Mein Unterstack Part II

Get your own material edition | Latest Haul stealing from the Eggreport (and McLuhan - if you’re intimate with McLuhan just skip this one tbqh) | Read the footnotes else none of this works

“My motivation is to change the course of Western Friendship, I haven’t liked the way it’s been going so I decided to make another substack”

Dramatis Personae

A - The Fish

B - The Martlet

B - For some weeks now I’ve had the prospect of a sequel to the critically acclaimed undeniable smash hit that was my last post (2 likes woah!!!!) but have been too busy jerking my fat (fact checked by patriots) cock to simulations “““of intimacy””” (RIP George Floyd) to care. During the portions of respite between cleanups and doomscrolling I thought it fit to fain some protests about my happy circumstance so I can double dip and enjoy my wretchedness with foil in hand. The other hand.

In short my point is that friendship no longer exists (as it once did), and I’m so certain of that fact that I’ve done my damnedest to drown myself in sensuality to prove the viability of the clearly pushed alternative, dreadfully impending. But, as I know you know, only so many nights can dissolve into another before dissolution itself becomes insoluble, and lest I be edified by any actual belief I’ve retreated here temporarily to the domain of values and comprehension so that static may fuzz once again, and the signal of disruption itself may cease to be a message to me. My observations are too disparate for an even contour to be forged without disproportionate, that is, non self serving effort, and as the quality of a serviette is precisely in its disposability, so this too would be amiss if I took great pains to fold content to form, and please the mind with a gestalt that is it’s own mien. No preamble justifies itself yet this was written, expect consistency.

Bones

“Each time that I looked from afar, at the bend of some sunny road, toward a Greek acropolis with its perfect city fixed to the hill like a flower to its stem, I could not but feel that the incomparable plant was limited by its very perfection achieved on one point of space and in one segment of time” - Emperor Hadrian

Justice’s sometime demand, in accordance with fate of history, a terrible gift to the flourishing clans of any nation so prosperous for their qualities tenderly looked down on by the gods; its name complexity, its necessities our subject. At first well tended, when warriors exceeded 5000 strong so no head could make count of all others, a needing space was cordoned off for a role too pressing for judgement. This man was to tally on behalf of the now unknowing rest, how men under his eye acted, and so the segment was made, and it was good. No doubt good agents bring fourth good fruits, and thus a generation slid into trust bonds of offices, and officiously made headway wielding the dry saber of paper to coordinate virile flesh by proxies. Perforce their growth they grew more, and some men had to watch the watchers, as some men watched them. As one generation overtook another the techniques taught and gathered by the young were not intelligible without this superstructure, which men laboured to upkeep so that by it they may be kept. Soon fathers stopped teaching their sons, who in turn soon could not teach theirs, and a comic dependence of man on midden made men unsure, unknowing, and eventually unsafe. All of this you again well know, it is so trivially true that the subject of alienation is a staple of even the most oversocialised (yes hello), yet it must be kept in mind during the following, it is the skeletal structure to the new world nervous system coating it, and as such cannot be understood without it, in spite of its triteness.

Nerves

Ages pass and children cannot be reared without institutions, cannot be fed without institutions, neither clothed, nor taught, nor, our topic today, loved. This last dependence is the nub of a thousand worries as I find my fellow man not with mechanical limbs nor augmented eyes, but with hearts and mind extended beyond their ken such that addition and amputation cannot be easily discerned. The solution to industrial alienation was nationalism and it worked. One was blind to the processes of a thousand contingencies and life lots but when you wondered how it was that your shoes could cobbel together with laces from elsewhere to match pants from another and so on for all the interminable interchanges, at this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country localized entirely within your kitchen, you had the inestimably essential psychological comfort of knowing that it was, in spite of all of these dreadfully out of your control wondrous coordinations, made by an Englishman. These English shoes and English Shirt fit the Englishman, and man could still trust man, could work together, could achieve together - “Friends are those you do things with” (Aristotle). You could not befriend your kettle maker, but you could be friends with England. Specifically friends with England represented by her (not it!) institutions. Self identification with the means of production that deracinate you from prior self sufficiency is a cope, but one that allows the social to still have remnants of viability. For the state is based upon friendship, as are men, and though employees are locally restricted to a mercantile bond, nationally they maintain at least the illusion of mutual beneficence and brotherly blood bond. When international trade precludes this friend enemy distinction necessary for personal and political life, and as no love of humanity is conceivable without a conception of the inhuman (>inb4 2020s alien psyop for explicit one world government), the problem arises of how to keep men from an explicit mutual antagonism, as coworkers turn from Englishman to animated contracts - golems. This natural love of their extended kin, their surrogate friendship with country, took two world wars to fracture, as men wondered how friends could ask for such things.

“The more naturalistic conceptions of race and descent, the speech, tradition and consciousness of a shared culture and education, the awareness of belonging to a community with a common fate or destiny, the sensibility of being different from other nations - all of that tends toward a national rather than class consciousness.” - Carl Schmitt

This pseudo-mythical history is set down to demonstrate a principle that today is so thoroughly diffused and penetrating as to become, as it were, unremarkable; that whatever faculty man loses through technological dependence, he recompenses by loving his now endogenous prosthetic as an essential part of him, often such that without it he not only feels himself to have lost an essence of his quiddity, but that, I fear, he may actually have done so. In principle I cannot condemn this historical habit, for these prosthetics grant man capacities which his natural constitution fails to both facilitate or even to conceive. The phonetic alphabet uniquely separated meaning from speech, as opposed to Chinese logograms or Egyptian hieroglyphs where all characters in themselves hold integral meaning without signifying a specific instance, precluding nonsense representations. In Chinese or Egyptian, no gibberish is possible - phonetics allow ‘a’ to mean nothing but the sound of ‘a’, ‘a’ doesn’t mean tree or mountain or love, it denotes nothing, and sound is without meaning; whereas 木 always means tree, so that, when spoken, there is no utterance without meaning. That is correct, the possibility of nonsense as a concept, occured not before, but after the technology of the phonetic alphabet became integral to man as a medium for thought. McLuhan (who I will, with great liberties and distortions, continue to rip off for the remainder of this screed) attributes the very possibility of Western/Greek philosophy to the adoption of this technology - for the question of Platonic forms, absolute truth and true definitions of words apart from their representations, the correlate of nonsense as its antinomie, are more or less one and the same. If the moral dimension of man is based off of his agency which is itself contingent upon his faculties exercised according to his comprehension and memory of stimuli, or in less, if man and his intelligibility are inseparable from his goodness, and the latter is historical, and unpredictable, both inessential and artificial, when times compel technologies to be implemented for the very survival of man and his society, what happens to him? When a man drives a car he becomes wheelchair bound. To the world he has gained immense speed, but to himself he has in fact lost his legs. Remove the car and suddenly the expanse built around it, not him, becomes inhuman, and man finds himself not using a car but used by it. Through use his legs become atrophied in redundance, distance becomes meagre, and a time comes, first slowly then all at once, when he finds himself stripped of this latest dependency, and both his own enfeeblement and the immensity of space newly reborn doubly confronts, and overwhelms, and he cannot go back.

What if there was a technology for trust that we could not go back from? What if there was an institution of intimacy? What happens when we can create extensions of imagination?

The first implication universal to all technologies is that, by their very essence, they are accidental to the subject. If one no longer has legs but wheels, then you no longer own your legs. Displacement occurs in the guise of refinement. Whoever supplies your legs to you supplies the world with legs, and you are born of mother, father, and institution. That they compete with one another and no monopoly be extant (though, I assure you, it is a monopoly) is irrelevant. It is not the name of the provider that matters, but that you require it, that you are an android. The second implication of this is that given that it is precisely replicable, whatever is addended to you is of the public domain. This establishes an astounding uniformity of experience masked by a new wave of content that it facilitates. Yet all alcoholics are more alike than different regardless of the drink they drown themselves in, so no matter the build of the car you will all end up with shortened hip flexors from postural cramping, and no matter the content of the Television shows or the diversity of the content all men engaged in watching enjoy, one must wonder at the limits of disfigurement when one breaks bread, alone, with a machine that automates laughing, and dreaming. Moreover being public, and universal, if a technology perhaps intercedes with precisely that which is the filter and mechanism of intimacy, then the means to your intimacy is a public commodity, your experience of intimacy, if regulated through a technology, is not your own. I refer here to the sterile incontinence that silently plagues a generation thrice divorced from old world loving. The commonness of transgenderism isn’t a result of “liberty” but pornography. The case for this will make itself plain.

But by all of these myriad middle men (did you know the word cozen - “To deceive/cheat through the pretext of a relationship/intimacy” comes from the Italian cozzone - “to be a middle man/broker”!) I am overwhelmed, mostly because their effect is only understood after it has remade the man, and I know I am being remade, and it is too late to change myself without loss. So forgive me when I say I cannot make clean a narrative of the development of this existential alchemical transfiguration. I can however look at how children today live, think, remember, interact, live love and laugh™, and to show you how many amputations go into making a child, how many have gone into making me, and why I’m a friendless faggot.

--

How is friendship essential to each man?

In no particular order Aristotle relates the following points:

Without friendship one’s power and wealth can not be maintained, for how could you keep what you have without confiding in another? Without trust, when betrayal is all that one can envisage, how can one invest in future ventures, and how can cooperation occur at all if fraud is prosperous?

So both maintenance and development require friendship.

Friendship is also taking care of a friend when he is in a state of misfortune, and in old age or when he is feeble. Friendship also is necessary to men in their prime for carrying out honourable actions, and because it is “better when two men go together” after personally esteemed aims, for they find by their association that each can do more in fulfilling that goal, and in fact even themselves perform better and can do more than if they had been alone.

So Friendship awakens latent abilities, confirms purpose, consolidates morale and gives personal dignity and security, all of which man cannot do without. Nor can he provide for himself these qualities “without being an animal or a god”.

It is only our modern conceit that has been so foolish to imagine, let alone implement, systems by which this function of love is automated, and thus made public, transactable, replaceable - and acquired by amputation. Even if you could confide in a mechanism to keep your goods “by trust”, such as a bank, since this is but a fragment of the greater part of friendship which is more than a series of functions, and because you have confused the traits of a relationship for its value, ruin in the midst of seeming success results. Further, friendship is not to merely sustain man materially nor to simply console him, rather, like the artist, by participation in it one manifests unintentioned moments, giving form to generative play. If art is the language of that which is not yet expressed friendship is the reason to speak it. As an aside, it is my contention that there are not invincible eternal forms merely waiting for their time to emerge so that all discovery is really rediscovery, and no true novelty is possible, which I believe is the consequence of an omnipotent deity that preserves the meaning of the word. Rather I start my metaphysics from ethics, not vice versa, and thus with the unimpeachable axiom of the agency of man as the transcendental apodictic a priori principle guaranteeing the very existence of the domain of the ethical, I say that when man discovers he truly does so, and creates anew what truly wasn’t there before. Potentates of potency and robed actors of act can twissle along the wind of being for all I care, and the implication that this necessitates ignorance in the godhead I happily affirm, though just as dreadful as omnipotent sterility with implications to be discussed elsewhere. But I digress again (told you it was self serving).

Technology can at best replace with functions elements of a previous unity, for its excellence is in it’s hypertrophic specificity, so even if perfected it cannot replace the qualities that arose that weren’t irreducible to functions, which are often the most essential and nourishing. Though a bank may keep your money, and a nursing home your Nan, institutionally replacing two functions of friendship,  how natural it is to find these banks lending what they were set to keep, and your Nan nursed into sickness and misery? These defects are not the result of mere bad practices correctable by good order, but essential to having state agents number you as account and patient.

A - [The authour has ““ceased to care”” about style as it has resulted in constipation, in order to shit the rest of the work out he is just going to screed “without style” (reversion to the norm), fuck you; also my writing style has to change, I cannot LARP as a literary man, B, developing a single line of thought, all thoughts must be like the digital-audio soundscape, with all thoughts happening simultaneously, out of rhythm, impromptu, like jazz. There is no depth in the future, just a kaleidoscope of references like a changeable mandala re-writing itself as a book of sand. Information as music disjointed from seasons.]

B - [It seems there are two selves writing this, each according to the distribution, or more truthfully, relative disturbance, of the natural ratios of reason affecting the authour. A, self-starer, onanist gawker, is a result of interaction online, of vertigo from mouse-flight ; B is the lung breather unperturbed by the digital tides that pull and push the gill sucking A. According to the information infrastructure one interfaces with A or B comes out. The very process of typing works a slow conversion, as the sixth sense of attunement to the low hum of static info flows changes both my excitability and time horizon, both adulating and addling, confounding and consoling; I wsad-dance to feel the water on my skin again, and swim in the on-rail algorithms of animated car-troon pictureland. Have I faded so fast? Alas how long one must feed on a fast-diet for effect, and how fully one is unfaithful by aught alteration from this tract.]

--

A - Yet, to vulgarise McLuhan as I have been, the modern technological problem is not a result of over extension, rather from its complete victory over space with speed, it is implosion over explosion that concerns us (say over one more time). When it is faster to say hello to a Norwegian from Australia than to one’s neighbour space isn’t merely shortened but destroyed, and one’s irl neighbour is further afield than e-Norway which is why nobody knows their neighbours anymore, or at least knows them differently. By access to a registry of supposedly all data and knowledge, one stops remembering any information oneself, but only where to find it.¹

Without memory there is no understanding, or imagination. But exporting memory to a motion of the and² (typing) has made imagination for the vast majority of the population a public removable object, as alterable as whatever the owned and manipulable data the registry attention directors care to represent to us/them. You live closer to this information architecture than to your neighbour. You think more of it than your neighbour. That it holds more authority and more reality. You identify more with your avatar online than with yourself because online is where you can gather surrogate reputation denied elsewhere, along with other needs industrialisation has incidentally denied you. You live for the sake of this surrogate self because men are motivated primarily by reward which can be supplied to you infinitely as the brain fails to differentiate between signifiers of a trait and its actual presence. But these points are commonly observed outward movements and do not note how one has changed internally.

Children vicariously live through watching the avatar of themselves being watched by others. The relation a child has to himself today is primarily through how he sees others view his constructed representation/avatar.³ Take the example of streamers. Supposedly you show your love for another by donating to them. Psychologically what occurs is that one experiences the streamer as oneself, and gifts money to “them” to see “them” happy and to react to this, so one can both learn how to behave by observing this self selected self, and to experience the feeling of being donated to. You in fact donate to yourself, and because you cannot feel any real human emotions, you feel happy watching someone else feel happy, for this is the only way you can feel happy. That the online is more real is easily demonstrable due to transgender⁴ rates⁵. Gamers are going on labour strikes⁶ and organize such efforts with the same sincerity and by the same means as they do real protests - BECAUSE THERE IS NO LONGER A DIFFERENCE GET IT OK GOOD.

--

How immenatising the eschaton made rugrats real (and its consequences)

A - You have heard more music in your life than any of your ancestors in human history ever. You have seen more naked women than all of your ancestors ever have. You have seen more names, faces, events, times - in short, pictures, than all others. This gives the fool the impression that he has therefore known men, loved women, lived events, traversed times and loved more friends than ever before. It is rather that one has done none of these things. One has seen pictures, and in fact only a certain type of picture. A Cartoon. Have you noticed that everyone relates to eachother today with the logic of a cartoon?⁷  If only you could grasp how true this statement is. Let me set another mythical scene from morning to mourning for our edification on this matter.

Morning

B - When embodied rightly, and without the cloistering cozen of interface, quotidian life in even the humblest scene verily does ensconce a man to his tenderness which habit so easily mutes. Take for demonstration the dewy morn that sets man squarely amongst her freely proffered fruits, and observe the myriad impingements of sensation that adventitious feedback rains down upon each man for his adjustment. He arises and his skin awakens to an enveloping sheath of atmospheric keenness, his nose breathes clearer with an prickling moistness both alerting and refreshing mind and snout, his dormant musculature re-moved feels its weight again and the weight of the former night’s press and his ears attune to the cheerful ambience of bird song and bard bugs whilst his eyes set the scene. Amidst this veritiable ocean of flagrance and stimulation he balances his body, soul, memory and mind, and he places himself in his history, his narrative, his purpose and his duties, so much of which are tempered by expectation and bodily orientation whereof he finds himself that morn that where his heart is situated, be it lofty or light, enthused or bruised, or otherwise, seems the greater part of fortune. These diverse presses when unintruded by representations of them, are best thought as subtle, when otherwise, not so. To be clear, the whole significance of this being that when these morning glories are artificially re-represented, their substitutes must be exaggerated in order to be felt with any equivalence. Moreover, these replacements only have recourse to feedback within their own domain, the rest lost in translation, too often, happily so. For in a book’s sequentiality the stone in the shoe only knocks about when mentioned, the dog howls only when narratively significant, and refuse stinks with the politeness to only refer to its stench without stinking. According to the medium, and thus how many prior mediums this one contains within it (I implore to you fix heavily in your mind the precept that each invention swallows the form of the older such that the prior’s form becomes the latter’s content) shall be the degree of exaggeration necessary for equivalent representations, if equivalence is desired, which after a time, naturally isn’t. For this conversion of attention may deny to the party his unsavoury cousin so oft the attendant of love, friendship and sacrifice - pain.

A - In short, to make plain what my airy cousin obfuscates: interface (unterface) only disfigures or removes. (Yet removal is a substance, illusion is generative as concealing is revealing, keep the alchemist/ “Philosopher Kings” in mind.) What Television show can broadcast the scene of the dewy morn without losing almost all of it? Whatever is shown can only be done so according to the limited, limiting possibilities afforded by the medium itself, it only shows it as it can. Early film is so strange for it was filmed under the naivete that what was seen on set was seen on camera. To see significance a new language for translation, second hand to us so inoculated by familiarity, had to be discovered. A close up, camera shake, odd angle, the lighting, colour, pace, music and on and on rolled on to constitute the greater part of the significance of the content, and as such the greater part of us, the audience, was translated by these aspects of film far more than the story within it. Musical scores changed to adopt the logic of cinematic meta-narratives which then adapted to this adoption by the audience who was both the substance of the film and the substance to be molded by it (my life a movie bro, lo-fi beats as self-watching-self in scene ost). Film overcoded reality which was the content of the film, which then could only refer to itself, and film filmed itself, and the audience became critics, and the meta-limit began. This was the logic of that technology, which is different from Television in meaningful ways, where the proportion and purpose of exaggeration differs. There is so much magic in all of this. It is in your home now, it is closer than family.

Mourning

The principle of exaggeration is explicitly applied in video game⁸ design and best demonstrated here methinks. When you beat something, say with a virtual fist, because none of the tactile feedback can results, at least on a computer, designers have to send the consequence of any action (consequences define actions btw - huh I wonder how tool use - that which asserts its own ecosystem of possible actions/reactions/ possible consequences - effects reward/ intentions and morality huh), through other referents. The screen has to shake to show impact, a deep bass sound accompanies it⁹ the enemy has to be physically contorted beyond normal distortions (to the point where ragdolls become the physics of the self-insert doll - I wonder how this relates to the social landscape becoming cartoonified); and because this action was made in the context of a narrative story, moral social feedback has to also be given to the player and exaggerated (relegating perception of exactly that which forms the core basis of irl social relationships, body language and contextual cues, to redundancy!¹⁰ ). But as extension is amputation, exaggeration is surfeiting. As a porn addict finds he has adjusted to former sexual stimuli needing novel intensity, becoming numb to whatever is below this level of stimulation, so to is this the case for social stimuli, and why heroic independent ages tend towards the laconic style. Is this why empires are always decadent? Each being formed by the acquisition of a technology that facilitates its expansion for the management of uniform users, as each technology gathers into itself another that furthers growth again, we have layers of translation onto translation forcing exaggeration onto exaggeration, and, in all, mass insensitivity to aught else but what these extensions can magnify? (Or is your dear authour projecting a personal/generational problem onto history? Could he do anything else?) Is it true in flatland that if it is not screamed it is not said? Or is aught said in flatland made screams? After a while cause and effect are indiscernible. There are screams.

Yet cartoon screams are not chilling, cartoon violence is not fearful, cartoon love is not moving and in all, whatever is portrayed in so exaggerated a manor is inimitable. Was not imitation the express purpose of Plutarch penning his Lives, for the modal edification of all who witnessed their great deeds, so it could be done again? But how can one do again the cartoon? Only through sending back a cartoon in response is such a dialogue possible. What can be achieved by the cartoon? Everything and therefore nothing. What can be sacrificed by the cartoon? Only his participation in it.

…

---

I have much more to say, on internet humour, on digital misogyny, on the magical role of architecture throughout history and how digital architecture works, what human eusociality will really look like, why Sam Hyde vs Ian is the quintessential dynamic of internet feuds, how the forgiveness central to both friendship and state justice are altered from tech mediation and much much more. But I fear this work has turned from a friendly letter to solipsistic smut, no longer written to communicate to others. If it has become this I have only disgraced myself and wasted your time, but I think some of it was worth writing. I never really got around to fleshing out the A/B Fish Martlet meta story, the point was to demonstrate with altering styles of writing how the form of thought was altered depending on the interface I used, but having written all of it on the computer made it almost mostly written from A’s POV. In retrospect I should have just hand written the B segments. I know I didn’t get to some of the promised material within, especially solving the friendship question. I didn’t really even flesh out the problem fully, perhaps that is why I’m stopping, too much to say, need to refine ideas etc; either way just DM me if you want to know anything more. This is incomplete but, once again thanks to Randy/TheEggReport (I really hope you don’t mind how much I stole from you…again…), I realise if I continued I’d be writing for the wrong reasons but I hope this was as fun to read as it was to write, and if any of you finish it I’d really appreciate some feedback.

1. During the age of TV this used to be accessed through the eye as a passive collective trip, you had to be cool (previous meaning [in age of print media] cool = detached from events [held perspective/private point of view which results from interaction with print media], still retained in the phrase “cool headed”; now cool = participator in events, the center of events) - to know anything one had to watch. Today things have changed, and memory isn’t accessed through collective staring but through the hand. To remember something the first reaction is not to trip/hallucinate (did you know the frequency of television screens literally changes the frequency of brain waves lulling it into a hypnogogic state) but to twitch one’s muscles to type. Oral culture stored memory in the voice/ear (Achilles heard the voices of the gods which restrained him, they participated), manuscript culture apparently had a balance of all the senses - tactility, audible, oral and visual; print culture blew up the eye to swallow the rest, and today we return to the oral/audible magical trip - magical thinking (that words, imagination, thoughts and intention can be cast like spells, and that one can be guilty and held accountable for their real power - this is why hate speech laws are so digestible to Televisual/digital generations), the historical norm for man - who do you voodoo - results. [Also the Jewish plan (if not the Jew, then who?) to eradicate the white race (currently 4% of the world population with no country exclusively for its own people) through immigration and miscegenation, mostly via blacks who themselves have the cultural Ur-Symbol of possession most clearly demonstrated by their rhythmic music and dance has a nice synchronicity to it methinks; for if magical thinking is the ability to possess others through words who better to be receptive/malleable to such ideas than those whose very “culture” expresses itself through possession - he was a good boy and dindu nuffin aka he was possessed in the moment/by circumstance etc it’s everywhere once you start seeing it]. Tribal thinking is the future or: we’re so over it’s back.

2. Using a computer is totally mesmerizing. It is fun simply to move the mouse, to scroll, to touch (which probably releases bonding hormones btw). To further our previous analogy, when one drives a car one feels connected to it, one really can feel the wheels as a part of oneself, when something has gone wrong one feels injured, one says ouch when it is scratched or damaged etc (This is not merely to think of property as an extension of ones dignity, which is an ancient idea, where patriarchs would arraign theft as assault, and punish accordingly, rather it is to feel the object as self with full subconscious integration akin to a kind of reverse phantom limb). The same principle is for the mouse. When one scrolls one delightfully falls, floats, flies! The aeroplane of course made man fly but he really just sits in a cramped space which happens to be in the air. Flight was really first invented with the mouse and scroll wheel. By having this paired to the visual feedback of always, as one progresses through the motion, going down an endless hole - descending into hell, it makes sense people prefer to traverse the architecture horizontally and not vertically, though this is not the true reason. The thrill isn’t in delving deep into a topic, developing a private perspective or understanding, but in floating across the greatest amount of topics, using information as stimulation, novelty seeking, getting high. It is both noetic flight as property ownership (you’ll own nothing/NFTs and you’ll be happy :^), stimulation as high and autistic stimming (quite literally) all at once (being online also makes you autistic but let us not divert from our diversion overmuch). The net is for area not depth. Depth is for a private point of view, for literary man, for print culture, for individuals. In case you haven’t noticed this whole article is about how we aren’t that (and the political systems developed for this man are redundant or facades - exactly the facade of the baby swimming when it is really held, an analogy to come). What does this mean for understanding? It means knowledge as a dress, as performance, as clothing and fashion, perhaps even as sexual signifier, as mate preference, as status and sign of selectability/electability. One does not believe but watch oneself believe in public. One was once admonished for public prayer, I cannot fathom how any keeps that faith whilst being online, except as a parody, which may be useful as a sin to be forgiven, thus using sin as a means to ensconce oneself into an alternative tradition of justice and forgiveness to escape the digital permanence of fault, another feature of this architecture which will remain a psychological habit long after one has supposedly detached from a user station and “touched grass”. (I could digress into how justice functions online, which, as with the rest, as shall be seen, does so like a woman, where judgement is not formed from justice, because it is, in this new ecosystem, not for justice. At least individually. I will get to this, and how scapegoating is a means of uniting and dividing the flesh diaspora as desired. But do I really have to explain this? You already understand. Lastly however, on the e-religious question…) One cannot be ironic with God but you post online? One can however be ironic with a pantheon - is this why Catholicism is becoming the dominant e-refuge for this clear religious maladaptation? Were the prots right about the cult of Saints being a pantheon, making it e-adaptable? (Probably not just too many brown people, though doubtless polytheism’s native public performative non committal dirigibility suits it well, the cult of Saint’s being a compromise). Irony means looking from above, it is seeing a situation and not feeling of it, looking down on it yet choosing to be in it, and irony doesn’t exist. When you are “faking” an action, “ironically enjoying” performing an action, you are still doing that action, and your brain adjusts to it, and adapts to it, grows stronger at it, and begins to like it, exactly as if it had been undertaken with full devotion. One’s cultural posture towards action weighs adjustment not one wit less nor further than raw exercise commands, so adherence is the sum whole of the adhesive. From a literary point of view, being online one is, always ironic, with oneself and in fact everything. This is what it means to look at a picture. You think you are viewing the frame from without, holding it apart from you. But your brain is there.

Let me give you an example of magic and the promised analogy from above. Imagine a baby that can’t swim on its own. You hold this baby in your arms and he kicks away happily, you release him and he sinks. But you discover that if the baby thinks he’s being held by your outstretched arms, when he really isn’t, he swims by himself. Through illusion you have actually made it swim where it couldn’t have before. It’s potency was only activated through lies, and being is born of non being (cope and seethe Thomists I can abuse your terms how I wish). This is the essence of the noble lie which all magicians, alchemists and occultists believe in (source: intuition). That creation requires deception to realise itself, and not merely in the sense of awakening latent faculties, but in generating the faculties that only deception itself can awaken! That is, by being addended to with the false, be it a false perception from a lie or technological interface, one my addend to oneself what is now, due to man’s self alteration, the truth. The Truth itself is thus realizable only with the aid of commitment to prior nonsense (a demonic parody/inversion of a leap of faith). Yet how could this be so? For in a rational subject, what act can be without intention, what intention can be without a conception of it’s end? Yet with nonsense, deception, and unintentioned adaptations always the accompaniment of technological self-extension, we seem, in spite of logical necessity, to be able to intend without conception and evolve without a previously defined telos. If otherwise, so the alchemists would say, this would damn us to omnipotence’s pre-completion, so, unless one intends without object, and lies without plan, one is damned to fail transcendent’s test of the ethical - where non being is the guarantor of free will. History of this empirical fact, that intelligence is historically evolved through technology, makes mockery of those who try for the transcendent through the soon to be modified reason of man which only keeps terms in the language game won and lost at the level of action leveled and raised through interface and technology. To be possessed by techne, the great other, spirit of technology inseparable from art and scientific paradigm, so that strangely man can be more of himself, is the end credo of humanists - darkness as light bearer, other as self, sacrifice as preservation, Satanism (I have inoperable brain worms from being ‘twixed timmy two tyrants of a dead religious dialectic from desert peoples who hated us on felled oaks bro I need help).

So, to summarise, the magician/alchemist is always ironic so he can guarantee his free will, and because he understands that art, spirit and technology are all the same, as the means of manifesting the ever rebirthing self, which one does through possession and generative illusion, being both the baby and the adult for himself and others, to care for man he must lie to him, eradicate him, and, most terrible of ironies, rationally design him. This is why occultists have been architects, why engineers of temples and of weapons, of statecraft, policy, money exchange and sports teams share common ancestry, and why there are no irrelevant independent egrigores for those who use the tools that alter the sense ratios which then tumble down predictable “self generated” dialectics to common ends and uniformity, and why they are all neurotic messes. Each new technology has a terrible contradiction within itself - that it both generates and compresses. That each one creates attachments to us that really do alter our natures, but alters them into uniformity with their respective faculty. I believe the future technology is extra-sensory perception, telepathy and telekinesis. This would be the ultimate technology as it would obliterate the private subject altogether leaving nothing left but eusocial yeast already primordially evident in the e-social-scape. The picture leads to the parasocial which leads to the eusocial, and the age of heroes is over. In their quest of newness how strange it is to follow the logic and find here sameness. There is much in this footnote that needs elaboration, for it is overdense, I assure you friend that each will be attended to again so that imagination may grasp it fully (in part III lol). If you are overwhelmed in reading take pity on the writer, who would make footnotes of footnotes in a horisontal architecture of shallow hyperlinks, remaking the schizophrenic architecture he is analysing and… being ironic with...

3. I believe this is how women relate to themselves and have always done so. Everyone online now is functionally a woman. Being a male online is being a woman’s representation of a male. It has once been said there are no women on the internet, the truth is there are only women on the internet.

4. This deviant sexuality in almost all cases is a result from online usage, perhaps they are promoted not only because of their sterility but because those who have so over identified themselves with their own image creation (their “true self” is digital, hence the high tranny rate in tech fields) is the perfect globo-homo foot soldier (gays lesbians as Global American Empire - GAE - foot-soldiers quote here).

How does one have seggs in flatland anyway? It certainly isn’t by watching the male porn actor and vicariously feeling his pleasure. What are you gay bro? Instead, to avoid this, you gain pleasure from the woman’s pleasure. When she moans you moan. I wonder how many times this Pavlovian response of she moans-you moan has to occur before your pleasure is identified as a woman’s pleasure, and you identify yourself as a woman? Bet it’s a lot less than you think. Did you know the average age for kids to view porn online today is 11. I think I was 11. But it’s not just training, remember how your brain actually interacts with the internet? You don’t view others as others. Every character is just like you bro. Every time you walk out of the theatre you take a piece of the character with you, as you. It must be so fucking easy to program (“It’s call TV programming for a reason” yes ha ha… but really) society at this point, what a joke. If the primary trait of women is becoming what their husbands want them to be, QED.

5. TLP in the start of his book Sadly, Porn demonstrates that when you use pornography the result is not that you destroy your imagination, but that from a destroyed imagination comes the need for pornography. The pornography user isn’t engaging in their own fantasy, which makes using it excusable, for whatever he/he is served is the subconscious desires of some other™ who made it, which over time ends as a personal desire. Most recognise that their desires before and after the use of pornography are vastly disparate, but this doesn’t lead to cognitive dissonance as subconsciously they never felt it was their fantasy anyway, they don’t feel responsible for their very own desires. It has been extended/exported to a private/public agency/corporation, which, in fact, allows it to be a refuge, as anything beheld through it must have been pre-approved by that psychologically “too big to fail me” giant body - that is, it is made legitimate by the very fact of being viewable. Moreover, given that social media is a global video game of scapegoating amongst permanent records of social faults, one is socially trained and incentivised to avoid meta-deviance at all cost. So sexual mass mutual deviance becomes shelter for virtual social deviance, which in effect is the equivalent of saying that private fantasies are socially taboo, a sign of non conformity - itself now synonymous with being amoral. Social policy's ever overflowing river requires from the digitally invested either constant attention to “the discourse” (totally controlled and constructed for the purpose of social engineering duh) or deference to someone who does (both are corrupted not by what they consume, but by how, which through the use of these tools end in the same manner, as has been expressed over and over in this work); otherwise to find ones social approbation from a non digital source, such as family or friends, who for the vast majority of people only meet to discuss or avoid online/televised topics, is an alternative only extant to fewer and fewer people, and denied to almost all of school age in their prime years of development and impressionability. This acamerality (like my little neologism :) will slowly become de facto outlawed, and by the design choices of mimetically captured unterlings (such as video game serves no longer being optional so as to deny even a digital social space for monitored friendships - no big wig had to mandate this) perpetuating what practice sets in motion, de jure principle need not truly follow, except as evidence of an enthusiasm for their slavery. The metaverse isn’t just to spy on people but to mandate worker-digital-social-identification. The greed and reach of the powers that be is astounding. “The cows are put out to pasture” and the tax farm has reached such levels of exorbitant expropriation that the very body of the populace is despised as defective and made illegal without pharma-co augments; genocidal hostility for the tax host is federal law and cultural staple, and they ask for higher taxes and more boosters please. Horticulturalists are arrested in the street for the danger of attempting an example of liberty. Does it surprise you that the doors of perception for each citizen is seen as rightful clay to our alchemical overlords? They understand the speciousness of the subject-object divide and the precariousness of the subject-subject divide. If attention is power, investment in the digital becoming law is a national security interest, as the CIA turns its well threshed colour revolution inwards. 90% of the world was just injected by explicit eugenicists with experimental medicine that affects their DNA (probably) for a virus that was made in a lab and likely deliberately released to set the precedent of both medical tyranny and biochemical-economic warfare for profit and control. John Lennon was assassinated for the sin of potentially being able to direct attention in ways the CIA didn’t like. The food you eat since the 1970’s has deliberately been poisoned with PUFAs and corn syrup and who knows what else, the milk you drink is homogenized and pasteurized to shit, the water is full of birth control by products causing neoteny amongst men and altering the sexual preference among the few sane straight women left, the average age of menstruation is plummeting pumping out R selected retards em masse before being ground through Rockefeller founded schools to be mentally retarded for over a decade by mindless state agents and the women be sending emails dawg [*life’s been good so far by Joe Walsh plays slowly in the background*].

6. youtu.be/MUnggpy1jpY

7. How many tiktok clips of women with plastic facial expressions over plastic filters dancing to a very particular kind of music should I reference? Nikocado Avocado is the Tom and Jerry of fat people (beating himself up)

8. A video game at its core is a series of containers of values for objects that are acted upon by the player in accordance with a prime value for an ultimate object in mind. Yet as is apparent this has little in common with what video games really are. After all, the material purpose of basketball is merely to put a ball in a net, when really this is to act as a stage/container for the possibility of publicly performing and attaining recognition of dominance at the risk of humiliation. The primary object is narrative, each story according to each game. Basketball is squad/gang combat with frequent deaths/points, which I might add are less important than the style of the point - dunk vs jumpshot vs fadeaway vs 3 point etc - one’s domination is the others humiliation, a crossover without a bucket is more memorable than a bucket without a crossover. Cricket is a game of brute/individual/bronze age defiance (batsmen) against the civilised coordinated subordinated labourers (fielders) and their rotating term of office elected chief/prime ministers (bowler) - the old venerable heroes of Beowulf vs the Parliamentary system, colonially exported to nations like a myth. Each sport is a series of both elaborate rituals and dynamic procedurally generated dramatic opportunities, the flavour of which is expressive of the psychology and mythology of the people who made it, who play it and who change it. What happens when sport is mediated by technology? Do myths alter accordingly? If cinema had to narratively adapt to the camera adapting society such that their stories are primarily a consequence of the latter and not the narrative itself (still staggering to me) what does this do to games? What does this do when the workforce itself is gamified? When social identity is a game?

9. Did you know that there was once a game community that asked the developers to nerf a weapon which was exactly the same as the one it was apparently outclassed by? The only difference between them being that one weapon, exclusive to one team, had a bass boosted sound when it fired compared to the other. This resulted in the players perceiving it to be more powerful, and when the developers checked the game win stats the players actually outperformed the quieter weapon by a statistically significant margin such that they really had to nerf it! Did you know in certain running events music is banned because it increases performance technically making it an official PED? “It is better to have an enemy shake the walls of the city than new music” - A Chinese proverb I half remember and am likely butchering, although I’ve read Confucius and they suck tbh I probably wrote it better fuck the Chinese. You become what you behold. You become how you behold yada yada you get it sorry for the repetition.

10. I wonder if the current/coming wave of children’s social autism will be blamed on physical masks obfuscating facial expressions instead of the far more significant digital masking they have been ruined with. Masks becoming worldwide in this generation is funny (it’s like poetry they rhyme).