From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt who had claimed they themselves were gods to the self-regarding inbred thugs of
ancient Rome. From the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist
Europe to the robber barons of America. In nearly every urbanized society throughout the entirety of human history,
there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as
an aristocracy. They claim for themselves a "god given" right to dominate society. They have used various tactics to do this over the millenia, force being a perennial favorite. But force has been less effective against peaceful resistance in modern times. The self regarding would be aristocrats know that when people are pushed far enough, are robbed enough, stripped of their dignity, and deprived of enough they will eventually fight back. History demonstrates that heads are often lost when this push comes to shove. So newer tactics are employed along with the old violent standbys.
These tactics vary widely by place and time. But there is a central feature. Deference: a psychologically
internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the
aristocracy are "better" than they are. Modern-day liberals
often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to
mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal
of conservatism is/was/always will be to establish an aristocracy of some type, which is a social
and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality
and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy,
are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply
to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism
that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. This notion sounds bizarre to the modern ear, but it is
perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists
such as Edmund Burke. For the would-be aristocrat democracy represents a dangerous psychological condition. One in which the carefully crafted masquerade of this manufactured superiority is questioned. One in which the possibility of social equality is raised. History is largely the tale of the struggle between those who claim aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its
intrinsic superiority against those who believe that human beings are of equal social value.
Conservatism, which is in truth the construction of arguments for establishing or strengthening an aristocracy, in every place and time is founded on deception.
The deceptions today are especially sophisticated,
simply because culture today has become sufficiently democratic enough that the
myths of earlier times will no longer suffice in manipulating the serfs...er, slaves...er, general public.
The aristocracy have used a wide variety of methods to destroy reason
throughout history. Fortunately, many of these methods, such as
the suppression of popular literacy, are incompatible with a modern
economy. Once the common people started becoming educated, more
sophisticated methods of domination were required. What was required was a kind of "rationalized" irrationality.
The great innovation in recent decades has been the
systematic reinvention of politics using the techniques developed by the advertising and public relations industry which are exactly the "rationalized" irrationality the aristocracy required. These would-be aristocrats and their sycophantic minions are using these techniques to persuade people to lay down their capacity
for rational thought. Why? Because rational thought is the natural predator of aristocracy and conservatism. Hence, attempts are made to destroy rational thought, for
example by destroying language, which is the medium of communicating rational thought.
The main idea is the distinction between
"messages" and "facts". Messages are the things you want people
to believe. A message should be vague enough that it is difficult
to refute by rational means. (People in politics refer to messages
as "strategies" and people who devise strategies as "strategists". It is useful to think of each message
as a kind of pipeline: a steady stream of facts is selected ,
twisted, or fabricated to fit the message. Contrary facts are of
course ignored. The goal is what the professionals call "message
repetition". This provides activists with something to do: come up
with new facts to fit the conservative authorities' chosen messages.
Having become established in this way, messages must also be
continually intertwined with one another. This is one job of pundits. To the public relations mind, the public sphere is a game in which
the opposition tries to knock you off your message. Many of these "messages" have become institutions. Whole organizations
exist to provide a pipeline of "facts" that underwrite the message of
"liberal media bias". These "facts" fall into numerous categories and
exemplify a wide range of fallacies. Some are simply factually untrue,
e.g., claims that the New York Times has failed to cover an event
that it actually covered in detail. Other claimed examples of bias
are non sequiturs, e.g., quotations from columns that appear
on the opinion pages, or quotations from liberals in news articles
that also provided balancing quotes from conservatives. Others are
illogical, e.g., media that report news events that represent bad
news or good news for the sitting leader. The methods of identifying "bias" are thus
highly elastic. In practice, everything in the media on political
topics that diverges from conservative public relations messages is
contended to be an example of "liberal bias". The goal, clearly, is
to purge the media of everything except conservatism and aristocracy approved messages. The word "inaccurate" has become a technical term in
the political use of public relations. It means "differs from our
message".
The aristocracy aims to break down reason and replace it with mental
associations. One tries to associate "us" with good things and
"them" with bad things. For example, the memo from
Newt Gingrich's former organization GOPAC entitled "Language: A Key
Mechanism of Control". It advised candidates promoting aristocracy to associate
themselves with words like "building", "dream", "freedom", "learn",
"light", "preserve", "success", and "truth" while associating
their opponents with words like "bizarre", "decay", "ideological", "lie",
"machine", "pathetic", and "traitors". The issue here is not whether
these words are used at all; of course there do exist individuals that could be described using any of these words. The
issue, rather, is a kind of cognitive surgery: systematically creating
and destroying mental associations with little regard for truth.
Note, in fact, that "truth" is one of the words that Mr.Gingrich advised
appropriating in this fashion. Someone who thinks in this manner cannot
even conceptualize truth.This is an example of the destruction of language and the reasoning that it might convey. The strategists construct their messages in stereotyped ways. One of the most important patterns
of conservative message-making is projection. Projection is a
psychological notion; it roughly means attacking someone by falsely
claiming that they are attacking you. Conservative strategists engage
in projection constantly. A commonplace example would be taking
something from someone by claiming that they are in fact taking it
from you. Or, having heard a careful and detailed refutation of
something he has said, the projector might snap, "you should not
dismiss what I have said so quickly!". It is a false claim -- what
he said was not dismissed -- that is an example of itself -- he is
dismissing what his opponent has said.
Projection was an important part of the Florida election controversy in the United States,
for example when Republicans tried to get illegal ballots counted
and prevent legal ballots from being counted, while claiming that
Democrats were trying to steal the election. Since around 1990, conservative rhetors
have been systematically turning language into a weapon against those who would question aristocracy. Words are used in twisted and exaggerated ways, or with the
opposite of their customary meanings. This affects the whole of
language. The goal of this distorted language is not simply to defeat
an enemy but also to destroy the minds of the people who believe themselves
to be conservatives constantly challenging themselves to ever
greater extremity in using it.
More importantly, conservative rhetors have been systematically
mapping the language that has historically been used to describe the
aristocracy and the traditional authorities that serve it, and have
twisted those words into terms for liberals. This tactic has the dual
advantage of both attacking the aristocracies' opponents and depriving
them of the words that they have used to attack aristocracy.
A simple example is the term "race-baiting". In the Nexis database,
uses of "race-baiting" undergo a sudden switch in the early 1990's.
Before then, "race-baiting" referred to racists. Afterward, it
referred in twisted way to people who oppose racism. What happened
is simple: the aristocracy and their conservative rhetors, tired of the political advantage that their opposition had been getting from their use of that word, so they took it away
from them. A more complicated case is the word "racist". The rhetors in this case
have tried to take this word away as well by constantly coming up
with new ways to stick the word onto their opposition and their policies. For
example they have referred to affirmative action as "racist". This
is false; it is an attempt to destroy language. Racism is the notion
that one race is intrinsically better than another. Affirmative
action, one could argue may be discriminatory, as a means of partially offsetting
discrimination in other places and times, but it is not racist. The aristocrats and their rhetors have even stuck the word "racist" on people
because they oppose racism. The notion seems to be that these people
addressed themselves to the topic and the word "racist" is
sort of an adjective relating somehow to race. In any event this
is an attack on language. Another example is the destruction of the word "government". The agents of aristocracy have been using the word
"government" in a way that makes no distinction between legitimate
democracy and totalitarianism. This was largely how the Koch brothers, aristocrats; were able to snooker common people to take up their causes in the tea party. They simply bombarded the public with messages that destroy language, reason & logic. By repetition, susceptible people lose the ability to discern between legitimate government that functions by and for the public interest and totalitarianism. We are barraged with these attacks today. When language is assaulted, so to is the information it carries. Reason itself. The aristocrats are winning most of the battles folks. And of course when these techniques are not providing the proper effect the older techniques they employed...force and violence are employed. Yes mace is a vegetable, just like pizza. See what I mean?
Oh, it's you! Come on In, take off your shoes, put your feet up. Provocative and liberal thinking here.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
The True Meaning Of Christmas
By Without Shoes Staff Writer, Sarah Tonin |
What is the True Meaning of Christmas?
"The true meaning of Christmas is going on shopping sprees and watching the effluence of washed up pointless celebrities singing cluelessly on T.V.", says Gus Comzadia; an expert on the holiday. "But some don't see that. I, and many other Christians, am greatly concerned by the increasing tendency to honor the birth of some Jewish guy on this day. Don't you people know what Christmas is all about? It's all about wrapping paper, gift bags, parking lots, and discount prices!!! (And pretending to have spent lots of money on shitty gifts)".
Aside from conspicuous consumption, Christmas is a time for falling down drunkenness |
In reality, too many people around the world view Christmas as a time of togetherness and good will. People waste time with family and friends when they should be massively consuming cheap shoddy goods manufactured in Santa's Vietnamese sweat shops, guzzling booze and learning to hate each other.
Corporate cartels rely on your gross consumption of their cheap goods to stay on top. |
WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?
"What Christmas is all about" is a common theme in literature and arts. In the animated holiday classic A Charlie Brown Christmas, the main character, Charlie Brown, is depressed because he believes Christmas is too religious, and wants to know what Christmas is really all about. He learns, when his friend makes a touching speech, quoting from a Mal-Mart catalog: "'50% off on all holiday items!!!! Don't miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to SAVE, SAVE, SAVE!!!!!!!!!!!'. That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown!" Charlie Brown and his friends then go to a fast food chain restaurant together, to celebrate the true meaning of Christmas. Though others claim the true meaning of Christmas was the birth of Santa Claus. Of course, all the preachers and clergymen like to bullshit people with all this biblical crap about mangers and wise men being related to Christmas. but they are obviously just assholes... What do they know? Nothing.
The Birth Of Santa and honoring him by decorating your toilet in his likeness Is The "TRUE" Meaning of Christmas. |
The War On Holiday
Many people are growing concerned that the true meaning of Christmas, the buying of things at a big box discount store, owned by evil multinational corporate cartels and then eating and drinking until you throw up, is being forgotten in today's world. "I am greatly concerned by the amount of giving, caring, and honoring of cosmic muffins that took place this past Holiday season," says Mal Mart chairperson Rex DeEconomy, "All this talk about Gods and loving those around you, and a season of joy? Have you people forgotten the meaning of Holiday? I have very serious concerns that Holiday is being infiltrated by religion. This must stop if we are to save mom, apple pie, capitalism and the two party system! Christ, the next thing you know women and minorities will be demanding equal rights...we can't have that you know. Damn it!"
Glub...Hic...Barffff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)