while “fixing” the victim with pills.

The final solution in this monstrous procedure is for the victim to transform his experience into normality. That is to say, for stabbings and other abuse to become normal, and no longer be considered a crime. This is always the project of the criminal class, that is to say the ruling class. Under this project taking pills is a necessity. That is to say, anyone who takes pills to “fix” the problems caused by society is collaborating with that criminal society.

People who are not sensitive to the crimes still have the crimes perpetrated on them – they just aren’t conscious of it. It’s the responsibility of those who are sensitive to stop the crimes from being committed – this is the whole point of the counter-project to the extermination of morals being perpetrated by the ruling class.

People who take pills know all of this on some level, but reject it because of their lack of power in stopping the criminal. That is to say, *they themselves* can’t destroy the ruling class and stop their crimes, so they consider the best solution to be for them to take pills, in a sense destroy themselves, and call it a day. Conveniently, the knowledge that this “solution” is itself a crime is whitewashed by the same pills causing their other sufferings to “go away”.

I agree that “you yourself” can’t stop the crimes of the criminal class. All people who have stopped the criminal class throughout history have done so through massive organizing efforts.

Take care,

Brian

Welcome to Hell

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.

On Panic Attacks

A panic attack is a sustained experience of panic. It’s one of the worst possible experiences a human can have other than life-threatening injury. For those of you who aren’t familiar with panic, think of seeing your child with his hand on a hot burner as steam rises from the burning flesh. One enters a two-stage state of panic. The first stage ends after the child’s hand is removed from the burner. The second stage ends after the child’s damaged hand is sufficiently cared for (ice/cold water/medical treatment). At that point one is no longer in a state of panic.

While normal panic lasts for only seconds or minutes (occasionally hours), a panic attack can last for days at peak intensity, and for weeks, months, or years at lower intensity, depending on the cause of the panic, the response, and any change to circumstances.

The victim of panic is very focused – just as the child’s parent is very focused when he sees the burning hand. While panic is useful in short-term situations (as it enforces very quick action, increasing reflexes) it’s very damaging in long-term situations, since the enforced focus prevents normal consciousness.

While panic attacks occur in a variety of situations, perhaps the most common is in war zones, especially on the front lines of battle. Since panic increases mental activity as well as physical, soldiers enter into a state of panic in order to gain an edge, especially when they don’t need to consider changes of tactics, strategy, or other functions that panic usually prohibits.

Since panic always results in mental damage when it’s sustained past a certain point, soldiers who use panic during battle are prone to mental illness, which becomes especially problematic when they return to civilian life.

In the civilian population, the most common victims of panic attacks are prisoners. Prisoners are people perpetually at war with their jailers and can turn to panic in relation to their dire circumstances. This is a major reason why the prison experience vastly increases mental illness in those who go through it.

It’s unclear in what way and at what point a panic attack results in mental illness. This kind of mental illness may result from despair resulting from a lack of the victim being able to reduce his degree of panic. So, for example, if a soldier even after undergoing panic still cannot free himself from the fear of death by killing his enemies, he enters into despair and mental illness. Therefore, despair and hopelessness cause mental illness, following from the unsuccessful self-application of panic which in turn follows from fear and desperation.

The American approach of medicine to treat mental illness is pathetic. Another approach is to stop war, which removes the enemies from the soldiers, which removes their fear, desperation, panic, despair, hopelessness, and mental illness. What medicine does is to block the natural effects of human consciousness to that human’s experiences. This is no solution at all. Medicine destroys the connection between reality and consciousness.

Prisoners should never be mistreated. People who legitimately need to be removed from society are themselves unfortunate victims and they need to be treated with compassion. Mistreatment removes their ability to effectively function and makes them more dependent on the state, hence dependent on state resources like taxpayer dollars. Because they function less effectively they are more likely to commit additional crimes upon release.

Imperial societies in particular of course have many more victims of panic attacks than soldiers and prisoners, but that’s a very good place to start.

Another theory on the Neocons

Perhaps the reason the Neocons use so much abuse and condescension is to get the American people to hate them, and then the American people will become them (as abuse victims tend to become abusive themselves). they are trying to make sure the American empire continues long after they are gone (per the Project for a New American Century) and they are thus trying to destroy solidarity and instill in american culture love for domination and the capitalist ethos of “looking out for no. 1”.

Seen in this light, this is an extension of elite propaganda throughout the 20th century. The difference now is that the elite fear the end of the American empire, so they no longer take the patient approach of grinding away at the American people through outlets like mass marketing, advertising, and the corporate media. They now use smirks and condescension (Bush II) whereas they used to hide behind smiles (Reagan).

Attention-deficit Order

Anxiety. Despair. Where is the solution?
More and more quickly we cycle through the channels of life
What began with three now contains hundreds, and we responded
They made a buck, and now big pharma makes another
Everything is a commodity, even our sanity

The children are always the first to know
They are the first to be abused for having a new way
The first to receive treatment, since they have no defenses
In their open despair mapped onto their attention is their parents’ shame
And their parents will have none of that, oh no
Parents are far more selfish than anyone will yet admit

So here we go, into this schizophrenic future
Scattered minds the new order to deal with splintered realities
The myth of “choice” is the propaganda so many have ingested
To dull our senses, and bring out our money-holders one more time

In the 19th century they wrote warnings
In the 20th century they wrote alarms
Now in the 21st century we write epitaphs
Perhaps future grave-diggers will be our readers
Our future children will be the first to learn

We need to stop taking pills which affect the body to cure what exists outside
We need to start digging graves for our leaders, for those who have created this “culture”
And since their greed ensures their complaints, they will go loudly into that endless night
We will dance to that sweet music

My advice to the Israelis concerning the Palestinians

In order to stop being abusive you need to stop feeling abused.

The Dad’s Series – great art

Dad’s Home

Dad’s at Work

The developing Neoconservative perspective – smiles and smirks

The Neoconservative strategy of the 1980s was about smiles – and Reagan was the perfect accomplice. He fooled everyone to some degree, and had between decent and high approval ratings throughout his tragic presidency. How an empty-headed PR (public relations) rep can do that is an amazing accomplishment in itself, and must have made PR reps all over the world smile in glee.

When Bush II rolled around things really changed, and the smile became a smirk. The repeated condescending beatdowns and abuse didn’t seem to faze the American people for a while, then they started to get angry. In contrast to somewhat similar policies followed by Reagan (except a large-scale war), the Bush Administration is widely hated by Americans.

One explanation for why the extremely successful formula of Reagan plus smiles wasn’t just re-used is that the underlying socialist desires of the Neoconservatives are more fully emerging and the smirk is the next step in the process. Another is that 9/11 changed the PR vision of the executive to scowls and smirks – a cross between Darth Vader and Montgomery Burns. The Neoconservatives are all about political theater and they may have seen 9/11 as the beginning of a new act.

I’d very much like to see whether smirks and obvious condescension were used by Neoconservatives prior to 9/11 to test this theory.