• (Top sticky) gezzmc.github.io: Code & info. Gezz MontC Youtube: Talk eventually. twitter.com/GezzMontC: I don’t use it, but it’s there.
• At the current point on the graph of the line of morality, what with its slippery slope, Repubs are never outraged when Repub leaders openly adapt to leading edge norm.
• Please see Rules of Engagement and The Graph.

Clarify: The Pursuit of Being an Automaton

WHAT CAN’T BE REDEEMED

• Neither here nor there
  • There are mediums of thought and communication.
  • Mediums of communication are not the problem.
• The corruption
  • Don’t confuse the medium with the corrupt use of the medium.
  • Don’t try to redeem what others will always corrupt.

NO HERO WORSHIP

• No geniuses
  • All admiration devolves into personality worship, with probability 99%.
• Exceptions are not worth mentioning
  • The culture of music is the culture of personality worship.

PRIMITIVE MUSIC

• Primitive versus modern
  • Modern music is based on the refinement of half step tunings.
  • Modern music is affected greatly by the relative minor.
• Immersion versus primitive
  • Electronics and amplification make way for unnatural and immersive music.
  • The psychological effects of primitive music are not so heavy.
• Mood
  • Good non-primitive music is depressing.
• Sentimental
  • Good non-primitive music makes one sentimental.
• Moody and sentimental
  • To be moody and sentimental is to be weak.
• Irrational
  • Being moody and sentimental leads to being irrational.
• Manipulation of emotions
  • Seeing images with music, you feel one way.
  • Seeing images without music, you feel another way.
  • The use of good music is largely the manipulation of emotions.
• Stay primitive
  • Stay primitive. Be an automaton.
  • Only beggars need non-primitive music.

HAVE NO EGO

• Don’t care (about caring)
  • The world was corrupt long before you got here.
  • The world will be corrupt after you leave.
  • The crowd is corrupt.
  • The crowd dominates.
  • The crowd will always dominate.
• Seek no affirmation or grandeur
  • The crowd mainly consists of servile fools.
  • Servile fools fawn over depraved fools,
    • who die early by their own hand,
    • or die as an addict,
    • or die after a lifetime of serving servile fools,
    • or die after having ruled over servile fools,
    • who die, having lived the life of a servile fool,
    • to the very end.
  • If you seek the admiration of servile fools, you’re a servile fool.
• Produce as an automaton
  • The purpose of producing is to produce.
  • No credit for producing something of worth is good enough.
  • No credit for producing nothing of worth is good enough.
  • Credit given by servile fools dominates.
  • Credit given by servile fools is worthless.
  • Be an automaton. Have no ego.

DON’T SURF

• Be an automaton
  • Don’t surf (the web as a non-automaton).
• Be a machine
  • Anything less is to be weak.
• Delta Force mentality
  • Don’t get caught up in other people’s emotion.
• Mind of steel
  • Don’t get caught up in your own emotions.

FOCUS, OR YOU’RE WEAK

• It’s a cold, cruel world
  • Do what you can, but control your mind.

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE

• The alternative involves the norm.
• Considering the alternative will always straighten out your thinking.
• You’re free to follow the norm, and get some corrupt form of what you want.

YOU’RE STILL AHEAD

• The norm is to capitulate to this corrupt world.
• You’re still ahead because you’re not behind.
• Losing is not not winning, because you can’t win. You can only help individuals.
• Losing is capitulating.
• Don’t capitulate. Be an automaton.

Homage to Khashoggi

Jonathan, the Trump-slut butt kisser
Repub whore, yea, and I’m his disser
Payin’ homage to the Saudi, Khashoggi
Hear ye, “Rot in hell ye Repub party”

Party or party? Or a hedonist party?
Let’s switch it, in hell, rot, ye it
Temp relief, to pay homage is work
No easy rhyme to get a diss transmit

I told the moron, not debate, diss
Subsets as sets, red herrings then
No, maybe straw man logic, I guess
Forget that! I’m on a diss-mission

Homage or diss, it’s all the same
Khashoggi vs. those afraid to die
Repub sappy killers, by Duck proxy
Lies lies, their life as one big lie

Think, Don’t Talk

Think, don’t talk,
   but is this possible?
Highly unlikely,
   after thinking one wants to talk.
With a steely mind,
   think, but don’t talk.
But a steely mind
   must only “think steely mind”.
The least little slip,
   and one is talking after thinking.
At least try: think but don’t talk,
   or think, talk, and act.

Futile Telling, Not Understanding “Them Doing What They Want”

1. If you have to tell a person not to do what is obviously immoral, and inconsistent with their claims about God, then if you tell them, it means you don’t understand that the person is doing exactly what they want to do, and is playing some kind of fraudulent, theological game.
2. So, if you have to tell a person not to do that which is obviously wrong in the context of what the person has said God has said, there’s no purpose in telling this person anything.
3. What you say will just let them say stupid, fraudulent sayings that don’t come anywhere close to accurately representing the written language sayings that millions of people say they believe and follow, but don’t, in obvious ways, which results in you, or maybe just me, wanting to tell these people not to do what they obviously should not do.
4. So what should we do about all of this?
5. There is that which is obvious about the obvious, and that which not so obvious.

The Upside of Living in Not-So-High-Tech Valley

Concerning the upside of living in the absence of a huge tech scene, namely, not having to compete with others for free work space.

Context: What to Do When Laptops and Silence Take Over Your Cafe? (New York Times)

“Three hours for five dollars worth of coffee is not a model that works,” said David Wynn, co-owner of Triniti, a tiny cafe that opened two months ago east of Mr. Glanville’s place, on Sunset Boulevard.

Owners face a choice: Get tough and encourage workers to relocate, or embrace them and hope that a combination of guilt and loyalty will inspire them to spend more or leave sooner.

And power is important, is it not, when working some place for 8 hours?

Like most cafes, the Rose doesn’t provide electrical outlets; a dwindling battery should be a sign that it’s time to go.

I seek team, for motivation primarily.

If I could stay motivated, so I could work 10 to 16 hours a day, month after month, 12 months a year, I wouldn’t need team. Someday maybe I’ll be the machine I want to be.

Having sought team so much, I’ve analysed the pursuit of team very much. There are three main forms of team:

Geniuses Always Win Because Butt Kissers Always Kiss Butt

• Concerning how writers rubber stamp so-called genius, because if you diss genius, then obviously you’re stupid, but if you recognize genius, especially that which others have recognized, then, well, that shows you’re smart, and the goal is not so much to recognize genius as to show others that you’re smart.

In The War That Never Ends (War is Boring), Major Danny Sjursen writes:

It was a piece commensurate with then-major Petraeus’s impressive intellect, except for its disastrous conclusions on the lessons of that war…

His takeaway — what the country needed wasn’t less Vietnams but better-fought ones. The next time, he concluded fatefully, the military should do a far better job of implementing counterinsurgency forces, equipment, tactics and doctrine to win such wars.

Here, “impressive intellect” is short of “genius” but its use is similar to how people throw in a token “genius,” before criticizing someone who has obtained so-called genius status.

I never understand this kind of use of “genius.” (Okay, I actually do.)

How does “disastrous conclusion” not contradict “impressive intellect”? A person “of genius” is not going to come to disastrous conclusions.

This is what I call “the low standard of genius.” A person obtains status as a genius, or of having superior intellect, then the person makes a mistake, and then the mistake is ignored as being relevant to the person’s intelligence.

The way I see it, a genius who makes a big mistake is not a genius. Geniuses don’t make big mistakes, and eventually, everyone ends up making big mistakes, so there must not be any geniuses.

But when butt kissers dominate, geniuses always win.

Saving Face, Diplomat Little Anatomy Voice-to-Voice

Prelim

• A Church of Christer’s use of the word “love” is like what? Like taxes and love, like data and audits. Not so clear yet?
• Bombard ’em with love, bombard ’em with data, the trick the magic, the magic trick. “Overwhelm ’em, dude, overwhelm ’em, that’s the trick, and the trick is the magic,” says the cheap love dude, but not so crude, and with diplomacy to boot.
• Face-to-face, voice-to-voice, real live flesh, then words, not written but spoken. A diplomat is always diplomatic, of course, but what to do if, voice-to-voice, diplomacy fails?
• Save face, that’s what to do, backed in a corner, it’s time to go. Making a hasty exit, he says, “Adios,” with a little spin here, and a little spin there, diplomats, they know how to spin things around.
• Throwing in what? Lots of amore? To play the trick? No, senior, love, it’s got to be love, the trick is lots of love, in all its ambiguity.
• Sending spin, and lots of love in a few words, there is the click of words being sent. And how often an event is such an event? Think leap years, amigo, leap years.
• Hah, hah, an inside joke. Blue moons, not leap years. Hah, blue moons, though no good for cheap love tricks, oh so good for kicks.
• Hours and hours of voice-to-voice, then a written save face. Diplomats are known for their skills at diplomacy, not so much for having big anatomy.

Obfuscation

• In a disjunction, we can combine any number of false statements, throw in a true statement, and the statement will be true.
• Starting below the heading Incoming: No Title, 2017-12-23, is, other than the names, and edits marked “Edit”,
  • a verbatim copy of a real email,
  • or it’s a fabricated email.
• Starting below The Reply, and down to Incoming: No Title, 2017-12-23 is
  • an email reply that was never sent to anyone,
  • a lightly edited reply that was sent to someone,
  • or a reply that is about 70% of what was sent to someone.
• Funny sounding names in the reply are
  • real names of people,
  • or just funny sounding names used to obscure real names.
• The text “[redacted],” in the reply,
  • is a redacted name or relationship that was in the reply,
  • or it’s not a redaction in the edited form of the reply, but an actual redaction, even though it wouldn’t make sense to send someone a reply with redacted names of the parties involved.

The Reply

(To come in a day, or maybe more than a day, though likely never, at least as seen here.)

Incoming: No Title, 2017-12-23

GezzMeisterWunderKind,

I’ve changed my mind. You’ve been patient but clear on your desire to never hear from me again. So, I won’t contact you again until you should tell me otherwise. I thought it important to tell you that, since otherwise you would consider me a liar.

It is a terrible thing to reject the love of people who care about you. That love, like all love, comes from God. It’s ironic that should you ever return to your family and friends, they will undoubtedly receive you with the love and forgiveness you are unwilling to extend to them. You are correct about the moral failures you see in me and your family. To that, we have only one defense, and He is sufficient. Conversely, you seem oblivious to the moral hazards inherent in your own choice to withdraw your love and forgiveness to others, and replace that with scorn. You are on a catastrophically wrong path, and like them, I grieve for you. But it is your path to take and your choice to make. I acknowledge that, but I do not respect it.

What is not your choice, is that we will suffer the pain of your rejection and continue to love you and pray for you until we meet again.

Z. (Edit: the mark of ZombieJoe)

The Art of Diss, the Art of Recognizing the Art of Diss

• The important art of recognizing when you’re being manipulated by a writer who is trying to manipulate you, the reader, with the art of diss.

Non-fiction Spycatcher, by Peter Wright, spins a tale so interesting that in one week, I read it once, then again, and about halfway through the third reading, I deleted the book. I was being lazy, but I don’t read through a book 2.5 times just because I’m being lazy.

Central to the story about MI5 being infiltrated is the “bad guy,” Roger Hollis, who Peter Wright suspects is a long-time double agent for the Soviet Union, who infiltrated MI5 about the same times as other spies, such as Kim Philby.

In his book, Peter Wright uses particular reoccurring imagery to diss Roger Hollis. The imagery comes from descriptions of Roger Hollis: as Director General, in his office, sharpening pencils, scribbling on a report with a pencil, and having a line of sharpened pencils on his clutter-free desk.

The image of Roger Hollis, that Wright wants to produce in our mind, is that of a bureaucratic administrator. Enforce the rules as required by the government. Don’t make waves. Don’t be a hero. Collect a paycheck. Retire and collect a pension.

I ask a question here. A person being compulsive over details, compulsively eliminating work as soon as it comes in, compulsively keeping a line of sharpened pencils always at the ready, should that reflect poorly on a person? Does that imply some sort of fundamental flaw in the person’s personality?

Here’s how I think “pencil sharpening” stories work for writers, especially for “media types”:

• If the pencil sharpener is a nerdy guy who has risen to great fame for one reason or another, such as a Nobel Prize winner, a tech pioneer who’s gotten rich, a physicist, or mathematician, then if there’s a “compulsive pencil sharpening” story to tell about him, then that’s great. It shows what quirky guys these “compulsive pencil sharpening geniuses” are.
• If the person is the opposition, see the paragraphs above about Peter Wright’s portrayal of Roger Hollis.

Pencil sharpening pencil sharpeners. Insightful people understand when we should loathe them, and when we should love them, for reasons of substance.

It’ll Be Better, on the Slow Road to Hell

• Considering the low standard of “I think things will be better under Trump.”

You “had to” vote for George W. Bush. After all, at the time of his first
candidacy, if you didn’t, Al Gore would get elected, they would tell you, and Al
Gore, well, he’s hardcore socialist, where Bush, with his No Child Left Behind,
turned out to only be socialist-lite. Big G under a Republican, it’s better,
“better” not being so hard when the standard is only “I think things will be
better under…”.

(Memory of events, significant proof that Repub talk is cheap. Why do I forget such big events? Banks fail. A prime opportunity to let the pain of capitalism kick
in. Instead, Repubs bailed the banks out. Capitalism without fools suffering their foolishness is not capitalism at all.)

(With pain, business leaders get future incentive not to engage in too much risk.
People get future incentive to not go in deep debt. But short-circuiting the pain of legitimate-market-economy, it’s so much better under a Republican.)

As to perpetual war under Bush, hmmm, maybe it was actually the 8 years of war
under Barack Obama where we actually entered into the pase of perpetual war. But,
at least for Democrats, 8 years of war under Obama, a recipient of the fraudulent
Nobel Peace Prize, it obviously being politically motivated, “it” being all of
the prizes, not just the one, where if the pigs in Norway are so incompetent,
why are their prizes hyped so much by media dogs, as if the pigs in Norway
are definitive judges of genius and greatness?…

But, at least for Democrats, 8 years of war under Obama, rather than McCain,
it was so much better.

At Obama’s first candidacy, I don’t remember any “you have to” vote for McCain,
but when I abandoned the Repubs as whores, I stopped engaging with Repub whores,
so there could have been some of that.

According to my recollection, the general atmosphere was one of fatalism. The
The economy had gone a little bad at the 6-year point, and TWC had gone on the
attack against The Chief Whore (TCW), George Whore Bush.

At Obama’s second candidacy, against Mitt Romney, there was more fatalism, was
there not? What is the formula with The Whore Collective (TWC), Republicans,
when “you have to” is guaranteed?

TWC is near exclusively composed of people who, for national elections, at most
cast a vote twice, in a year, every two years, for candidates who appear on
voting ballots due to the hard work of a small group of people. There ends up
a choice, practically speaking, between two candidates, from two political
parties, as representatives for the mass of diversity of about 350 million
people.

Okay, so consider the last paragraph noise. Just wondering about TWC, when
they’ve gone into full battle mode with “you have to,” rather than being
fatalistic, about how they, the Whores, never do anything more than select
between two candidates offered to them by the shakers and movers, about how
they consider their at-most-biyearly-vote between two-candidates-given-them,
why they consider that to be much more than just token involvement in a
democratic/republican-form of government.

Of note is that Obama was elected, and that “he won the battle.” Won what battle?
The battle of getting a form of national health care passed through Congress.
A good form? A bad form? Good form or bad form was inconsequential.

However, whore politics being what it is, TWC will never admit such a thing. With
TWC, any bad in the form is an opportunity to become a hero, to fix the form,
rather than eliminate the form. Because once an economic form has been a part of
the national economy for N number of years, heroes who threaten to eliminate the
form, who are politicians, don’t remain politicians.

TWC leaders, they’re mere heroes, not saviors who sacrifice themselves for the
good of TWC.

As I said, Obama won. TCW, elected by TWC, was a warm up for 8 years of Obama.

So suppose, after 4 years of Trump, or 8 years of Trump, or maybe 1.3 years of
Trump due to impeachment, we can see that “something was better” under Trump.

There are always many “of note” one could make. Of note is that The Evangelical
Whores (TEW) are rather uninsightful, are they not?

You “had to” vote for TCW, then fatalism, then Obama, and Obama won.

It’s not that I know what Trump will lead to. A course-of-history that’s
destined to happen because X, Y, and Z are factors may cease to be destined
to happen because one or all of X, Y, or Z may cease to be factors.

How am I even supposed to know what all of the factors are? But, before the
election of TCW, I was talking about the slow road to hell. Talking to myself,
mainly.

TEW’s further compromise on morality, what with rich homos now openly and heavily
influencing the Republican Party (along with the usual hetero scumbags), has
further broken down the will of TWC to resist.

Donald Trump, The Chief Duck Whore (TCDW), is a warm up. You have to, then
fatalism, then the image of the devil wins.

A TEW might reply, “But still, you have to, or ‘liberals’ will win up front.”

No, actually, I don’t have to, even though, yes, “liberals” may win up front.

And as to “liberals” and “conservatives,” those are not people, but words that
are co-opted by new groups of people, as time goes on. Conservatives, lately,
are partly composed of homos, like Peter Thiel, and hetero scumbags, like the
Duck, along with TEW, The Evangelical Whores, like Southern Baptists and
Church of Christ folk in Texas.

(Note to self: Recent news caused me to think more about TEW’s “I think it will
be better under…”. News like this: U.S. to Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s
Capital, Trump Says, Alarming Middle East Leaders, N.Y. Times.)

Drone 192: Chicken Hawk Tweet Duck (and Definitions)

The Duck, Donald, bouffant hair, blowing in the wind.
But pointing to which end? To the front? To the rear?
Tweedly deet deet, the Duck is tweeting again.
Defecating, here and there, the Duck, as ducks do.

The Church (so they say) is blowing in the wind.
It’s God-talk business, but pointing which way?
To hell, of course, pop-culture and repackaged spin,
Tuxedoed Jesus, with a bit-part in the Passion Play.

Killers by proxy, no wait, they love you, yes they do.
They want to make it clear, their enemies are few.
Killers by proxy? Killers by Presidential decree?
But no, the Duck and George, just politics you see.

Oh noooo!, Oh noooo!, you’ve got to vote Republican!
It’s got to be better with the Duck and homo Et Al.!
Peter Thiel, the Duck alliance, and the Moral Majority,
Hear the money talk, with new Duck and homo authority.

Definitions

• Republicans: Hetero scumbags and homos who want to keep their money.
• Democrats: Hetero scumbags and homos who want to give other people’s money away.