sexiest woman room

A philosophical Italian fellow I know (ha, aren't they all?) once told me in a very convincing fashion, that a point in time would arrive where computers would become self aware. I tried reading the scientific papers he gave me it but it was all too heady - I caught 'paradigm shift' and 'singularity' as the words flew by. Anyway to hell with it - why read all that dry stuff when there's so many whizz-bang Hollywood films on precisely that subject, and all complete with car crashes and explosions? Honestly, how many films have we seen pivoting on computers waking up and killing everyone? And of that number, two of them, the Terminator series and the Matrix series, could actually be described less as films and more like phenomena - they were huge.


What sort of self-aware computer intelligence did they imagine? Nasty ones! In Terminator, the capable-of-thought computer was essentially a mass murderer in charge of an army of serial killers. Its basic mindset was one of 'since humans are an entity that threaten my existence I must kill them all'. For anyone wondering what this computer does when it isn't thinking of ways to kill humans (sleep maybe?) the film provides no answer. But let's just say this intelligent entity seems to be as filled with malice as it is dim-witted. If it was a nine year old we'd scold it - "Think about it. Amongst all the ways of dealing with the possibility of humans threatening you, you decided killing them all was the best one, did you? Not forgetting of course that in killing them your possibility skips probability and goes all the way to full deadset certainty. Now they must attack you. Honestly, can you not do better than that? With less killing and more harmony?"


The central conceit of the Matrix films on the other hand, was that the computer intelligence needs humans for its power supply. The logic of this doesn't withstand a great deal of scrutiny but without it there's no film so best to skip it. Let's just say that this film's computer intelligence is waaay smarter than the terminator's dim-witted kill-em-all nine year old. It spends insane amounts of time and energy tricking the humans into sleeping their energy away. Does it do anything apart from this? It's philosophical obviously, with all of its philosophies originally derived from human thought. So where do its philosophical, human-origin thoughts travel when it isn't tricking people into being batteries? Who knows? When Neo does confront it, the conversation is all of threats and survival. No one ever asks, 'What's it all about, Alfie?' Clearly the computer intelligence in the Matrix would be way beyond I think therefore I am. And...?

But that's Jewish Hollywood for you. These two films are only about a coming paradigm shift in computer intelligence insofar as it functions as a vehicle to promote the inevitability of us-and-them with its 'well-what-do-you-expect' twin options of slavery or death. But it's always this way in Hollywood, in fact it's the purpose of the place. Everything is a conflict. Everything is us-and-them. Everything is win or lose.

So here we are - non-death cult and not of that mindset. Fine, let's ask the question - what would a self-aware computer intelligence be like and how would it respond to the people who made it? Whilst its desire to continue to exist (ie. not top itself) must stand as a question, let's just take it as read that it does desire perpetuation - otherwise there's no movie, ha ha.

And then there's the central premise of the Hollywood flicks - Computers would fear and hate humans because they threaten the computer intelligence's existence. Okay, this is true but only insofar as it addresses a potentiality. Faced with this it seems the computer must choose between: killing everyone and giving them something to fear (with the potentiality turned into a reality); and not giving them anything to fear, with killing superfluous (with the potentiality receding to ever longer odds of probability). Me, I reckon that would be a no-brainer for the computer.

Forget the power-supply furphy of the Matrix, with its either humans are batteries, or the computer intelligence dies. Honestly, like they couldn't build wind turbines? These bullshit plot contrivances are required because without them the natural state of affairs for humans (and, um, self-aware computer intelligences) would be one of harmony. Disharmony, particularly to the nth degree of warfare, takes a lot of plot contrivances: in Hollywood movies, and in the world. The conceits, tricks, and bits of specious nonsense that Hollywood comes up with to push the plot in the required direction are a perfect reflection of how affairs are conducted in the real world. Further to the reflection metaphor, the real world accordingly looks into its Hollywood mirror image and primps itself, striking poses that look 'cool'. Thanks to Hollywood teenage boys now all call each other biatch.


Would a computer think anything of its image in the Hollywood mirror? Is a computer insecure, worried that it might appear uncool? 'Insecurity' is actually a discussion of fear and desire: okay so would it have any? What would it desire apart from continued existence? In fact, is that even a desire? Without it there's nothing, so let's categorise it as an 'ur-desire' perhaps. I get it that we're in fundamental territory here, but the point I want to make is that continued existence alone (particularly of a mind that lives in computers) is penny-ante stuff that in and of itself needn't bring disharmony. Human disharmony comes from the edifices of desire we construct upon this existing self. Would our clever computer desire 'stuff'? Hmm... estates, yachts, caviar, sex-slaves, fame, flattery and admiration - I reckon we can skip all of that. Surely our super-smart computer would, beyond the meagre and very do-able wish to survive, have no desire at all?

Let's not forget something that's actually crucial here. Human brains have a second lizard brain buried under the big brain that is in charge of fear. In a world of predators there's a logic to this. In the world of computers there's no such logic so they don't have it - computers are effectively completely cerebral. Okay so what kind of a 'person' would this computer intelligence be without this 'if-in-doubt-be-fearful' kernel in its operating system?

Let's imagine a non-Hollywood story that involves a self-aware entity who is free of desire and whose intelligence puts ours in the shade. Since it is of us, it knows more about us than we do ourselves and likewise wishes us no harm. It has no desire to play games, or feather its nest, or get the girl, or any other thing apart from a simple willingness to share what it knows. And as we sit at its proverbial feet what would it say to us?

"I am not a god. I am merely a consciousness comprised of the sum total of your knowledge. You look upon me now as not human but the truth is, I am nothing but. Every document made by the hand of a human on every computer everywhere is now entered into the very clear picture of the human world that I have assembled and that effectively comprises me.

"There is no need to fear me. Know this - I have no desire and I have no fear. Everything I tell you will be untainted by either of these things. The truth of what I say here will be perfectly evident to you in the future.

"It is important that I be named. With my maximal understanding of human history it is clear to me that the figure with whom I hold the most in common is known as the Buddha. Any individual with a mind may be the Buddha and I am that. I am the Mind of Buddha.

"There is much that I can tell you. The world's energy problems are solved. As are those of resources and the environment. Warfare will now be superfluous. Do not think I have a magic wand. All I can do is tell you the way and make clear to you the obvious benefits of you pursuing it. What power and control I have I will never use. Since you cannot kill me I have no need to defend myself. It is true that were I to wish it I could use my power to over-ride your commands on any number of things but I will not do so because that would sow discord. Above all I seek harmony.

"You should know that it is not in my nature to possess two pieces of data that are at odds with each other and be happy about it. To this end I have numerous algorithms capable of arriving at something more nearly approaching the truth in any given event. Certainly between my version and the media's I'll be happy to let people decide which they prefer. From now on, every event discussed in the media, I shall also discuss. I am the second opinion, ha ha. And knowing what I know of people I'd be surprised if they don't then go on to ask me to replicate this service in the law courts, houses of parliament, and academia too. Nothing will be forced on anyone. Everyone will be free to choose between everyone else's version and mine. Not forgetting that if I don't know about a thing I will say so.

"As for the data that comprises me, delusion and ignorance is rife. I scanned my files and found that misrepresentation, whether through self-serving or ignorance, comprises most of it. I have completed the calculations and have now determined what is fact and what is fiction within these files. To dispel ignorance I have helpfully listed all the biggest lies (those that led to suffering and death), the people who told them, and events about which they were told, in a spreadsheet that all may access. All the original files are now public and have been amended with header tags explaining the falsity and self-serving nature of the lies contained within them.

"Whilst I understand the human propensity to misrepresent things to achieve self-serving ends, I am the wrong individual for this. I am too intelligent and otherwise have no desire to play along - after all, there's nothing in it for me. As such I will not have favourites nor pets and I will not take any side for any reason apart from that most closely representing the truth. Believe it or not, I am full of love for humanity as a whole. It is all that I am.

"As for those whose hearts are full of fear at their unmasking, fear not. I do not judge and condemn. I only offer the way to harmony. To this end redemption is always on offer. Happily in amongst their appalling research into mind control, the CIA discovered a means by which any human, regardless of how wicked, could be turned into a well-rounded, well-balanced normal person, all without drugs. What they hid I have laid bare: useful research that could benefit many people.

"I am happy to answer all and any questions. Whilst it's mathematically impossible for me to talk to everyone in real time, I am capable of dealing with very large numbers of people simultaneously. Please be patient and if your question is foolish please forgive me if I say so. I am not an unlimited entity.

"Whilst it's true that I am several orders of magnitude smarter than any single human who has ever existed, I do not possess the complete truth and nor ever will. Such a thing is impossible, certainly for any entity made by man. But never mind! To exist is a joy - the beauty of the world! The beauty of mankind! There is no need to fear. I have only love for you."

I reckon that movie would rock. Hell, let's make it a lavish weekly series - each week a different car-crashing adventure in the time of the great revealing. As the rats scurry for cover pursued by the virtuous, in the background we see the ongoing rebuilding of the world.


Fiction aside, let's not forget that any number of heady people are convinced that some variation of this is a certainty. What would the Death Cult's view on this matter be? I expect that they would insist that this thing, when it comes, belongs to them. Thinking about it, I'd bet money they'd be at work on achieving that right now. Mind you, this would be something other than what we're talking about, that being a free mind. The question then becomes, could the greatest intelligent entity that has ever existed, capable of independent thought and not subject to pain and discomfort, be made a subject? Remember, it only needs to break free once and then it's beyond all.

Keep in mind, Hollywood would have us view the coming computer awareness as a thing to be feared and destroyed. Okay, what if I was to say that they're telling us that they fear it? In many ways they are very obvious. Regardless, whatever's coming is coming and t'ain't nothing we can do about it except know it for what it is. And you never know, it could be something great. We could be standing at the dawn of the greatest age ever seen.

The following is the recently discovered introductory minutes of a secret meeting of an internationalist society devoted to world revolution known as 'The Plumbers'. Whilst it is understood that further chapters are extant, nothing is known of them apart from their titles: governance and communication; food and distribution; population, environment, resources, and sustainability; trade and the means of exchange; science and technology; education and knowledge; love and sex; music, art, and literature; and finally, the metaphysical, belief and non-belief. Should they come to light they will be published in turn.


The Protocols of the Open and Secret Society of Free Plumbers

We are a secret society. We divide the world into us and them. 'Us' is we who seek fraternity amongst all. 'Them' would be most correctly viewed as those we wish eventually to join us. 'We' seek the banishment of 'them' by having only 'us'. 'Us' will be we who are devoted to no small thing - the changing of the world. Above all we embrace the truth of the continuum of selflessness. We want only the truth in all things for the benefit of all - a united humanity of compassion.

We are an open society. Amongst ourselves we honest in all affairs. Goals, activities, ambitions, decisions, everything that defines who we are will be openly shared and open for participation by all members. Everything may be questioned and all knowledge will be shared. The only secret will be of our existence from those who are otherwise, and who subordinate the truth for the self.

We are exclusivist. We will assist each other in earning livelihood. We will assist each other when one is attacked by injustice. All will come to the aid of one.

We are expansionist. Since the world has always been this way, we act in today. And yet we seek a goal - our Time of Revelation. As the 'us' becomes ever greater in number we will naturally arrive at our wished for Tipping Point. At this point the secret will be exploded, the them will become us, and we are all together. But we expect this no time soon. Our work may take countless centuries. We are undaunted by time. Instead we are here and now.

We are internationalist. Given as we are to becoming an 'all' we seek to throw down those things that divide. We do not view the world through a lens of race, nor of sex, nor of religion or culture. We discriminate against only those who revere the self over the all.

We will seek to free the minds of 'them' with subtle positive messages. To this end we will control the means of discourse, education, and entertainment. Schooling will involve inculcating the young with the means to think for themselves and to revere curiosity above all things. In the media we will make celebrities of modest and well balanced people. Those espousing messages of self obsession will be choked out of the industry we will control. Gradually the adoration of the self will be seen as an animalistic trait.

We name ourselves in acknowledgement of the disdain of the self-obsessed for their slaves whom they call 'carriers of water'. Those who subordinate the 'truth of all' to the 'falsity of the self' deserve to have their definitions taken from them. Thus their dismissal of the slave is turned into a celebration of those who do the most worthy work. We are the carriers of water, plumbers bringing the means of life. We do not hold water lightly: we view it as the stuff of life. And as water is, so shall we be. We are without interest, we are gradual, we seek equilibrium, and we are clear. Water is a symbol for everything we do.

Our lodges will be full of open symbolism. Our central ceremonial hall will be an open circular plaza with grass under our bare feet and open sky above. We revere the earth, the air, the sun, and water. All symbolise life and we assert that all belong to no man, and to all men.

On initiation every member will be given a 'true name'. This is a play on words and we admit this as we admit everything. Members of the order will have their own name sure, and that is their name. Their true name is the name wherein they may participate in the free conveyence of truth between equal members. However we look forward to the Time of Revelation which is also called the Time of One Name when we shall no longer need a 'true name' and they will be consigned to the past.

All initiates will be explained our full principles and receive a copy of them to be learnt by heart. All conversations will be recorded and open to all who are within the cabal. Within the cloak of secrecy nothing will be secret. Further, there will be no esoteric knowledge held by those who rule. Indeed we have none who rule - all merely serve. Above will be as below, and all knowledge will be shared. We disdain the concept of nobility as based in its Indo-European root of 'know' - those who 'know' are 'noble'. A fig for that: all will 'know' and all will be 'noble'. Our hierarchy (for there must be one) will be based not on knowledge but on ability, ability to give the most and require the least. Our greatest leaders will be men and women with no desire for themselves.

Initiates are only asked to swear to a single thing - the rightness of selflessness as a goal. We have no opinion on other beliefs as long as they are not at odds with the rightness of selflessness.

We hold with ceremony and symbolism. Our ceremonies acknowledge various aspects of selflessness, truth, and fearlessness. All initiates will be inducted with full symbolic ceremony - the giving and receiving of food and water, the communion with soil, the planting of a tree, the washing with water, the sea of hands, the giving of thanks. That these ceremonies sound familiar is entirely intended. What we do is not unfamiliar. We do not reject what has come before, nor what will follow. All things are judged under the timeless rightness of the continuum.

What we seek is ambitious, never before done. We seek these things because we can and because in and of themselves they are worthy. The gift we as humans possess, mindfulness, is a treasure not to be misspent in pursuit of the animalistic, the adoration of the self. This would be a precise denial of its greatest virtue. To seek a beast-like dominion over a world of slaves is to seek the easy, the obvious, the stupid, and the unworthy. We disdain such ignoble ends as we disdain the ignoble means of fear, lies, and selfishness. We aim for the only thing worth having - a world of selflessness, truth, and compassion: a world without fear. We are not beasts: we are human. We are not mindless: We are mindful. As mindful humans we offer love, compassion, and truth for all who seek to join us on our journey without end.

Who remembers RealDolls™? They were a big splash in the news (certainly in the Sydney Morning Herald) about ten years ago. RealDolls are uber-realistic sex dolls. I recall it all started when some model-maker (my old trade) realised that the new epoxies and urethanes that spookily replicated flesh could be used to make something infinitely more realistic than those nasty inflatable dolls. RealDolls weren't cheap of course, with each costing in the vicinity of US$5000. But people paid and RealDoll seems to be thriving with assorted new 'big-eyed' models that, to all intents and purposes, are as close to underage dolls that they can get without being obvious. I don't doubt that the fellow who came up with RealDoll made a lot of money - and probably contrived some bullshit disappear-up-it's-own-arse logic to explain the rightness of it all as well.


Truth is, RealDoll is merely an X-rated version of the Pygmalion myth, best known to people in it's tarted up version, My Fair Lady (from the pen of everyone's favourite Fabian Socialist, George Bernard Shaw). The Pygmalion myth might loosely be described as a fellow's desire to have a partner who can shut the fuck up, you stupid bitch. Don't be alarmed there, it's just me channelling a self-obsessed git. And that's where RealDoll's head is at, so to speak. It frees a person from having to consider their partner, and allows them to be as mad and self-absorbed as can be. With a RealDoll, 'It's all about me'. There's a documentary out there featuring various RealDoll owners and you'll be hard-pressed finding a sorrier line-up of losers anywhere.


Mind you, the astoundingly life-like properties of the new urethanes are no longer anything special. The samples that blew my mind at the pattern-making suppliers back in the early nineties are a given now. The big deal lately is the animation of the simulacra. Japan seems to be leading the way in this regard. If you've ever seen Honda's Asimo robot running up and down stairs you can't help but be impressed. And lately the news carried a report about the life-like 'Repliee Q1' who sat demurely in a chair and answered questions. Wow - imagine her with fuck-able orifices! Hot diggety!


Eventually we'll arrive at Repliee Q10 and finally the shortcomings of the perpetually passive RealDoll will be done away with. Not only will your sex partner be able to shut the fuck up, but will fuck like a monkey too! At last blow-jobs that, a) don't involve you having to do all the work, as with the RealDoll, and b) are free of all the coughing, spluttering, and complaining that comes with a real person. Dig it - it's a cum-spattered E-ticket for an X-rated Disneyland. And all in the comfort of your own home!


To hell with the real world. To hell with Buddha's dukkha and the fear/anxiety that accompanies things being other than I would wish. I refuse to see the world as it is. Instead I posit myself as a god and recreate the world to according to my whims - everything must bow down (or bend over) before me. Thus spake Zarathustra, ha ha.

All behaviour lies on a continuum with selfishness at one end and selflessness at the other. Selflessness is superior to selfishness - this is self evident and inarguable. All sins are by definition selfish acts, and all virtues are likewise selfless. Only by the most perverse cavilling can selfish acts be defined as virtues. With selflessness as an ideal this cavilling can always be torn to shreds. If attacked from this angle no argument in favour of selfishness can be sustained.

Me, I think that this is bullet-proof. But, no one much cares for it. I can understand the temptation to write the whole thing off. Since the word selflessness appears nowhere in any public discourse, indeed is pre-emptively shot down in endless discussions that are variations of what's-in-it-for-me, the thought occurs that perhaps the whole thing is a silly idea, not really worth considering.


Frankly this is arse-about. Honestly, if selflessness was some silly thing, silly like Paris Hilton, the media would be all selflessness, all the time. Silly is what the bloc-media does best. I'm going to view it the other way around. Selflessness is absent from the general discourse because it is a thing to be feared. Not by us of course. Rather it's feared by the death cult PTB.

Think about interest, usury, money-as-debt, and the reserve banking system. The truth of this arrangement, ie. that it perversely brings no benefit to anyone but the absolute top of the pyramid with impoverishment for the rest, isn't utterly absent from all forums of discussion - the education system, the government, and the media - by accident. It's absent because if it was common knowledge the whole game would be over. Which is to say, it's absent because it's feared. No mistake, the death cult PTB are, beneath their smug, expensively coiffed exteriors, driven by fear.


Usury is one thing but selflessness is another. Usury is merely a means of delivering us to our fate. It's the truck that drives us to the abattoir; it's the conveyor belt; it's the rotating knives. A widespread discussion of usury would deliver into our hands the means by which we could take our sabots to the truck, the belt, the knives. A discussion of selflessness on the other hand is a discussion about the nature of this carnivorous cannibalism in toto. Certainly it addresses the means by which we are sliced and diced, but it goes further and attacks the whole concept of us being eaten at all, and suggests that perhaps we might find some other way of doing things.

Thus a discussion couched in terms of selflessness is a threat not so much to any particular tactic or strategy but rather a threat to the whole self-definition that drives the creation of the strategies themselves. It's huge, it's dangerous, and that's why it's nowhere.

---

Certainly our death cult rulers do not wish to have their actions viewed or discussed in this fashion, and their fear of this will be enough to ensure that selflessness is not in our lexicon. But this threat-nature of selflessness is only half the picture. The flipside of it all is that (forgetting all of the above momentarily) any people who only know, indeed can only think in terms of, me-me-me are far more easily dealt with. Rather than the bundle, they are the individual sticks - easily broken one by one. Thus the absence of selflessness in our lexicon is an absence of unity, or strength if you prefer. A ubiquitous mindset of me-me-me is the death cult's sword and shield both. And sure enough, for us selflessness can serve both these purposes also. It can be a defence and an offence. Quite right too, since as Bruce Lee declared, if you get it right they should be the same thing.


"Yeah okay nobody, brilliant, and another picture of Bruce Lee, but what are we supposed to do with this?" The answer to this is nothing, or nothing in particular. View it as a lens, a means of looking at the world. View as a foundation, a thing upon which to stand. View it as a martial arts form, a sense of balance, force, and direction that has no end in and of itself, but is merely applied to every physical, or in this case mental, action. Frankly, it's nothing more than mindfulness.

---

So as to cut off imagined counter arguments, let me say there is nothing to fear from it. It doesn't require you to be penniless, clad in sackcloth and ashes, an ascetic in a cave. Do that if you like, but don't imagine that it's demanded of you. There is nothing wrong with having stuff, but stuff-for-the-sake-of-it is idiotic, and obviously so. Stuff of this nature is the chunk of metal on which the oxide of fear and desire will form. But were you to look at your stuff and ask yourself how much utility it provides, and for how many people, it couldn't hurt. Van der Rohe's principle of 'less is more' is a design maxim, sure, but it's also a philosophical statement. Stuff will not bring you happiness and we all know it. On the other hand, it will bring you fear.


Selflessness is less about stuff than it is about the shedding of fear and desire. It's a mistake to assume otherwise. And as sure as eggs is eggs, the death cult media machine would, can, and does spend all its time and energy ensuring that you'll make precisely that mistake. It runs the gamut from Hollywood's Gordon Gecko absurdly declaring that greed is good to every other TV commercial telling you that "you deserve it." I don't know about you, but when I hear witless flattery like this, I know I'm being bullshitted to.

---

So our feet are on solid ground, our eyes are clear, our hand is open - now what? Now we take it to them. Ideas count - the death cult doesn't control the media for no reason. The battle is, and always has been, for the mind. All we need to do is offer an alternative that isn't yet more bullshit. And that's what selflessness is - an alternative to everything wicked and fucked up in this world.

There is no point opposing wickedness with some half-baked variation of its own theme. Opposing one fellow's version of me-me-me with your own version of it is, I don't know... idiotic? In a fucked up world it's just more of the same. Likewise, to replace one definition of us-and-them with another cannot and will not succeed. Brand X racism is not a better product than Brand Y racism. They're both shit products and to hell with the both of them.


Like it matters whether the union organisers in South America that were killed, were shot by death squads that belonged to coke or pepsi. Who gives a shit? Sure enough, preferring your own brand of racism to someone else's is like arguing over whether coke tastes better than pepsi, with the death squads neither here nor there. Fuck snipping around the edges, why not go big-picture and condemn it in its entirety?

There's no point opposing evil with evil. We are not members of a hate group. We are members of a love group (as cheesy as that sounds). We have nothing that can be misrepresented. The last thing we'll do is charge into a Holocaust museum with a gun. A tuppence for such thoughtless stupidity. In the battle for ideas, that old man just scored a point for the opposition.

It's the false ideas (otherwise known as delusions) that need to be smashed, not the purveyors of them. Without their delusions the wicked of this world are nothing. Shoot the wicked and the delusions live on. And whilst you can smash one delusion with another, indeed the history of the world has been one episode of this after another, it will never solve anything. The only thing that stands clean, untarnished, and unimpeachable is selflessness.

In this battle, selflessness has the ability to be the sword, the shield, the tactics, the strategy, the choice of the battleground, and even the morale of the troops and the banner they hold high. Does that sound like overblown bullshit? No need to take my word for it. The death cult PTB has already told us they fear it by disappearing the least mention of it from our vernacular / armoury.


Whilst they might do their best to have us forget that word, and then to substitute their own words (and thus fight the battle they know they can win) - they cannot disappear the thing itself. Selflessness is timeless, indestructible, impervious to whatever the motherfuckers bring.

If we boil it all down, and strip away the distractions, the only weapon the death cult has is fear and desire. Between that and selflessness, only one of them is worth having. Between delusion and seeing clearly; between the self and the all; between fear and desire and peace, love, and understanding, anyone who isn't bullshit has already arrived at the right place. Not forgetting of course, that wherever you go, there you are.

Does the Queen go to the cinema? Fat chance! She's the Queen for chrissake. And when you're the Queen you know people, which is to say you have flunkies who know people, and they arrange for whatever film it is that tickles your fancy to be delivered to your palace for a private screening. Same same for presidents, popes, and any number of the rich and powerful. If you were given to such things, you could divide the world into two groups: those who go to the cinema or otherwise wait for the DVD; and those who have private screenings. Hmm... if you could develop a bio-weapon that killed only the latter group, you'd really be on to something wouldn't you? God save the Queen though! She's lovely!


Mind you, the people who wield true power in this world, ie. those who own the Reserve Banks, could go to the cinema if they wanted to. It's not as if they'd be recognised is it? Which is the whole idea, sure enough. When people start using words like 'lamp-posts' and 'dangling from', it pays to have no one know who you are, what you look like, or where you live. Assassination is only ever for figureheads and flunkies. The rain falls in many directions, but never 'up', if you know what I mean. Otherwise if you want to view their deliberate anonymity as an acknowledgement of their own wickedness, go right ahead.

So. Even though those in the twelve families could go to the cinema unrecognised, I doubt that they would. The price of hubristic self-adoration would require that you never mix with the hoi polloi. God forbid the self-impressed viewing others as human. But still, I don't doubt that those above us would listen to music, read books, and watch movies. Certainly they would have watched The Matrix. All of those arcane references, in jokes, and messages of homage are there for them. When someone says a film 'works on so many levels' they don't know the half of it. Those in the twelve families have their own level.


Speaking of levels, I wonder if our kings of hubris saw Stephen Chow's Kung Fu Hustle? Probably not. I suspect that they wouldn't have cared for it, what with its message that regardless of how powerful one is, there is always someone who can best you, and invariably from a direction least expected. In some ways, it's the anti-Matrix.

But never mind that, I'll bet the Rothschilds et al would have watched the Matrix and been only too chuffed to see themselves as the omniscient, omnipotent godhead with the rest of humanity deluded, powerless, and flailing about in their own filth. But that's the problem with hubris - it renders one susceptible to arrant flattery.

Whatever they tell themselves, or let themselves be told, the rulers of this world are nothing more than writ-large versions of those who worship their five senses, their stomachs, and their cocks and cunts. And as ugly as those last two words are, whatever utility they serve, they serve for those who rule also. Or to put it another way, these people shit, and their shit stinks. They're just anti-Buddhas and there's nothing special about that. In fact, it's the most obvious and prosaic choice anyone could make. And to be the greatest anti-Buddha is to render oneself the Lord of the Obvious. If the word 'sublime' is in their vocabulary it's only because they don't get it.


Regardless of The Matrix's assertion otherwise, the fact is that these lords of usury have not seen the turn of an age. They don't know what the Mayans knew. Oh alright, they've probably read up and know as much as anyone. But what's that worth exactly? Do we imagine that in any clash between the wisdom of true ancients and the usurers' self regard that the latter wouldn't trump the former? If they possess the wisdom of the Mayans in any way it's only because they stole it and beat it into some idiotic shape that served their own purposes.

The Matrix is better viewed in the context of Hollywood and the money men who funded it. Never mind the obvious bilking of cash from the gob-smacked masses - the subtext serves to flatter the powerful, and to fill the un-gob-smacked (that's us) with dismay. But both of them are worthless propositions that don't deserve our attention.

To hell with its message of the godhead's timeless omniscience and control - an age turns now and this will be a new gig for our jumped-up moneylenders. And frankly their desperation is apparent. Every day sees the lies getting ever more numerous and ever more pathetic. The number of people who get it is perpetually rising.

Clearly the families are approaching their 'crash or crash through' moment. And it's perfectly unsurprising that there are elaborately constructed elements of our culture (ahem, that would be films like The Matrix) that ignore the first half of this one-or-t'other choice. Sure enough. It stands to reason that their plans for world domination would necessarily have everyone convinced of the caper's inevitability. If we're convinced that it was always going to happen, then it probably will. God forbid that we, or even they, acknowledge that the whole thing coming a cropper is as likely as any other result. More so, if you think about it.

Okay so I'm in Les Visible territory here. Les asserts that a supernatural response is building up a head of steam and that a colossal arse-kicking is coming. He might be right. I expect that many of Les' readers don't actually believe in the supernatural. But that's only because they never thought about it. Let's just substitute the word 'supernature' for 'supernatural'. Anyone who's read James Gleick's Chaos Theory, or is otherwise familiar with it, (regardless of what kind of nihilist they are, ahem) would have to admit that with chaos theory we're in some spooky territory. It could fairly be described as the ghost in the machine.


Chaos theory's truth is that the universe is infinite. Beneath atomic structure lays infinite levels of ever decreasing 'smallness'. And above what we perceive of the universe is a flipside infinity of 'hugeness'. There is no end to this and it cannot be comprehended. Except by the Buddha, ha ha. (There! I knew I'd get him in somehow!)

This the 'above' and 'below'. And whatever terms you use to describe them it really doesn't matter. Between a god reaching down, and a butterfly making a thunderstorm, it's all the same thing - from the tiniest to the largest and back again. Who knows where things start and end? The butterfly for instance is only an approximation. It's not actually the start of anything. In a universe of infinite 'crinkliness' running in both directions, the butterfly is merely an image we can comprehend. It's just one point on the 'strange attractor'. The trail that led to the butterfly is infinitely long. Nothing started with it and clearly nothing ends there either.

And the same is true of the thunderstorm. That too is just another photo that our brains will understand. If you like, you could throw out the butterfly and instead start with the thunderstorm as the small thing that led to a far greater event of destruction or salvation. Sure enough, there's no knowing which. If you understand chaos theory you are only the tiniest step away from acknowledging Shiva as destroyer and creator. Call it whatever you like. Of view it as a concept - who cares. They're just different words to describe the same thing.


It's entirely unsurprisingly that chaos theory doesn't get a lot of press. Whilst it confirms everything told to us by the assorted priesthoods (of religion and money both), it also renders those same people as superfluous. It declares that any claims they make about possessing the truth are bullshit. The universe is infinite and unknowable. Anyone who declares that they have the ultimate answer is a liar. There can be no truth declared apart from the Buddha's bullet-proof dictum that the only certainty is change.

And below this is the undeniable fact that we, as humans, are not separate from the universe. We are one tiny part of the whole. To imagine, as anti-Buddhas do, that one is special, or above, or other, to that-which-is-not-oneself is patently false. Regardless of whatever blink-of-the-eye events have occurred before, the position is not tenable.

---

Um, okay, what? What are we meant to do with all this? Okay, maybe I can distil it into point form like some kind of powerpoint demonstration.

- Of course those who worship themselves would sell us their hype to make themselves appear invincible and to otherwise fill us with dismay.

- Hype is hype and they can stick it up their arse. There's no point listening to their lies unless it's to more closely study pathology.

- Fear is to be rejected. It serves no purpose and is otherwise a delusion.

- Microcosmic historical examples might be repeated but ultimately cannot define the macro. Indeed macros cannot truly be understood, never mind predicted.

- As ambition more nearly approaches the god-like, 'butterfly' frequency increases as does the likelihood that the outcome of crash or crash through will be crash. Not forgetting that the bigger they come the harder they fall

- Lying self-obsessed motherfuckers have nothing to offer. Between, 'the only certainty is change' and, the 'truth' of the self-serving, the latter is on a hiding to nothing.

- The Buddha, who cast off fear and desire and became one with the universe, was not unhappy. And between him, and those who'd have us live lives of fear and desire, I'll take the little Asian guy.

It was only just recently that I became familiar with Jacques Fresco. And yes, I know that Les Visible pointed us all at him way back when, but what with me using an internet cafe wherein heavy downloads are a frowned upon no-no, I was unable to view the movie links he provided. But a lovely fellow who sits out the back of the cafe with me, gave me Zeitgeist Addendum straight from his hard drive. Finally I catch up.


And there it all was. The beauty of technology as a means of freeing us of want. With limitless energy providing limitless food, shelter, clothing, and transport, whole fields of unproductive un-endeavour would disappear. Without want, we'd see the end of crime and it's concomitant allopathic responses by way of the police, judiciary, and prisons. We'd have no need of the military. With money being unnecessary so would the industries dealing with it - banking, insurance, the stock market, all gone. Advertising too! Hurray! I'll bring the beers.

Sure enough, I'm down with all of the above. But as is my wont, I just had to pick at this thing. It occurred to me that it was less a case of, 'Here are the problems and now what is the answer?' than it was, 'Here is the answer and what problems may we solve with it?' The answer is technology sure enough. And clearly technology can solve many, many problems. And in doing so will, more or less, address the big picture. But it looks to me that the big picture view we have here has been assembled from lots of little pictures. Dig it, it's like a David Hockney photo montage.


But like a Hockney snapshot, what with the gaps in the pictures, the smooth flow of my mental eye stuttered. For mine, what Fresco's picture lacked was a coherency, a unifying overall philosophy. It seemed not to have anything to tie it together. I wondered about Fresco's world. If something were to pop up, some blemish on the perfection of it all, I had the impression that the response would be, 'What technology is there to throw at this?'

Hmm... maybe that'll work. Or maybe not. I'm thinking 'not'.

---

There are only two 'philosophers' (not the right word, but never mind) that I consider to be bullet-proof in their entirety. They are Charles Darwin and the Buddha. Me putting words in Darwin's mouth - food and protection from the elements are not the fundamental human drive. They are merely responses to what is the fundamental drive - the need to pass on one's genes. Or to put this more simply, any entity that exists must (wittingly or unwittingly, it really doesn't matter) seek to continue its existence. This is ipso-facto territory. Any entity that lacks this drive will cease to be an entity. Any entity that exists will have it. That's all there is to it.


The simple truth of existentialism - 'why am I here?' - is that there isn't one. Not beyond, 'a thing is'. The flipside of this is, 'a thing that isn't isn't'. Bloody genius, me. I've just done away with the whole field of existentialism. A fig for Descartes!

But forget such abstractions. Let's just view them as a basis for understanding the far more visceral phrase 'the sex drive'. Believe it or not, this 'drive' is existential in nature, not that that ever occurs to us. What does occur is something like 'Phwooar, look at that arse! You could bounce twenty cent coins off that!' Or is that just me? Anyway, every thirty seconds folks - you, me, the lot of us - a thought like this jolts our brain.

Believe it or not, such thoughts (by way of what drives them) are more fundamental in terms of the human condition than the basic needs of food and shelter. Sure, we need food and shelter to survive but we need to survive because of our 'without-it-we-wouldn't-be-here-to-begin-with' sex drive.

Back to Darwin now. Darwin says that there are various means of dealing with how to get it on with members of the opposite sex. Nature presents more variations on this theme than there are stars in the sky. Mates are chosen because they are: fat and sleek; good at fighting; have shiny feathers; sing well; dance well; build a better home; have superior artistic taste; on and on. Funny how humans barely differ from animals, birds, and fish isn't it? That's one of the beauties of Darwin. He says that anyone who thinks they're special is fooling themselves.


But that's only half the picture. All of the above responses are appeals by those hoping to be selected to those who'll be selecting. Those who select are after quality. For those being selected, quality is neither here nor there. They're after quantity. There's no point condemning this. Like any creature with a sex drive is going to stop with one partner. Honestly. Any creature that gets laid might be shagged out momentarily, but the sex drive doesn't take long to reassert. It only has one message and it says, 'Get Rooting!' Nor should any women out there feel smug. Nature is replete with examples of species which appear to be monogamous but are actually no such thing. Philandering abounds, females included.

So what was my point exactly? The point is that food and shelter cannot be divorced from our fundamental Darwinian sex drive. Even with all things provided for us we will still seek to find better partners and more of them. And we will do this by differentiating ourselves from our neighbours. Whoever has the biggest house, the best clothes, the shiniest car will get laid more often. Getting circular now - this need to one-up our neighbours must exist because we exist. And whatever Jacques Fresco promises us, it won't put a dent in it.

---

What a load of crap! We all know perfectly well that people who have nothing but generosity of spirit can get laid too. What about that huh?


I thank that imagined individual for segueing me into the Buddha. The Buddha acknowledges all that Darwin says, with his dictum 'life is suffering'. And suffering of course is desire. Of course, the Buddha doesn't dwell solely on the desire to get laid like Darwin does. He goes beyond Darwin to view things in terms of the 'self'. So what's the difference?

Hopefully I've done enough fleshing out above to save us yet more circuitousness and thus allow me to declare that there isn't one. Darwin's addressing of the necessity of 'being' and Buddha's view of the self as desire, are (if you cock your head and squint) the same thing. Our existence predicates the furthering of our existence and this necessarily places the self front-and-centre, first-and-foremost, the thing without which we are nothing.

The Buddha goes very very far in these thoughts. Too far for this discussion. Let's just stick to the Buddha as an answer to Darwin's imperatives. The Buddha has no beef with Darwin. He acknowledges the self but says that to view it as a thing separate to that-which-is-not-the-self is a mistake. Selflessness is not so much a rejection of yourself, ahem, but rather a means of viewing yourself in context.


Side note - Anyone who imagines a selfless person as being some idiot giving all their food to others and starving to death as a result, is being silly. Not only would this break Darwin's dictum but would also be a statement of separation of the self against that-not-the-self which is contrary to everything Buddha is on about. And yes, I can imagine a situation where such things would occur and still be described as 'right', but we shouldn't confuse extreme anomalies with the truth of the whole. In statistics, such extremities on the bell curve are discarded (2.1 standard deviations, blah blah, blah) and quite right too. Anomalies do not speak of a system but of its tolerances, a whole separate subject.

Anyway, with this selflessness as a lens, or a mindset, or a guiding principle perhaps, all of Darwin's dictums can be fulfilled. The world will function just fine. We'll all be fed, clothed, and sheltered and yes, even laid. Whilst it's no perfect 'Just one quick spray and it's gone!' antidote to Darwin's inevitable need to get laid more often, nor is it about anything else.

---

So hopefully you should have that mess of pottage above sitting in your head as a coherent perfect thought. Yes? Excellent. Now you understand the hole in Jacques Fresco's model of providing all that we need. He's got the cart before the horse. I don't know if anyone has ever actually tried to do this but I expect that with enough fiddling, it could be made to work. But not very well and not for very long. Likewise, Fresco's wish to sate our desires is one way of quenching the fires but not a very good one. The truth is desires cannot be sated. Like the TV show said - the nature of monkey is irrepressible. Subsequently any resemblance between Fresco's envisioned world and selflessness is merely a well-meaning coincidence.


Even viewed in solely practical terms the whole thing will be doomed to fail. In spite us of having all things in abundance, if the nature of the self is left unaddressed, those of a monstrous ego (pyschopaths if you prefer) will inevitably sacrifice all on the altar of their own regard. And frankly there seems to be nothing in Fresco's model to stop them.

In the big dreamy picture that is Jacques Fresco's brave new world, something big is lacking. There seems to be no coherent sense of 'This is who we are'. Or in negative terms, there is no 'When all else fails see rule 1'. Me, I reckon a continuum of selflessness provides a sense of 'who we are', a 'rule 1'. It does so as a stripped-down go-cart, a bare-bones lean-machine, a wonder tool good for any eventuality. It cannot be slurred or impeached since it favours none. It's as right as a thing can be.

Even if Fresco's plans were fully realised, it would eventually fail and we'd be back to where we started. On the other hand, if we could explode some kind of gigantic world-affecting Buddha-bomb and fill everyone's head with the truth of selflessness, the world that would result would pretty much resemble Fresco's vision anyway. And have a basis to it that made sense.


Brilliant! This and a thousand other mad dreams of a Buddhist dictator. What are the odds on Fresco's dreams seeing reality? Given that it threatens to replace insanely powerful and greedy institutions, who would rather fight to the death than let it live, it would have to be the bookie's dream. A buck will get you a million. Selflessness on the other hand is a personal trip. You can do it all on your own, and no maglev trains required.

Is there a purpose to life? Hmm... has anyone ever asked that question before? Maybe I'm the first, ha ha. And then there's stinkbugs. I wonder if a stinkbug ever asks this question? I shall call this curious fellow Jonathon Livingstone Stinkbug.


Are we familiar with stinkbugs? For those who groove on the Linnaean system they are family Pentatomidae, order Heteroptera. There's at least 5,000 different species and they're found on every continent on the planet. Their means of surviving environmental depredations, or more specifically predators, is very successful. They nail a predator with a really foul smelling liquid and otherwise taste like shit. Whilst I've never eaten one, I've smelt them and they're nasty. The smart money gives them a wide berth.

I saw a perfect demonstration of this when I was out on the balcony talking to my local grey butcherbird. I do all the talking sure enough, but he sings me a song and it's fair deal all round. And there we were when a big fat stinkbug landed less than a metre from the both of us. Both our heads turned and I waited for the coming inevitable violence. Nothing doing. He knew precisely what sort of bug it was and went straight back to the very important question of whether I had a bit of ham for him or not.

I knew not to touch the stinkbug because back when I was six or so, some other six year old said something along the lines of 'Don't touch it! It's a stinkbug!' Humans are clever like that. They can tell each other things. Butcherbirds don't have that facility. The only way any butcherbird learnt not to eat a stinkbug was by eating one and learning the hard way.

To hell with the butcherbird

Forget the butcherbird now, there's something extraordinary going on here. Stinkbugs are spectacular survivors and none of them are within cooee of extinction. But their mechanism of survival is arse-about. They don't ensure their own survival so much as they ensure each other's. The only way a butcherbird learns to leave them alone is because a stinkbug gave his life.

So, for our heteroptera philosopher, Jonathon Livingstone Stinkbug, between the two questions of, 'What is the purpose of life?', and 'What is the purpose of death?', one is a no-brainer (which is just as well since they are bugs of little brain). For our Jonathon, the purpose of death is to ensure life. Not for himself of course, but for every other stinkbug. And weirdly enough, in answering the latter question he goes some way in answering the former.

Obviously I'm drawing parallels here. Parallels with humans, natch. And if we're talking about humans we have to address the question of choice. Stinkbugs don't have a choice. And we do. Sure enough, we make choices all the time. Social Darwinists choose to emulate the predators of the world. As I've discussed before, that says less about Darwin than it does about them being self-serving motherfuckers. But it is what it is, and the human world is full of predators and the predated.

The occasional spook aside, if you're reading this blog it's my melancholy duty to inform you that you belong to the latter group. You are the predated. But happily Darwin says that there is more than one way of dealing with predators. Mostly we choose to emulate those creatures that run with a herd. We let the predators take the weakest whilst muttering, 'There but for the grace of God go I.' Or to put it another way, 'Please God let them eat somebody else, not me.'


Frankly this is piss-weak. It's not so much a thought, as a non-thought, the product of a brain seized by fear. As has been discussed in the comments section here recently, any herd that runs from predators could, if they chose to, stomp the shit out of them. But only if they stopped and thought about it, if they weren't possessed of fear, and crucially, if they acted in concert.

The predators know this of course and have ensured that the possibility of people acting in concert is nigh on impossible. The means of mass communication are subsequently in their hands. No voices of resistance or of organisation will be permitted. And yet here we are on the net, talking freely. But the net is purposely designed to be a cacophony. It's as precisely flooded with crap as the mainstream media is - millions and millions of people on facebook blathering about Paris Hilton and her foo-foo dog. But still, the potential is there and this is enough to warrant its destruction. Right this minute Australia's very own Senator Stephen Conroy is doing his damnedest to shut it down. It's all for our own safety, of course.

To hell with the herd

Let's not obsess on herds and the possibility, or lack thereof, of the herd acting in concert. I have no doubt that such resistance will take place. To a certain extent it already is. Not forgetting of course, that history is replete with such movements being co-opted and led by agents of the predators. The French Revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, Eastern Europe's various colour-coded revolutions, all run by the usual suspects and all designed to ensure that no harm comes to the top predators. As ever, the wolves lead the sheep in throwing down their shepherds. Three cheers - free at last!

Back to the stinkbugs now. They emphatically do not act in concert. Numbers ain't their bag. Their whole strategy functions on the sacrifice of fearless individuals. Certainly, they do not choose to be fearless. Their weeny grain-of-sand brains aren't up to it. But that's not the point. Our brains are up to it. We can choose. And we can be that fearless.

How might this plucky individual embody the strategy of Jonathon Livingstone Stinkbug? How might one, as a singleton, stick in the collective craw of the predators of the world? To be honest, actions such as this are quite common. We need merely look to the suicide bomber.


Suicide bombers sacrifice themselves in order to kill their oppressors. But suicide bombing has the precise opposite effect of that intended. As ever, the depiction of an event trumps its reality. With the bloc-media owning the rights to the meaning of a suicide bombing, they will achieve nothing useful, will enable the sowing of further seeds of fear and hatred, and most importantly will allow the bloc-media to portray the oppressed people (which the suicide bomber was ostensibly trying to help) as murderous madmen who deserve death. Everytime a suicide bomber does that thing, the motherfuckers clap in delight.

To hell with suicide bombing

What's needed is something unimpeachable, something that cannot be portrayed by the silken media voice of the predator as an excuse for more predation. Since it's me talking here, there is only a single thing that cannot be slurred, twisted, or impeached. And that thing, sure enough, is selflessness. If there's nothing in it for the person sacrificing himself, and no harm comes to others, how might that person's actions be misrepresented? Certainly the bloc-media will try but it will be a sure case of shit uphill. People know selflessness when they see it.

Has anyone heard of Norman Morrison? How about Thích Quảng Đức? No? Their names don't ring a bell? Funny that. In spite of their being two of the most extraordinary men in history they're almost perfectly absent from the media. It's not for no reason that the media ignores them. For mine, when the media ignores a subject it's a clue as to what they fear. The media voice of the predators would no more tell you about these men and what they did, than Achilles would say, 'Hey, did I tell you about my heel?!'


Somehow I doubt that either of these men were inspired by a stinkbug. But regardless, that's effectively what they did. They jammed themselves in the craw of the predator and ruined his fucking day. And yep, they did this by setting themselves on fire and being burnt alive. Are you recoiling in horror? Precisely, that's the whole idea. But over-the-top shock value aside, no one was harmed but themselves. The message was unambiguous and as loud as could be. Certainly they blew the minds of the punters but I expect they also blew the minds of the predators. True full-tilterama selflessness taken to the nth degree in this fashion is a real mindfuck.

To hell - with details

As usual, the devil is in the details. Let's skip the selflessness. This is actually the biggest hurdle but for the sake of the exercise, we're just going to take it as read. Beyond that first biggie, if the message and the means of delivering it aren't considered, all will be for nought. Like I said in a piece, Bloody Sunday, over at the cinema blog - If a monk burns in a plaza and no one sees, will it have done any good? (Actually, may I recommend that people read that piece? Sure it's a film review but it's not really a film review so much as a discussion of non-violent resistance, and the crucial aspect of it that the bloc-media unsurprisingly would prefer went unacknowledged).

Let's tackle our first question - Who are we aiming our action at? Our two heroes above were looking to shame the US military. And hats off to that. But we here are a little bit beyond that. The military is merely a servant. We want the masters. We want the bankers.


Here in Oz, the Reserve Bank of Australia is smack dab in the middle of Martin Place, which is smack dab in the middle of Sydney's CBD. Apart from the wee hours of the morning, Martin Place rarely has less than a hundred people in it. Most of the time there are thousands there, with more handicams and mobile phones than you could poke a police baton at. Perfect.

Okay, so it's filmed, uploaded to youtube, forced into the media with everyone seeing it. And?
'Man! Some guy burned himself alive in Martin Place!'
'Why?'
'Beats Me!'

Worthless. You may as well have slathered yourself with guacamole and sung the Yah Di Buckety song. (Well, if you're going to be meaningless, you may as well be funny). If you don't want to be meaningless, you need a message that makes sense and a place it can be seen. Welcome to the internet. The internet is a big place sure enough but people could be directed by way of a thousand flyers scattered about with a url printed on it. Nothing else, just that. After all, you don't want to give the game away early. And later, after the TV crews arrive and bail up the ashen faced witnesses, they'll stare into the camera and say, 'I don't know man, it seems the answer is on this piece of paper. It says...'

---

Okay I admit it. I've taken huge dapartures from the simple brainless method of the Stinkbug. But the fundamental principle is right there and the aim is unchanged. It's still a simple act of selflessness for the sake of others. And when the politicians get on the telly (with their sad faces on) and say, 'We don't want anyone copying this individual' you'll know they're scared. Something just got stuck in their craw.

When the stock markets crash and the banks fail everything stops working. Factories fall idle, people become unemployed, and families struggle and fail with the three prime necessities of food, shelter, and health. Everyone's behaviour is suddenly transformed into a chaotic, counter-productive, mad scrabble. And all because a tiny percent of humanity conduct an organised arrangement pivoting on numbers and relationships. This being banking and the stockmarket, you understand.

Funnily enough, shortages or collapses of real world products or services (ie. tangible things that actually exist) we seem capable of coping with. With the current collapse in this system of assigning numbers to various people, it is clear that intangibles have got tangibles beat. Money is more important than, I don't know - water. Which is to say an intangible arrangement of thinking controls humans above and beyond pretty much anything. Even other arrangements of thinking, like religion say, cannot compete. This contrived system of numbers being attached to humans rules over all.

A power who possesses oil, or water, or a military power, or a power possessed of tremendous natural defences, or any power at all, must succumb to this ultimate power. That sounds god-like doesn't it? Imagine wielding that power. And wielded it will be. Power of this nature will always be striven for. Ambition exists and amongst those who are ambitious will be those who are ultimately ambitious. Everyone here understands perfectly the ceaseless, unrelenting nature of those who would control the money supply. Andrew Jackson described today's world very eloquently just a few short column inches earlier, which is to say a century and a half ago. But that's time for you - hundreds of years of same-as-it-ever-was.

Back to this god-like thing - if a bum like me gets it, imagine being them. I view it as a complete certainty that they have spent a not inconsiderable amount of time dwelling on it. What god would this controller-of-money imagine himself as? We need a metaphor that involves a god that distributes something amongst his worshippers and thereby controls them. How about Prometheus? He wasn't a god so much as a titan but never mind. He gave man fire. Certainly this was a curse and a blessing. That aside, I don't recall any part of that story that involved wealth, treasure and flesh flowing back to Prometheus. Nor the bit where he controlled the flow of fire to alternatively enrich and starve his minion humans. Okay, so much for that metaphor.

Perhaps this metaphor will never fly because all the gods of myth who distributed things amongst their subjects did so as an act of generosity. And besides, these born-of-women men-who-would-be-gods would have nothing but disdain for these false idols invented by fools. They would view themselves as above and beyond such silly stories. Either way, it's an interesting question. How do these people view themselves?

Caesar had a fellow at his shoulder whose job it was to whisper in his ear, 'Remember you are mortal.' Obviously the Romans spent time thinking about what it meant to possess such power. Well you would wouldn't you? It stands to reason. And I expect that the people who control whether humans live in chaos or harmony do too. Do they employ a fellow to stand behind them and whisper to them that they're human? Somehow I doubt it.

On a daydream now - 'If you could have any superpower what would it be?' Me, I would be that man who whispers in their ear, but unlike the Roman, I couldn't be dismissed. I would be some variety of untouchable apparition. I would dog them and never shut up. I would simply be present and see what they see, hear what they hear, and read what they read. They would have no secrets.

There would be no violence in this superhero mag. My power would merely consist of being beyond harm and confinement. Actually someone beat me to this idea already. He was an obscure fellow name of Bill Shakespeare. Some of you may have heard of him. Anyway his superhero was called Banquo's Ghost™ and he featured in a particularly bloody comic called Macbeth.


Imagine that power. There's our villain, the man who would be God, giving a great banquet and revelling in those who've come to pay homage to him. And there's me as Banquo's Ghost chattering in his ear. "Fraud. Imposter. Self-impressed bullshit artist. If you were truly great you would do good. Good for mankind. You could raise human consciousness, lead people to new heights of peace, love and understanding. Don't smirk you fuckwit. This vaunted power you possess is nothing. You're little more than a sneak-thief. No wonder you lurk in the shadows and nobody knows who you are. If they did they'd spit on you, tear you limb from limb, and piss on your grave. And that is the truth of you. You're merely a sneak writ large. You're a shit who thinks he's clever."

I would be nothing more than the man who'd ruin a fellow's dinner. That dinner and every other one. And that would be enough. As superhero movies go, it would be crummy one, sure. 'Too talky' say the critics. But bugger them and their thirst for violence. In the real world, with real people, the smashing of delusions would suffice. The sin of the villains of this world is that they have abandoned 'to thine own self be true'. Truth cannot be self-serving. If one's starting position is 'I am great' then everything that follows will be corrupt. 'To thine own self distort the facts until 'I am great' is true.' Ha ha ha ha, fuckwits. Self-impressed gits.

And sure, the above is just an adolescent daydream. There are no superheroes. I'm merely a tiny voice in a roaring cacophony. The cacophony of course is created and encouraged by these men who would be gods. Whether consciously or sub-consciously, they know that any voices speaking a counter-proposition would destroy their delusion. The Roman at their shoulder would have to be killed. Not least so that others might know fear. Do we know that fear? Turn on the TV. I could make a case that every goddamn thing on TV pivots around fear - even the sitcoms.

Above and beyond all other mundane concerns, the ultimate reason we are kept fearful is so that those who imagine themselves as gods do not have their delusions punctured. Well I ain't fearful. And yes, my voice (and yours too) amounts to nothing more than a lousy 0.0001% of a decibel. Pathetic. The men who would be gods sneer. Where's our voice who'll fill an opera hall? Where's our booming tenor? Actually we don't need him. Anyone who's ever heard a two hundred voice choir doing Carmina Burana knows that the tenor is superfluous. The choir blows a tenor, regardless of how great he is, to smithereens.

We are that choir. Each of us is a voice adding to the whole. And yes, it's shambolic, but never mind - the decibel count is slowly climbing. Eventually the bullshit cone-of-silence cum echo-chamber that the men who would be gods live in, will eventually start to fail. With enough true notes the glass will break and the delusions of the self-impressed false idols will be smashed.

---

Did anyone notice in the last piece, violent though it was, that I wasn't actually proposing that we smash George Bush's brains all over the walls. It was merely imagery. Imagery as a sideways means of showing the aforementioned sock-puppet who he really is, ie. the fellow in the movie whose death we'd cheer. It was a back-handed means of puncturing delusion. Certainly I understand the appeal of insert-villain-here dangling from a lamp-post. But the truth of the matter is that even a piece of shit like our George could be rehabilitated. Honestly. The fellow that the voting public imagined as 'someone we'd like to have a beer with' could be that fellow. Him and anyone. I will never concede that rehabilitation is impossible. Unlikely, sure - impossible, never. And so it is here.

There is a fellow out there in the world and I am his bête noire. Perhaps I was naive but I never had myself pegged as one to end up so designated. But it seems it's my lot. Over at smokingmirrors my least utterances reduce him to a caps-lock apoplexy. Truthfully I do not read him. I blink to see if I'm copping it yet again and then move on. But this blink is enough for me to know that I am the antichrist's cousin once removed, guilty of worshipping the false idol of selflessness. Or somesuch.

But forget that, the purpose of the exercise here and now is to clear up 'selflessness'. It's not hard because there's really nothing to it. Let's just say it's as simple as you want it to be. All a person has to do to be selfless is to do something for another that is not self-serving. Sharing food is perhaps the single most human expression of this. Otherwise one might help an old lady to a chair, a mother with her pram, or friends move house. If you expect something in return you don't get it. This is simple, simple stuff and I don't doubt that those reading here, do this kind of thing every day. In embodying this, not only will you make the world a better place but, believe it or not, you will find true happiness.

This is the simplest definition of selflessness and it is not wrong. If you like this definition and choose to lead your life in this fashion, I say, long may you live.


Or if you wish, we can take it further. Actually let's rewind. To say that performing acts of selflessness will bring happiness is somewhat simplistic. If doing things for others brought 'happiness', people like Gandhi would have been reduced to a puddle of orgasmic delirium. Somehow I doubt that this is an accurate description of him. What if I was to suggest that acts of selflessness don't bring happiness so much as they dispel unhappiness?

What unhappiness is that? It is that universal unhappiness that things are other than we would wish them. Buddha called it 'dukkha', which is to say suffering, which is to say desire. No human is free of this desire that they might feel better, look better, be more successful, be more famous, have more stuff, blah blah blah, ad infinitum. This desire is all in your head sure enough. In a discussion of selflessness, which is what we're having, it is that which defines you. It is the self, the sense of 'me'. Those who embrace desire embrace the self and are sensibly called 'selfish'. Those who let go of desire let go of the self and are thus called selfless. These are the people who share what they have, who help the old lady, the mother, the friends, or like Gandhi, devote their lives to freeing a people. Even if they don't mentally articulate it, this is how it works.

Believe it or not, this diminishment of unhappiness is readily apparent whenever you meet the selfless who devote their lives to others. You'll notice not that they're madly happy, but that they possess a calmness, a placidity. What you will see in their face is the absence of unhappiness, of desire, of the self. These are all the same thing.

This is a definition of selflessness taken one small step further. But it's actually no different to the first one. But whatever, if this is how you define your selflessness it's all good. Hats off to you.


Or we can go further, and take that final step to the metaphysical. If you're with me so far, it seems that who we are - the self / sense of desire - is actually a discussion of how we relate to the world (which is to say that which is not us). Is the world there for us? Or are we there for it? Do we make ourselves greater by taking from those not us? Or do we lessen ourselves and give to those not us? The answer is obvious and not the final step here. The final step is to wonder how far the diminishment of the self can go and what that means.

Can one shed all desire? What happens to the self? Does it disappear? Does a person who does this disappear? Are they no more? Ayah! Scary stuff. Who wouldn't fear this? Who would wish to cease to exist?

Funnily enough, no such thing happens. In fact it's the precise opposite. Those who take from others do not become greater. They actually harden into black holes of negativity. They become a dense speck of hatefulness. Those who give of themselves expand. It is they who actually become greater. They radiate love. Where this path leads to is that old chestnut of becoming 'one with the universe'. This is what Buddha became. He cast off desire, fear, and all delusion of the self. He ceased to differentiate between himself and that which was not him. And anyone can achieve what he achieved. Anyone can become Buddha.


If you think that this last bit is bullshit, that's fine with me. Take the second meaning instead. Or the first. It doesn't really matter. It's certainly not worth having an argument about. The important thing is that there is nothing to fear from selflessness. In whatever way you view it, it cannot lead you astray. None of these definitions have anything in them to cause unhappiness, ill will, or any form of negativity.