On cultural appropriation

Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of another culture.” Wikipedia

This whole thing against cultural appropriation is silly.

Cultures when they come into contact mutually seed one another.
This is good and leads to a flowering of the universal human spirit.
What cultural appropriation is is just a negative tone taken towards this glorious process.
Cultures are not things to be safe-guarded because by doing so you make them dead things. Just pieces of fossilized carcasses in a museum with a plaque instead of a life-giving context. Cultures are meant to consume one another – cross-fertilize.
All these cultures that are dying now are like flowers. They were once a small seed. It grew into the beautiful flower. The entire purpose of the flower is to blossom and reproduce. After the flower has blossomed and reproduced the beauty of decay takes place.
This is beautiful because not only does the flower create more biodiversity through evolutionary forces it’s death and decay feed this process in things that aren’t flowers such as mushrooms.
All that being against cultural appropriation is is another vain attempt of man to freeze and bottle life. He thinks that thereby he has captured life and made it his own. Luckily he cannot be successful; mother nature will have her way with culture as with flowers. Even if he could be successful all he would have is a petrified corpse with no life.

Why I hate morality

The main thing that motivates my interest in morality is compassion.

I see that in society the weakest and most miserable members are treated with disdain, made to feel ashamed and often abused all because of particular propositions of the status quo morality.

For instance I had a friend at work. He was a compassionate person and the worst I could say of him was that he was incredibly indoctrinated by the status quo and had a temper. Apart from that he was one of those decent people that make up a lot of the working class.

His attitude towards the homeless and drug addicts though was based upon the ethic of capitalism. He didn’t know this but it was.

These people didn’t work and expected hand-outs. They would steal etc…

It was a focus entirely directed towards just one aspect of the people in this class. It was a myopic perspective.

He would say that they should get a job.

He even told me a story once about how a tramp asked him for money and he replied “I wouldn’t even give you the steam of my piss”. He said this with pride and he probably had a feeling of righteousness in saying it. This is how morality makes monsters out of people.

It was sad because he was not prepared to even discuss it. To even entertain the idea that these people are deeply unhappy. That is why they seek the comfort of oblivion through narcotics to such an extent that it destroys the rest of their lifes. That causes them to break the law so as to run back into the arms of that oblivion away from their life of extreme poverty and misery.

For him it was black and white. These people were bad.

There was no inquisition into the social conditions that give rise to these people. How he is also subject to them. How the same force called capitalism that oppresses him and forces him to work the majority of his life is the force that has broken them.

That the homeless are symptoms of a society fundamentally incompatible with the human pursuit of happiness. That they indicated not a threat in themselves but a greater threat that hangs over us all. A threat with the only redeeming feature being that it should make brothers of us all.

His attitude was one of disdain and hatred to these people who in my eyes should – at the worse – be seen as people with a debilitating illness.

The same is the case with prostitutes and women in general when it comes to promiscuity. Men when they are promiscuous aren’t socially frowned upon. Sure there’ll be some old biddies in the local baptist church who would express moral outrage at them but in the main society doesn’t condemn them.

But women on the other hand…

Compare women and men in their ideal form. The man is a big, muscular, strong person who can handle stuff. The woman is the opposite. Yet who gets treated worse for sexual promiscuity?

The fact that morality is often directed against the weakest and most vulnerable elements in society shouldn’t be shocking. One of the psychological pay-offs of morality for those that make up the power-structure is that it allows them to go to sleep at night knowing that they’ve done service to absolute good by stamping on the face of the poor.

Power, Morality and Sex

In order for a power structure to exist there has to be a perceived need for it. It is important to note that for the intentions of the members of the power structure to be fulfilled it is irrelevant whether the threat is a real threat or not.

It just needs to produce the reaction in the populace that is typified by the child who runs into the arms of daddy when he is scared.

One of the most powerful ways of doing this is to create as many threats as possible and to make those threats common. Morality is the means through which the elites have done this over the ages.

With morality the elites have been able to cause the response to threats to happen in response to evil. That is to say that instead of the threat having to involve risk to life; with morality it can also include people who are seen as morally wrong.

For example take the case of prostitutes. If you read my previous blog here you’ll see that prostitution in-itself is not harmful. Now by making prostitution a moral evil the power-structure creates another excuse for it’s existence. The man in the street – who is generally heavily influenced by morality – sees prostitutes as a threat and a threat that he is unable to deal with on his own.

Prostitution and sexual things generally are a brilliant choice for this because they are so common. What the elites have done is to take what is natural and habitual to humans generally and called it morally evil.

Also because the threats are based upon natural human inclinations and behaviours they are ineradicable. This is perfect for the person in control who wants to maintain his position because it is an ever-present reality. This – in the eyes of the heavily brain-washed man in the street – requires the ever-present assistance of the power-structure.

A funny thing about this is that it doesn’t require the conscious intention or knowledge of the people that constitute the power-structure. The phenomenon of morality perpetuates and sustains power like a natural force.

It’s much like a genetic trait that aids the survival and reproduction of organisms in nature. Once the inheritable trait occurs it is irrelevant whether or not the consequent generations know about it because it will nevertheless aid their survival through evolutionary mechanisms.

It could be that thousands of years ago morality came about. This may have been an intentional act of a power-structure, the result of people thinking, the spread of disease or whatever. Once it came about though it stuck because of how it facilitated power.

On prostitution

Common-sense morality is generally quite warped. It often seems to be nothing but a way for people who are the oppressors to maintain their position on the top.

One of the typical examples of this is prostitution. Why do we consider it bad and shameful? What are the effects of the context of morality that surrounds this the oldest form of occupation?

Firstly let us strip it down to its essentials. Prostitution is an act in which one person sells the sexual use of their body.

Concretely it involves two people being sexual and an exchange of money.

Just look at that on its own for a bit. Why does this activity garner so much moral attention?

It’s perfectly fine to sell yourself as a labourer, a masseuse and it’s even fine to sell yourself as a killer but the second you sexually please someone for money suddenly there’s something wrong. This seems very bizarre and warped to me.

If we wanted to trace this moral approbation historically and sociologically I reckon we could see the cause of it in the fact that systems of power have used repression of certain drives (predominantly the sexual drive) as a means of gaining power over the masses.

Orwell recognized the power this repression had in freeing libidinous energy for the service of the state by redirecting it towards veneration of a person in the anti-sex league of “1984”.

One of the effects of this is that the sex worker (and to a lesser extent the service user) is seen as something shameful, less valuable or even valueless. They become less than human in the eyes of the masses. This of course leads to the horrendous treatment they so often receive.

Also as a result of this the people in the sex trade are often the weakest and most vulnerable of our species. They see themselves as worthless and incapable even before entering the profession and that is why they become prostitutes.

It’s not that prostitution in-it-self is without worth but that because of the morality constructed by the elite it becomes the job of last recourse. Something that desperate people do because they are desperate and because of this there is such an atmosphere of mental illness and misery around it.

You could imagine a different social context in which the prostitute is respected. In fact only recently we had such an example in Victorian doctors. There was an epidemic of hysteria and the prevailing medical opinion concerning the cause of it was sexual frustration in women. So women would go to doctors to get fingered. The doctors were paid for this service though eventually they gave it up when the dildo was invented to alleviate strain in doctor’s wrists.

So when you strip it down the Victorian doctors were prostitutes but because there was a different social context and moral feeling around their action they didn’t feel guilty or ashamed; quite the reverse in fact.

To conclude I am saying that everything bad about prostitution (except STDs but risk of illness is present in almost all occupations) is caused by the moral feeling towards it and isn’t endemic to it.

The Hero’s journey

The hero’s journey is one in which he either runs away from or is cast out of the social normality.

He is forced to rest upon himself or nothing at all.

Society seeks to keep us in an infantile state through fear. There are woods out there and you best not go in them because there are dangerous monsters there.

Of course the woods are the commons, the place where man can hunt and gather for himself outside of the strictly delineated precincts of urbanity.

There is a commons of the intellect too. Think about it, what stops you from doing what they do in university?

Nothing as far as I can gather and to be honest when you look at most of the training you are given in a university it is training in obedience and academic slavery. That is it is a process whereby an individual’s intellectual activity is violently transformed into a sellable commodity.

The fact is the woods, the dark and dangerous forest is the only place to be. The reason fear is the tool of choice used by society to keep you within its circle of banal urbanity is because its shit and nobody in their right mind wants to be there.

Honey doesn’t need a whip to get you to consume it! Why? Because it’s delicious and nourishing is why.

Urbanity isn’t just urbanity it’s banal urbanity.

See how they have used fear in history to keep you within the stifling straightjacket of conformity. Heresy is always spoken with a tint of dread. When I was a Christian someone warned me about the results of thinking for myself by saying I’ll end up a gnostic! Which is funny because as far as I can tell the only bad thing about being a gnostic was that the roman catholic church fucked you up hard.

Even now it’s no different. What’s the use of that? How will that make you money? That is to say you shouldn’t waste your time on stuff this society doesn’t approve of because of PENURY scary sounds.

On self-improvement

Who taught us to be displeased with ourselves?

Where did we get the idea that we have to better ourselves?

This drive within ourselves to overcome what we perceive of as inadequacies is the internal equivalent of the external reality of rape and pillage that we call capitalism.

On a lot of dating websites there’s a category that asks you whether or not you are ambitious. Everyone says they are.

Ambition is the ethic par excellence in our society.

What is ambition if not a dis-satisfaction with where-ever and what-ever you are now. That is to say that the driving ideal of the world civilisation is self-loathing!

We hate ourselves and because we hate ourselves we do violence to ourselves and others.

We seek to locate the flaw either within or without.

I truly think that the only way to be sane, to be at peace, to love yourself is to shed society.

This doesn’t mean don’t do things or don’t work. It means a fuck you to all ideals, to self-perfection, and to self-betterment.

Of course there is an irony here because in order to inhabit this state one must shed their socializations and this is a long, difficult process. It is a constant state of repentance, of turning away, of seeing that self-loathing within oneself which has been your mainstay throughout your life and saying “Fuck you” then turning away from it internally.

By ignoring it after a while – like the spoilt brat it is – it will just go away. Every now and then it will rear its ugly head and because after a while of doing this you begin to see it for the destructive son of a bitch it is you won’t be tempted to engage it anymore.

But it’s clever. With me for years it kept its spiteful talons in my flesh through making me feel bad about myself in comparison with others. Now it’s changed its tune. I compare myself with others and I come out smelling of roses; they’re all so stupid.

But I know it and it’s wily ways and it can fuck the fuck off!

On lying

I don’t mind if people lie to me.

This is for many reasons. One of which is that it is utterly up to you what you tell me or don’t tell me.

This isn’t a freedom I impart to you; it’s reality. Whether I like it or not you can tell me whatever you want. Luckily I am glad about this state of affairs.

It would be good if we had social structures and constructions that made people less wary of being honest. Even less wary about simply stating what ever the reason they are lying for is. I don’t mean telling the truth behind the lie but just saying “no” or whatever occasioned the lie in the first place.

People cannot help honestly expressing themselves. Even in a lie there are deep truths about the liar such as their preferences, what they applaud and what they boo. These are generally of a much more useful and deeper significance than whatever shallow truth they are trying to hide.

Even when they are lying to you and not disclosing their own preferences they are never-the-less disclosing their opinion about you. They are showing you what it is they think you like or dislike, what you will applaud or boo. Again this is incredibly useful information that can be put into immediate use by correcting or affirming the construction the other has made of you.

A lie is never really an untruth in a deep or absolute sense. In fact I don’t believe untruth in that sense exists. There is just misappropriated truth.

For example the majority of lies told are of the nature of false intentions. A person wants to do you damage but in order for him to do so he has to convince you that he intends your well being. So he says “I’m only trying to help you”. In this particular instance the stated intention is false but it is only false because there is a hidden intention. On it’s own it just is and all that is is absolutely true.

Mental Illness and the internal narrative

Most mental illness can be traced to narcissism.

Previously I said that mental illness is when the self society demands of an individual is something the individual cannot attain to. The conflict between the real self of the individual and the self society glorifies being mental illness.

Now this still holds but it doesn’t go deep enough.

Most people spend their whole lifes as if they are on stage; as if they are playing a role in a drama. Of course this role is the central role.

Just listen to the internal dialogue you have when you are feeling depressed, anxious or whatever.

“Poor me, why are they looking at me, what did I do to deserve this, why is this happening to me, they aren’t showing me enough appreciation…”

The problem with perceiving yourself in this way is that in any drama (or even comedy) there has to be suffering, conflict, and unattained desires.

Happy people have a different dialogue.

“My life is so good, everyone loves me, I’m so happy…”

Very happy and content people have no dialogue.

In a sense we construct a narrative about ourselves and then we project ourselves into that narrative. The problem here is that society doesn’t applaud positive narratives about the self.

Try telling people you think you are a genius and try telling people you think you are shit. Compare the results. I bet that you will be called names and put down if you declare a positive narrative concerning yourself but people will rally around you if you declare a negative narrative. Just look at Russell Brand and Kanye West.

What this essentially does is positively reinforce a negative opinion of yourself that few people are able to overcome or even realize as the cause of their suffering. Few people have access to a realm of knowledge that transcends the opinions of others.

No matter how much they may affirm that all because everyone says something is so doesn’t mean it is so they still cannot let go of popular opinion. They cannot let go of that crutch and learn to walk on their own.

There is a way out though but it is slow and gradual. There are no on and off switches, you are not a computer; you are a plant and plants grow slowly.

The way out is to recondition your mind to shut-up. Don’t try to replace the negative narrative with a positive narrative. Just practice shutting that voice in your nut up. This is the power of mindfulness and meditation.

Rambling rant on mental illness

Mental illness is merely the result of not being happy with who you are.

Often it’s a conflict between who you are and who society wants you to be. A lot of people can quite comfortably exist within the accepted parameters of society but some people can’t.

Society says we should value material wealth, that we should like this and not that.

It’s when our true passions fail to align with what society tells us is good that we feel shame and guilt. These feelings – far from producing positive change in an individual – condemn them to fight a losing battle. Each conflict leaving them further from the societal ideal and deeper into shame.

It’s a vicious circle that drives people bonkers.

The fight for sanity is one in which the individual gives the middle finger to society, its values and lives authentically. It’s a long and hard struggle but it gets easier with time.

Society doesn’t want this. So it medicates you, it gives you a lobotomy in the form of a tablet so you can carry on performing the twisted roles it wants you to perform.

You may say that people will murder if they lived this truth… But they murder anyway.

I am willing to bet you my years income that if you were to go to any prison and ask the inmates “Do you believe in good and bad? Do you believe bad people should be punished?” They will all answer in the affirmative but never-the-less there they are incarcerated for brutally raping a little girl or murdering their parents.

The worst atrocities committed by man have always been in service to the state. Just look at the holocaust; that was a perfectly legitimate and legal activity yet I doubt anyone would say that Joseph Fritzl even came close to such wickedness in his acts.

The law is not your friend, it does not care for you in the slightest. It is merely a tool in the hands of powerful psychopathic hypocrites to make you feel ashamed at the very thought of deposing them with a bullet to their head.

On the media

The media conspiracy is one of those things we can validate for ourselves.

It’s because in a sense the media is the collar they put on our necks and it’s directly available to us; we can see it’s effects in how the plebs change their focus of hate week after week in line with whoever the media is telling them to hate because we work and live with these people.

We can see the messages in the media itself. All advertising is united by one meta-narrative “consuming will make you happy” and we can see it’s a lie because we’ve consumed and been left empty and we can see the power of the media in that we continue to consume despite this.

I think examining this area is like the dog examining its collar and is good because it can liberate you; but liberation is an effort. It is difficult and at first painful to exchange one way of thinking for another because it’s a kind of death.

It’s when people are too afraid to make that step, too cowardly, that they start to fixate on who is behind it all.

Really it’s because they want someone else to liberate them. In fact they want to find out who enslaved them so that he can liberate them which is obviously stupid. You don’t go to the fox for protection if you’re a chicken unless you’re a stupid chicken.