Why is it that sometimes life seems to be crawling, jerking and halting – as if it were a story correctly written in its syntax, but deprived of any deeper meaning? A story, therefore, that is not only boring, but also unconvincing. Is it because everything we know of this world is merely a “narrative” – a more or less convincing fairy tale for adults – intended to make our orientation easier and to ward off the nothingness? Meanwhile we hope for some ghostwriter to mend its style, returning everything to normal. Perhaps the metaphysical copywriter decides to allow the world a pinch of substance again, so the gods can roam it once more, angels can supervise the people, and fine beer can spring from mother earth’s bosom.
Alternatives invoke optimism, yet all things considered, it seems we are dealing with something at the same time less and more dramatic. Namely, people are slowly discovering that the story is not genuine, as they were formerly led to believe, and that official visions of future are merely caused by certain types of hallucinogens. If it is plain to see that the evening news, Fox, CNN, and assorted Hollywood franchises are meant to tune us in to the same groovy trip, then it is plausible to conclude that all those conjurers of the Zeitgeist are dropping the same sort of acid, or munching the same sort of mushrooms. The real man, however – and that’s the man who doesn’t know who he is, what he is, or where is he going – comes face to face with a brick wall. There’s writing on the wall, too. It says: “Who are you, what are you, and where are you being taken to?”
In that sense, if the divide between those who are doing the living and those who are doing the explaining of “hows” and “whys” is insurmountable, are we then not thrown into the epistemic situation of the blind leading the blind? No, we are not. Because there is a method to the madness of the exalted explainers, and some of us are beginning to glimpse it. To illustrate a proposition, it is best to point out a few everyday examples, of which there are many. So let’s select a few.
When, for instance, the presenter of a well-edited and directed political TV magazine, observant of all the rules of professionalism in pronunciation and dress-code, nay, equipped with “must have” designer spectacles, commences the diatribe on the “epoch after the terrorist attacks of 9/11”, and the world molded by “that event”, the majority of viewers will affirm that we finally have TV shows broadcast according to world standards. And then a significant number among them will turn off their TV sets. We are not in possession of the exact statistics, but we strongly believe that this number is rising exponentially. Why is that? Because in the last fifteen years or so, media activity that amounts to the sale of informational snake oil has been conducted strictly with the issuance of a “receipt,” which in turn cannot be avoided if you want to realize the dream of all manipulators, i.e. to fool all the people all of the time. And the bigger the business, the bigger the need for book keeping. No going around that, and books can be inspected.
So a number of viewers of our politically correct TV show are simply aware that last few years saw devastating attacks on the official story of “9/11” – one could argue even of its final demolition – denouncing it as state-sponsored conspiracy theory. The fact that the critics of the official story themselves are dubbed “conspiracy theorists” has little bearing. Putting the facts aside for a moment, everybody with any common sense feel for evil can remember the thinly disguised smile of impatient triumphalism on the lips of then American President George W. Bush, his child-like eagerness to implement the coming “change.” Along those lines, then, even if we are not enthusiastic for conspiracy theorists, it becomes truly difficult to digest the slogans of empty suits gracing their power podiums.
Should we dare investigate the definitions of this political concept, and what “change management” means, especially when it morphs into “crisis management,” only to realize that it can justify any rationalization of the insufferable, all the way down to UN nutrition strategies for promotion of an insect based diet, we can be sure that politically-correct cannibalism is not far off, either. Bureaucratic euphemisms seem to serve up cruelty with a certain acquired taste. Perhaps it’s because their function is solely to hide the real meaning, but this author cannot shake off the feeling that it is rather an instance of indulging the exotic pleasures of cynicism. “Migrate to Win 8.1 and insect diet. Society, civilization and unborn children demand it from you!” Crazy? Let’s say it’s humorous in it’s own way.
Let us now inspect the underlying logic unifying chaos into purposeful narratives. However, we must point out in advance that there is no story devoid of inner contradiction. If it weren’t so, it would have no end, and critique, as well as the possibility of a different story, would be impossible. But the narrative we are sold today and every other day is constructed on the assumption of contradiction as its foundation, its form and leitmotif, as well as the means to sell the entire unholy package to the audience. With one hand you pander fistfuls of insects as the new culinary hit for the underclass – right before you privatize water and food sources – and with other hand you hand out privileged licenses for a software giant’s OS. With one hand you shake the hornet’s nest of paranoia concerning dirty bombs and terrorist attacks, and with other you shut the mouths of paranoids screaming over why the death of thousands suits your purposes so well; you shrilly proclaim equality in the market, in bed, and in parliament, and then hiss the truth of centralization, pornography, and the representation of no one. We can continue in this fashion indefinitely, and the logical structure remains the same – the whole message is built on explicitly contradictory statements.
But why? No doubt, our posh political TV magazine could, in a few years time, speak of “tragic contradictions in contemporary society” which led us to “where we are now.” But there’s nothing tragic in this story for those who wrote it. To call them fools is also highly beside the point. Media commentators and opinion-fakers reduce their critique to ridiculing the supposed stupidity of those directly wielding state power, stupidity they see as a reflection of their own intelligence. But their laughter is merely a theatrical trick, something akin to the synchronized, canned laughter in TV sitcoms. Someday soon the talking heads might choke on their laughter. For the contradiction of centralized power producing multicultural fascism, gentle murder, gender-aware chauvinism, strategies of rational impoverishment, religious secularity and secular religiosity isn’t necessarily accidental, nor is it the expression of stupidity or bewilderment. It can all too well be planned. The world is run by criminals, not fools. And evil has a distinct, but often overlooked, feature: it is wanting in a sense of humor, and rich in cynicism. Wouldn’t it be the epitome of cynicism if you were to throw the thinly veiled truth of your intent in people’s faces? Namely, the truth that you want to kill them.
Let’s get back to examples. A few years ago Croatia saw the execution of a referendum on inserting the definition of marriage as the union of man and woman into its constitution. The reasons were superficially obvious – to stop the legalization of so-called homosexual marriages. The reaction was as expected: against the relative majority of “good Croats and Catholics” the dissenting voices of the “enlightened” bellowed out the right of a man to be a wife, and of a woman to be a husband. However, there’s no contradiction there; although the first group lost, it did manage to push a referendum decision to amend the constitution.
Gay marriages will serve to eradicate the family whether anybody likes it or not, because it is the political will of global elites, as well as their Croatian clerks. But what is most astonishing is the fact that both pro and contra groups marketed their message on the same grounds. It is an unpronounced assumption that man can define who he is, what he is, and where is he going with absolute and arbitrary freedom. While the Church’s “Young Turks”, whose only distinction is that they are accustomed to talking in an aorist tone, claim that it’s they and only they who are in possession of a moral right to defend the millennia-old institution of marriage – which is indeed gravely threatened – and that the act of their will is to be a consecrated confirmation of its definition, their opponents have no qualms about claiming the right of its re-definition, and note, in a embryonic-fascist “either-or” tone, that the “future belongs to them.”
The problem, however, lies in the simple fact that both parties cannot actually do what they proclaim. The value of love – and supposedly the whole fuss is about love – is displayed in its utter unpredictability, the fact that neither chosen nor planned, it defines the life path of the individual without him ever knowing why. Now, unpredictability is the initial definition of freedom.
The whole clap-trap about homosexual marriages is only a segment of the global program to abolish unpredictability by entangling everything in a system of abstract legislation which, while offering absolute freedom of self-determination, at the same time contradicts itself by factually depriving everybody of any kind of self-determination. While the right hand of the law giver writes the law down, his left hand is simultaneously erasing every single line. The “New Man,”who is to be the product of these strange labors, enshrines in him/herself the legal personality of nothing less than an angel, the being endowed with every imaginable right and all the power mother Earth can bear. He/She knows who and what She/He is and where It’s going; It is able to remold Its own past, if It so wishes, to see to the removal of politically incorrect passages from classics of literature, with Its “resolute condemnations” and “natural reservations” bearing the strength of the voice of God. But at the same time this “He + She = It” is a pitiful non-entity, going nowhere, deprived of Its past – after all, who reads old books anyway – and Its condemnations and demands are heard by the system only when it suits the controllers.
Whenever we hear base demands for absolute rights and freedoms rising to the skies, we can be all too sure that it is really the voice of the lords coming down to the ears of the slaves. And it commands them onward to the construction of stairwells for people with disabilities in the public buildings of their country, while at the same time grinding their economy to dust; it offers bug cuisine and extracts words from their language as healthy teeth ripped from a man’s jaw.
Foul is Fair, Fair is Foul
Now there’s a psalm of the Zeitgeist for you.
The popularity of so-called “conspiracy theories” among the populace is often ridiculed by media oracles. But are these seemingly bizarre ideas, like David Icke’s proposition that the Earth is run by lizards, really so radical? Reality is more bizarre in itself. For instance, the continuity of pedophilia as the cement of the upper echelons of the Western ruling establishment indicates an even more sinister reality – observe the can of worms opened by death of Jimmy Savile. If we inspect meticulously documented cases like the “Franklin Credit Union scandal” in the United State, the “Dutroux affair” in Belgium, or the “Haute de la Garenne” case so damning to the British establishment, we note the names of obviously networked individuals and institutions ensconced at the very top of global governance – names and institutions connected with acts of degradation and bestiality, making the word pedophilia a paltry euphemism.
So who’s really the crazy one here? The eccentric and undereducated David Icke, who named the main procurers of children for the British elite pedophiles in the late nineties of last century, or the TV presenter with posh spectacles who at that time spoke only of Savile’s philanthropy? Is it crazier to accept the story of the narrator who with one hand strokes your hair and with the other slits your throat, merely because it is transmitted by a posh TV presenter, or crazy Icke’s version? Is the claim of lizards ruling the world too much? Why, they could just as well be scorpions masked as men. They are evidently prone to jerky crawling, they have an appetite for insects – as we learn from UN pamphlets – and they rarely come into the light, obviously preferring dark and damp places.
Is it strange, then, that man feels like a stranger because he plays a bit role in a play written by a nest of scorpions? In the Balkans, we experienced a war which to this day never really ended. But does anybody think that the orderly West is really a safe haven? If yes, if somebody is prone to repeat the phrase about “civil societies,” a phrase which is only the projected image of the dream about one’s own society, let him spare a moment and look into the “Dutroux affair” and the way that justice had been mocked, broken and buried with the bones of children maimed and killed for the entertainment of people who publicly “strongly condemn” and take “reservations.” Today we get lathered up over public money being used to finance some elected parasite’s villa. But what if public money financed snuff films?
Of course it is. But the way downwards is the only path for thought that has broken the shackles of the double narrative.
There is no going around the truth that the doublespeak of contemporary society can be understood for what it is only on the condition it is rejected. That, however, is not an easy feat, as the sanitation of language under the guise of its moral improvement efficiently blunts the spearhead of critique. Moreover, it will soon lead to much worse things than hovering on the margins of socially acceptable.
The soft-power model of misrule is becoming more and more insufficient, and people are waking up. The cards are on the table. Only those who accept the lies do not perceive the violence. Man is offered an idea of importance, of opportunity to belong, through virtual movements for freedom of thought, speech, gender, etc. He will ultimately pay a certain fee, of course. For in a system constructed so that between binary contraries there can be nothing, the one who integrates himself into it chooses nothingness.
But what does he really lose, in losing himself? Doubt, everyday struggle between ‘yes’ and ‘no’, remorse for what he said and what he failed to say, an inglorious exile into darkness. Yet a simple, naked will to truth can prevent one from exchanging his night for someone else’s day. It is the primal disgust over the smell of lies, however sweetened they may be. The disgust over nervous boredom at the end of the day, when media laborers do all in their power to strain the nerves and bury the truth. Consciousness of one’s own finitude, humility towards that which once was and that which will come to pass, the humility of a sort the artificial man of absolute freedom cannot possess, because he has neither past nor future, and his present is well out of his hands. The desire to do something over and in spite oneself. The renunciation of the illusion of power and one’s own importance, the illusion of the assumption that progress with all its “condemnations” and “reservations” is anything more but the cuckold’s egg of the totalitarian system. A lizard system perhaps, as Icke would have it. Observe the crawling, jerking and halting of contemporary life long enough, and know the scorpions are finally throwing their coming-out party.