politics

Disintegrating Nostalgia: An Obituary for the United Kingdom

/

Tough to let a loved one go, tougher is the acceptance of never knowing what you had. A task to be sure, beloved dies and a mourning begins. Yet how does one begin to mourn the death of a country? Especially one that is supposedly still alive, a frail corpse of a nation selling itself to whichever liberal fad will pay for its supports. To watch the slow internal destruction of your home from within. Having to assimilate one’s views amongst progressives and liberals resulting in incessant intellectual nausea. A bidding farewell to the final remnants of a life lived yet still in movement. A final attempt at dragging my nostalgic British memories from their forbidden tomb and having them bear all for need of a comparison. I give my sincerest apologies to my memories, for they will have to meet their future.

The Fighting TemeraireJ. M. W. Turner, 1838

The dirty tugboat of liberal democracy. – Sorry Turner.

 

/NOSTALGIA/

The United Kingdom has been my home for my entire life, admittedly my social habitat was a quiet, safe and traditional corner, yet as I recall, there was no ‘violence of the outside’, for Britain was a first world country at one point in time. So we were safe, healthy, financially stable and educated to our means, if not more.

Tradition was inherent from the beginning, I attended a Christian school, which, even for the time was overtly-traditional. Of course at a young age one cares not for rigour, routine, authority, hymns, dances and prayers, they seemed dull and tacked on for need of archaic use. I knew not that these roles and traditional responsibilities instilled in me a respect for – what might be – our countries last hope: tradition, heritage, conservatism and hierarchy. It as for manner of speaking an idyllic safe haven, yet this, for me and many was the world and was the world as it should be.

My childhood continued relatively uneventfully on a social level, there was little in the way of disturbance socially it seemed. And so I took part in traditional games, activities and adventures; the likes of which seemed eternal. ‘Surely the knowledge of how to build a fire will never ‘burn out’?’ I thought to myself. The West forgets. None of these were seen as dangerous, they only became so when the ignorant partook. And you don’t stay ignorant long in a hierarchy, when dignity’s on the line you learn and grow self-respect as well as respect for the learned.

There was little mollycoddling to be had except for pure experienced necessity (“Trust me, I know best.”). When children and adults are not wrapped in cotton wool, or at least learn to moult a few layers of narcissistic thread, they learn to deal with criticism, hate, pain and repsonsibility quickly and efficiently. If one got innocently hurt it was due to fault of self and not of teacher. You got burnt because you were ignorant to experience. Respect arises quickly when one understood that all they rely on comes from the old and matured, people are smarter than you, throw your selfishness to the floor and learn how to fix a tap.

Yet as can be expected later schooling was rife with typical forms of rebellion. These modern types of rebellion – collective in nature – burnt out quickly either due to hormonal stabilization, or were curbed and dismantled by the few remaining authoritative teachers. On reflection it is these teachers I have grown to respect the most, their authoritative manner arising from nothing more than interjection during teaching, of a subject that was of clear passion to them. A good teacher helps you understand the exam/test, a great teacher lets you understand the subject entirely, knowing the results will follow.

There was – at a very young age – no discussion of sex, gender, race or politics, for why would a child care of any of these things except without external pressure. To earnestly bring these issues up with a child would (and still should) be ridiculed as nothing but a transparent attempt at forcing an agenda. Or: If one wishes to believe there are more than two genders let them come to their insane conclusions on their own, let children have fun whilst they can. Politics was removed from daily life, at least where it need be, discussion of voting intention was shunned – even though voting within the United Kingdom is ultimately pointless: You’re only choice is to vote for democracy. And with politics caged to the papers and late night TV a child’s involvement was close to nil. Luckily for me the ever growing mutational-hedonism that is mass entertainment was only in its infancy and so yes, video games were played, films watched, but not in such abundance as to rewire brain functions. Consumer tech was at its utilitarian peak, we needed no more and could easily cope with less – as the immediate history was still allowed – as such, tech was addition not reliance.

Supermarkets were yet to evolve into their current perpetual-entertainment-sale systems they are now, larger produce sections, ready meals in their infancy and multiple fast foods in the stages of critique and decline due to new health information. Needless to say I know of only a handful acquaintances who grew up on ready meals. Families, school and communities all acted as support systems teaching etiquette, decency and manners as they grew. Worry not in a place where familiar strangers all say “Good morning!”, to walk without care in a dimly lit street, quiet and still.

One could argue I grew up in a rarity, somewhere so idyllic it seems almost an impossibility. If one was to argue this I’d be open to listening yet let me tell you, these places exist and some still do in a decayed stasis. Make no mistake I visited larger cities and found little appeal in them. Unless your life is centred on career, the cutting edge or the political fringe, bother not with the hot Western city corpses. Travel, suffocation and noise is all that awaits within. Each to their own, but let me lay where the sun still seems real.

///DISINTEGRATION///

There’s no doubt in the fact that I have become a curmudgeon. Yet those gripes that bitter old men hold onto earnestly have come true: ignorance and lack of respect within youth, apathy towards tradition and history, and an utmost reliance on others; freedom from responsibility seems to be the liberal youth’s objective, one has to ask, freedom from what responsibility?

It of course comes as no surprise that those without responsibility, aim or goal are lost and lacking, and as such, head for the quickest and easiest escape: Entertainment: Gaming, social media, insta-hedonism on tap. Ultimately escaping real life by not entering it at all; a replacement of all human notions with virtual escapes. Becoming reclusive and anti-social, pushing their waking hours into a virtual skill as a means to impress virtual friends; learning nothing of substance or worth, actively anti-betterment. Their education systems exacerbating the situation via liberal sodomy.

Liberal education systems favour practically everything over practicality and tradition. Studies of the religion inherent in the culture are replaced with study of the foreigner’s beliefs as a means for easier assimilation. The removal of the historic and spiritual context for fear of minor(ity) offence leaves only a flimsy blueprint of morality, which can be bent on a whim to fit whatever fad social science idea takes the reins that month. Without direct connection and correlation to the past, how can one expect to foster respect for those who helped in its creation? All that comes from ignorance of the past is acceptance of the future, however dismal it might (will) be. The post-modern narrative of stripping and deconstructing structures of their historical, traditional, religious and natural roots and supports has – much like that of a secular state – allowed only that which is most persuasive, coercive or persistent to infect it.

And so these days of old die at the hands of their cowardly sons and daughters. The destruction of spontaneity via implementation of ‘political correctness’ and ‘health & safety’, a tactfully elusive duality allowing for the beginnings of acceptance. Both ‘political correctness’ and ‘health & safety’ teach those in positions of bureaucratic power to enforce rules and regulations which teach people to not just distrust, but actively hand over their most common sense intuitions and senses to the state. The beginnings of a mollycoddle state wherein experience, even first hand, need not matter for there is, within liberal democracy, literally an answer for your most basic of concerns. They say that ‘Fascism’s good because at least you’re told what to think.’, well liberal democracy doesn’t even allow you to think. As if when the millennium hit a wave of pathetic contemptible air washed over the UK and we breathed deep, we entered into the final stages of apathy.

Alas the masses could no longer look after themselves, the relics of independence and responsibility are happily handed over to either state or corporation: Entertainment, state-subsidy, welfare, loans, credit, media-knowledge-handouts, qualified-teachers, peer-reviewed journals etc. one will (hopefully) notice a pattern here: The UK’s people no longer and for a while have not relied on their knowledge, their experience, their sense, but rely solely on that which they allow themselves to be told by others, who likewise do the same and so the burden of proof and responsibility moves perpetually, eventually to be lost. Genetics, IQ, tradition, family, heritage, ritual and beauty are thrown aside for a few transparent, yet hedonistic scraps handed out by the highest bidder.

The stereotypically teenage attempts of rebellion are first in line for the great subsumption and a clear example of the practice. In their futile attempts at rebellion the hormone loaded teenagers throw themselves at the most personally alluring collective: stoner, nerd, punk, worker etc. Falling for the lie, that these collectives offer any form of alteration to the liberal democracy hell-scape before them. All that’s changed is minor consumption choices and the addition of increasing layers of ignorance. Rebellion within post-modern liberal democracy is at best a forced capitalistic subsumption into that ideology itself. Rebellion within a liberal democracy such as the UK means you strengthen your enemy.

There’s no more authoritarians any more, not in any meaningful pre-post-modern sense. I talk here not of some bully, tyrant intent on sadism. I speak of a clear, concise and experienced leader, who in hindsight had your best interests at heart. Leadership is now subsumed into an inherently egalitarian culture. Stuck in a post-modern equality hell wherein everyone must be your friend: your teacher and your boss are no longer superiors, but equals, so the position crumbles. Taking charge, ordering, demanding, delegating are abuses of systematic oppressive power now. The masses cannot even take responsibility for their own being. Belligerent children are failing classes due to discipline restrictions and so the parents unload their responsibility onto the teacher. You see, within liberal democracy it is literally the employer’s fault if you’re lazy, the Dr is at fault for your illness, others are at fault for the narcissistic desires of the individual. A society lacking hierarchy and discipline ends only in the destruction of its own culture; if you cannot keep your society in line a stranger or a foreigner are more than happy to come along and show you how it’s done.

Utility is replaced by narcissism. At every step one’s identity comes first and is a blessing for their mere existence. Within contemporary liberal democracy identity precedes essence. The masses can neither change a tire nor cook a meal, build a home or grow food, yet they can most definitely name more than two genders, they can bow to the whims of each and every minority as a means of virtue signalling, they’ll assist in opening the floodgates to strangers and blame you for the consequences. They cannot look after their most basic needs, but they can and will list ways in which that which has held them up: the state, tradition, capitalism, professionals and western history owes them a living whilst simultaneously giving up its own. Or, in short: Are you a victim of ideology, of class, of imbalance? Or are you you just too lazy, will-less and self-centred to understand alternatives to your hedonistic liberal social justice.

I bid farewell to a country I for a while, unknowingly, adored. Let it be known hence forth that the UK as it stands is not the United Kingdom. It is a liberal simulacra without control of thought for alteration.

Rest in peace United Kingdom, you had a good innings.


Meta-Nomad Twitter

 

Short Critique of the Left/Right Spectrum

1. The Current Left/Right Political Spectrum.

With regards to politics, the left-right spectrum is a methodological whore. It sells its numb, transparently accessible banality to anyone capable of understanding 2 directions. “He’s lefty scum!” shouts ol’ Barry down the pub, “Well, my my, looks like we have a centrist here ol’ chap.” quips Lord Pithington. Media, lingo and the political system itself have all picked up this linear infant and utilized it for their aims and agendas. They needn’t use other methods such as the compass or Nolan chart for many don’t know of these more detailed instruments, to venture past the ease of Left and Right is to venture into swathes of uninterested shitmunchers, the rabble whose mass will help define the direction, as such, complexity is left at the door.

The terms “Right” and “Left” refer to political affiliations originating early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789–1799 and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. As seen from the Speaker’s seat at the front of the Assembly, the aristocracy sat on the right (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the left, hence the terms right-wing politics and left-wing politics. – Wikipedia.

Currently both ‘left’ and ‘right’ consist of their own individual grouping of ideologies, movements and economic styles. The left inclusive of Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Anarchism, equality, progressivism and unionism, whilst the right is inclusive of Conservatism, Monarchism, reactionaries, Fascism, traditionalism and (arguably) Capitalism. I am not putting forth that this is exactly how L/R is, I am saying this is how the majority see the spectrum, as such, it’s where we should focus our attention.

2. Inherent Problems With L/R.

; the shortest schema is the drama (dream or nightmare) of the straight line.” [1]

Who ever thought a compression of fragmented abstractions connected to all modes and systems to a line, would be widely regarded as a good system for discussion. For there to be a coherence within the contemporary definition of L/R we must understand our place within the theatre, with regards to each other and largely within the spatio-temporal. We must understand that L/R is moving, as is time and space, yet there is no synchronization.

Take L/R’s practical origin and watch as it mutates with each passing week. It begins its act within a role it has been cast, within a material space at the time of its birth. On a practical and abstract level all members of the audience knew where they stood, even those not in the room. And so the monarchists found themselves on the right, the commoners to the left. 2 fixed positions finding their meaning in relation to each other, in relation to their time and to their space. Beyond those moments L/R was dragged screaming into a world never intended, as such it became uncanny and out of place, stretched, pulled, manipulated and abused into submission by multiple parties on multiple instances; this poor innocent linearity taken from its temporal home and strewn across humanities dirty history.

A simple analysis of China brings to the surface key problems of criteria and definition. For China is simultaneously Socialist and unabashedly Capitalist in its nature, so where does it find itself on the line? I imagine for many it’s to be found far left, for some a little further to the right, never fixed, always moving, for in reality it is China-present. Do as the majority and view the left as progressive and the right as conservative – the West will love you for it – in-keeping with tradition the left moves into the bright future and the right into the dark past (supposedly), yet what of those who wish to take from the past into the future, where upon the linearity do they lie?

If what Wittgenstein says is true and indeed “A Picture is a fact.”[2] then a ‘snapshot’ is the only mode in which L/R could ever find its feet. It can only stand and explain with shared knowledge of its surroundings and context, all that has come and gone in relation to the snapshot must be bared for the linearity to have any weight. This quiet political line drawn into the present will find itself ever-expanding/shrinking, changing and moving in countless directions and within countless systems; this illusory fixed system stretched thinly over time has only increased confusion and extrapolated misdirection. The same L/R linearity from over 200 years ago is still acidicly caressing contemporary politics, dragging with it all that survived, however small, however large. And so L/R attending from its origin allows itself to fracture and continue for whomever shall bear it: The L/R of a left-winger and the L/R of a right-winger are 2 entirely different spectrums that are supposedly identical.

3. Possible Futures: To Move Away From a Cartesian Political Spectrum.

When I write here of Cartesian, I refer to Cartesian space. If one implies there is in fact a grid upon which one can plot a point, one must make sure that all others are talking of not just the same point but the same grid, once both of these have been identified their positioning must be exact or problems will arise, perpetual disagreements will begin and confusion becomes foundation. This said, all may have the same grid upon which they are plotting their abstract political points, however, where upon that grid they put their point is entirely up to them and is in relation to their personal subjective view of the intensity of said point. If we’re to look at say democracy in the West, one can witness it both getting larger and smaller. For democracy grows in dimension, spreading itself over vaster areas of land, alongside spreading further into micro-communities and businesses, yet at the same time key/primary aspects of democracy grow smaller and constrain (free speech), as such whatever it means to be democratic or to be ‘democracy’ is a point which is at the same time shrinking, enlarging, moving, grabbing from the past, hurling into the future, whilst simultaneously being part of multiple grid-systems and plottings. And so, we have to move away from grid-systems when it comes to politics, unless of course we can somehow make clear the position of a movement on some form of Global grid, inter-connected to all involved.

So, what do we do:

 

CURRENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

CURRENT (INCLUSIVE OF FLOW):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POTENTIAL:

 

 

[1] Desert Islands – Gilles Deleuze

[2] Tractatus Logico Philosophicus – Ludwig Wittgenstein

Adulting, Responsibility and Collapse

Humans desire demise, more specifically their demise. It’s been this way forever. The only change is that of type. Which type of demise, collapse or apocalyptic scenario are you lusting for the most? Do you have pathological obsessions about the Black Death 2.0? Perhaps you wish for an exponentially hotter existence? Or is it just one of the classics? Either way, before man can begin any endeavour, inclusive of his own existence, he begins mentally sketching out the minute details of collapse.

 

Collapse: [kuh-laps]

1 :to fall or shrink together abruptly and completely :fall into a jumbled or flattened mass through the force of external pressure

2 :to break down completely :disintegrate

3 :to cave or fall in or give way

4 :to suddenly lose force, significance, effectiveness, or worth

5 :to break down in vital energy, stamina, or self-control through exhaustion or disease

; especially :to fall helpless or unconscious

6 :to fold down into a more compact shape

 

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Albrecht Dürer, 1498.

 

Even those structures that give us warmth and the illusion of safety grew their roots in eschatological forests. You may believe that true Good is to come, and the faithful shall be delivered unto the new era of Good; or Pestilence, War, Famine and Death may ride down and smite the heathen; or cometh the Day of Judgement; the Newton Occult; death of pre-1914. These examples still each a hot ember in the hearts of many, but the embers have burnt out and all but disappeared for others: The 2011 Rapture, When Prophecy Fails, Y2K, 2012, Heaven’s Gate and an apocalypse for every year (almost) have all been revealed as false prophets in the push for the end.

Even if one is to put pure-theological apocalypticism aside, political movements most notably Marxism and Nazism both strived for a state of perfection, and history will show you the results. More’s Amaurot, the Ballardian High Rise, Fordlandia, Drop City, Palmanova and Ordos all micro-failures in the stupefying realm of anthropocentric hope. And if reality wasn’t enough to nourish your end-appetite then why not turn your skinny necks in any direction: Films, novels, TV and some albums have all begun to act as distraction, medication or disclosure in relation to the end-times.

The opposite to collapse is a failure, why? Desire.

We are currently engorging on a feast of human failure and learning exactly fuck all from it. But why learn when one could, if they so wished, avoid the inevitable: For if you have the money and the audacity you may wish to become an ice-pop, a cryogenic test awaiting re-awakening post-collapse; or become literally vampiric and suck blood from the young.

Hey citizen! Scared of the oncoming collapse? Worried about yours and your family’s safety? Then we have 3 options for you:

Prolong: Why not grin ‘n bear it until it’s all gone away.

Avoid: That’s right, we’ll seal you away until the event is over and all is safe.

Health: Why not face the event head on? But at peak physical health and fitness.”

The desire for collapse is hedonistically transparent. This desire, that desire, the one we all yearn for in moments of despair, the encroaching want for removal of responsibility. To watch as the hierarchies crumble, the institutions cease, to witness the destruction of an infantile God, one without after-thought for its residents: The desire for a restart.

That’s what the majority of us believe, the ignorant mass who view the kill switch as a blessing. Oh shit! We fucked up! Better pull the plug! And as you rip the plug from the wall the building comes with it, your family is crushed and your left without skin. You back away screaming with realisation of the truth; a collapse is a restart combined with the cumulative burden of past failures, mistakes and wastes. The realisation that the collapse ‘event’ is embedded within our future, the mandatory single-line journey to demise, and we all have a ticket. Humanity gravitating towards the dead-time of post collapse, where we wonder aimlessly without hope, reason, use or practical purpose. The clean slate of our most narcissistic dreams is already smeared with shit and blood.

You cannot grasp the enormity of the universe and your atomic place within it, the fact that time and the world does not revolve around you. So you fantasize of the end, dreams of a world in which your life may finally have meaning. Suddenly the ‘store’ no longer exists, and so you’re driven back to your animalistic roots. You now exist in a world where survival is meaning. A world which by all accounts sound extremely hostile with regards to a bunch of vidya addicted shut-ins who rarely get up before midday.

The reality is that of a regrettable scat fetish, in which once the shit hits your face, you finally realise you’ve romanticised the hell out of being shat on. And that will be your collapse.

I’m getting ever closer to the point wherein my posts no longer need a ‘Why?’ as to their creation, that said, the seed that spawned this apocalyptic assemblage was a piece of terminology: Adulting. A term which repeatedly appears within the feeds and threads of left-wingers and liberals – often quite famous ones. For those that don’t know the meaning of this toxic signifier, here is a description. Inclusive of housework, booking appointments, cooking, cleaning etc., basically, it signifies doing practical jobs needed to survive in a world where survival is secondary. Don’t keep your house tidy? Oh well, untidy house for you. Can’t be bothered to cook? Just head to a take-out. Each and every need is catered for you by a third party, you sold out your nature to the cheapest bidder.

The term implies an inherent contradiction within society. For there’s a clear desire for a restart, and a very clear message that we’d have no fucking clue how to. For those who’ve yet to read David Korowicz’ Trade Off, read it.. A succinct 80 page paper on global systemic collapse, with its primary focus on economic connections. To compress this miserable delight, in short: The economy runs roughly off singular companies/groups doing singular tasks. Tasks which are then connected via multiple means to their next stage. This form of connection runs across all modes of economics, transaction, trade, travel etc. For example:

The farmer who grows the potatoes, knows not how to dispatch them to multiple retailers. And neither does the retailer know how to grow potatoes on a large scale.

So, put precisely, you remove one of these singular moments and all of a sudden the system risks collapsing in on itself, due to a diversified ignorance:

The implication being either, everyone is seriously reliant on the previously made, or, in a darker more post-Hobbesian turn, those who do-not-know are reliant on those-who-know. Don’t know how to grow food? Cook? Clean? I’ll show you, at a price. Work for me, or die.

The concern of post-collapse society will not be ‘How to Re-build’ but ‘How to (did we) Build.’. Ultimately it will be how to take responsibility entirely for oneself. The underlying problem with the term ‘adulting’ and the culture that surrounds it is the refusal to grow up: If one is Adult-ing there’s an implication that the person in question is a child. And what comes with childhood is a lack of acceptance with regards to mortality, structure and responsibility. ‘Adulting’ is the lie that one can truly bear responsibility without sacrifice.

If one is to look for other reasons as to why conservatism and right-wing political thought is gaining traction with youth, they need look no further than what it is the right-wing sells: responsibility. The disrespectful chaos of the left ultimately leads nowhere, and now more than ever the chaos has become physically emboldened by the ‘paradise time-islands’ that are Universities. And so when the young are surrounded by nothing but disenfranchisement, disrespect and blame, those who are sensible look for the groups taking the full force of the burden, those owning up to having to deal with the problem – whatever it may be – themselves. Those saying you can be part of something, as opposed to a free-floating identity in a sporadically pulsating political mess. Those who fully admit that to be part of something one will have to bear some weight, yet the alternative is simply to brush off the slightest piece of liability immediately.

And when the time cometh that society need be rebuilt, one shall find hordes of middle-aged ‘adults’ whining at the reality before them. One shall find refusal of cooperation, responsibility or practical burden combined with irony, sass and general irreverence en masse.

Considering my No Driver at the Wheel list contained ‘Stop Being Pathetic’, and the above post relies on one becoming practical I’ve added a few links and resources:

PRACTICAL ADVICE FOR AN ADULT:

HOW TO LIVE LIKE A KING FOR VERY LITTLE – THOR HARRIS

Jordan Peterson – The Tragic Story of the Man-Child

Jordan Peterson – Responsibility

Stop messing with your sleep – Download f.lux

No More Zero Days

Fitness

Build Muscle


FURTHER:

UtopiaThomas More

The Modern UtopianRichard Fairfield

The Hot Zone Richard Preston

Straw DogsJohn Gray

High RiseJ.G.Ballard

UtopiaChannel 4 (TV)

Idiocracy (Film)

The New World (Film)

A Patchy Discussion: Part 1

 

A PATCHY DISCUSSION

PART 1

 

I

 

It was a brisk night in November, and Toby Norant is heading to a bar. Toby had arrived in Pel-Co a day prior, spending his night in an appointed Traveller’s Motel, of which he’d now used up his allotted time. He has plans, large wobbly plans that couldn’t help but make him feel uneasy at heart, plans which are the reason for his visit to Pel-Co, where his father resides.

The motel’s reception was quiet except for the sound of Toby’s suitcase clinking and ruffling as he moved on through. The woman at the desk tracking him condescendingly as he approaches. “Right, that’s me.” Toby said.

“Let me see, Toby -”

“That’s ri-”

“You still have 8 hours on your permit. What are your T-plans?”

“Sorry, T-Pla-

“T-Plans…terminal plans. Look, what do you plan to do at the end of the 8 hours?”

“Ah, I see. Well, I’ve just got to head to a bar, then once that’s closed I should be back at the shuttle for a collection.”

“Which collection shuttle is that Sir?”

“It’s the one heading to DiviLet, the DL-3 I believe, leaving at 23:30 I think.”

“The DL-3 is to be arriving at 23:00 and leaving at 23:30. Please make sure to give your ID card to the E-booth before leaving. Until then make sure it’s viewable at all times, preferably around your neck.”

“Will do.” said Toby adjusting his lanyard, making sure his ID hasn’t become stuck in any way.

“Which bar is it you’re heading to?”

“Unither’s.”

“Ok, well make sure to stick to the eastern wall for at least a mile. You should see signs for the bar after that.”

“Ok, ta. Well, I best be getting off then.”

“Bye. And remember to hand your card over to-

“An E-booth yes. Bye.”

Awkwardly shuffling from the desk Toby reaches for his ID card so he can open the motel doors. Pastel coloured policy posters line each side of the door, along with a stand of official Pel-Co booklets to its right-hand side. The scanner plays 3 long low confirmation tones before it opens, a click, and Toby is away, entering into the street.

Toby follows the directions given to him, the eastern wall’s presence engulfing his entire form, as well as the houses to Toby’s left. His eyes scanning the surroundings hastily for a sign, yet always being drawn back to the wall, the faraway chatter descending from its top walkways. After a short while Toby begins to worry, he’s yet to see a sign, but as luck would have it a stranger’s passing by. The passer-by a tall, stocky man walking with a sense of determination.

“Excuse me, Sir?” Toby asks the passer-by.

“Yes? Sorry, hello.” Replys the passer-by, a little startled.

“Sorry, I was wondering if you could possibly give me directions to Unither’s Bar?” The passer-by’s focus flickering between Toby’s face and ID card.

“Uh, Unither’s?” The man looking a little confused, as if this was an entirely new piece of information. Drawing his hands from his pockets and putting them to rest over his stomach.

“Yeah, Unither’s Bar. I was told it would be roughly a mile from the Traveller’s Motel?”

“Ah! You mean The Legacy. It changed from Unither’s a few years ago now.”

“Oh ok.”

“Anyway yea, it’s about another 5 minutes or so. There’s a band playing tonight, so you should be able to hear it fairly soon. Enjoy.” The passer-by already on his way.

“Thank you.” Toby says loudly.

The man was correct, it was another 5 minutes give or take. Toby hears the twanging of guitars playing a folk type set – coincidently Toby’s favourite genre – as he approaches. Picking up his case just before the front courtyard Toby begins to look for his Father. The bar itself a quasi-British bar, complete with multiple taps of dark ale, worn carpet and a varied assortment of barrel-gut bearing middle aged men. Toby heads to the front door, which is currently being held open for an old man.

“Sorry mate, just gonna let the old boy through.”

“No worries.” says Toby, wheeling his suitcase out of the way.

“Cheers. Night Rod!” says the old man passing by.

“No wor-” Toby attempts to say.

“Night Steve!” bellows the man holding the door. “Come on then, come on in.”

“Thanks ma-”

“Wait, I’d best check your ID as you didn’t use the scanner.”

“Oh, sure thing.” Toby holds his ID up from around his neck as for the man to view it.

“Ah, I see.” says the man. “Well, to be honest I think you’d best scan it.”

“Umm, sure.” Toby drops his ID down to door’s scanner. From behind the bar come 3 low, but faintly distinguishable tones.

“Right, in ya go.”

“Cheers.” says Toby, finally entering the bar. The barman watching him intently as he approaches.

“Excuse me, do you know if David Norant is here?”

The barman lets out a faint yet audible sigh of relief, his shoulders slump down a little. “Ah, you’re David’s boy. He said you were coming. He’s just through by the pool table, through there.” says the barman pointing to a set of double doors.

“Thank you. Could I also get a whisky and coke please.”

“No alcohol for you I’m afraid mate.”

“Oh yeah, sorry I forgot. Just a coke then please.”

“Sure thing, I’ll bring it round.”

Toby heads through the double doors and towards a small bar, unaware his Father is to his left checking some information on a touch screen. Toby places his suitcase next to the bar and sits on a stool just as the barman sets down his coke.

“How are you paying?” the barman asks.

“I’ve got that Henry.” David says calmly “Place it on my tab.”

Toby turns his head as to face David. “Ah, sorry Dad. Didn’t see you there.”

“No worries boy. Doubt you’d have recognized me anyway, what has it been…10 years.”

“Something like that, and the beard’s…quite something.”

“Grown quite fond of it actually. 10 years you say, quite a while.”

“Around that.”

“How’ve you been then boy? All good back at home? Mother well?”

“I’ve been fine. And home’s home, you know it’ll never change, and Mum’s just taken early retirement actually.”

“Ha. She always did work herself silly.”

David heads back to the bar, where a drink has been poured for him. Perched up straight on his stool and with both hands on the bar. All that’s to be heard is the band.

“Folk music. Jesus Christ.” David says chuckling. Toby smiles and relaxes into his seat.

 

II

 

“I’ve got to be honest Toby, I was really surprised at your message.”

“A bit out of the blue I know, but I need to tell you some news.”

“We’ve not too much in common son, I know that, but you know you were and are always welcome to visit.”

“Of course I know that Dad.”

“Good, I didn’t want you thinking I’d abandoned you.”

“I don’t, I know how difficult communication is to non-networked Corps. Don’t worry. Damn, getting the pass took me at least 5 months.”

“How long is the pass for?”

“1 night. Well, 24 hours to be precise. From the time of arrival onwards.”

“Still as strict as ever. Good.”

“Ha, you haven’t changed.”

“And neither has PelCo which is relieving.”

“Aye, I hear, well I can see the wall’s getting thicker.”

“Yes, our side!”

“Christ, still have the pride then.”

“I don’t want to have the same discussions we used to have, but I must admit, I’m a bit disheartened your ideas are still the same as they were at 18.”

“What, open-minded…fair?”

“Right, yes, those things.”

“I don’t understand what’s so bad about our system back home?”

“You know I hate cliches, but you’ll have to forgive me for this one…because it’s true, you weren’t there son.”

“Where…when?”

“Before you were born, prior to any re-arrangement. Looking back now, God, it’s like the past is a fever dream. I just cannot for the life of me figure how it got so bad.”

“But what? What was so bad?”

“It’s so tough to put your finger on it. It was our way of thinking, our general scope of thought, it was just so suffocative.”

“That’s not really an answer Dad.”

“Indeed it is not. Well for one thing we ignored many crucial facts. We ignored our findings, our knowledge, as if much of what we knew was merely a part of its own time as opposed to ours as well. There was this entire part of history in which we, as a collective, ignored our roots.”

“Roots?”

“Evolution, the process of our creation.”

“I still don’t really see why that would be such a huge problem though.”

“Because to forget evolution is to forget this kind of…exterior, if you like. It’s to forget the real basics of life, of survival.”

“Such as?”

“Such as the fact we need water, food and shelter. That we need to be safe from harm.”

“OK, but they were all catered for…”

“They were and they weren’t. It was strange as I’ve said. Sure, we had water, food and shelter pretty much 100% of the time but that in itself was a problem. The ease at which this all came. To be born into a world where all of your basic survival needs and instincts are catered for on a platter, is to lose something of yourself, to forget something of your ancestry. But, really, most of all, you forget that other people also want these things…need these things. So we all just forgot about this kind of cosmic competition and became apathetic to instinct.”

“This seems a little, uh, rehearsed Dad?”

David takes a large swig from his pint, before composing himself a little. “One key part of living in such a society as PelCo is transparency.”

“Transparency?”

“Meaning, to live here, one has to understand the why of the system, if not, you’ll never understand your place, if you do, you come to respect it. Especially when you’ve come from a past such as mine and your Mother’s.”

“So you’re saying they have classes on it or what?”

“Nothing so formal, well, at least it’s never appeared to me that way. At first you receive a booklet, pamphlet type thing, and to be quite honest from that I’ve never known anyone to not want to understand further.”

“Sounds a little cult-like Dad.”

“I’d agree, except for one key factor.”

“Let me guess: ‘Exit’.” Toby sighed.

“Exactly. Generally cults aren’t too keen on you ‘Exit’. And it might seem obvious and easily attainable to you, but Exit isn’t just the physical type of exit.”

“I know, I know, you were locked in. Prog-virus ‘n all that. I still remember the dinner time conversations Dad.”

“Your Mother always hated me using ‘prog-virus’.”

“Well, she still is a hypochondriac.” Toby quips grinning.

David briefly chuckles, before taking a few quick gulps of his pint. The bands string banalities still mildly filling the airwaves. There’s a brief moment of silence.

“Anyway, back to the evolution thing.” Toby says inquiringly “We have come a long way since, you know…the ‘survival’ days.”

“Ha. Have we? I mean Earth is 4.5 billion years old and humans have inhabited it for what, like, 200,000 years, which is way less than 1 percent of its lifetime…way less.”

OK your point be-

“And of those 200,000 years we only have record of 5000. And of that 5000 years anyone with a little time and patience can see the underlying patterns haven’t changed. Yes, we have all this new technology etc. the intent of which is to make life easier, but behind all that is still the same old human needs, the same old humans, who, if don’t get what they need get aggressive.”

“But you told me that you learnt evolution at school? And with your schools it was the same curriculum for everyone, right?”

“Indeed we all took the same classes and lessons, read from the same textbooks. But in that time it was taught in an odd manner, when you were given this shabby textbook, which had already clearly been used for years, you began to form this idea of obsolescence. As if what we were learning was more history that universal fact. It didn’t helped that psychology and sociology were massively popular at the time.”

“Wait wh-”

“Sorry, yes I know, they both have their merits. My point being they were…advertised, or broadcast in such a way as to be superior, as if one could outsmart evolution with them. In fact, it was a little of that, but in reality we just seemed to ignore this…this elephant in the room.”

“Was it really that bad though?”

“Of course not, not then it wasn’t…but now looking back. Back then of course everyone wanted to ignore this elephant because it was the age of utopia! Of everyone holding hands and getting along all of sudden. Despite years of differences.”

“I kind of understand. How come that ignorance had such a bad effect near the end then?”

“Because if you don’t build your foundations for all that’s not cumulative on something factual, then you risk losing them all together.”

“You’ve lost me…”

“Ethics, politics, society…communities, all these lovely constructs, contracts if you like. If these are not built on the fact of difference, of variation, of our needs, then there’ll come a time when they down-right fail. They still teach not to build your house on sand, surely?”

“Ha, our system still loves it’s parables before assemblies. And don’t call me Shirley.”

David quickly put down his pint and laughed. “At least I taught you good taste in film.”

“You still think the sequels better?”

“Indeed I do…mostly for the bridge scene. One of the few times a comedy caught me off guard.”

“Has there been a pure-comedy to top Airplane!?”

“Maybe Withnail & I, or Office Space.”

The chuckles settle into a silence between them, whilst the folk music continues. Henry, the barman, brings them two more drinks.

“Cheers Henry.”

“Thank you.” Toby says shyly.

 

III

 

Toby takes a sip of his drinking, realising it’s a whisky and coke. “Thought he might do that.” David says upon noticing Toby’s expression. “Henry’s an old friend, don’t worry.”

“Couldn’t he get it trouble?” Toby whispers.

“Yes. So keep quiet.” David says sternly.

“Will do. So where were we?”

“Comedy films I think.”

“No, before that?”

“Human…needs.”

“Ah yea. I still thi-”

“I remember you saying you didn’t like talking about this kind of stuff?”

“I guess there’s nothing like nostalgia.”

“It does remind me of home I must admit. Your Mother’s face when I used to read the newspapers and grind my teeth.”

All the News That’s Fit to Print.”

“Don’t, I’ve already visited the dentist once this month.”

Toby laughs. “So, yes. Human needs.”

“What about them?”

“Well, OK, even if all of what you’re saying about evolution is true, and that our basic kind of need is survival type thing.”

“Yes…”

“Well, isn’t that a bit of a miserable life? Like, our entire existence is controlled by needing security or wanting to survive. I mean, what of happiness or health?”

David hastily sits his pint on the bar. “Happiness, well there’s a callback I didn’t think I’d hear tonight. God, the ambiguity of it all.”

“What’s wrong with happiness, you know Dad…being happy is quite nice, you should try it some time.”

“Very funny boy. Nothing is wrong with happiness, well at least not now, once it’s understood. But truthfully, the way I see it, if you want a fulfilling life, or at least a life in which fulfilment is possible, happiness has to come second…or third, it cannot be your first priority basically.”

“Eh, OK, I really don’t get this one.”

“Once again Toby, I’ve been there, it was an odd time. When I was younger it was seriously like living in this weird malaise.” Toby releases a large sigh. “When I was younger, well, more in my teens, everything was about happiness, and I mean everything. But it wasn’t the same as the happiness of seeing your kid grow up” Toby smiles and looks to the floor “or finishing some large project, you know that kind of happiness, that’s of real substance, right?”

“Sure, like when we built the shed in the garden? I was like 8 I think…”

“Exactly that, but you still remember it. The happiness of my youth, the one they sold us day-in day-out via any medium they could…as a way of control, now that happiness was toxic. It was just vacant. Go on holiday, eat some ice cream, watch some TV…you know, binge a fucking TV show…that was our example of happiness.”

“I mean, those things are a little dumb sure, but what’s wrong with ‘em?”

“Nothing…in moderation, I guess. The problem lies in their accessibility, everything was so easily attainable. Happiness was this easy thing, and the problem with that as a goal, or a criteria for a meaningful life, is that most people don’t really question it.”

“Why not?”

“Why would you? All humans have that unchangeable existential dread in them and it’s not nice, we all know that, so why would you question the thing, in this case ‘happiness’ which gets rid of that dread? Especially when happiness is so hedonistic and fun as well.”

“So then…why didn’t people?”

“Because that was the seen, well…subconsciously seen, as the end. The end-game of progress is happiness.”

“So what’s wrong with it then? I mean if it’s the end?”

“Because that entire fucking belief system was wrong son, this is what I was always trying to get through to you before I left. That belief, that belief in progress was…is just a delusion, a blindfold that gets tighter and tighter with each and every fact that comes to try tear it off. The problem is all these facts, all our human needs that are outside of the blindfold don’t change, cannot change, even if what’s behind the blindfold has.”

“Christ, OK. I got it, try not to be happy.”

“That’s not what I mean. I mean there’s always more to it. If something is fun, easy, cheap and in abundance it’s either bad for you, or a method of control.”

“Alright…Chomsky.”

“Hey…you know full-well I’m not Chomsky!”

“Why’s that?

“…because you’re not asleep.”

Toby laughs into his drink “True, you haven’t turned into a mumbly old fart just yet.”

“Yet…”

“So, back then, you weren’t happy, you know…when you were younger?”

“Sure I was, well, maybe content is a better word for it. That’s how I felt everyone was, content. Content with every-fucking-thing, however bad or transparently shitty and deceptive it was.”

“Shitty and deceptive?”

“The politicians. The worst part wasn’t that they lied. It’s the fact it was clear from the start and no one really questioned it.”

“Really?”

“I mean sure, it was in the newspapers if they had lied, but the problem was it was so fucking common that it became part of politics. I’d hear people say they voted for a certain party because they ‘lied the least’.”

“So how did that all end?”

“It didn’t. It evolved, it changed, just like everything is.”

“Into what?”

“Oddly enough, promises.”

“Promises?”

“Indeed kiddo, promises. What should be the backbone of any system, not promises in themselves, but kept-promises are of the utmost importance.”

“I feel like I’m from a different planet right now to be honest.”

“And I feel like I came from one…”

“Well, feel free to talk about this planet some more.”

“I’m glad I can talk about it as a part of the past. You’ve got it real good now kid. You don’t even really have to listen to ‘promises’ any more because, well, there’s no such thing. What used to be a promise is now an action, and it’s undertaken prior to you even being part of wherever it is you live. But back then, a politician would promise something and it just wouldn’t happen.”

“Sounds a bit like a Kafka novel.”

“It was! – and you finally got around to Kafka.”

“Yea, and frustratingly I agree with what you told me when I was 17.”

“I don’t recall.”

“You said: ‘The first time anyone reads Kafka they wished they’d read him sooner.’”

“Still true.”

“Indulge me in this Kafka-world then…”

“So yeah, as I said promises were, well, meaningless. I’ll give a good example. You go to a coffee shop and ask for a coffee, what do you expect?”

“A coffee.”

“Sure, but notice I said expect. The same applies for, well, pretty much any form of business. Say you went to that same coffee shop and they just didn’t give you a coffee, or it was pretty shit, what’d you do?”

“Go somewhere else.”

“You get ‘Exit’ yet?

“Just about.”

“Good. Well my point would be, a shit coffee, or a badly fitted window, or a late bus…all these things are harmless. But they’re also all a strange kind of unspoken promise, right?”

“Yeah, sure.”

“So what happens when you put your literal human…animal needs in the hands of someone else; you know needs like water, food, survival…security, and then they don’t fulfil them?”

“I guess there’s not much you can do.”

“Not when that’s the only system, and one that many people don’t know they’re ever in, no. You’re in the – bear with me – physical fucking embodiment of a social contract, one that’s supposed to keep you alive, and not only are those promising you security etc. not meeting your needs, but also, they’re apathetic to external factors that are actually anti your needs!”

“Damn.”

“Yeah.” David slowly sips at his beer.

“Right, I gotta take a piss. We got about 2 hours before I need to leave, so hopefully we can have, a more, you know, chill conversation when I come back?”

“Ha. Maybe. You still gotta tell me your news remember.”

“I know. Right, back in a minute.”

No Driver at the Wheel

Highly recommend reading through ‘Prior Reading’ at the bottom before continuing.

 

 

No Driver at the Wheel.

 

We’re trapped in the belly of the horrible machine,

and the machine is bleeding to death

 

Godspeed You! Black Emperor, The Dead Flag Blues

A car with no driver at the wheel is very much the case for both right and left wing contemporary youth movements. With the right-wingers being sucked in and consumed by a lust for identity and individualism amongst the overwhelming progressivist pressure for all to enter into a framework of diversity, inclusion and tolerance. Whilst across the river left-wingers are willingly being absorbed into a western system of ideological language and supposed inherent moral superiority, without question of origin, evolution or history. [1]

Both of these cases however have something in common, they both lack structure. Both are too short-sighted to see beyond their immediate identity politics towards a higher goal. Neither has a programme of practicality or use beyond an ever-lasting present of which they’re fuelling. The discussion of a programme is one that many are reluctant to have, largely due to the fact that the reality of such a discussion would mean one has to exit from the comfort of meat-space’s name-calling reverberations and actually move themselves to another form of praxis.

I’m being careful here as to not signal that I find meat-space or real-physical-life synonymous with praxis, this would be a grave error. For the era of change via physical representation is long over, the viral assimilation of cyberspace into near enough every inch of day-to-day life put a stopper on physical primacy. Yet the ease of social networking, collective engagement and viral meme creation is not a move towards substance. In fact the general rate at which cyberspace moves often imposes fragmentary ideas. Ideas, theories and systems which are open, growing and developing one day and entirely closed, changed and even non-existent the next, a rate of movement which leaves the user lacking in commitment and attention for an underlying structure, often for fear of being made aesthetically redundant or seeming out of touch. This form of ‘social chaos’ is something mentioned in an interview with Nick Land for syntheticzero.net:

I’ve got a whole ankle-biting fraternity on Twitter now. I am not identifying you with them, let me make that clear from the start, but I think that their question is very much like yours. One element of it is age. Youngsters are highly tolerant of massive incendiary social chaos. – But I just don’t think you can make an ideology purely out of entropic social collapse, it’s not gonna fit together. It is not a sustainable, practically consistent process and, therefore, it’s a bad flag for acceleration. It produces a reaction that will win. All historical evidence seems to be that the party of chaos is suppressed by the party of order. – What I would say to these crazy youngsters now is, you don’t have a programme. What you’re advocating leads perversely to the exact opposite of what you say you want.

Nick Land, syntheticzero.net


Youngsters being “highly tolerant of massive incendiary social chaos” is of little choice to them, it is a tolerance of fatigue as opposed to excitable involvement. Various early youthful camps which have attempted to sway such a chaos only end up fanning the flames. For instance the Occupy movement was nothing more than a gasp of narcissism void of any ulterior motive other than to be anti-order, a movement who’s existence could only be made possible with such an order in place. One has to be tolerant of this chaos for fear of going mad, there’s little alternative other than to: Join a pre-existing faction that’s knee-deep in political malaise, feign ignorance or simply enter head-first into an overwhelming state of perpetual anger.

I am perceptive enough to understand I fall into the aforementioned ankle-biter fraternity, a fraternity I might add whose rhythms are getting increasingly more predictable. Multiple parties continuously attempting to hone in on the kernel of another’s thought, without the foresight to wonder of a conclusion or aim. Land – in the above quote – gestures, quite authoritatively, towards a possible aim, that of order. Of a programme which is strict in the knowledge of the underlying factor for previous young movement’s failings, namely: A programme which leaves the chaos at the door.

[1] In fact I’d be willing to go further and argue that the radical leftists that have been behind the scene for the past 20-30 years have simply fallen into a natural current, a current they believe to be epistemologically pure in its moral and social direction, a current that will eventually spew into a foaming sea and be swallowed whole along with its occupants, who, by this point are willing to be taken by any tide strong enough of persuasion via virtue. Any future the left – doubtfully – has is without both a driver and co-ordinates; entirely reliant on the infrastructural circuits, roads and pathways of external sponsors.

 


 

Leaving Chaos Behind

To watch a show such as The Brady Bunch, Happy Days or The Good Life in 2017 is to advocate for gun control amidst a firefight. This perspective however is glaringly obvious to us all in 2017, even those who grew up with such shows can now see through the kitsch smiles, upbeat intros and albeit ‘classical’ communal problems. The idyllic projections of everyday life may now seem frustratingly ignorant, yet it’s an ignorance of hope, as opposed to contemporary media’s reversal of such classical perspectives which is inherently toxic and degenerative.

The reverse of the romantic display is the bastard creation of producer and executive, a vision based on sales: The belief of what a dysfunctional family or life looks like, the depressing alcoholic, drug-addled teens, TV that mocks itself, satire so biting it lashes at those who are the purpose of its creation, TV of people watching TV. The viewer becomes clinically attached to cynicism, self-depreciation, and corrosive ‘edge’ – because these things are easy quasi-complexities, that help one to think that they’re getting it, that they’re above it.

We know The Brady Bunch doesn’t exist…couldn’t exist, but be damned sure, many of us wish they did, and many of us are trying to create such a world in which they can. Yet, to watch and consume the adverse is to inject vitality into a cynical-simulacrum; ‘That’s how it is in day to day life.’ you say, as you claw your eyes from the box as your overweight children sink further into the sofa, your hubby announces “It’s so true! It’s so true!”, the laugh track hits, hubby snorts, applause.

:the ability to interdict the question without attending to its subject is, when exercised, tyranny.”

I’m not going to direct this whole thing towards TV, that’d be too easy, it’s only that [2]TV was one of the primary mediums which utilized irony to the terminal degree, wherein it is no longer “Sincerity, with a motive.” once the motive has been destroyed in place of pure unalloyed, shallow consumer pleasures, you’re left with an irony that will tell you exactly what you want to hear. Once the motive of irony and active cynicism is lost it is no longer a phantom-sincerity. One of the intrinsic problems of irony and those who consistently utilize it as a means of control, is their agenda of choice is extremely difficult to identify. And as irony, not just as a cultural norm, but as a signifier of intelligence and experience becomes more prevalent, what’s really being exacerbated is not just the idea that it’s impossible to mean what you say, but in fact, it’s bad to be sincere, for this would signal one has a lust for conservatism, the old ways. A heartfelt need for a programme, for a structure; a want for something…stable.

And so the viewer is left with that which they believe has fulfilled them, but they will once again need in an hour or so, and as our attention span lessens the rate at which content will be destroyed and replaced with something holding a little more micro-toxicity, taboo and contempt for its viewer will increase. As I mentioned before – sort of – answers to these overarching questions are of course difficult, yet what seems to be the true difficulty is starting to even formulate a means to their answers, a programme or structure that bears its past failings, utilizing their mess to construct at least something.

But irony’s singularly unuseful when it comes to constructing anything to replace the hypocrisies it debunks.”

Irony here is really acting as one of the primary infectious symptoms of that which is royally fucking you: progressivism, with a large side helping of postmodernism. Let us focus on the latter, for much has been said of progressivism. I wasn’t one – at first – to entirely dismiss the benefits of post-modernism, it has quite successfully deconstructed/destroyed various forms of thought which were in part restrictive or suffocative, the problem remains that the cons of postmodernism greatly outweigh the pros – see my (old) essay here for a brief rundown of PoMo’s successes, failings and general problem of existence. But what’s the problem of postmodernism with relation to creation of a programme? This lengthy metaphor from David Foster Wallace [3] addresses some of my concerns:

 

For me, the last few years of the postmodern era have seemed a bit like the way you feel when you’re in high school and your parents go on a trip, and you throw a party. You get all your friends over and throw this wild disgusting fabulous party. For a while it’s great, free and freeing, parental authority gone and overthrown, a cat’s-away-let’s-play Dionysian revel. But then time passes and the party gets louder and louder, and you run out of drugs, and nobody’s got any money for more drugs, and things get broken and spilled, and there’s cigarette burn on the couch, and you’re the host and it’s your house too, and you gradually start wishing your parents would come back and restore some fucking order in your house. It’s not a perfect analogy, but the sense I get of my generation of writers and intellectuals or whatever is that it’s 3:00 A.M. and the couch has several burn-holes and somebody’s thrown up in the umbrella stand and we’re wishing the revel would end. The postmodern founders’ patricidal work was great, but patricide produces orphans, and no amount of revelry can make up for the fact that writers my age have been literary orphans throughout our formative years. We’re kind of wishing some parents would come back. And of course we’re uneasy about the fact that we wish they’d come back–I mean, what’s wrong with us? Are we total pussies? Is there something about authority and limits we actually need? And then the uneasiest feeling of all, as we start gradually to realize that parents in fact aren’t ever coming back–which means we’re going to have to be the parents.” – David Foster Wallace

 

Foster Wallace here was largely addressing artistic culture, or ‘liberal arts’ culture as he often called it, I’d like to stretch this metaphor to the present day and allow it to help us understand the problem of this programme. The chaos mentioned early on by Land is the party, which it seems we are currently beginning to tire of, the rate at which information is moving and memes – not just in the traditional image based sense – are flowing is reaching its limit, at least within the current systems of control, we’re at a point in which the ‘fresh takes’, ‘new memes’ or ‘hot articles’ come across as hastily sketched blueprints. We’ve seen this all before and as such we’re simply given more as a means of fulfilment as opposed to something of actual quality. And as fun as all of this has been, and as much as I’d quite like to do this again some time in the very distant future (for an allocated amount of time with parental supervision), right now I need some sleep, and I need to check my diary – and bank account – and remember where I was at, the revelling has taken too much of a toll on my house, a house which I’m only just realising the amount of effort that went into its construction, and if this house falls we’re all royally fucked. Some of the party dwellers think we should never speak to the postmodernists again and the house should be stripped of all their additions – some of which others think are actually beneficial. But wait, our parents aren’t coming back…ever, it is our duty to tell these postmodern fuckers to leave. But they won’t, so a few us retreat to a quiet room, where we make sure to never give in to postmodern revelling, we begin a micro-society or programme that focuses on life before the party mixed with contemporary technology.

 

[2] In fact TV hasn’t helped at all in the push of identity within political fringe groups: “For 360 minutes per diem, we receive unconscious reinforcement of the deep thesis that the most significant quality of truly alive persons is watchableness, and that genuine human worth is not just identical with but rooted in the phenomenon of watching.” – David Foster Wallace, E Unibus Pluram

[3] As I’ve put a large amount of David Foster Wallace references in this piece I would like to clarify a common miss-reading of his work, especially as I’m talking about irony a lot here, DFW is by no means a postmodernist, the man knew the workings and failings of PoMo fiction better than anyone. Some like to state he’s a meta-modernist, or post-irony, or new-sincerity etc. some piece of highfalutin for what we once called sincerity.

 


 

Taking the Wheel

This brings me to the abrupt end of this piece. That of gaining a programme. Or at least, in part beginning very early formations of what a programme may entail at this juncture, whether it’s too late, too early, or we’re simply too deep into the chasm of labyrinthine malaise that any programme at this point would only be a heavy manifesto in-favour of whatever other programme assimilates our minds that week. It should come as no surprise that the end of this would be a matter of pushing for coherent structures. Structures and programmes based of complex research, historical documentation and rigorous routine – hopefully. Taking the wheel of a driverless car may seem like a larger task than it actually is. You may worry that to ‘take the wheel’ is to be in the care of the other passengers; fear not, for if they don’t like your driving there’s always the option to pull over and let them out, another car will come along soon. You may ‘take the wheel’ and realise you have no map, or that no one wants to head in your direction. But let’s make one thing clear: The person who is too scared to take the wheel of a car without a driver, shouldn’t be angry nor surprised when they plummet off a cliff. So, how does one go about undoing their back-seat belt, climbing the seats and safely strapping themselves in for the ride ahead:

First – and in my mind foremost – within this new programme is sincerity of voice. To build another movement off the laughing stock of any other, is to build on sand. As fun and rebellious as Kekistan, /pol/ or calling others silly names may seem, it achieves nothing in the long run. This system of irony in which the majority are deep within eludes its users at every turn. Users of irony emit quasi-experience and seriousness via their cynicism, each and every ironic quip can better the next, for there exists no hierarchy in a world that takes nothing seriously.

Secondly, restoration of natural human enquiry: To pursue scientific endeavours and invent without restraint, to shop around between sovereignties, jurisdictions and ideologies, to engage in industrial and commercial activity with minimal state intervention.

Thirdly, fixation on the definite possibility of free exit:

“We believe that giving primacy to the right to choose one’s social contract, including creating a new one, cuts through the unresolvable tangles of determining exactly what universal human rights are and what type of society is just. As long as people voluntarily join groups, and can voluntarily leave, we have neither the right nor the need to judge the details of how those groups organize themselves and define their rights. We seek neither the right to dictate how other people should live, nor for the burden of figuring out how to make utopia, but only that each of us may live as we see fit.” – The One Universal Human Right

Fourthly, a return to dignity without hierarchic nostalgia. The roots of conservatism intend to drag from the past small, applicable, practical parcels of data which will benefit the present, yet, with them come traditions, aesthetics and ideas of old. The contemporary lusting over the ‘classical’ is a pitifully transparent gesture as best, and pathetically short-sighted at worst. One can return – in a sense – to these forms of behaviour, activity and inquiry without attending to their repetitive output.

Fifthly, attending to your own routines. Understanding something that a vast amount of the left doesn’t: No system (at least currently, or pre-singularity) is going to sort your life out. It will, may or should give/attend to the tools necessary for communal and personal success, whether or not one makes the decision and effort to take up those tools and master them is their choice. No system, at least not one I’d ever want to be part of (remember choice & exit), is going to get you out of bed everyday, provide adequate nutrients via feeding tube or make sure your laces are tied, and be sure to be wary of one that promises such things. Attending to yourself is inclusive of attending to ones own personal well-being, once more, a state, system or structure may allow for the means to ‘get better’, whether or not you or another wants to get better is personal choice; a choice that should remain strictly outside the public sphere.

1. Leave irony and cynicism at the door.

2. Allow for maximum human enquiry.

3. Exit as first priority.

4. Rhizomatic conservatism.

5. Don’t be pathetic.

 

 

Non-mandatory prior reading/viewing:

The Dark EnlightenmentNick Land

Patchwork Mencius Moldmug

E Unibus PluramDavid Foster Wallace

David Foster Wallace – The Problem With Irony

Between Irony and Sincerity – MN

Internet as Gutenberg 2.0

Utilizing the London Bridge terrorist attack (June 3rd, 2017) lead Theresa May to proposition for net regulation, a transparent scapegoat to push a regressive and potentially catastrophic call. The cracks are beginning to widen within archaic organizational forms, largely within democratic hierarchical institutions such as the UK government. Their eyes anxious in the face of political obsolescence, watching with fear as the – in their opinion – intolerable decentralized chimera that is the internet (cyberspace) exponentially grows and mutates within their supposedly air-tight system. Clawing at the last flecks of a systematic reverberation ready to break free. Unable to efficiently mould a tool they once thought would be a footnote in technological history into their antiquated party. Of course those who actually know understood May’s plan for regulation was absurd.

Even to the most amateurishly tech-literate May’s call was ludicrous and short-sighted. With a vast amount if not the majority of businesses, institutions (inclusive of State), educational facilities and personal computers using open source software, alongside a call to ban end-to-end encryption, that which keeps all manner of personal files safe would then be at the whim of any bored hacker. In short her call to make cyberspace cybersafe would in fact act in the opposite direction. The Conservatives currently bearing the 15th century Catholic torch only too awake one morning to find someone has hard-coded a theses into No 10’s door.

Something incomprehensibly large is at stake here, an event of which the only comparison resides with the invention and widespread utilization of the Gutenberg press, or printing press – the wide or wider assimilation and decentralization of the internet, cyberspace and networking (with a strong emphasis currently on the Blockchain) into society and general day-to-day life; pervasive technology at its most viral.  This motion or acceleration in its entirety could come to a country-wide not worldwide halt if net-regulation was to pass, transforming the UK into a closed network, a form of network which is incompatible with the future. Net-regulation acting historically as the Pope not banning the printing press per-say, only restricting its usage to a central body. Though by their very nature both the printing press and the internet are destined for decentralization, it is either to destroy them entirely or let them: ‘Do what thou wilt’.

“In the age of information sciences the most valuable asset is knowledge, which is a creation of human imagination and creativity. We were among the last to comprehend this truth and we will be paying for this oversight for many years to come.” – Gorbachev, George Gilder, Economic Education Bulletin, 1991

Fortunately due to the ever-increasing concentration on popularity in politics the chances of UK based net-regulation are now slim (though we do already have the Snooper’s Charter). Ironically the drop in Tory favourability is in large part due to Labour’s understanding and utilization of social media and memery in the recent election.

In short net-regulation would allow the Government – via control of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) – to regulate/control/authorize what it is the population is allowed to see, learn, watch and use. Basically the call for a severing off from the internet into a state-controlled micro-net, away from one of the last truly free ‘spaces’. Away from an internet free of state jurisdiction, kept from an immediate personal freedom the likes of which haven’t been seen since the advent of the printing press.

“It cannot survive without a captive media and educational system, which the Internet will route around. Also, its financial system is a mess and could collapse at any minute. The whole thing will be lucky if it lasts another ten years.” – UR

EFFECTS OF GUTENBERG 1.0

“He who first shortened the labor of copyists by device of movable types was disbanding hired armies, and cashiering most kings and senates, and creating a whole new democratic world: he had invented the art of printing.” – Sartor Resartus, Thomas Carlyle.

The Gutenberg press invented in the 15th century by Johannes Gutenberg is the reason you have widely available books, the reason – to an extent – you know what you know: religious texts, school textbooks, political manifestos all owe their popularity to abundance, a feat only achievable via a printing press…in some ways it’s the reason you’re reading this – the ever growing need for literary mobilization and accessibility. (Of course a lot of what you know has its inherent footing in multiple factors: tradition, family, birthplace etc. yet one can clearly see that without the press widespread literacy and ideas wouldn’t hold anywhere near the kind of depth it currently does.). And in many ways the printing press was the second largest factor in the Protestant Reformation which effected your life in an unparalleled manner.

One must however look at the pre-Gutenberg dilemmas/restrictions to truly understand its impact. A time in which texts were written by hand by copyists and scribes, meaning only a few copies of singular texts were ever produced sky-rocketing their value and thus creating a clear divide between those who could afford to be literate (the elite) and those who could not (the serfs). The serfs thus becoming reliant on a travelling scholar or mere tradition for their education which in itself holds inherent restrictive factors.

The key problem with remaining reliant of a single source as a means for knowledge/education is – of course – that your world-view is entirely bias and somewhat controlled by what the elites entitle you to know. A claustrophobic system of knowledge in which what you ‘know’ is moulded by what you’re allowed to know – one can see clear parallels here with the proposed net-regulation. A distinct system of oppression via reduction of a means to understand one’s cage, or that one is even in a cage. In relation to free speech “It is not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and hear” (Hitch). Yet with reference to our literary travelling scholars herein lies an inherent flaw, for if one is only given one person to listen to, or a single collective, or a centralized controlled mass of outlets, then the right to listen is merely an illusion of freedom. (Think the difference between BBC, ITV and C4.). This is exactly where your freedoms lie under net-regulation. One can imagine paying a monthly fee for a ‘News Package’ for the internet, or perhaps a higher monthly fee for the ‘Advanced News Package’ etc. etc., yet at their root each package is to go through a form of vetoing process anyway so what you receive need not matter. To receive only what another wants you to receive.

‘If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.’ – Thomas Pynchon

I digress. Prior to the printing press the production of a text was a laborious process. As such ‘events’ such as book-burnings could truly be held as a means to control the flow of specific information, or the movement of a society of religion. Generally speaking scribes and copyists were of religious affiliation and were already under a form of print-regulation themselves, with what it was they were copying/transcribing undergoing strict authorization from the Catholic church, and as such an echo-chamber is created in which only the smallest of leaps are to be made, more than likely via the most minor of alterations to the text. So to invent the printing press was to increase literacy amongst the general public, an entire system of knowledge no longer restricted by capital gain.

“Scholars have long recognized the essential role of the press in spreading Protestant doctrine. Luther himself, in fact, claimed that the invention of printing was a gift from God to reform His church. But Eisenstein argues that print did more than spread the Protestant Reformation: in an important sense, print caused the Reformation. Without access to the printed editions of biblical texts and church fathers, and the worrisome variants on crucial dogmatic issues they contain, Luther might never have been stimulated to develop his revolutionary new theology. And without accessibility to print, Luther might never have spread his ideas not only in the Latin of the scholarly community but also in the vernacular German of the lay community.” – Robert Kingdon, “Review of The Printing Press as an Agent of Change”, Library Quarterly (1980)

It is a mystery to me how my theses, more so than my other writings,. . . were spread to so many places. They were meant exclusively for our academic circle here. . . . They were written in such a language that the common people could hardly understand them.” – Luther addressing the Pope.

The single most drastic and everlasting effect of the advent of the printing press was its utilization by Protestant Reformers in the creation and dispersion of pamphlets (Theses) which in turn pushed towards the Reformation. Which in itself has far, far wider implications than those immediatly apparent in the 16th century.

Protestantism sealed a pact with historical destiny – to all appearances defining a specifically modern global teleology – by consistently winning. Individualization of conscience – atomization – was made fate.

When considered as rigid designations, Atomization, Protestantism, Capitalism, and Modernity name exactly the same thing.

Protestantism is a self-propelling machine for incomprehensibly prolonged social disintegration, and everyone knows it.” – Nick Land, The Atomization Trap

I’ve used Land’s piece quite crassly here I have to admit, but to understate the effect of the Reformation and in turn Protestantism on contemporary society would be a grave error. As Land states: “When considered as rigid designations, Atomization, Protestantism, Capitalism, and Modernity name exactly the same thing.” so the advent of the printing press has a lot to answer for, but quite bluntly the Gutenberg Press is the catalyst for modern Democracy as we know it. The vessel which unknowingly sailed swiftly away from any & all forms of socio-political hierarchy and centralization, hierarchal structures which the certain parties often find themselves stuck within. Yet the effects of the press were not seen until 100s of years after its implementation and as such one feels as if we’re still in the wake of Gutenberg’s mutation. There exist here – in terms of the press acting as catalyst – few parallels with the internet, at least those specifically related to inherent technology. For the internet is tech-in-itself, as opposed to the press which is reliant on that which it produces and isn’t inclusive of built-in networking capabilities. The press can only become a ‘faster-horse’, it cannot transform or innovate into an engine.

INTERNET AS GUTENBERG 2.0

In 2016, 85 % of European households had access to the internet from home, as for the world see here. To ignore the prevalence of the internet is to ignore that which will be at the forefront – or more than likely will be the forefront – of the next ‘era’ of human history – in whatever multiple changing forms it holds throughout. It has assimilated into every business, official body, Government program and economic counterpart, alongside its central role in popular society (social media, smartphones, smart-TVs, etc.) It is an accelerative force within itself, growing and evolving each day, at an uncontrollable rate. Therein lies a problem for retrograde forms of government, those who want the state to remain separate from the internet. For a state to say they want to remain separate, or create a separate centralized, nation-based internet is for that state to admit that they do not understand the internet, either you have none, or you have all (and free). One could argue here that North Korea have managed to control their internet output in relation to their public, I would reply by arguing that they’re finding it difficult to control their electricity and as such I can’t imagine the percentage of North Koreans on the internet is vast.

As we’ve seen from history, the single revolutionary theses isn’t the problem (one can burn a single theses in minutes), it is the Internet’s networking (we’ll get onto networks later) ability to spread a single piece of ‘dangerous’ information quickly and efficiently, and once it’s ‘out-there’ it is near uncontrollable. The State’s attempts beyond net-publication become fruitless, for to capture, segregate or ‘ban’ the publisher is only to acknowledge that there’s something ‘out-there’ they don’t like, which urges one all the more to read it.

ACCESSIBILITY AND COST

The statistics I’ve previously linked show the rate at which in the internet is growing/expanding…is accelerating. With access to the internet becoming close to a human right (see Web Junkies for the adverse effects of this). It’s in our homes, our libraries, our schools, our jobs, our pockets etc. there is no getting away from it. In fact those who are ‘away’ from the internet nowadays often do so in a moment of Walden or McCandless-esque romanticism, as if to be away from the net is in itself some feat, like climbing Everest, or running a marathon or…deleting Facebook. Not only this but in terms of affordability there is little competition when it comes to a course of pure knowledge/entertainment, one can buy a used PC for under £100 and subscribe to a monthly line rental for less than £10 per month. One could in fact go as far as to buy a Raspberry Pi, connecting them to the net for under £100. All of this is ignoring Smartphones of course, which are slowly becoming the vast majority’s primary means of networking and communication, allowing for the ability of instantaneous updates whilst mobile. This accessibility allows for the general population – those who’ve become largely disillusioned with their Government – to be at the forefront of not a revolution but a transition:

“Revolutions are relative; if you get mugged by change, it is a revolution. If you were prepared for, or ably adapted to, the change, you may be able to call it a transition.” – Is it a transition or a revolution? – Carl H Builder.

It is of course very unlikely that just by the vast amount of accessibility, smartphones etc. that the population are adapted for a full transition. There is always the possibility of a dark-transition, in which access becomes control, those locked into a pre-monitored social system – especially one under the already passed Snooper’s Charter – are submitting prior to any technological-Reformation, they are complicit with changes either way, whether that be the emancipation of the left, or the authoritative AI control of the right.

SHORT CRYPTO HISTORY & THE BLOCKCHAIN

Before beginning any extensive extrapolation into what networks are I feel the need to ‘briefly’ explain cryptocurrency and the Blockchain, as it will be of the utmost importance in the network section, those of you already familiar with the technology feel free to skip to ‘NETWORK’, seriously, it’s dry.

In late 2008 Satoshi Nakamoto, the unknown inventor of the now very well known currency Bitcoin, announced he had developed a “Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”, the idea of ‘digital cash’ had been around for a while, but up until Nakamoto’s development, no on had been able to create such a thing, at least not a system which avoided the ‘double-spend problem; (I’ll get to that) The most important aspect of Nakamoto’s invention however is not it being ‘cash’ but the fact it is decentralized.

Centralized systems usually have something along the lines of a central server, team, ‘bank’ or middle man to take account of all transactions, accounts and transfers etc. which in turn prevents double-spending (A given set of coins is spent in more than one transaction). This server could then be referred to if disagreements amongst users or within payments came up, the task was to create a system in which this central entity – in this case a server – wasn’t/isn’t needed. If one is to take this idea further however they realise the drastic real-world implementation, a state, economy or world without banks or state affiliated third parties, an economy in which each Blockchain is entirely its own.

So how does this work? Well money, generally, is basically a system of verification: Data-entries, numbers on a screen, proof of transaction, digits within an account etc. So, how do the databases of a cryptocurrency work?

There is a network of peers (Peer-to-peer), every peer on that network has the entire history of every single transaction on that network, and as such, the balance of every account.

Transactions

Meta gives X Bitcoin to Tim; transaction is signed by Meta’s private key; the transaction is broadcast network-wide; the transaction becomes confirmed. This confirmation is key, confirmation means the transaction is set-in-stone and becomes an irremovable part of the Blockchain (which I’ll get to). Miners confirm these transactions: Miners make it clear these transactions are legit, send them throughout the network, and help make them part of the Blockchain: for doing this ‘job’, the miners get rewarded with the currency in question.

Miners

Since the network is decentralized anyone can be a miner, there is no central authority to delegate jobs/tasks. Miners use their computers, or computer’s power to find a ‘hash’ which connects the newly mined block with its predecessor. The miner’s computers are in a certain way working out a puzzle, the difficulty of this puzzle increases with time and as such limits the amount of currency that can be created in a given amount of time. Once the puzzle is figured out the miner adds the block-mined to the blockchain and is rewarded.

 

BLOCKCHAIN

Put simply: A shared collective history of all transactions on a digital network, a copy of said history is stored on each and every user’s computer (a node), the blockchain itself and all transactions are public and can be viewed by anyone.

Cryptocurrencies are cryptographically stored. They are not secured by humans, or matter, but by maths, which does-not break. I’ll add these descriptions of the Blockchain are very dry, as for their importance and potential for ‘transition’, that will be made apparent in the ‘network’ section.

To use conventional banking as an analogy, the blockchain is like a full history of banking transactions. Bitcoin transactions are entered chronologically in a blockchain just the way bank transactions are. Blocks, meanwhile, are like individual bank statements. Based on the Bitcoin protocol, the blockchain database is shared by all nodes participating in a system. The full copy of the blockchain has records of every Bitcoin transaction ever executed. It can thus provide insight about facts like how much value belonged a particular address at any point in the past. The ever-growing size of the blockchain is considered by some to be a problem due to issues like storage and synchronization. On an average, every 10 minutes, a new block is appended to the block chain through mining. – Investopedia

By design, the blockchain is a decentralized technology. Anything that happens on it is a function of the network as a whole. Some important implications stem from this. By creating a new way to verify transactions aspects of traditional commerce could become unnecessary. Stock market trades become almost simultaneous on the blockchain, for instance — or it could make types of record keeping, like a land registry, fully public. And decentralization is already a reality. A global network of computers uses blockchain technology to jointly manage the database that records Bitcoin transactions. That is, Bitcoin is managed by its network, and not any one central authority. Decentralization means the network operates on a user-to-user (or peer-to-peer) basis. The forms of mass collaboration this makes possible are just beginning to be investigated.Blockgeeks

Note the decentralized structure below.

 

NETWORKS

Let’s first take a look at the four basic forms of organizational structure:

“1. The kinship-based tribe, as denoted by the structure of extended families, clans, and

other lineage systems;

 

2. The hierarchical institution, as exemplified by the army, the (Catholic) church, and

ultimately the bureaucratic state;

 

3. The competitive-exchange market, as symbolized by merchants and traders

responding to forces of supply and demand;

 

4. And the collaborative network, as found today in the web-like ties among some

NGOs devoted to social advocacy.” – [link]

 

[link]

The four basic organizational structures T, I, M, N: “To do well in the twenty-first century, an information-age society must embrace all four forms.”

With a tribe acting as tribal or clan type structure: kinship, blood.

Institutions: classical management structures with leaders and hierarchies.

Market: Acting in this case not as capitalism but as pure ‘exchange’

Network: All-channel network where all member are connected and can communicate with each other.

 

“For democracy to occur, the framework requires not only the addition of the forms but also a feedback of the latest form, in this instance the market, into the realm of the earlier form, e.g., the state.”

 

Below the embedded tweet I’ve transcribed Naval Ravikant’s entire thread of the importance and innovation possibility of Blockchain’s with relation to markets and organizational structures in the coming future, it may seem a bit gratuitous to transcribe it in full, however, there was nothing I felt needed cutting.

1/ Blockchains will replace networks with markets.

— Naval Ravikant (@naval) June 21, 2017

“Blockchains will replace networks with markets. Humans are the networked species. The first species to network across genetic boundaries and thus seize the world. Networks allow us to cooperate when we would otherwise go it alone. And networks allocate the fruits of our cooperation. Overlapping networks create and organize our society. Physical, digital, and mental roads connecting us all. Money is a network. Religion is a network. A corporation is a network. Roads are a network. Electricity is a network…Networks must be organized according to rules. They require Rulers to enforce these rules. Against cheaters. Networks have “network effects.” Adding a new participant increases the value of the network for all existing participants. Network effects thus create a winner-take-all dynamic. The leading network tends towards becoming the only network. And the Rulers of these networks become the most powerful people in society. Some are run by kings and priests who choose what is money and law, sacred and profane. Rule is closed to outsiders and based on power. Many are run by corporations. The social network. The search network. The phone or cable network. Closed but initially meritocratic. Some are run by elites. The university network. The medical network. The banking network. Somewhat open and somewhat meritocratic. A few are run by the mob. Democracy. The Internet. The commons. Open, but not meritocratic. And very inefficient. Dictatorships are more efficient in war than democracies. The Internet and physical commons are overloaded with abuse and spam. The 20th century created a new kind of network – market networks. Open AND meritocratic. Merit in markets is determined by a commitment of resources. The resource is money, a form of frozen and trade-able time. The market networks are titans. The credit markets. The stock markets. The commodities markets. The money markets. They break nations. Market networks work where there is a commitment of money. Otherwise they are just mob networks. The applications are limited. Until now. Blockchains are a new invention that allows meritorious participants in an open network to govern without a ruler and without money. They are merit-based, tamper-proof, open, voting systems. The meritorious are those who work to advance the network. As society gives you money for giving society what it wants, blockchains give you coins for giving the network what it wants. It’s important to note that blockchains pay in their own coin, not the common (dollar) money of financial markets. Blockchains pay in coin, but the coin just tracks the work done. And different blockchains demand different work. Bitcoin pays for securing the ledger. Ethereum pays for (executing and verifying) computation. Blockchains combine the openness of democracy and the Internet with the merit of markets. To a blockchain, merit can mean security, computation, prediction, attention, bandwidth, power, storage, distribution, content… Blockchains port the market model into places where it couldn’t go before. Blockchains’ open and merit based markets can replace networks previously run by kings, corporations, aristocracies, and mobs. It’s nonsensical to have a blockchain without a coin just like it’s nonsensical to have a market without money. It’s nonsensical to have a blockchain controlled by a sovereign, a corporation, an elite, or a mob. Blockchains give us new ways to govern networks. For banking. For voting. For search. For social media. For phone and energy grids. Networks governed without kings, priests, elites, corporations and mobs. Networks governed by anyone with merit to the network. Blockchain-based market networks will replace existing networks. Slowly, then suddenly. In one thing, then in many things. Ultimately, the nation-state is just a network (of networks). FIN/ Thank you, Satoshi Nakomoto. And to all the shoulders that Satoshi stands upon.” – (originally split into multiple tweets), Naval Ravikant.

What begins now is my reading of Ravikant’s thread. To replace networks with markets is to begin the transition, to understand that with Blockchains as pure-replacements there begins a deconstruction of hierarchy, a complete removal of third party entities involved with business and transaction. Though it begins a deconstruction of hierarchy in the traditional sense it also allows for micro-states in which a single Blockchain is taken as the network. This is reminscent, but entirely opposite to Mencius Moldbug’s Patchwork:

“as the crappy governments we inherited from history are smashed, they should be replaced by a global spiderweb of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of sovereign and independent mini-countries, each governed by its own joint-stock corporation without regard to the residents’ opinions. If residents don’t like their government, they can and should move. The design is all “exit,” no “voice…A Patchwork realm is a business – a corporation. Its capital is the patch it is sovereign over.” – Patchwork1

DISCLAIMER w/regards to Patchwork: I understand, as many did not, Moldbug’s original Patchwork within the 4 parts rested completely on government control, there was ZERO room for individual constraint, so before someone comments saying I’ve bastardized Patchwork, yes, I have, but in full knowledge of what the original meant.

 

Blockwork (short/crass):

So, really, as the crappy regressive governments who failed – as Gorbachev stated –  to understand that knowledge and data are the single most valuable currency begin to crumble, they will indeed be replaced/naturally split up (via a reversion to archaic organizational structures) by mini-states, micro-nations etc., yet each one of these would have it’s own Blockchain, it is not beyond the limits of technology (as we can clearly see) to alter rules, rights, permissions etc. therefore each countries network/market = Blockchain is their basis for government.

“First, security is a monotonic desideratum. There is no such thing as “too secure.” An encryption algorithm cannot be too strong, a fence cannot be too high, a bullet cannot be too lethal…No cop ever stole my bicycle. And this will be far more true in the Patchwork, in which realms actually compete for business on the basis of customer service.” – Patchwork1

 

More than likely beginning from the classic decentralized platform in which those who reside in said micro-nation are able to view each vote as it is counted – if that’s their chosen system -, they can view government expenditure, tax expenses, etc. Of course, one could just as easily ‘exit’ to a Zuckerberg fairy-tale UBI land wherein they’re controlled by a dictator-corp, or a fully communist Blockchain wherein equal payments are paid out regularly etc. etc. you get the picture. However, with this concept of micro-nations as underlying Blockchains comes the bringing of the past into the future, for the previous organization structure layout of T,I,M,N, becomes overwhelmed, one could if there was enough people who wanted it, begin a tribal state, or a hierarchal state with a trickle-down Blockchain, or a divine-right system wherein tokens are gifted to those with certain DNA strains…the world is your decentralized oyster after all.

One could (quite easily) argue that with the inclusion of various forms of organizational states security would become but an illusion, yet, in-keeping with the original Patchwork (I’m ready for hell on this one.) the emphasis on security as customer service alongside “exit” over voice allows for those who aren’t receiving the service they feel they deserve to leave, as a meritocracy one can in all transparency view those who have and more importantly have not worked towards the profitability (if that’s the states’ aim) of the Blockchain, one can by all rights move (exit) to a state in which their Blockchain is working, or distributed agreeably to their tastes whether that is an agenda based around: Commerce, tech-innovation, acceleration, monarchy, entertainment, energy etc. if they feel that their current states’ Blockchain isn’t distributing its resources effectively…they can leave, if its system of accumulation doesn’t meet their standards….they can leave. It allows those who feel a compulsion for ‘return’ to do so, and those who feel compelled to accelerate to do so, allowing T, I, M, N to all exist freely, together, or not at all atop a horizontal decentralized -at first – Blockchain.

 

 

I digressed…hard. The conclusion(?) will be somewhat of a ramble, I’m not sure I can piece this mess together. Though, in terms of the Gutenberg press, which is where started remember? The internet is its 2nd iteration, not physically of course, merely in terms of its accumlative effects, many of which – I hope – I’ve listed here. It’s world-wide pervasive assimilation can’t come fast enough, for it shall throw us far beyond where we ever thought we’d end up, much like in the 16th century. Those who attempt at net-regulation/control will be severing the artery of the future, with the potential for a full scale national fatality if they don’t heal the wound. Those adhering to hierarchal restrictions are free to do so – once it all comes down – yet it’s more applicable they do so within a micro-state. If you disagree with a top down hierarchal structure – the structures that work by the way- then you are free to exit, head off to grey-shirt Soylent-ville, you are free to do this. You’ll feel cheated when you’re stood in a (soylent) bread line, and the other’s stand out like a Jackson Pollock abstract hanging in Plato’s Academy.

 

 

Election 2017, Great Britain: The Grey Whig-ged Vampire

We’re becoming redundant.

This will be the first few years of the beginning of Britain’s farewell as a global ‘power’, neither of the clear choices in this election, namely: Theresa May (Conservatives) & Jeremy Corbyn (Labour), are actually innovative in the political sense, neither of them seem to be interested in technological-progression or ‘demanding’ more, they both adhere to the general public’s love of a miserable form of British stasis; Britain is completely stuck between 1960 and 2000, not much that we have now, wasn’t possible then, yet, going by the exponential possibilites of advancement within various fields, we should, in theory and often in practice (Shanghai/Dubai) be making progress. I’m neither pushing the left of right, or unconditional wing of any certain ideology here, only that the possibilties are there, yet no one dare mention them in fear of leaving the Britain’s comfortable temporal-Island.

Britain has in many ways become a Grey Vampire:

“Another tactic – particularly effective at wasting time and energy this one – is the claim [by grey vampires] that all they want is a few clarifications, as if they are just on the brink of being persuaded, when in fact the real aim is to lure you into the swamp of sceptical inertia and mild depression in which they languish.

“But what differentiates the Greys from other kinds of vampires is the disavowed nature of the feeding. Grey Vampires don’t feed on energy directly, they feed on obstructing projects. The problem is that, often, they don’t know that they are doing this.”

“…once their shield of sociability and charm falls away, they become revealed as horribly, tragically cursed, existentially blighted. But the Grey Vampire is also a subject position that (any)one can be lured into if you enter certain structures.”

It may be a bit of a stretch to apply the concept of a Grey Vampire to an entire country, political system or government, yet that’s how one feels, as if Britain is sucking its general public into a cataclysmic-bore, a hole that has no bottom nor any falling, it’s there and that’s about all there is to it. The ability for Britain’s political system to act as a banal-loop of comfort; you have to ‘have bad for the good’ they say, the problem with this is that those who go from the ‘bad’ to the ‘good’ could merely exist in a nightmarish game of back and forth between zero-change.

Praxis: A back and forth between Labour and Conservative – both of which adhering to their follower’s expected blueprint-esque morality systems -, with both sides feeling a glow of relief as the other takes the reins for another 3-4 terms…and then back, the swing of a monotone pendulum ,a pure political-linearity in which those who publically exist on the line as ‘subjects’ of the state are born into knowing no other alternative, taught from birth that the past was mostly horrible, or only acted as a means of progression for the current/the modern, and those systems of the past were regressive, backwards – cannot be changed (now)? – and that where we’re at now is the best possibility, once again, we come back to the fact that Whig history is the given position from birth for most western countries and their citizens.

Launching off from inherented whig history however we find a current problem: within Britain and Britain’s education system: yes, the past is given as a form of ‘bad’, yet the future is rarely discussed publicly, it’s that which is out-of-reach and exists only within a World of Tomorrow dream, to demand automation as the East is beginning to would be a form of political suicide and would begin to swing the dreary-pendulum back the other way, thus, for either party to move towards either direction on their already suffocating linearity is the possibility and inevitabilty of changing hands once again – with those on the fringes (Liberal Democrats) acting only as a quasi-potential for actual change.

One should address the other ‘alternatives’ here. One could of course spoil their ballot, this is an option, it’s an option which for the unforseeable future will do very little due to the education systems control over the populous, unless there is drastic action taken in some sense towards the government, the amount of spoiled ballots will not rise above 5%. You could also ‘Not vote’ of course, there’s that.

You could also leave the country, go somewhere that doesn’t just take a linear form of their own history into account, but actually takes the actual future into account, one filled with possibilites and systematic progression, one with working sense-organs.

 

What is #Rhetttwitter?

The elusive hashtag #rhetttwitter or sometimes capitalized as #Rhetttwitter has been found amongst many conversations on Twitter within the past few months, often being produced from a group of accounts all of whom share somewhat similar interests. A strange, absurd, techno-Lovecraftian feeling emerges when one journeys down the rabbit-hole of rhett.

Even in its beginnings it seems #rhetttwitter remained unbound within the constraints of the internet, so much so that it even eludes the “Who Said it First” Twitter search engine, with results returning its first usage as sometime in May 2017, when in fact, if one is to spend the time scrolling through its implementation on Twitter, they’ll find this is the oldest remnant of rhett:

A tweet containing what seem to be the 3 primary collaborators of rhett: @liquimountain, @cockydoody and @badguytheory. This original tweet also contains some of the key components of #rhetttwitter, – that is, if such a structure could ever be created – notably: The Work & memes of the scientist Rhett Allain, National Bolshevism and political-memes. Other key features of #rhetttwitter include: The work of philosopher Nick Land (@Outsideness), the work of CCRU, Accelerationism (predominantly U/ACC), 🅱️, Marxism, K-death, tics, Deleuze & Guattari, annihiliation, Capitalism, cybernetics, AI, and more.

 

The question “What is #rhetttwitter?” has been asked before, here are the answers thus far:

/////

The Black hand of futurity.

The DELL delivery team: Deterritorialising, Emergent havoc, Landian,  Looping time.

The Other World.

Really Horny Excitable Theory Thots

NOT a bunch of neofascist, pretentious Deleuzians.

A posse of Landians.

Some computer anarchist thing?

Is actively working to break the Mind/Machine barrier in cooperation Musk who is paying to live on as a meme

A bunch of esoteric accelerationists.

Ideological weightlessness while moving upward.

The third and fourth incarnation of weaponized memes.

Originally a customer service department for United Airlines (went rogue).

Bunch of cool people who believe in unconditional Accelerationism.

Accelerationist transhumanists

NOT a cult

Is ☭ a Duginist ☭ SWP ☭ front

Folks who read esoteric philosophy and make jokes about it.

Is a Duginist pysop.

/////

 

Rhetttwitter can be one and many and all of these things, some at once, or all at once, at none at once and not at all. Meaning has expired and they’re unconditionally accelerating, with the only the possibility of end being complete demise and destruction. All efforts are stupid and yet ironic. If Gilles Deleuze is L/Acc and Nick Land is R/Acc then Rhetttwitter is U/Acc, what’s U/Acc? what’s U/Acc? What is U/Acc? U?ACC

Against all this the unconditional accelerationist celebrates and intensifies the fire of modernity as a whole: both the flows of capital that compress the world ever tighter in a liquid despotism of the machine that is remodelling and resequencing humanity, and the flows of social cybernetics that are overwhelming political institutions, turning despite themselves towards terminal delirium.” – Vincent Garton.

At all turns and dives Rhetttwitter acts rhizomatic and removes itself from any form of terminology or encapsulation; is acts as a form of Roko’s Basilisk, a virus, once one knows of Rhetttwitter they cannot escape, it is terminal. You may not care about rhetttwitter, but it cares about you. Or it doesn’t 

Many members, founders and slaves of #rhetttwitter search and beg for the infamous manuscript Necrophysics, a mythical collaboration between the physicist Rhett Allain and Nick Land.

Read:

/////

http://www.ccru.net/swarm1/1_melt.htm

Fanged Noumena – Nick Land

The Thirst for Annihilation – Nick Land

Anti-Oedipus – Deleuze & Guattari

A Thousand Plateaus – Deleuze & Guattari

Capital – Marx

Inventing the Future – Nick Srnicek

Urbanomic Publishers

CCRU Writings

/////

If you have to ask “What is Rhetttwitter?” you have already been infected. You’re in. Your cans of political Pepsi are now full of tic-ice-cubes, your Ligotti-esque meat-puppet strings are transferred to an self-conscious AI, all photos are filtered red, your image will slowly disintegrate; all of this is already too late of course. Enter into the vast cosmic cloud that has always loomed nearby, the techno-il y a. Any attempt to scrape the sizzled barcode off your arms is pointless, it will only grow larger. You dumb fucking memetic virus; actually, just let it go mate. or not, what?

 

 

 

 

22nd May, 2017.

 

 

 

A Micro-Zeitgeist Post of 22nd May, 2017 – (I do not agree, nor disagree with any/all of these opinions, these were merely those which struck me as important from that dreadful day.)

 

 

Link to first Tweet in thread above, whole thread in text below –

“Need to get some stuff off my chest about this attack, so bear with me.

This one feels…..different. I don’t know why or if it should but it does. Once again, innocent people are horribly maimed and murdered. Once gain, the central theme of this attack: Islamic Hatred.
Once again, a suspect “known” to police but able to freely walk the streets is able to carry out horrifying, brutal slaughter of innocent people. This time, many of them children. Many of them female children. And western feminists will either remain silent, or blame men/patriachy while ignoring the part about Islam. How long will the west fail its people, but especially its women? The Rotherham rape gangs, grooming young native British girls to be used as sex slaves. These muslims were taught that this was acceptable because western women are to be used this way. That they deserve it. That this is all they are good for. But the most heinous part is how, for some reason I can’t begin to comprehend, the govt allowed it. It failed in its primary duty to protect its citizens. It turned the other cheek and ignored every report, every desperate plea, every warning sign…all for the sake of some nebulous concept of diversity, and multiculturalism. Of tolerance, but as one-way street. They allowed uneducated, unskilled third world hordes in to their countries and never even once thought to make these invaders assimilate to their host culture. They took root, festered, and spread like a disease. Like a cancer, infecting and killing the host culture around it. And if anyone dared raise an objection, they brow-beaten, ostracized, and smacked down as “biots”, “racists”, “Islamophobes”. As if fear of Islam could somehow be irrational. Given what the west has been through. What they have experienced. What they have seen with their own eyes…their citizenry is expected to just accept this as part of daily life in the modern world, while the elites live in gated communities with private security. Not only are they expecting to live with it, they’re subtly made to feel guilty for even questioning it. Made to feel as if, to atone for the sins of their fathers of generation upon generation before them, that they DESERVE this.

And I am fucking sick of it. I’m done. I had a very hard tim sleeping last night. Worse than any of these other attacks that have recently led up to this. Maybe it’s the straw that broke the camels back, maybe its the target this time, maybe its everything, but its time to draw a line in the sand. It’s time to say “This is as far as you go. And the repercussions for your misdeeds are going to be beyond anything you could’ve imagined”. Not all muslims are terrorists. We know this. But if we’re being brutally honest, the entire islamic world is not doing enough to addres this within their own ranks. The “moderates” are simply not pulling their weight if they want to be a part of the modern world. So the “peaceful” uslims need to either get with the program, or go back to where their people come from. Because the honest truth is Islam, in its current form, is incompatible with Western Civilization. It, by and large, brings nothing of value to the table. It simply is not worth the risk to western society to allow them to coexist if they will not stand up to the radicals in their ranks. And the grovelling, simpering leftists will try to say “but…the crusades” or “but…bigotry causes this.” Unacceptable and incorrect. And to be honest, the western leftist enablers…the collaborators…who have alloed this to happen time and time and time again all while never holding Muslims to account and blaming western civilization for being the reason this happens. I absolutely, 100% mean this when I say it – you are traitors of the worst kind that history has ever seen. Your treason will not be forgotten, and at whatever the result of this is, you WILL be held accountable for it.

Until then, where do we start? It’s actually very simple:

No more unskilled, uneducated immigrants allowed entry. You have to prove your worth to be granted entrance to the west. Especially single, military aged (15-40 years old) men. Deny all entrance to that specific demographic unless they can prove they would be an invaluable contribution to society. Next, Muslims no longer receive special protection and get treated like everyone else. Held to the same standards. This means in the UK, radical islamic preaching is hate speech and you jail people for it just as easily as you would jail the 60 year old Briton for a “mean” tweet. “Islamophobia” is no longer a thing. Not an excuse to shield their bigotry. Islam will adapt to western rules, western ideals, or it will be sent back to muslim lands. One of the most effective measures that the entire continent of Europe could take would be to deny welfare/social benefits to all non-citizens. This would quickly stem the tide of econmoic migrants that bring nothing of value to European countries and leech off taxpaying Europeans. Next, all war refugees are only granted temporary asylum and will have to move back eventually if they can’t prove they would be an invaluable contribution to the western world. No more tolerance of the regressive triats of Islam. female genital mutilation, Sharia, full-veiled niqab/hijab, etc – all must be publicly denounced upon entry and violation of any will result in immediate deportation without appeal. If Islam wants to cohabitate with the west, it will bend the knee to Western Culture, or it will not be admitted. Any leftists who fight against this should be exiled as well. Our very culture is at stake here. We are under attack. we are at war. It’s time to take the gloves off and fight back /end.” – Wrongthink Warlord


” Here’s why I think the term “Islamophobia is justified – Many people who hate/fear Muslims can’t decide if it’s because they’re terrorists, rapists, freedom-haters, or pedophiles. The hysteria and catastrophizing, plus the shifting justifications (fear of terrorism vs. fear of pedophilia), suggest irrational fear. The fact that the horror and outrage is global (it’s directed as “Muslims” or “Islam”) while the details shift (terrorism vs. rape) reminds me of the visceral negative reactions people have to taboos like incest and cannibalism. We just hate and fear these things and are willing to shift justfication for those feelings the instant one is removed. None of this has any bearing whatsoever on whether Islam’s doctrines are ethical or sound. If the term “Islamophobia” is genuinely used to silence critixism of Islam (I’m a little skeptical but I’m sure it sometimes happens) then I agree that’s bad. But it’s clear to me that much of the prejudice against Muslims and Islam is more like an animal instinct that a rational critique. When you’re going on about “hordes”, “swarms” of rapist pedophile terrorist arsonist abusers, I get the impression that your objections are not based on a close reading of the Quran but something more primitive and raw. A phobia.” – ContraPoints


 

 


“friend talking about ISIS beheadin univ profs in Philippines: “will this become civil war there?”

me: “this is World War III”

WWIII began on 9/11/2001

It will probably take another 30-70 years to end.

The three conbatants are: US, PRC, Islam.

I expect at LEAST two of those combatants to be destroyed or fundamnetally restructured by the war.

So far the roles match up w WWII

Islam – Nazi Germany

US – Soviet Union

PRC – US

PRC is wisely sitting out the war. Let their two enemies soften each other us.

Just as US has an ocean to keep it safe from Hitler.

PRC has an iron fist in an also-iron glove, which can (mostly) keep it safe from domestic Islam.

US is fighting like Stalin – blinded by ideology we fight like idiots.

Him: purge officers!

Us: don’t bomb fuel tricks bc environment!

Like the Soviets, we are suffering massive (avoidable) losses becuase of out stupidity.

Stalin lost territory and lives.

So do we.

Europe is playing the role of France.

It’s rolling over, whimpering “don’t hurt me”, and giving up its J̶e̶w̶s̶ young girls.

I expect that WWIII will end like WWII did:

USA (now PRC): winning, controlling world.

USSR (now USA): #2 winner, totalitarian, terrible.

Islam: bombed into rubble, occupied, turned into PRC vassal state.

Result will be not dissimilar to the map from the Draka series.

US will control Western Hemisphere. PRC gets Africa, ME, Asia.” – ClarkHat


There’s only on way Britain should respond to attacks such as Manchester. That is by carrying on exactly as before. – The Independent


Islamic State: “Approximately 100 Crusaders Killed and Wounded by Explosive Devices Detonated in Manchester” – Jihadwatch

Britain 27 Sha’ban 1438

With Allah’s grace and support, a soldier of the Khilafah managed to place explosive devices in the midst of the gatherings of the Crusaders in the British city of Manchester, in revenge for Allah’s religion, in an endeavor to terrorize the mushrikin [those who worship others besides Allah], and in response to their transgressions against the lands of the Muslims. The explosive devices were detonated in the shameless concert arena, resulting in 30 Crusaders being killed and 70 others being wounded. And what comes next will be more severe on the worshipers of the Cross and their allies, by Allah’s permission. And all praiseis [sic] due to Allah, Lord of the creation.

“Crusaders.” Most of the people at that Ariana Grande concert probably had no idea what a Crusader was. Those who did were sure that they were racist bigots who carried out acts of imperialist aggression against peaceful Muslims. “Crusaders.” This is not a war between jihadis and Crusaders. This is a war between jihadis and ignorant, complacent sitting ducks who have been willfully and criminally misled by the political and media elites


Reddit’s ‘live feed’ of links as the vent went down – here.


Muslim community worker warned officers about Manchester bomber five years ago – The Metro


 

I’m going to leave it there, I’m trying to remain unbias here, though I imagine it may come across as leaning towards one side, though I believe much of what I’ve linked can be viewed from either perspective. As for how I personally feel, well, simply exhausted and depersonalized. Whether or not one feels either the ‘left’ or ‘right’ answers to the problem will work, the fact remains that some innocent people were killed, as an act of terrorism…in the year 2017, and day in day out, even though not physically, these attacks seem and feel to get closer to closer to something which I hold dear, and that, I cannot entirely describe. The end of something and the beginning of a sludge. It feels as if innovation has no home anymore, the means to gain are only to steal and destroy, deconstruction holds itself very dear to everything, all begins to depersonalize as enjoyment and youth itself is attacked, one often feels guilty for smirking. I’m getting sickly-sentimental, but, it truly is a matter of fatigue, one could head to any reliable news source on any given day and find an ‘attack’ from sombody towards an-Other, people killing others as they know it’s right. Progression itself has become a toxic force for its direct opposite.

Found Tweets (#3)