Tarrytown SnakeDance (Why Smart Girls Don't get laid

Why Smart girls don't get Laid

Tarrytown Snake Dance

                This is something I’ve been toying with for a few days. Remember when all is said and done the subject here is how to control vast segments of a contemporary population so that they will serve your interests and not their own. Call it propaganda, call it marketing, call it what you like. At times it may veer perilously close to philosophy but that is not the specific goal.

                Remember as well Hitler’s admonition to his subordinates – “If anyone gives you trouble - take them out back and shoot them – we don’t need to please everyone.”

               That is to say that the other side of this question is very real indeed and they regard  "academics" as little more then nuisances.

     We want to look at things that work the same process that sells a saint  can sell a tyrant.  In other words we are looking at the system  - from it's roots in the biological systems to it's results in the domination and enslavement of large numbers of people - an enslavement only possible with the willing acceptance of the subject population.

    

       The specific recent notion is first, remove the question of true or false – it doesn’t matter in systemic terms, or as Mao would say, “Truth is what the guy with the gun says it is.” In spreading the stimulai that’s the cause and the desired belief or action is the effect. In ordinary circumstances the effect is what we want, the volition, the purchase, the war, and we determine the validity via measuring the context. This works under the assumption that there is only one context, or reality.

            But such an idea is out of date. There are as many realities as we can effort to create. What is more the creation of alternate realities serves to negate the primacy of the one we’d ordinarily judge. The question of truth is not decided – it merely ceases to exist. It’s drowned out in the data flood.

                        And I have to keep driving home the point that although the processes we speak of are rooted in the biological organism, once the technostate is introduced to them the inevitable result is a totalitarian social system , which inevitably implodes. Usually because totalitarian systems are very poor at gathering feedback - like the father figures they often admire - they are only interested to giving orders not taking them.
                      Literally speaking technology erodes top down processing by the frontal lobe of the brain. This eliminates deep awareness and replaces it with extremely transient thinking that I call “Skatter-thought.” It is directly analogous to the thought process of a person on some forms of drugs. As we know most of the people who took LSD in the 60’s stopped of their own accord and when asked why they could not really explain – because the drug impeded among other things the generation of understandable sentences.

           This is why smart girls don't get laid. Note: I have delibertly not “Dumbed down” the above ( the way I usually do) in order to reach a wide audience. That's the kind of thing that newspapers do.

Sometimes we ask how it is that highly educated people, for instance, fall under the sway of gurus, or a peeve of mine, smart girls give it up for a few lines of coke.

           When we ask why technologically advanced societies can't defend themselves against comparative primitives we ask the wrong question. It is not that technological advancement fails to deal with human aggression it is rather that it destroys the source of human aggression, which some call God, but can also be called the EGO and can be located in specific areas of the brain.

The brain stem may be the source of the killer in us all but it is the cerebral cortex that tells the brain stem who to kill.

.                Remove the frontal cortex and you pacify the person, changing, actually destroying the personality, creating Reagan Zombies, incapable of what we consider normal, self interested thought, wishing only to serve the master puppeteer.

                     We've known this since the forties when we discovered the usefulness of frontal lobotomies – which do the same thing as technological overload, only surgically. Of course similar results can be achieved via drugs as well.

----------------------------------------

        My gut feeling is that we are going to lose a lot of people to this, (We already have but the conditioning prevents the masses being aware of it.) and as well , we are going to have to create structures to protect ourselves. LSD did not take over the world, but technology is far more pervasive

          This is a subject that has brought tears to many eyes, not only in it’s tendency to allocate resources capriciously but in it’s tendency as well to deny individuals self determination, freedom, and at it’s most extreme, life itself.

                I speak, of course, of the technostate; the state that places efficiency and progress ahead of all things. It is a dark subject, made worse by the fact that many are unable to see or even conceive of the evils it harbors, but after awhile the human can get used to anything. There may be hope in that, since once we shed the unconscious terrors that it uses to control us we may perhaps only then begin on the path to it’s control and extinction.

               Hitler is said to have called Great Britain “a nation of shop keepers,” and hence put little faith in their ability to defend themselves. He also is alleged to have gone to war with the British with less enthusiasm then with other countries since after all, the Brits were by and large Anglo-Saxons as well.

             But, merrily or not, off to war he went. We know how that ended. The thousand year Reich has come and gone, but the shop keepers remain. (Actually it is the shopkeepers who face the new peril in the form of megastores – but we’ll get to that later.) Marx tells us that the real enemy of the humane society is not the poor, nor even the rich, but the bourgeoisie, those money grubbers who can never have enough and are indifferent to the misery they create.

Certainly the experience in the industrial revolution and in the later information revolution tells us that the regards of the middle class to those less fortunate are at best , callous. Fortunately we need neither Marx nor Hitler in our story, for they were but puppets, marionettes upon a far greater stage of history then even they could imagine.

       What we might call Post-Marxian thought  suggests that though the muddled middle class may be the instruments of the abuse, they are not the designers.  Indeed there are no human designers, like old age  or narcotics addiction the process occurs without design

                 As I said considering the macabre actions of the technostate, the killing of millions by Stalin, the Rape of Nanking and China by the Japanese, one needs a little distance to focus. This is why I remind you of the humble storekeeper – the fellow on TV telling you about the latest sale, or the computer guy introducing the newest up grade of flash drives.

               Everything is great. Everything is big news. I imagine that toilet training in these households is done with equal fanfare.

                     But of course we must come around to the matter at hand. It happens to be something that incidentally obsesses many in public and private life today – call it information – call it propaganda – the big lie – or what you like, the insurmountable obstacle facing the functioning society is it’s inability to decide what is true.

“Democracy is too important to be left to the people!”

             Not by choice but by necessity I have studied this online, in public, for the past fifteen years. I am like the fellow who has been turned down for a loan and who, before walking out the door inquires of the banker, “Please sir, but why?”

And each explanation requires a new explanation, and so one, ad infinitum. That, in part, is how the system survives, by never actually being called to account and by adding one impossible answer on top of another, until the questioner is either exhausted or dead.

                   The problem of two conflicting notions of truth, each with an equal claim to actuality, can only be solved by expanding and changing the contextual universe.

              To restate, ordinarily we think that context will reveal who lies and who doesn't, but when context itself is a lie then that doesn't happen.

       First let’s observe process and disregard content. Obviously this is not the norm. In the norm we accumulate “evidence” to prove our contention, but in reality evidence falls prey to the same weaknesses as the essential premise – in other words evidence can lie, indeed at times evidence must lie in order to substantiate other lies. In any case we don’t have to know the “facts” they will always vary.

                   The role evidence plays is to create causality, as in cause and effect, also known as motive and opportunity. The way we have traditionally sought to determine true cause and effect is by context. In other words people do things for reasons, reasons which may not be readily apparent to the external viewer.

At this point we are placed in the position of second guessing the actors. When the Attorney General of the US states under oath that he can’t remember why he fired someone a year ago, however incredible is sounds that must be accepted.

Actually we might understand that the AG was under orders to remove state Federal Attorney’s for political reasons, but there is rarely accommodation for that in the law.

What we have to do is take the duality, the cause effect question, in it’s context and place all three in relation to other similar cases. It’s as if a judge were to say, “I’ve heard his lies – now let me hear your lies.”

I will now attempt to clarify this by giving a few examples.

The music business, in some cultures, has long had a questionable status. Prostitutes, actors and musicians are considered one and the same. Some societies, such as the Puritans, ban music. As we know the dawn of the technostate in America is traced to the election in 1980 of Ronald Reagan. After that hundreds of newspapers were closed down, as well as independent Radio and television stations which were replaced by national networks run on cables.

              There was a joke around a few years later that went, ”The music business used to be run by organized crime, but now it’s run by a new and tougher gang – Time Warner.” Both artists and prosecutors were not happy . The artists were paid less and the prosecutors were staring in the fact of a huge international trust.

                       In previous instances, with Standard Oil in 1910, with NBC Radio in the 1930’s , with the Bell system in the 1970’s, the monopolies were forced into competition, but this was no longer because of a political shift to the right.

                      Let’s look at Thomas Edison for a moment. Every nation has someone they claim invented motion pictures. In the US it was Edison who promptly went to file a copyright. What he wanted though was not only a percentage of the profits on every movie made, but the total control of the manufacturing process. In other words he would decide what movies could and could not be made.

                       The East Coast courts went along with him, after all he had the power to do what he wished. The movie industry moved to California where there were more judges then Edison could buy.

                  If you had a popular song nowadays you’d have no choice but to work for one of the majors. There are four on the entire planet. To get airplay in the US you would have one company to deal with which controls 1800 stations – Clear channels.

Obviously these firms are in a perilous situation. Anyday the feds could drop the bomb on them – so what do they do? They reverse the modality. They claim instead that they are under attack from imaginary “pirates” who have stolen hundred of billions, trillions even from them.

Let’s look at another instance of word meaning reversal. The word “revolution” implies the changing of the world order, the poor are empowered, the rich get their comeuppance. How then does that apply to the election of Reagan? It doesn’t obviously. It was the big lie made to appear harmless. Likewise were the president of Time Warner, or Sony made to walk the plank over a sea of shark infested waters then perhaps they could claim to be the victims of pirates. Were they somehow to have their yachts taken over in the Indian ocean by Somali pirates maybe they could make the claim, but people downloading Mp3’s? Oh what a sorry state the pirates of today have fallen into.

                                                                                                                                But then, I said it would not be by evidence this case would be made, and I will be true to my word. Let it be only said then that it is classic technostate behavior, dating back to the Romans, to claim that the states they invade and conquer had bad intent and were invaded as a defensive maneuver.

                           Now comes the part that either clarifies the situation or confuses it. To give an example there’s the statement that nothing of importance is allowed to be discussed in the Congress. Such discussions, were they to happen, would only be futile and what is worse would confuse the public.

                          What you will get are questions of procedure, riders, local pork barrel projects and hot button issues that neither side cares about, such as abortion, the presence of prayer in public schools and highway beautification. Essentially we are dealing with a bait and switch. It’s long been known, and complained about, that a party will win elections on social issues and then once in office all they care about are economic issues. Ironically these complaints are not well founded because the impact of legislation on economics is increasingly nil.

                      Back in the early days of the rightward swing I used to wonder, “Why, if patronage is the life’s blood of politics, are these legislators giving it away by shrinking programs? The answer is that all those patronage jobs were distributed by comparative amateurs who could be dispensed with.

                 I was watching a George Carlin video the other day. In it he goes, “You know “Fuck so and so”(the person he mentioned I didn’t recognize but apparently he was famous at the time.) and while we’re at it “Fuck Tiger Woods”. Him I had heard of. He was the first major black player in the business of professional golf. He’s cute. As the expression goes he’s “right out of central casting.” The public is provided with photos of little tiger at five swinging a gold club. Adorable. WE get pictures of his lovely wife and family.

                          The message is sent. Golf is for everybody now! Everyone except Carlin, who said, “I’m tired of being told who to admire.” What is Tiger’s real name anyway? In the information state he makes much more money as a personality then as a golfer. He sells this. He sells that. He sells.

But we must go beyond the obvious – which is the salesman

To paraphrase the Upanishads

“I am the salesman

\ I am the buyer

I am the act of consuming”

 

                   In other words traditional marketing theory says that the target population so identifies with the exhalted hero figure that they will give anything they have to purchase items associated with the hero and thereby gain the heros strength by sympathetic magic. In this case, although Golf was nowhere near the dire straights that Basketball was in before the invention of “Air” Jordan. (Note the use of magical nicknames.) The idea was to recreate the profit centers.

                  Note as well in classical taboo relations the hero must not come from the same tribe as the one he saves. In taking a wife as well a man is not permitted to take a wife from the same totemic group, which in many cases would be a family relation.

                     I’ve referred to this in the past as the “Woman in Red” concept, namely the woman who seeks to be the hit of the party can tolerate anything but someone exactly like her who would threaten her position. We see this in media all the time, where first one, then another person claims to be “the voice of the public.”

To sum up then Tiger Woods, like a Senator, is chosen not for who he is but who he is not. He is the void which contains eternity to get philosophical on you. It would be possible to be aware of the status of the typical twenty five year old black man and actually do something about it – but that would cost money!

Take a graduate of a major university. His, or her, parents are educated, they make six figure salaries; the chap has never had a work experience other then maybe a summer job as a lifeguard. He discovers theres a pipeline from his school to some major employer. He takes a job as a reporter, he spends his summers in the Hamptons, and life is good.

Compare him to some working class guy. He’s gone to an average school. It took seven years because he was working at least two jobs in addition to going to school. He can’t hardly write nothing. When he goes out with the team for drinks after work he embarrasses everyone with his vulgar accent. The only stories he knows really well are not success stories, but stories of drunkards dead at forty, of twenty year olds throwing themselves in front of trains, of women with three kids with three different fathers, hmm. Well what would be the moral choice?

Do you go with the ideal, or the real? Is it such a good idea to let it out that your society is collapsing? What good, what good would that do anyone?

                And here chillum, is the kicker.

                   You let one of those in and the neighborhoods going to go to hell. And you personally, not someone else, but you will sacrifice your better interests for the better interest of the whole. Are you going to do it?

                       Because you know who is going to sacrifice you? Not the human trash that you forgot to lock out in the cold – but your own people, decent folks – because they are going to be mad as hell. Betrayal is a terrible sin. Terrible. Where is your loyalty to your family, to your friends? Remember you’re not doing it because of your personal weakness – you’re doing it to preserve a way of life.

               Don’t worry about me. I won’t force you. I’ve seen too much and I don’t want to see anymore. Do what you like.