[The bastards want to poweder me. What I'm thinking of sending them goes like this.]

First of all, SSI pays me $914 a month because I'm disabled; that's my only source of income. The utilities here run me about $150-200, and of course I need basic incidentals like cleaning supplies, laundry, hearing aid batteries, bus fare to medical appointments, etc. I simply can't afford a rent increase of $175 a month. The most I could squeeze out is $600, and that would hurt. 

Secondly, I've been looking for other places in case you did this, and I don't make three times the rent. In 2012 the manager at the time accepted my SSI and the fact that I'd been paying rent on a place on High Street as evidence I could pay the rent here, which I've done without fail. But repeating that act of kindness in today's rental market is well nigh impossible, as I'm sure you know.

I've been looking into subsidized housing for Disabled people, and I'm on the waiting list for two places. There are quite a few people ahead of me,  they tell me to figure at least a year. In two years I'll be 62, old enough to qualify as Senior too, which will increase my options with other buildings and improve my odds where they've let me apply to get on the waiting list. I've been hoping to hold on that long. 

I'm a sick disabled old man with nowhere else to go, and you've given me the choice of paying a $175 increase and being penniless after that, or being homeless at my age in my condition. That is, simply put, you've told me I must suffer penury here or die in an alley. Is that really what you mean to do?  

And furthermore it seems you want an additional $250 security deposit in addition to the $250 I've had on record since 2012. Is that even legal?  The $650 rent and additional $250 security deposit would leave me with $14 of the check for August, unable to pay my utilities.  

Again, I'm 60 years old: my Daddy died in 1994 and my Mommy in 2017, so I can't go squealing "home." It's here or nowhere. 

And furthermore it seems you want an additional $250 security deposit in addition to the $250 I've had on record since 2012. Is that even legal?  The $650 rent and additional $250 security deposit would leave me with $14 of the check for August, unable to pay my utilities.  

Again, I'm 60 years old: my Daddy died in 1994 and my Mommy in 2017, so I can't go squealing "home." Nor do I have anyone else. It's here or nowhere. 

What I can afford, barely, is $600 a month. An increase of $125, or a mere $50 less than you ask. Would doing without $50 a month hurt you nearly as much as surrendering it to you would hurt me? Do you mean to totally destroy me? What have I done to you? 

​

   

                                      How To Get Rid Of Me, Et Cetera


Do y'all know that all you'd have to do to make like likes of me well-nigh impossible is totally destroy American society? Anarchy, or at least the chaos that's the contemporary substitute, would put paid to most anarchists, especially anarcho-communists like me. It's fundamentally unjust, but then so many people are misinformed about what the terms anarchism, communism, and anarcho-communist mean. You can't even be trusted to know what the psychiatric diagnosis 'pedophile' means.

All things being equal, your life always will: I don't hate humanity enough to go by 'better dead than undavided'. Which is pretty much how most of y'all seem to act anyway, as if you have a much more stringent and unfair idea of what 'human being' means. Some of you talk a liberal game but then your tactics include forcing the government (or the corporation) to shut somebody up. Sometimes even when you agree with the dissident you're angry at him for spilling the beans. You are 'a citizen with equal rights'; I am 'working for the enemy, who is out to destroy even decency itself'. You get free speech, while I ought to be deplatformed and nazi-punched. Because free speech is the prerogative of the master class alone.

And it's becoming as easy to be declassed as it is to become unemployed, the Owners can purge themselves on an ad hoc but ongoing basis. So it's possible for one born of privilege to come to appreciate or even share my opinions or positions (even sometimes physical or social ones). It's just not frequent, or even predictable or decipherable, enough to really figure in. Those who seem like delinquents, accomplices, colleagues, or co-conspirators, usually turn out to be agents provocateurs. Or worse, totally insane.

And just as there are practically no 14 year old girls on the Internet who simply must have some geriatric dick, my chances of meeting anyone who might regard themselves as leftist revolutionaries are so slim that whether they also might accord the same label to me would matter no more than half the time. Again, by a coin flip. 50% of the time. Sometimes more, when I'm not exemplifying Major Depression. And again, by default I've come to decide that you're worth more than a coin flip, at least in theory, so you could say I'm overpaying for what I'm trying to buy from you.

We'd only need to admit in common that we can't hold people accountable for becoming cartoonish stereotypes. That what your computer games are all about. Those are a way to spread cartoony thinking among 'creative types'. For example they think that using the term 'politically [in]correct' automatically makes you a nazi, so they punch you because of your incorrect politics. They think that heretics must die. The general public has always been as fractious as Trotskyites.

True, what y'all have done has been in the interests of certain billionaires, who own things like Facebook. When you disagree with something I say you insist FB shut me up and get rid of me. That is, you act like totalitarians enforcing conformity. But it feels so damn good to say "look, I made a billionaire hurt somebody for me," doesn't it.

 

That is most of y'all aren't interested in freedom or any particular principle: you just want to imagine yourselves getting scratched behind your ears. You are a good boy, aren't you. So if anybody who's anybody should ever notice you, naturally they'd want to acknowledge your subordination. Or so you hope.

I think that's backwards. I would much rather that anybody who beheld me give me at least a 50% chance of not being hassled. In other words, I'm aiming for the same kind of dignity that 'Negroes' formerly received from 'decent (white) people'. And I must ask it of those who would formerly have been called Negroes when I was born. That's because not only am I non-human (or subhuman, to the narcissists), I ain't even white.

 

The contrast between public opinion in the SF Bay Area and either big city in Kentucky, especially figuring in what the publics have been told to think they're doing, is vast in some ways, but in either case involves American 'human beings'. You're the Tweedle Twins. Left-wing fascists vs. right-wing fascists. There's not a mango's chances in my kitchen that any of you are actually democratic, egalitarian, or anarchist, according to what the latter three terms mean. Which you're at least 50% as likely to claim you are those things but I am not. Of course I'm not human, you disagree with me. How bloody Progressive you are.

 

To you definitions come from the barrel of a gun. Because unless you're very careful somebody might abuse you back. You'd best nip that in the bud, with the help of the police. Or the legal system, in more abstracted cases. Like I said, with y'all it's all 'heretics must die!' and 'Crucify him! Crucify him!' Because in New Testament terms you are 'the Jews'. And let me tell you honey there is no shortage of Jesuses, whatever anybody might call them. (I'd rather say 'I am Spartacus!' myself, but then I'm weird -- i.e. a communist with anarchist principles.)

 

By the way, he difference between my thoughts and what anarchism is supposed to entail differ by a provisional transition of say five generations. And my grasp of human nature is as good as yours, except that I figure in trivial details like facts and history and attempt to be rational. Chances are better than even that most normal people act as if we're in some video game, or in a movie made from one. This is because that's always been the default mentality for civilized sheep, as in '3-tit Eunice must have gone to The Island'.  

n order to break that habit we'll have to train people to not feel TV is necessary for life. Unlike today, where 's/he don't even have a TV!' is all you'd ever need to know about that person. As if you'll die without a screen. That shows you what other people want you to look at. How cool is that? You don't even have to think about thinking for yourself. There's always some public, corporate, or media figure to tell you what you think.

While for me this Alex Jones guy is too mundane, and too obviously in league with The System. If there really are lizard people he might be one. It's worth flipping a coin over anyway. That if you think he's way Out There and you're not, that shows how narrow is your perspective and how weak is your brain.

By the way, your games make you weak in body and brain. You'd do better to smoke opium, hoping that the Brit While this Alex Jones guy is too mundane for me, and too obviously in league with The System. If there really are lizard people he might be one. It's worth flipping a coin over anyway. That if you think he's way Out There and you're not, that shows how narrow is your perspective and how weak is your brain.s soon force our country to legalize it. If you're not humongous with a bad skin condition and type 2 diabetes you must not be very good gamer. Yet look how even impure heroin helps keep your weight down and forces you to engage with the outside world. If that's what it takes for you to fellate me, whether or not you'd want to see me lynched, of course you should try it. At least junkies look human. And they're more likely to tell you who's got what, who's doing what to who, and how things really are out here than your average gamer is. Because they're more likely to know, or even know how to know.

Then again, they tell me gamer chicks are hot. Because of their impaired grasp of reality and their obligatory obligingness it's easier for them to put out. Which might be what people thought of me back in the '70s, by the way: hippie boys are easy. Well, I was, anyway. And I had no trouble moving among 'hippie types' in those days. Or 'nonconformists' any way. One of the last boys I had a crush on was another 19 year old who'd worked his way up to Assistant Manager at his McDonald's and believed every word any 'Objectivist' said.  

But this boy said he wasn't really gay, he just knew how to get along with gay people and had nothing against us, and that the guy who was letting him crash behind the shelves in his little personal library wasn't really his uncle. But that he did pay rent, but not so much that he couldn't save up to move out. But yeah he said he had sex with the guy in the past, and of course things just didn't work between them, but the guy figured he wasn't hurting himself by letting the kid stay there.

But this boy said he wasn't really gay, he just knew how to get along with gay people and had nothing against us, and that the guy who was letting him crash behind the shelves in his little personal library wasn't really his uncle. But that he did pay rent, but not so much that he couldn't save up to move out. But yeah he said he had sex with the guy in the past, and of course things just didn't work between them, but the guy figured he wasn't hurting himself by letting the kid stay there.

Which put paid to my hopes of reciprocal fellatio, at least with him, but it made it easier to appreciate his position. That's what sharing someone's condition is supposed to do, isn't it? 'Mostly it's just that he doesn't object to me'. Isn't that what America is all about? Objectively speaking, I mean. 

 

Toward A Manifesto

The goal obviously is for the rich men to enserf if not enslave the poor, to get rid of the men who question you, to drive the women before so you can take separate the Wives from the Whores, and for the young to be suitably programmed. Poor women don't scare rich men so much, they just want a place to keep the ones somebody wants to keep track of. The lower down the scale she is the easier she is to give away, rent, or sell. Western civilization has been run this way since the Assyrians at least.

As for the role and power of women in society, a lot depends on whose women or at least which women. Women who can somehow get away with defying Patriarchy must have something they can do better than most people, or they'd simply be gotten rid of. So a man who wants to move up in the world will try to link up with a "co-conspirator," and those men who think they've risen far enough above already just want breeders and whores. And maybe governesses, when the women come from gentry that's fallen on hard times but who are smart emough to teach the children how to be obedient and to be worth trading away.

As to which sex rules society, or whether they share it between them, you can't be sure you can tell. Remember that however they conceive of any such thing from their own point of view, which is to say from their position of power. What you hear and see around you depends on what they want you to think, feel, believe, and do. Which might not have anything to do with how society is run and by whom. I hesitate to say that the particular ways of the Classes have nothing to do with what you're supposed to think is going on, because for example novelists have a lot of trouble leaving out autobiographical material. Or what they want you to think is autobiography anyway.

The plainest fact, from watching the public sphere as the Masses experience it, is that they want us all to be very confused. To be confused in a particular way, or to whatever be generally confused to whatever degree they intend. If you're too confused, too stupid, or too broken to be useful, they'll find a way to get rid of you, get you to get rid of yourself, or perhaps to get various groups to get rid of one another.

There's nothing in our social experience that's not manipulation. For the very powerful it's all a game they play together; what we get is whatever crumbs they let go of. They think of us as cattle, as house pets, as pieces to be moved about, or as prey for their little human hunts. Part of Prohibition's usefulness was as a way to come to grips with the Mafia from Sicily or their closest cousins from the Italian mainland. Sometimes they'd even done business with the Jews, a tradition that goes back perhaps to Pompey's little con game. Prohibition was also way to give the Irish a way to prove themselves worthy of becoming employed.

And Prohibition generated a lot of monetary circulation: you can't really be sure that the "authorities" were not milking Those People for all they could get, but framing it as a crusade against the Papists. Represented mostly by Italians. Who were at least from a civilized society, except that those Italians Italy could easily do without were huddled en masse and shipped here. "Oh boy, that didn't turn out so well."

Take the Jews, for example.

As it was with the European Jews at around the same time: many of those who'd come here wanted to do something for the Tribe. Even for those superstition Hasidim, who nevertheless circumcise their sons. everybody's connections abroad could be part of a business network. And some among the Jews that were already here, or who had family and business with them, wanted to buy in to the Corporation. Those who got holocausted were those the "western," "civilized" Jews had left to their fates. Conspicuous among them were the various Hasidic sects left behind, which was most of them.

Of course America had a clique or two of powerful Jews, whether they "practiced the religion" at all or not. Which is to say, those Jews who had a lot of power primarily over other Jews would be the ones to treat with the Gentiles. The Sanhedrin, as Napoleon wanted to call it. And of course power involves money: those Jews who got rich from international commerce wanted to take in only those who were presently pertinent, while those who got rich from their congregations wanted to take only those who were more religious and easier to control. And, naturally, those were closer to the main trade routes of the day, and involved in or at least affected by whatever was going on there that meant the most to those here. You might say it was a contest between the businessmen and the Levites. It would appear that the Levites were too weak to save their Eastern European co-religionists. Or it could be that they simply didn't need those who were left behind.

As for the German and French Jews, and sometimes Italian ones, they were at least civilized people, wise and/or rich. Those were the most resourceful were the most useful: of course you'd get Einstein and Wittgenstein out alive. It buttressed that cliques' claim to be smarter than most people in ways that were especially useful. First you get out some physicists, then you set up physics laboratories. By getting rid of their academic Jews they deprived themselves of nuclear fission. Which is why antisemitism, or race prejudice, or other overly broad personification of The Other is counterproductive and stupid. You sort through them, the same as with anybody else.

As for the uncivilized Easterners perpetuating the 14th century, well... That's too bad for them. They were basically too hard to get to when these trade networks were growing. Damn the Russians, they ruined "Polish-Lithuanian" Jewry. A couple hundred years of bigoted persecution can do that to anybody. The Nazis finished off the Tsardom's job, pretty much. If that regime had refused to let "civilized" Jews interact with them that would not have happened. But Imperial Russia's trade routes were mostly internal and secondly "oriental," so the trade involving Jews in Mother Russia was mostly external. It was they who traded the tea and learned the local languages. Whether they meant to or not, the most useful commercial contacts for the expending Russian power were with the Jews of those land they took over or planned to. Hitler's jewcatchers never reached Bukhara: it took Jerusalem's jewcatchers to reel them in to use them.

And those Russian Jews who survived WW2 were those who'd been integrated into Tsarist society the longest, as America's fourth- or fifth-generation Jews are here. It was the Russian invaders into Muslim lands who forged ties with the local Jews: those Jews who were Russian were too far away from the front. They were used instead to liason with those Russian nobility who could read and write and to perform clerical functions the illiterate peasants simply couldn't. Those illiterate Russian peasants who were in close contact with the Asian Muslim world were too busy killing the Muslims to have much to do with local Jews; that would be up to the Russian elite that monopolized high military commissions and civil offices, those whose famlies were of account. By then the Jews of Russia were functionally integrated into society, but Jews elsewhere were of limited utility. Those Jews who were still in the shtetels the Bosheviks had to give up had been given up on.The civilized West had no way to reach them in SS-ruled territory.

These days, when an American Jew deals with anything Israeli s/he might be most loyal to Zion; yet when an American Jew does business with the Japanese, the Turks, or the Germans, they're first and foremost *American* Jews. Israel's a small country: only those they can make useful room for will get actively recruited.

But again, we can't be sure that this is what's going on at the upper levels. For all I know the USA is being run in the interests of the Russian mafia and/or oligarchy (if there ever really was much difference). Until the Civil War the USA was ruled in the interest of the South, that provided the agricultural cash crops that were traded overseas. It wasn't till the industrial North had maneuvered itself into security that it dared interfere in inter-zone relations.  (The preceding circles of commercial gentry provided bankers, governesses, and politicians.) Cutting out the middlemen was the purpose of the Civil War, 160 years ago. How that ultimately worked out, and at whose expense, you can go by the condition of urban Blacks and poor Whites in the "flyover." (Are there poor whites on Long Island, or only poor relations?) While the Southern rich are once again in charge of their part of the country and must be at least consulted on major decisions: that is to say the opposite of their position in the days of Henry Calhoun. They were beaten, those Cavaliers, and forced to be useful to the Northern bourgeoisie. And non-elite Blacks and less useful Whites were "suddenly" not important anymore. Till the next big war came on.

But these days, well, which elite clique wants to take the blame for President Cheeto? Don't blame the American Jews, or at least the ones we're told about: they're not that stupid. Instead, it looks like the Putinists are getting the credit for our current situation. And my hunch is there are very few American Jews willing to bend over for the new Tsar. Now American Jews are even less likely to join the Republican Party. How did Americans wind up with him as President? The Millenials might find out before they retire. Or it might wait for a future ancient historian to unearth.

But again, what we see on TV does not have to have anything to do with what's going on in the lives of those who can afford to really matter. For all I know the real world rulers really are reptilians; they might as well be for all the real difference it would make to me.

And this is the sense I've been able to make of contemporary life. But then I'm weird. Or so they tell us.

   

The Theory And Practice Of Bedlamism

One of my core assumptions is that life might improve in some ways at some times for some people, but for most of us the conditions of life won't get much better: every step forward brings a push back, or we sidestep or turn into another situation that ain't much better. And complicating our lives--struggling even harder, or facing more or more difficult choices--is more likely to increase fatigue and frustration than to increase our satisfaction with our lives. At bottom we are very simple primates, not a breed of demigods.

Life's winners are those who don't care very much for other people, either as individuals or groups, and who view life as a succession of conquests: what matters is fulfilled desires--piles of spoils, racks of skulls, rows of medals--regardless of the cost to other people, and without more mental exertion than needed to get what they want this time. Their minds are focused, their desires are few, their theories are instrumental, and their ethics are self-justifications. "I see, I want, I take, I win."

The small injuries they might suffer provide battle scars to show off, proof that they deserved that ripe fruit because they pushed through briars to get it. Regardless of whose land they were on, or who they had to knock aside. Consequences are for other people, and if they spare a thought for what souls they might have they're confident of absolution. A case in point: Donald Trump is President. And he can always pardon himself, or get Pence to pardon him.

Those who preach otherwise are probably trying to sell you something you don't really need.

And me? "Lead, follow, or get out of the way": I don't care very much about leading, and I refuse to follow, so I stay out of the way. This took years to learn, though it was always my default option. In this state my needs are few, my desires simple, my conscience clear.

You might think me one of life's losers, compensating myself for my failures and avoiding more damage; or you might see me as another kind of winner, one who sees the apple is wormy and blighted. In the latter case I'm beyond good and evil, in the former I'm beneath it.

Either way I sit here, removed from the fray, watching you apes maul one another: here in a warm dry place, with a full belly, with my door locked and no one to vex me. A perch from which to point and giggle.

I am a simple primate with the luxury of imagining myself to be a nihilist buddha. I have accomplished all I really needed to; all that remains is to keep it till I die.

Worship me or fuck off.

By The Way

Here's a poll. I know you like those.

Who out there considers me naturally modest? Instead of, say, an egotistical son of a bitch?

Or am I just being obtuse again?

End Canine Slavery

AHA. The Herald-Leader, local McClatchy branch, has revealed Award-winning dog escaped.

I hope this dog finds somebody worthwhile to take care of him. See the dog's head & face in the picture? Does that look like fun to you?

So the owner is desperately trying to find her award-winning dog because it's her rainmaker. This is the equivalent of slavery: a hunting dog is at least kept alive while performing that job they were bred for, while "award winning" dogs have to spend most of their lives in activities that make no sense to them. Both are tyrannical, but this is another case of "Trotsky was a better Leninist than Stalin." It's bad enough that for many millennia we've domesticated dogs from wolves and kept them captive, which is something most "natural" communists don't do in quite the same way. Someone who's helping her dog hunt squirrel by allowing the dog to direct the hunt is someone true communists want to claim as a "close relation," at least, as equal partnership is that personal relationship communists cherish most. And people who spend a lot of time forcing others to serve their will declare themselves our enemies.

By the way, it's been said that "BDSM is contrary to anarchist principles and an effective bar to an anarchist way of life." (Remember in this sense anarchism is a part of that "natural communist" tendency that a Leninist could understand only hypothetically.) Will somebody out there please explain that opinion, so we can have that much of it in writing? (I mean writing done by myself, as clearly most of that is beneath attention.) Then your own readers can Like what you say (or not, whichever is better for the cause at that time) and thus spread your ideas. With enough of that your chances of being selected as a member of the "equal rights for all" conspiracy increase.

Yet y'all in general should mind your manners, as we've figured out that we don't want to wind up like Fred Hampton and his family and friends, and have come up with ways to avert that (or die trying). Natural communists such as (adult) anarchists ain't people it profits you to fuck with.

To Belabor The Obvious...

I can't imagine a nation with a culture that has not been successfully out-thought and programmed by its "elite." That's what "civilization" is. What gets problematic for the "elite" is when they out-think themselves. Forgetting that the way to keep their power is to duplicitously manipulating those they oppress, instead they treat in that way their friends, relations, and other social peers -- or even often themselves. Remember that someone who can be struck by conscience is of only minimal social power, or thereby is persuaded to relinquish any but minimal control by the self: that is what "submission" is.

Woe betide the powerful person who believes and/or practices their stratum's ideology they strive to enforce upon the poor. What worse thing can happen to someone than losing or surrendering control of one's own mind and life? That shows you've been persuaded to bullshit yourself. To the extent that if you were already powerful or had the potential to be, you've revealed yourself to be incapable of exercising that personal power properly -- if you manage to keep any of it at all. In this respect your fellow "Athenians" are doing you a favor by not beating you to death. But is it any wonder that monks and nuns died in miserable droves from nursing plague victims, something no person of consequence would contemplate, when that keeps down the part of the educated citizen population who are unable -- perhaps too stupid -- to be trusted with themselves.

E.g., the only psychotherapy the elite can afford to indulge in, without some kind of winking and nodding that are necessary when one is being taught something deemed very important, is to preserve one's social power by swindling the many of theirs. Imagine an emir or emperor, or vital person of their class with connections to others, who has been educated and manipulated to surrender completely at the earliest opportunity. No successful "oppressive conspiracy" has even tried to tolerate in their siblings the kind of nymphomania they encourage in those peons they intend to use as prostitutes. Either society thereby becomes inbred and uncomfortably socially entangled, or sections of these segments are triaged out to make room for fresh blood and new money.

To maintain the position of conspiratorial masters they must always remember that they're conspiring together, albeit each for their own advantage. And to remain in the Club one must acknowledge one's own capacity for mental jiu jitsu (or worse) and advertise a certain relish for it as a word to the wise. To let it slip that you take what you teach others seriously will make it likely that your social peers do that shit to you. The Club too must be culled, after all.

Even to an anarchist, properly considered, voluntary submission is a sin. To remain free one must not act like a slave. That's what fascism is: a means of inspiring one to sort oneself aside, or inspiring others to render you at least useful.

The inability to volunteer for slavery is a prerequisite for not winding up a slave yourself. That's what freedom most frequently is. Too bad that only a random few in every generation are capable of thinking in those terms about themselves: the culling is necessarily relentless and ruthless. Thus a sense of honor must remain "among thieves," and a society's ethics must be the kind the "best" will profit from most when they don't participate in it themselves.

St. Augustine was obviously a has-been, or maybe a never-was, to have devoted so much energy to trying to persuade others of his own class to join the slave religion or caste. To perpetuate it you've got to learn to avoid tasting it. Don't Use The Product. This is the practical meaning, regardless of intent, of teaching about Nietzsche and Foucault: if you don't immediately grasp that even society's ways of thinking are set up to facilitate control by (and participation in) the Inner Party you don't deserve to be included.

Big Brother is your bestest friend when your worst enemy is yourself: one culls best when one culls oneself. Room 101 must be staffed somehow, and they might as well enjoy it.

Don't be poor Winston, is the message.

Those who do not display rigid ethical self-control, whether or not they bother to practice it themselves, perhaps should be programmed to self-destruct. There are certain things that just are just not done, or that one must never be caught at. See for example an example of how one purges oneself in Judaism.