Friday, 8 July 2016

Team America: Dicks and Pussies

Puppet Gary Johnston's speech in the movie Team America: World Police is priceless. Here it is in full. 
We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!
This is politicking at its crudest level.

Left-wing 'pussies' who want a nurturing government and negatively react to social justice offences  hate the right-wing 'dicks' who want a government that polices and punishes. These dicks troll said social justice people, because, as Gary Johnston points out, dicks love to fuck pussies. But while the dicks are fucking the pussies, engendering in turn more pussies and dicks through their procreative intercourse, psychopathic 'arseholes' shit on both left-wing pussies and right-wing dicks who are so busy fucking each other they don't realise they're being covered in shit by the political system of controlled opposition which is owned by arseholes (essentially bankers and dark occultists) who, to quote Gary, "just want to shit on everything."

To be sure, the point Gary is making is that right-wing dicks are the only ones capable of fucking arseholes as left-wing pussies can be so full of shit in their righteous indignation they turn into arseholes themselves. Unfortunately right-wing dicks rarely fuck arseholes at the top because you need balls to fuck arseholes and being right-wing usually means having no balls and fucking those pariah groups who aren't really shitting on the dicks which is the preserve of arseholes. As Gary says, dicks fuck when it isn't appropriate and it takes a pussy, e.g. someone with social justice concerns, to show them that.

Ultimately we all have dick and pussy within us, some being more dick than pussy and some more pussy than dick, but it takes the anarchist finger to point the pussies and dicks at both the shit they're covered in and the arseholes responsible. 

Addendum - It's an error, I think, to subscribe to the view that pussies are weaker than dicks. Dicks like to fuck pussies, sure, but are also afraid of them, i.e. their power. Put differently, pussies get fucked by dicks but can turn dicks down for sex, whence dicks being pussy-teased and pussy-whipped. And babies come from pussies, not dicks. In that sense pussies rule the world even though they occasionally get fucked by dicks when it suits them (rape withstanding). Moreover, some people think they're dicks when they're pussies and vice-versa. Perhaps it is best to embrace both the dick and pussy within us and use our finger to point at and screw the arseholes. 

Addendum 2 - For a later, more developed, take on the concept of 'pussy' see later post Who are the "Pussies"?.

Jobs and Money

Anarcho-capitalists protest no end against government but rarely question public and private sector slavery in the form of jobs culture.

Anarchy means no hierarchy, i.e. no ruler. Yet most jobs involve having a boss who tells you it's my way or the highway, destroy all your free time, force you to tasks that often contribute nothing to the welfare of society (often the reverse), invade your private life, make you exhausted and irritable, harm your physical and mental health and so on. 

These same anarchists then argue that you are free not to take a job offer or to quit a job you already have. 

Yet not having a job, under strict capitalism, means being out of money's reach, meaning you are de facto barred from interaction with monetary society, where all goods are priced, i.e. accessible only via money's purchase.

Most people aren't free to quit or turn down jobs because the monetary system is so entrenched and living without money would require giving up on all the amenities that are subject to pricing. 

They could of course become self-employed, like James Corbett of the, and that is a free-er option, but even James Corbett is a slave to money for his survival, let alone his output. 

I applaud attempts at freeing up the monetary system, where different currencies are in usage and money is not created as a debt from the start designed to enslave working populations. 

Money can be a useful tool although currently is not just a tool but an end in itself. The whole of financial capitalism, which brings no real wealth to the table in terms of goods or services as opposed to commercial or industrial capitalism, is premised on money as a value in itself, not as a value of exchange.

More to the point money is a social technology, an artificial resource, and depending on how technology is used - in the case of money it is far from being a moral usage - technology can either enslave of liberate. 

And indeed the majority of workers hate their jobs according to worldwide polls but are forced to work them to survive. Where's the anarchic freedom in that?

Essentially, in our centralised, monopolistic monetary system, if you have money you have freedom to live and consume but that is a very narrow, reductive understanding of freedom, since it is basically ruled by the necessity of self-preservation. 

Hannah Arendt saw freedom as the opposite of necessity; where there is necessity, the need to sustain bare, biological life, there is no freedom and where there is freedom, the protection of the world manifested in the public realm, there is no necessity. 

This is why the Ancients, she argues, had slaves; to be free from the necessities of life preservation to be able to dedicate themselves to the freedom of the public realm where being 'a speaker of great words, and a doer of great deeds', like Achilles in Homer, is preserved beyond one's mortal lifespan for all posterity to re-member. 

Jobs by contrast, which belong to the techno-social realm, are, in theory at least, about the preservation of biological life, the task of slaves in the Ancient World. 

Of course, modern technological jobs hardly ever aim directly at the preservation of life as opposed to the making of money (usually for shareholders/CEOs in return for a pay cheque), with monstrous results (e.g. Monsanto destroying food ecosystems, necessary for human survival, for profit). 

The rise of the techno-social realm means that necessity, bare life considerations and its offshoots of 'entertainment' (distraction), consumption, base-pleasure seeking, which are all animal drives, have turned human being into domestic cattle.

[A propos, as I've written elsewhere in Economics as Domestication, the rise to prominence of the economic worldview is possibly linked with the domestication of mankind into jobholding householders with the State being the giant household overseeing all the others, economics of course coming from the Greek οἷκος meaning household.]

As Mark Passio from states, we have been reduced to animals in a pen. And the way we treat other non-human sentient beings in factory farms speaks volumes about the level of our collective consciousness as a species. 

To conclude this post I will quote anarchist philosopher Kropotkin:
"There is no civil liberty as long as you are an economic slave."

Social Media and Naked Life

Social media are called social media, not public media. This is because in the Modern World, as Hannah Arendt exposes in her wonderful philosophical treatise The Human Condition, the public-private divide inherited from the Ancient World has been all but obliterated.

The social sphere is a nebulous zone that blurs the public, political realm with the private, individual realm. This is is one of the phenomena, Arendt argues, that contributes to the coming to prominence of totalitarian regimes which have the atomised mass-ification of human beings as their basis. 

Philosopher Giorgio Agamben has elaborated on this thesis, namely that the bare, naked life of labouring self-sustainment, what the Greeks called ζωή, whether through jobholding or its converse, consuming, is one that allows for a large margin of control and manipulation. 

On the other hand, dignified, purposeful, free life, i.e. unbound by the necessity of self-preservation, what the Greeks called βίος, such as the βίος πολιτικός (life as a free citizen of the πόλις) or the βίος θεωρητικός (life of the contemplative philosopher), is not so easily controllable. 

National sovereignty (natio, in Latin, meaning birth) or governmental power is essentially founded upon ζωή, naked life which gives rise to the phenomenon of biopolitics, the control and manipulation of the life process itself and the human body as vehicle for that process, as evidenced in the gathering of biometric data, genetic interference, production of GMO foods, and other technocratic methods of control.

Social media also contribute to the mass gathering of data for the powers that (should not) be and are reflective more, I would argue, of naked life than dignified life in that they belong to the nebulous social sphere where the private invades the public. The reason social media do not count as public media in my books is that they fail to provide a physical space, distinct from the realm of the social, for the exchange of deeds and words, i.e. the apparition of freedom, the end of politics being freedom, not management, in Arendt's thinking.  

In other words social media are social rather than public media in that they encourage and sustain the invasion of the public sphere by the private sphere, although this is more the case of Facebook than platforms like Twitter (which is very political) or the fairly artistically driven Tumblr. It is only in the public sphere, Arendt argues, that the world, that which binds us and separates us at the same time, comes to manifestation. 

Growing Up as Disillusionment

A common expression of abuse, especially online, is when someone tells another to 'grow up'. 

Perhaps they mean grow in personal responsibility or in awareness but I suspect that usually they want you to agree with them or bow down to their own preferred worldview.

My contention, however, is that growing up is not primarily about responsibility, especially as understood in the monetary sense, nor it is directly to do with growing in awareness in the sense of consciousness expansion but is an entirely negative process of ever increasing disillusion-ment, that is, the losing one's ment-al illusions.

Perhaps the law of diminishing returns applies to ageing. One's hopes (i.e. illusions) and beliefs in the world, in its goodness or fairness, its beauty and curiosity, often diminish with age as we grow in knowledge of how this place called earth really works, how fallen in both physical and psychological terms the human condition really is, how unpleasant so many people are, how money is really a methodology of enslavement and control, how most food and medicine is poison, how depraved elites are and I could go on for weeks. 

Some it is true retain a youthful optimism and a belief that there is a natural balancing between good and evil, that there is hope, that the present human condition has much in it to be commended. 

However for many others, disillusion does set in. An example of this is one's relationship with one's parents. As children we depend on them, perhaps even admire them (like many boys their fathers), learn from them, think they have all the answers and are practically omnipotent. Starting with adolescence and moving on to maturity this belief usually falls victim to dis-illusion, that is, our faith in our parents in these terms we realise to be an illusion as we learn that they are just as fallible, vulnerable and flawed as anyone else out there. We also learn about the physical, sexual component responsible for our coming-to-the-world realising that having children is nothing special. 

Perhaps as children we admire the working world of adults and are inspired, say, by airline pilots. Yet as we grow in disillusionment, i.e. grow in years and maturity, we learn that this trade is just as humdrum and nasty as any other, good salary withstanding. Same with other popular trades; while I admired boxers, cowboys and astronauts and wanted to become one of them as a child - a desire my mother used to make me eat my greens - I certainly no longer have any misplaced illusions as to the reality of these 'professions'. 

Even in our adult years, long after school-leaving age, we can still grow in disillusion as we learn more and more about political, economic and military realities desiring as we do to gain in knowledge and awareness of the world. Truth can set you free but it can also be bad for your well-being, depending on your emotional and intellectual strength when reading up on and engaging with bleak realities.

Another example of disillusionment that occurred for me in an academic context was my undertaking study of the classical civilisations Greece and Rome which I romantically admired as being the be it and end all of culture and successful civilisation. Digging deeper into the social and political realities of those traditions made me quite grateful not to be alive in those times.

Other mainstream examples abound.

Many grow disillusioned with romantic love or members of the opposite sex after so much neurotic interpersonal baggage in their love life. Many divorce. Many students grow disillusioned with university, which they saw as a moment of liberation and rite of passage, and later with the jobs system as they realise jobs are fascistic, life denying contrivances for monetary survival. Many grow disillusioned with institutions, such as the State, the police, the media or medicine. Many grow disillusioned with the moralities and worldviews of other people. Many grow disillusioned with human nature itself. Many grow disillusioned with the entertainment industry and the childish messages of the good guys versus the bad guys or with theme parks which are indulgent money making platforms for the thrill-seeking unimaginative. Many grow disillusioned with social media which at first seemed to them an appealing, attractive idea.

Again, I could go on for weeks but I don't wish to belabour the point. Growing up is disillusionment and disillusionment is growing up. But disillusion need not be a bad thing for it merely means, as I said earlier, the losing of one's mental illusions. And that, in its way, is a form of liberation from the influences, some of which nefarious, that have imbued us since childhood, whether on a conscious or subconsious level.