I feel like I’ve done more this past year than I have the previous year, if only because I wasn’t looking to do anything in particular. Or perhaps more accurately, was not wanting to do anything in particular, but was looking to do several certain things clear in mind. The difference between desiring to do something and exploring for the sake of syncing a mental image with a real one is important.
I think I’ll try to use only one or two set landmark times a year for retrospectives from now on. This is following from the large unintended break from writing from about ~april to ~july because I had set the x25 and x75 posts to be super important – so many ideas I wanted to talk about I didn’t end up doing, because I wanted to write on a certain idea and make it amazing. I can’t say for sure if I am already using them or I forgot them, because I never worded them. While this is perfectly doable if my time was more free, school got in the way. If I set these posts to where I traditionally have more time, i.e. my birthday and new years, then nothing should really get in the way. Since “Home” ended up being a sort of retrospective itself, this won’t be one of the more structured posts.
I’m not doing anything in particular today. I’d really like to buy a gun, but I’m in California, and I can’t use it anyways because retaliation is obviously worse than first strike. Alcohol doesn’t interest me, and I’m not sure it ever will. I think hookers are available too when you’re 21, but I have neither car nor money and I can’t imagine the available choices are all that great.
I have alternate, more charged reasons for the gun and the alcohol – but I don’t have anything for the hookers. Gun because like any other man I’d like to be put to the test (I don’t lift just to look good), alcohol because it’s disgusting to me to intentionally fuck with the biological premises of the mind. But hookers I really don’t care either way. “Without condemning or condoning, I understand” – as much as I dislike True Neutrals, recently I’ve been tending toward it. Assuming True Neutral as a starting position, much of the world is significantly more clear – if I assume that reality “should” be something else, that it “owes me something”, then inevitably I will get angry one way or another.
My dad, literally translated, calls this “Fire veiling eyes” – you lose control of yourself when you are angry. I’ve written about the upsides of channeled anger before, but the benefits didn’t come strictly from being angry. They come from, as people like to call it, “pressure”. It is the fight-or-flight response, whether it is something reaching a deadline, someone trapped under wreckage, or someone attacking you, it is the biological motivation to get your shit moving, and moving quick and accurately. This requires energy. Anger is a form of energy, but not the optimal type. It comes at higher costs, notably at taxing relationships, and brain cells, if my parents are to be believed. While I believe that more men should be okay with their friends getting angry, the fact of the matter is a lot of them aren’t, and they aren’t completely worthless or useless because of that.
At the most efficient levels, clear thinking really is mutually exclusive with emotion. I’m starting to see the traditional wisdom. I say “tradition” because it certainly isn’t conventional wisdom. It’s another case of people saying what their parents and grandparents said, but not executing anything anywhere near it. What people attempt is both: Lawful, and Good. I don’t think it’s possible, and subsequently I think attempting it is dumb. No, “At least I tried” something that clearly can’t work doesn’t in and of itself make you worthy of respect. If you don’t talk about it that’s a different matter, but if you don’t talk about it then there wouldn’t be this problem in the first place. Only talk about things and talk about them in a way you are ready to defend.
On a similar note is the difference between relevance and rightness. There is a difference between “There is only one right choice, all other choices are wrong”, and “there is only one relevant choice, all other choices are irrelevant”. While things can be both irrelevant and wrong, in the act of describing or discussing it you can only go for one. It is the observer’s paradox of judgement. They are not strictly mutually exclusive, to be sure. Among other things that aren’t strictly mutually exclusive are talking when someone else is talking, and shitting while fucking, but we don’t do those things, or even think about doing those things. Rightness and relevance are not the same thing; the latter is more important than the former. If it’s irrelevant, it doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong. If it’s relevant, it really doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, because relevance determines correctness.
If someone is raising a machete over your head or drawing a gun in your direction, are you going to question if the fact that they are there and performing this action is “correct”? I am not talking about what you or anyone else is going to say about it afterwards, I am talking about in that moment. If you are good at playing pretend, the obvious answer is no. If you are bad at playing pretend, or are autistic (maybe I repeat myself), you will question or justify based on the morals of self defense.
Now if you find both an obvious answer and a reason for your answer, you are probably a movie character. Talking is NOT a free action, and neither is thinking. If you are spending that moment thinking, you are not acting; if you are spending that moment acting, you are not thinking. The only thinking you can do / are allowed to do is about your next move. Literally, where you are going to move next so you can counterattack. There’s a reason why back-line generals and politicians are stereotyped as full of only lofty words, it’s because they are not only unnecessary to the people in the actual situation, it is inefficient, and inefficient in a zero sum world (which we live in at all, due to the nature of time and opportunity cost) means destructive. Why the fuck does it matter whether self defense is justified or not, why does it matter whether or not the other guy should or should not be doing what he is doing? He’s going to fucking do it, or at the very least he’s been prepping and executing a feint of some sort; what are you going to do?
I suspect that this is the result of living life vicariously though the media for too long and only ever seeing the aftermath of things. Well this police officer did that because of whatever law and that means that other guy was participating in an illegal Police officers don’t actually know the fucking law unless they are specifically staking out for something, and even then they only know the name of the law i.e. Civic Code Blah Blah Give Me Donuts Or I’ll Taze You. They don’t know all the arguments or reasons that go in behind it, nor does anyone else; that’s the reason why we have so many god damn lawyers around. They don’t need to know it either, because they have power and you don’t. What are you going to do? Obviously there is background knowledge; different places in the world have cops with different understandings and their superiors with different understandings – but these are all only relevant to the extent that you can manipulate and react to them. It really doesn’t matter what argument you give the police, it matters which one you chose, how you deliver, and how you follow it up. Reasoning as a means to an end. If you got pulled over for speeding, pull over, and notice that the car that pulled you over had a fake siren mounted on top of a wanted car, the guy who walked out has a shotgun and a costume-looking uniform, and there’s a slumped over body in the front passenger seat without a head, do you put your key back in the ignition? Or do you wait and roll down the window?
If you turn your car on, full reverse to crush his legs, fucking bolt for it, and then find out that he was a police officer, are you going to feel bad because you broke the law?
It is said that people are required to interpret the law, and that things can still be done if illegal so long as it was in good faith. These and other things show that the law, i.e. “right” and “wrong”, are completely irrelevant in the face of what is relevant. Almost always the law ends up being overwritten to reflect what was relevant, i.e. “history is written by the victors”. It doesn’t matter if it was written over again later, they were made right and they died or have become irrelevant, so you cannot attack them anymore. See Gulf of Tonkin. Relevance: Communism. Right or wrong? Questionable, but the US sent a bajillion dollars over there so it had to be right, because obviously we wouldn’t do something that was wrong. Then the hippies came around and it was wrong so the US pulled out. And now it’s admitted that Gulf of Tonkin was faked. But it doesn’t matter, because at the time they were able to convince enough people that Communism had struck and the US had to strike back, and now Kissinger is a hero and everyone who knows enough about it to protest it is either dead or dying or homeless because that’s how veteran benefits are designed, and that’s how Obamacare is currently being designed. Same with Pearl Harbor, modern art, and I’m sure 9/11 eventually. They’re already coming out with the Benghazi stuff. But again, it doesn’t matter. The players have declared victory, taken their money, Buying into the notion that democracy is government by the people for the people, or any political thing like that (“WE have to help THE poor”) is dumb. Not right or wrong, though it’s probably wrong. The important part is that it is dumb.
But people like to be that movie character. It makes them both crazy and blind, as it should. And just to be clear, no, your pet political or ideological group is not exempt from this. In the same sense that anger is an inefficient form of energy, right is an inefficient and thus destructive form of correctness.
“But it destroys my enemies!” The best battles are the ones which are won before they are fought, because even the best fought battles kill your allies. graaaaaagh is a backstabbing son of a bitch and Bulbasaur is a dick-sucking pussy, But you don’t have to take my word for it. While our conflict was more flashy, all you have to do is read them yourselves and see how their use of language affects your mind. Does graaaaaagh actually say anything that sounds like it’s “for a new sociology”, or does his ratio of word creation to concept explanation seem a little too high to be saying much anything of note? Bulbasaur talks a lot about how modern civilization is about dildos dildos dildos, but does “Donate: It will make you feel better than consumerism” sound like the blog is about changing your mind at all? I shouldn’t be writing for that blog. Of course, my random videogame posts aren’t about halation or discipline, so individual examples won’t ever cut it. The decision has to be made by the reader. I hope there is enough evidence for my case. I don’t think there is enough evidence for theirs. If you trust me enough, don’t read either of them. Careful what you consume, because you are what you eat.
You always hear about how this or that “movement” has broken up or thrown out some member because of disagreements. I assert this is only because ideological groups attempt to tackle both rightness and relevance. Can you imagine a family or a gang completely losing cohesion, like leaves scattering to the wind, just because of something somebody said about some idea? It simply doesn’t happen. Because whether or not that thing said was correct inside the ideology’s frame, the ideology’s little game, it means nothing relative to the big game. Squabbling over politics is simply not relevant in the face of magnitude-9 resistant trust of blood and all the assistance and resources it can provide.
They are not relevant to the actual game.
I’ve changed the intro to reflect this change from emphasizing rightness to relevance. I’ve disliked the red pill / allegory of the cave method of introducing new ideas for a while, but I couldn’t find another way to put it. I separated correct from right to attempt to emotionally discharge it, but it never worked consistently by itself. The metaphor was “There is only one right light, all other lights are wrong” and I get why people use this; it’s a super simple and super effective way to write about it. Makes people feel good about themselves twice at the same time. But I’m not really a writer in the same sense, I’m closer to a recorder or chronicler. As much as I’ve attempted to say this should happen or that should happen or whatever is universally right or correct or true, I’m not going to pump them up for the eventual goal of changing the world.
Getting linked by both Jack Donovan and then Rational Male, both people I highly respect, had me considering changing things up. The amount of pageviews I used to get in two weeks, now in a single day? WOO TIME TO GET FAMOUS POST MORE USE BUZZWORDS GET VIEWS But nope. Can’t do it, and don’t want to do it. My favorite people, both online and offline, didn’t get to where they were by stuffing me full of pastel colored drugs. Imitate the masters; gonna take a long and steady road instead.
There is no long and steady road either (I’ll talk about this eventually), so I can’t be bothered. I said a lot of things too about going around looking for blogs to comment on and start looking for other interesting people, but I’m not too sure I’m going to look for too much of that. Maybe read more just to get an idea of more writing styles, but there’s a lot of noise out there. There’s probably many good writers, just hidden. I know of that the ones I did find and did comment on, over half were shit because they attempted both relevance and rightness.
I’m going to attempt to be relevant and relevant only. Thus far I’ve only been speaking of relevant in darker terms to illustrate how being dead right is completely useless, but relevance is simply a revisit of recognizing power structures – this time, in the True Neutral fashion. In its purest and strongest form, the most relevant action is identical to the correct action. Ends vs means or whatever taken into account, the relevant action when your family is kidnapped is to rescue them. Should this involve killing all the kidnappers? Sneaking them all out and then gloating? Infiltrating and getting the cops to join in with you? Only call the cops and then leave them to it? In terms of which is the relevant course of action all of these are maybe’s, as relevance depends on the situation. Probably the only right answer is to call the cops, but to summarize this entire post, “fuck that shit”.
While I’m sure attempting to be both relevant and right works perfectly fine for those who work in journalism and media because they’re supposed to be crazy anyways (at least until they reach 50 and then find they are irrelevant and return to an empty and lonely home at night), I am not one of them. I’m a nobody. I can’t afford to dick around too much in ideologies or ideological squabbles. Like all the IT entrepreneurs who are picking up on the fact that they can’t out-feature a Microsoft Word and have to simply be more efficient, I have to be more efficient than all the other guys. If I get some power or money then I’ll have more of a choice to fuck around, and perhaps then a more traditional application of the word “discipline” will come into play, but for now, this blog will focus less on being “relevant and happening to be correct” and only on “relevant”. It has done this for most of its volume (though not by topic); we shall see if a conscious effort makes a better difference. To reflect this, the subtitle has been changed from “The Revival of Discipline” to its current name.
The “right” metaphor is “There is only one right light, all other lights are wrong”. The “relevant” metaphor is “There is only one important light, everything else is a distraction.”
i.e., All Else Is Halation.