Blog Films Home

Two videos

The Constellations

5g

The Sigillum Dei Aemeth; the occult and the genital unified

Messay, /’mɛseɪ/, 1) noun, A short piece of writing which engages with the aesthetic of formal argument rather than the validity, 2) verb, to try to clean one’s mind by shitting out its thoughts. After the thoughts have been shat what remains in the mind might be without the dirt that has been wiped on the page. That is my motivation. Your motivation? Intellectual perversion. In this post I attempt to unify the occult with the genital and form the compound which will be revealed at the end.

The Sigillum Dei, seal of God, or signum dei vivi, symbol of the living God, called by John Dee the Sigillum Dei Aemeth. Repeated twice and shown alongside aggressively frank depictions of human genitalia. ¡Gesamtkomödiewerk! logo ‘the kernel of impossibility’ is used to brand the image.

The occult is at odds with contemporaneity because it stands against the material. There is a materialist analysis of the witch hunts that says there was no superstition it was a case of using Christianity to stop the free association of women. Of forcing them inside as a necessary element in the separation of reproductive labour and ipso facto labour in general. The superstition of witch hunters stands in a dialectical relation to the superstition of practicing witches. The enforcers of the new Christian rationalist order accuse the pagans of supernatural powers in addition to being superstitious. They then are some impossible intermediary both superstitious and anti-superstition. One interesting possibility is that this stance was not designed but rather selected in a Darwinian sense. In the marketplace of ideas truth does not garner the highest price; usefulness does. Might we have seen this with the rise of the “New Atheists” during the War on Terror? As if they had a symbolic function related to the military campaigns. Only Christopher Hitchens was coherent enough to make this connection evident with his call to “bomb the shit out of them”. One of the amusing historical ironies was the ‘materialists’ sought to deny the material concerns of the enemy and concentrated solely on their ‘ideology’. What do the materialists dislike about the ideologues? That their acts and thoughts are too material.

Might we see something similar now with the occult? It stands in as a white fascist symbol in death metal bands not because they themselves actually believe it (they are typically atheist vulgar materialists) but because it occupies some symbolic space which serves their interest in how the genre triangulates material relations. The Nazis in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) are strangely portrayed as playing with some form of Christian occult. In the world of the film the occult is real but it is the Nazis who summon it. And yet they are simultaneously the logical conclusion of Enlightenment’s aim of pure instrumental rationality in the analysis of Adorno and Horkheimer in Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944). It is this conjunction of opposites that interests me here. Are we not hypocritical as viewers simultaneously condemning the Nazis for superstition while also for summoning actual supernatural forces. This central paradox in the film is what gives it its neat dialectical appeal. The moving image can have its cake and eat it. It can claim to depict the real while also enabling representations of the impossible. This reaches its apogee with Penrose triangles. What I call the kernel of impossibility. But Penrose did not discover these. The logic is evident in the Sigillum Dei Aemeth with the overlapping heptagram. In William Reich’s the Mass Psychology of Fascism he claims the Swastika is a depiction of the primal scene. Does not the primal scene constitute the ultimate impossible figure? So shocking that in Britain’s Union Jack they only dare imply it behind the Crucifixion. The construction of the pure idea, the I, and the subject out of the material. And what is its kernel? Genital contact. The I knows it is impossible and it locates that impossibility in the Oedipal figure. The box in which we store all that is incendiary. It is this because the I appears to us as cause and yet it demands to cause itself which it cannot. It therefore demands some mythical impossibility in its construction. In the case of Nazism this traumatic element is superimposed on a subject in the world in the form of a scapegoat. There is a phrase regarding poor treatment of people that ‘they are treated like objects’ but no object has been targeted as subjects have. The scapegoat is necessarily a subject and the repulsion expresses itself in the simultaneous denial and accusation of the subject’s subject-hood. This is one definition of evil.

Let us obey Frederic Jameson’s command in the Political Unconscious (1981) to ‘always historize!’ Let us not shelter under the lazy conception of contemporaneity coming into being like a train of thought in the collective spirit. Let us seek material causes and ideal effects; ideal causes and material effects. Niether a Hegelian dialectic of ideas nor a Marxian material dialectic but a four point dialectic of these two dialectics. As if we are born of these two fathers. What I’m going to call a meta-lectic. Does the Kantian transcendental idealism entail its opposite in a transcendental materialism? To take a further wild swing in an essay already characterised by wild swings I’m going to claim there is a numerology of schemas. Odd is what is out of balance and appeals to the radical mind. Even is what is pure and appeals to those for whom disgust is traumatic. The even numbers of the Swastika and the Cross but the broken symmetry of the implied rotation or the slight extension which offsets the cross from a plus sign. The odd numbers of Penrose’s ‘trialism’ (physical world contains mental world contains platonic ideals contains physical world… (the observant note there are two possible directions, like a Levi-Civita symbol of totality, where he key defining property of the symbol is total antisymmetry in all the indices)), or Lacan’s Borromean knot (the real, the imaginary, and the symbolic, each interdependent). There is a speculation that the overepresentation of Engineers in radical Jihadist organisations is because there is an ‘Engineering mindset’ which desires one truth, singular answers, and balanced social order to mirror a law governed world, and cannot stand the unlimited infinite of open enquiry (Why are there so many Engineers among Islamic Radicals?, Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog, 2009).

What am I claiming is the material cause? The transition between broadcasting apparatus from the public television to the dual nature of the internet’s libidinal screen. Where one source begets the spiritual and the obscene. The pure alongside the greatest excesses of internet pornography. Like a pre-Oedipal sewer direct into the prefrontal cortex. The realm of the free image. Like a mother who never denies you her tit. Unlike the real which denies. Doesn’t the real show a certain lack of imagination in its consistency. It is incapable of being stupid and inconsistent in the way I can. I don’t think Orwell was aware of the Hegellian paradoxical conception of aufhebung when he coined the rhetorical neologism doublethink. This was how he became Britain’s most conservative socialist and their mascot for compromise. He who said the following in My Country Right or Left, 1940:

“I dare say the London gutters will have to run with blood. All right, let them if it is necessary. But when the red militias are billeted in the Ritz I shall still feel that the England I was taught to love so long ago and for such different reasons is still persisting.”

One of the central barks of the materialists (or quacks; as in speech acts caused by material phenomena, there is no I to claim they represent ideas) is that free will is impossible because ‘the mind obeys the laws of physics’. The curious thing is that it doesn’t depend on a specific law, just the very conception of law. It is not the case that after some specific experiment on some date free will was experimentally ruled out but rather the very notion of physical law prohibits free will. What is a law but a prohibition. Was law itself the first discovery?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” – John 1:1.

Does the possibility of prohibitions contain an ultimate prohibition that is one and the same as time. Is the real the lawful subset of everything? Then since the I can utter impossibilities it is not real. Is it possible to imagine an experimental result that would permit free will? By the vulgar materialist’s criteria it could only be one thing: a time machine. As if the zeroth law of all physics was ‘free will does not exist’. Which would be amusingly incommensurable with the central datum of experience that we observe something we call free will. Actually not because the I still traverses one path. To go back in time becomes the ultimate contradiction and essentially means to go forwards backwards. Can I condense it further? To un go. To meekly ungo where every woman has ungone in the future. It could of course be possible that time travel does happen it is just our thought reverses as the world does which would be indistinguishable from it not happening. Time travel is where the I flows distinctly from its position; again a contradiction if the I has a position. A further consequence of no free will is the possibility of multiple I. If I cannot choose to move my arm but am just watching the movement of the arm then how do I know only I am watching? There could be multiple I all watching. If my speech acts are entailed by the position history of my components I can only say there are between 1 and infinite I. Are the materialists willing to get in bed with Lacan’s equivalent claim of the non-unitarity of the subject. Oh how fun to call them postmodernists. This is a parallel to the observation that multiple time dimensions would be equivalent to one time dimension.

We may be confused about what it is, about what sentences such as ‘could have done otherwise’ mean, but we observe will. I is either will itself or it observes will as a feature of experience. I claim ‘could have done otherwise’ is a remark of utter superstition. It supposes some imaginary time travel. The sentence can only have meaning if time travel were a material possibility, which almost tautologically by our construction of time it is not. Subjects move forward in time by construction. That which I can return to is not time-like. This leads me to my ultimate claim that if you do not accept the existence of will you will not use the word I. Can you even say me? Can you say we? Must you remain silent? And since you do not remain silent and even your most prosaic and pedantic remarks imply a proceeding ‘I think’ you do believe in the I and will.

What does ‘I am a materialist’ signify? That the abstract representation I, the idea of the subject rejects the idea that it exists but that only the substrate on which it is written exists. Can a thing deny its existence? Is not to say ‘I am a materialist’ to say ‘I think and I am not’. In denying the validity of the cogito there is a certain boldness to the position. Should not the materialist say ‘the description of the totality of sensory data written on everything other than the sensory data excludes the sensory data as being anything other than an epiphenomenon of things which are not in contact with the description’.

Are materialism and idealism really incommensurable? Are they opposites or is all thought ‘doublethought’. A critical capacity of thought is the impossible. I must be capable of uttering the sentence ‘two plus two equals five’ in order to investigate its impossibility. Does the conception of collective spirit necessitate individuals equally splitting between sides on the Kantian antonyms. Because it is too traumatic for the I to behold the antonym as radically undecidable. Under this scheme beliefs become descriptions of the form of I rather than the world. And the possibility of subject-subject relations demand the existence of both types of I.

And so let us search for the metaphysical debates of the day and find their opposing material seeds. Or would that be to indulge in vulgar materialism in the second degree? To simply delay the postman. Either way I claim that the gender trouble, and essentialism regarding the relation of genitalia to your ‘true self’, as if such a thing existed, is that metaphysical debate. What is the material seed? What material phenomena necessitates an essential and singular I in relation to sexuality and genital form? Does it concern international or corporate affairs? Of what new epoch is it a portent? The occult as the pure immaterial. The genitals as the ultimate material. The last gasp of the flesh. The simultaneously physical and symbolic. As the debate turns further and further to metaphysics and the immaterial so it turns away from the material. So far away that I no longer know what I am not looking at. But I dare to suggest it is its opposite. As the genitalia are the location of symbolic and material contact labour is the reverse. Is some new relation of production looming over the horizon like a prowling leopard observing and unsympathetic? The destruction of the family as the last vestige of a private life? As family was a fundamental element in the propagation of bourgeois life will it finally be slayed by its apprentice? The infinite and unending question remaining do we choose our fate. If I cannot decide whether I believe in free will or not because my beliefs are already encoded in the ‘wavefunction of the universe’ I remain the totally undecided antonym itself. I cannot even state itself because to do so supposes the will. Like Freud;s scathing remark about schizophrenics ‘they are like philosophers’ they can only refer to themselves in the third person. I is the pure contradiction. And its hysterical self questioning precedes a moment of will.

Where does orgasm fit in to this scheme? It has been remarked that psychology (as opposed to psychoanalysis) cannot answer the question ‘why do you come?’. This is because psychology observes from outside where psychoanalysis observes from inside. Psychology could only ever find correlations between the physical effect with visual stimuli. How could it relate these things to the material conditions? To mythology and iconography. And now, the pièce de résistance. The boldest of bold claims. I say the orgasm is the kernel of impossibility. The moment the infinite I melts away, the condensation of the traumatic Oedipal impossibility with the world of the only possible. The world of law. The necessary contact between opposites and a vision of the absent I. Where we bear witness to the pure will and it is an infinitely thin line. I claim this high act of idealism to be consistent with evolutionary theory and I posit an experimentally verifiable test of its veracity:

Weak form: any artificial intelligence can only pass the Turing test if it is capable of orgasm.

Strong form: any artificial intelligence can pass the Turing test if and only if it is capable of orgasm.

As if orgasm is a non-halting problem. The petite mort. The Freudian death wish. What William Reich tried to harness in his orgasm laser. How does this account for the almost universal desire to stay alive. Because to die young is have the I retarded from its mythical death. It’s ‘taking back control’. It is to die less. The will is to maximise death. To maximise life-death. Some impossible paradoxical illogical aim that lies at its heart and it knows not. Some lexical contradiction apparent in its every move. The abstract which denies the abstract. The idea which denies ideas. The unbalanced seeking against law. The denial of law. The law of non-contradiction. The set of impossible ideas. The excluded middle. The kernel of impossibility.

Three videos (one removed)

Free English Lessons for beginners. Lesson 1: advanced concepts: the word leaf.

Lizzo – Exactly How I Feel feat. Gucci Mane (Raph Shirley fan dance)

Billie Eilish – you should see me in a crown (Raph Shirley fan dance)

Extreme Workout Video

Cake

The Life Cycle of the Hypercunt Johnsinimus

In which I describe the reproductive process of the sub-species Hypercunt Johnsinimus.

Diagram 1

Figure 1. Full diagram of the process.

I claim that the importance of a truth can be gauged by the degree to which, on first intellectual contact, it inspires repulsion. As the seed is planted in your heart it stings and burns and only with time and much dialectical angst do you gradually realise its awful veracity. And so I present to you a new unification. As I have studied the reproductive process of the human animal over many hard and harsh years I have discovered this new travesty. It concerns the life cycle of the Hypercunt Johnsinimus.

It has long been proclaimed that the biological definition of sex concerns the size of the gametes. That the female is the creature with the larger gamete and the male that with the smaller. But has some logical necessity escaped this schematising? For so long as one among the multitude contains the largest gamete does it not introduce the third element. What in logic we call the excluded middle; what I am calling the Hypercunt. I do not deny that the sperm be smaller than the egg. What I introduce is the third class bigger than both: the rugglicle. Furthermore, I posit that the human animal’s third element has a reproductive cycle that lasts one hundred years and that this autumn we approach its apex.

For as the wasps and the ants harbour a queen so the human sets in the bowels of its formicarium the Mastersex Hypercunt Johnsinimus. This aspect has a radically different form and function of genitalia than your or my mere animalia that I will here discuss. But do I give too much introduction? For this scheme can be described simply in just a few hundred words. The essential thesis is thus:

The Hypercunt has two master phalisimi and one rugglicule similar in form but unparalled in magnitude to the typical male’s testicle. The two master phalisimi are likewise very large (around fifteen times the length but similar in width to the average male penis). From these two phalisimi protrude four ceets each which can extend beyond four hundred meters. The Hypercunt reproduces by attracting human females to suck on these ceets. At which point the ceets begin to unravel, travelling the full length of her digestive tract. When the ceet reaches the anus it protrudes and turns a full one hudred and seventy degrees until it faces the subject’s vagina. It then enters the vagina and moves directly to the ovaries which it hovers up along with the full supply of eggs which are absorbed into the central region of the Hypercunt wherein some genetic alchemy (further study needed) produces human baby rugglicles which originate from the singular rugglicule. These rugglicles appear almost exactly as rugby balls but coated in a kind of brittle egg shell from which the fully formed adult johnsinimi are birthed. These johnsinimi are genetically identical to the Hypercunt but completely infertile.

Patel’s Lemma; what is it?

The inner sanctum is also staffed by many worker johnsinimi who formed from unfertilised ruglicles. One of these has contributed theoretically to the scheme in the form of Priti Patel’s Lemma which posits that any ruglicle left unsatisfied by raw sexual energy shall form into a new worker johnsinimi which functions to serve the production of further ruglicles.

Is it man or fowl? It is a new order of obscenity.

Oh loves! The libidinal economy of the beast is brutal and exquisite. It draws you in as it repulses. It sucks as it blows. Tyrannosaurus rex! The king of terrors. The master of all that is foul and unholy. It comes with its own ontological necessity. It expands and lays and expands and lays. It has within it some overabundance in a rugby shirt. Like slimulus in a suit. Tis beast my good man. Run for ye life lest you be dragged in the inner realm and consumed in its Burgundy based broth.

Corollary 1; how can this be?

Those of an observant nature might ask why the females might choose to engage in this despicable act. I can tell you friend. For as I studied the process I became increasingly curious about the intense hypnotic pleasure available. To the point one night I began to walk toward this terrible kraken. Luckily, I was forewarned by some poor wretch who had attempted the infinilatio. When the phalisimus has exited your anus and finds there are no eggs to be found it angrily ejects you at such speed you shall never speak again. I had prevented my passage by tying my shoelaces together and awoke from my stupor before I came too close. I saw its appeal. I walked with demons and took from the cup of evil wine. The only way I could explain it is to say it was somewhere between Champagne and nightmares. Between pure joy and pure hate.

But I digress. There are more details to the scheme that any serious enquirer must be informed about. After the ruglicles are complete they are sent forthwith to the anal cavity (in a sister essay I will describe the process of eating whereby the Hypercunt takes food in the mouth, dissolves it and ejects it again from the mouth as an octopus does). The ruglicles are then laid into dustbins where the infant can develop due to the warmth provided by decaying trash. These grow to adulthood fully without any parental care and lead sad bitter lives. You can recognise these when you hear the following squeal from a local wheelie bin “daddy, no, please don’t leave me like the others!”. The screams will never be answered.

Counter position

“Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.” – Sajid Javid, CDO salesman and Demicunt.

Do not think I am unaware of the radical novelty of my thesis. Do not think I have not dripped with sweat many a night asking myself “can this monstrosity be? Can God’s earth harbour such demons”. Rest assured, dear reader, I have applied the utmost level of rigorous enquiry of a kind at or near that of the Hypercunt’s very own research department. In point of fact the whole episode was relayed to me by alemate Joshua, who received it first hand, from his colleague, in one of London’s utmost Wetherspoons.

Corollary 2; what is to be done?

And in this final section we must fall to despair. I know not what or how. I will have to leave this to my readers more versed in strategy. I merely point you to this fascinating and frightening natural process which is coming to fruition. The display is occurring in the inner chamber of the formicarium in one month and with what savagery it will explode none can say. All I ask is that you tie yourselves down, as Odysseus bound himself to the mast, lest the siren call of latinate neologisms draw you through promises of erotic ecstasy to your bloody demise.

Three new videos

1:

2:

3:

One hundred proofs that Bielefeld does not exist

being one hundred proofs that Bielefeld does not exist.

1 Bielefeld is the most populous city in the Regierungsbezirk Detmold, with a population of 341,730. If this was true then no one could either leave or arrive since the population would no longer be 341,730. It follows that there is no Bielefeld.

2 The historical centre of the city is situated north of the Teutoburg Forest line of hills, but modern Bielefeld also incorporates boroughs on the opposite side. If Bielefeld existed it would then both be and not be on the opposite side. Therefore it does not exist.

3 Bielefeld is home to a significant number of internationally operating companies, including Dr. Oetker. Since Dr Oetker produces frozen pizza which is a self evident contradiction, it follows that it, and its home Bielefeld, do not exist.

4 The angel Merkel acknowledges the non-existence of Bielefeld.

4.5 Shirley’s Lemma: I have never discovered a bias in my thinking. Since my thought, according to itself via an immanent critique, is without bias I believe it when it believes that Bielefeld does not exist.

5 The aeronaut can see for himself that Bielefeld does not exist. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained offers no glimpse of Bielefeld. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Bielefeld does not exist.

6 We can not talk about proof 6.

7 If proof 6 holds then we similariwise cannot talk about Bielefeld. Since what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence then we must pass over Bielfeld in silence. If proof 6 does not hold then we can talk about proof 6 thus proving that proof six holds.

8 Consider if there were a second Bielefeld. There would then be two towns with the same name meaning it would be impossible to know which we were talking about. If the first town were then destroyed there would still be Bielefeld proving that Bielefeld is of size zero.

9 Since the first proof already demonstrated the thesis and the second prooof also, then, as we are now at proooooooooof nine, and since the letter o is a hyperflattened 0 the prooof 3 was fooooolproooof. It has been demonstrated.

10 In the photographs frequently staged in deep state research laboratories purporting to show Bielefeld various evidences of fakery are presents. In fact an entire head of a man was found to measure just 1.7 cm on my computer screen. Are we to believe these tiny men are real!

11 Throughout the first ten proofs I have demonstrated my ability to provide true arguments. You may therefore take it on authority when I tell you that Bielefeld does not exist.

100 Recent experiments have determined that up to seventy percent of the universe is composed of so called dark energy. I estimate the Bielefeld’s mass to be equal to the length of a London bus in nanometers in imperial tonnes. This more than accounts for the missing dark energy.

101 It is a fact universally acknowledged that Bielefeld does not exist.

12 If Bielefeld exists then the townfolk would not consider any proof that it does not. Since the consequent, that they do consider proofs fairly, holds, then the negation of the antecendent, that Bielefeld does not exist, can be inferred.

14 If Sparrenberg Castle wasn’t in a place then Bielefeld would not exist. Since a castle cannot have an exact place due to its non zero size, proving the antecedent, then the consequent that Bielefeld does not exist may be inferred.

15
15.1 ¬A∨¬(¬B∧(¬A∨B))
15.2 = ¬A∨¬[(¬B∧¬A)∨(¬B∧B)]
15.3 = ¬A∨¬[(¬B∧¬A)∨ False]
15.4 = ¬A∨¬(¬B∧¬A)
15.6 = ¬A∨(B∨A) using ¬(X∧Y)=¬X∨¬Y
15.7 = True

16 – 95 Proofs 16 to 95 are all possible hyperrevolution inverses of proofs 5 to 8 as counterstructed from the mirror image of proof 3. The chiral proof augmented from the mid point of these proofs is identical to the superlocrian mode.

96 If Bielefeld existed a world map containing Bielefeld would be the very best means for a sailor to navigate the world. With such a toy as a guide the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty. This is a proof that Bielefeld does not exist.

97 The mayor of Bielefeld, Pit Clausen, believes that Bielefeld exists. Pit Clausen is a damned fool. Therefore Bielefeld does not exist.

97 B Anfangsgründe der Logik was written by Johann Christoph Hoffbauer in 1794. Since Hoffbauer was born in Bielefeld, before the writing of the rudiments of logic, the town is pre-logic. This another way of saying that Bielefeld does not exist.

97 C It is no longer our reason that is against Bielefeld, but our taste.

98 Before publication, this article was subject to extensive criticism from peers in the scientific community of my esteemed acquaintances. Since it has withstood such attack and survived it is true.

99 Bielefeld is home to the professional football team DSC Arminia Bielefeld. Currently member of 2. Bundesliga. Since 1. Bundesliga does exist, it follows that 2. Bundesliga is for teams that do not exist.

The pudding: It is a fact universally acknowledged that the world is approximately spherical and simulated in a computer on the flat earth. Since it would be easier to simulate a world without Bielefeld, it follows from Occam’s razor that there is no Bielefeld.

A non-zero proof equal to the square root of zero: Once you eliminate Bielefeld, whatever remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth.

0 Since it has been proven that Bielefeld does not exist, it necessarily follows that Bielefeld does not exist.

Q.E.D.

Living in the land of opposites

In which women have too many positive role models; and are only permitted to exist in positions of authority be being judges, teachers, doctors, and CEOs. 

The object and its opposite living in a whole. Or three objects describing the famous Borromean knot. The exclusions sustaining the explicit contradictions. And all this embodied in the toilet bowl!

In which the answer to the question has no relation to the question being asked because the question is unsatisfactory.

Should the answer to this question characterise the power dynamic between the asker and the asked? Leave or I take an early Witgenstien view that language is a means to describe the world. Remain or I take a late Witgenstien view that the bulk of language is performative and game-like. I really should go home after this pint.

In which all discourse between the UK government and its population takes the form of an exam.

Do you conform to the doctrine of being different? To what? That which everything is not. Rebelliously ignoring the law of the excluded middle. The last words of the sentence are vulgarised faeces*.

*shit.

In which itself and its opposite mean the same thing.

How are we to reconcile Ricky Gervais’ comment that “the men are the children, the women the adults” with Kant’s that all women live in a state of “self-imposed nonage”.

Each appears sexist yet they are each other’s complement. Each sentence should further the aim of the paragraph. But these are unruly sentences and paragraphs are passé.

In which I have the realisation that meta-argumentative analysis is applicable in all contexts.

Irony is just a first order dialectic. A dialectic for babies.

Obviously I don’t care about other people, I’m just worried about my own wrong ideas. But, if I’m completely dishonest, my feelings about these wrong ideas are not ambiguous. Oh you wrong ideas. You darlings!

In which women are denied the radical freedom of inherent self worth not derived from a position of power, success, influence or authority. Available even in destitution and failure. Jesus the ultimate loser. Terrorists the fake losers. Loser winner, winner loser.

The only original idea: that gender being a ‘social construct’ makes it harder to overcome than any natural limitations imposed by mere biology. It took a hundred years to overcome the speed limit imposed by mere biology. It will take eternity to end the use of men running as propaganda instrument. Eliot’s perceptive line:

“It was as if a woman’s ignorance was of a lower quality than a man’s.”

Is there a difference between no apples and no oranges? Yes, because no oranges in a box means there might be apples there. A description of a description. A false description in one sense, a declaration in another.

Those acts which are permitted by the two exclusions ‘don’t be evil’ and ‘don’t be good’. As close as evil to possible without entering that morality space.

In which we fight the battle for the origin myth.

It is important to remember that the state of nature is not a real object to be inspected but a performative one to be created. The argument over the qualities of the real object is entirely synthetic. Like an artist’s impression of the prevalent description of cosmological origin in an ironised tabloid science article. Presenting its claim to higher understanding as a modest lack of understanding.

A series of unrelated thoughts bungled on to the page.

In which we pretend to believe in some set of minds with lower instrumental and epistemic rationality to our own. The other readers. Dear everyone other than reader.

As if reason didn’t act on axioms to be chosen by whim. Euclid’s fifth postulate was thrown away by whim. And this they called genius.

In which I show a selfish concern for my own mind above other’s bodies damaged and degraded by Hollywood’s film industry practices.

Searching around my brain for all the little structures erected by Harvey Weinstein. Erected to sustain a particular form of zero. Erected by pathetic fallacy. The stage contains more information than the play on it. The space-space-time cube containing the producer’s work. I once had my wages to drive some props around London haggled down by a producer and have distrusted them ever since.

In which we see the last humanities department.

In which academic text books are the seat of propaganda.

In which satire is the instrument of the powerful.

In which I didn’t notice the inversion.

In which I fail to imagine a female in permanent adolescence.

In which technology alters language.

In which we disobey Steven Pinker’s request to omit unnecessary words.

In which we only include unnecessary words since necessary words are implicit.

Only include superfluous words.

Hypersuperfluousity.

I, malevolent.

In which the category wife sustains the category prostitute (Engels).

In which the guilt sustains the lust.

In which categories both describe and cause (Peter Hitchens).

In which the world is a yes or no question.

In which it all appears as one whole wrongness.

In which the world is turned upfide down.

The event

The circumstances of the event are very much specific to the event. That is why when speaking of it we must be exceptionally careful to be specific about what we mean by the causes and learn from them.

LUV xoxo

internet or not internet

inertia

0

Living in a caravan. Masturbate in the morning. There is a cow at the window watching me. This put me off. It had a big brown eye watching me wank. Now the day is off kilter so I run out the door bare shouting at the said cow.

1

I denounce feminism and all her evils.

2

Wandering down the country lane elliptical. A battalion of wheelie bins come over the top at me declaring. I have weapons. Shotgun and stick and take on the wheelie bins. Neighbours scream and shout. ‘What have you done to my bin?’

3

A sea of strewn enemies. Their innards (old food packaging etc) flowing out. Sheer sublimated libidinal energy. Such waste. Council replaced bins efficiently.

4

Amazon because it had the A to Z design possibility and the scale of flowing out. What is the sea?

5

Looking out the back window of a bus at my conquest satisfying but guilt. sHello sdarkness smy sold sfriend.

6

I watched as the finest vets of my generation grabbed a cow by the pussy and pondered Benjamin’s immortal inspirational quote ‘behind every fascism there is a failed revolution’ because ‘behind every great man is a great woman’. Was the obvious parallel lost on you?

7

A threat hanging in the air with menace.

8

Recreational agriculture.

9

How many moves ahead can you think in chess or politics? I can think between zero and one moves ahead. Did not see that one coming.

10

We never believed they would hire the better creatives.

11

The psychometric covariance matrix.

12

Windows 95.

Summary of the year two thousand and sixteen

We the hyperboreans! We the followers of David Icke. I can begin with the summary that 2016 was all about architecture. When Russian agents created the European parliament they employed a man who had dedicated his life to helping insomniacs. He did this by designing an unnational parliament that was so boring to watch that no animal could look at it for more than around 15 seconds without falling asleep. After ten seconds of stock footage to be played over any news story the camera man would slumber, the camera would dip to the floor and the lizards could remove their human costumes and begin their horrific reproduction ritual of which one byproduct was law. There were at least ten byproducts and the product was caviar. However, one day another Russian, this time a dissident; Ronald McDonald, invented the ‘tripod’ and it was just a matter of time before Britain voted to leave the union.

<Reader questions my position>

Light beech benches in the round. Cheap expensive suits in monotonous foreign mangled overly good English with perfect grammar and no idioms. A parliament designed by Ikea. Don’t worry, I will maintain some ironic distance to help you swallow the bitter pill. The prose is scattered nonsense lacking structure, which has been acknowledged and therefore cannot be criticised; blithering. A vulgar room in a vulgar building that asks for our love or disinterest. No, no, yes. Location, location, education. Minds untouched by the King James. A codified genre.

Where was I?

<in hell>

<logic>
David Cameron therefore* asked us whether the UK government should drop a nuclear bomb on us all. Should choose a policy without a government. Should heal the Conservative party. Should be racist. Should say fuck off. Should x. This was a masterstroke of long term strategy of which we are merely witnessing the first stage. The end game involves George Osborne becoming King of the Jews and completing his long term economic plan in 3000CE when we will run a surplus of 1p. When we were asked whether the world was round, he unfortunately told us that he would be upset to the point of crying in his wife’s arms, which his children would see; forever losing respect for him, if we said it were flat. And out of sheer spite I wanted his children to share our disappointment with our parents. I wanted disciplinarians and they turned out to be liberals. A yearning for authority. But there were lies on both sides. 350 is approximately 200 to a statistician. We call them the same ‘order of magnitude’. For instance the average density of the universe is around 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 01 kilograms per cubic metre which is a different order of magnitude to the density of air which is about 350 000 000 pounds per week when hot. We are a stain on the vacuum. So it was a lie of size 7/4. Compare that to the lie the goodies told that the density of the universe was roughly the density of air. It was a bigger lie, but then again if two liars tell you two lies what does that reveal about the truth? this is part of the grand metaphysical debate begat by Rumsfeld who famously forgot to mention the things that you know but you don’t know that you know. For me that is that I know I don’t understand numbers above a thousand but I don’t know that I know it.
</logic>

world.history.help()

“ ‘Take back control’ has the character of the death wish. We know we have to die, but we want to die on our own terms.’ – some yank red. Memento vitae.

britain.finishJobOfLuftwaffe()

I met someone who thought a vote for X was an endorsement of X. How would you like to be humiliated?

self.cry('conformism that doesn\'t know it is conformism is just a further stupidity')

A slight mental smell seemed to be hinting at a coherent idea but never quite settled.

And the left destroyed the leftist Sanders and want a new war with Russia for some reason. It was Amy Schumer wot won it.

And apparently the sixties was actually shit.

And the introduction of the tritone into compositions was shatteringly brutal and radical. It took the genius of the oppressed to make such an incredible theoretical divergence from the past. But it was a victory of the intellect over order. Ugliness became an ingredient for beauty.

$latex R_{\mu \nu} – {1 \over 2}g_{\mu \nu}\,R + g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda =
{8 \pi G \over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}$,

where $latex R$ is the experiment being conducted on our minds by the Chinese called the internet; $latex g$ is the fake clash of civilisations narrative; $latex \Lambda$ is the true clash of civilisations narrative; and $latex T$ is Nigel Farage.

And so it turned out that T.S. Eliot was wrong about April. It was June and even then not so much as November, less a month than a vacuum between two other gentler months. I think T.S. stands for That Slapper. For in November Hillary Duck was crowned oldest loser in history. Septegenocracy is a new evil for the world. A slow evil. A weary evil. A evil with urinary difficulties. Daffy Clinton will now have have a special bingo wing added to the Special Fancy House for special bingo times. This all poses some troubling conundrums for Jonny Muslim. And we should remember that just because they think the world was made by a male fairy type thing which is difficult to describe they are still terrorists. Just like you and me. And the advertisers have been first to champion empowered religious women. Ann Summers released a Christmas burqa with extra slits at the nipple and crutch to help empowered religious women feel sexy while honouring the prophet (PBUH) by covering their modesty. It had the full veil of ignorance allowing objective analysis of political theory. And I have started covering my hair with a ‘baseball cap’ for fear of arousing women with my brown mop out of pure respect for dignity. I have long been worried that I would tempt females away from austere piety and make blood flow to their secondary sexual organs by running a hand across my head provocatively. Seemingly unaware that I am being watched. But I know what I am doing. It says #MAGA. And we must concentrate on what we have in common. For instance us atheists share the Islamic view that Mary must have had sex to have that kid and probably told Joseph that it was God that raped her in her dream in a panicked explanation in the heat of the moment that she couldn’t believe he believed to the point where she was forced to question his intellect. Either that or Joseph ejaculated on her and I don’t need to go into vulgar details but you get the picture (his semen somehow made its way ‘down there’, ‘down south’, or raised eyebrows (I’m talking about Mary’s vagina and uterus)). But of course I feign a symmetry where an asymmetry lies. Four points on an identity space.

     

                                          a)                                                                                           b)
Figure 1: Graph of my ignorance against religion a) shows Shiantanism and b) shows Sunnitholicism. Time for the daily trip to BBC article on the difference between Sunni and Shia.

I ask myself of what topics I dare not speak. I don’t think the holocaust is a fair example.

Intentional disregard for Michael Gove’s and Steven Pinker’s contradictory rules for good prose style.

‘When I was seventeen, it was a very good year’ is a lyric that today’s seventeen year olds will never be able to sing. Except ironically if they still have that. I don’t know, I remember when a telephone was still two plastic cups and a bit of string, which lets face it: it still is. I wish I was seventeen, and it is our duty to ruin things for them so we don’t feel so jealous. Like really humiliating until it’s like literally ‘thank god I’m not seventeen’. Twenty Seventeen. Seventeen feels like a cute diminutive for seven. The seven blasphemies of modernity: the Shard, the Gherkin, the Walkie Talkie, the Lloyds building, Canary Wharf, the Olympics and Mary Berry. The bland international city state which mocks the sublime modesty of a small Norman church. They holiday in Tuscany while English winter sunsets mock the base vulgarity of Mediterranean heat on paid leave. A dream that our star will replace carbon through pure commercial supremacy.

The bland international city state cries a liberal tear. The pseudo leftists weep. Is it a coincidence that the principle image of our global warming is a biblical flood? The salary of crying. The cinematic aspect of the scientific theory is its essential appeal.

I am grateful to be alive (stars, life etc).

My main prediction is that since Jonny Chinese is a more effective capitalist than Jonny Yank we will see the Cold War in reverse in the twenty first century. Peace Hot. We are at peace but we all kill each other. The yanks will be the commie bastards. Elections and liberty will be opposites. The world is upfide down.

What is your preferred binary? Old-young? Educated-uneducated? bigoted-liberal. My preferences are rural-metropolitan and pessimist-optimist.


Figure 2: Bisections of a plane.

The glass is not half empty, it embodies dread.

Some old ideas as a front for something or other.

Merry Summery across gorgeous rolling green hills to a blood orange horizon,

* No causal relation permitted.

Buzzard

London Tourism Guide for Foreign Tourists to London on “Vacation”

Welcome,

A Portrait of a Provincial Nobody

    Words and pictures from Raph Shirley, in humorous weblog form.

    Infecting the internet like so many glimmering tentacles
    ( ).

    He is a fictional character.

    Buy the book!