Part of growing up is beginning to realize everyone is kind of the same. And when you do think you found someone unique, it’s generally because you found someone much worse than everyone else. This is the thing I notice about Luigi Mangione. He’s just very similar to all of us reasonably intelligent well-meaning guys in their twenties and thirties.
Driftless, not sure what he’s supposed to do, just hovering around in some major American city. No stable relationship, no stable job. Interested in psychedelics, probably took mushrooms a few times. No real clear view of how the world is supposed to function, no ideology he can get himself to buy into. Worried about climate change, a vaguely techbro alt-centrist view of the world, but mostly because he’s desperate to believe our problems can still be solved.
You’ve had the high dose of psilocybe mushrooms, you’ve had the big realizations. If I had to guess, homeboy probably had some ayahuasca at some point too. You realize we’re all just the same guy, playing the same game, isolated in different bodies. You don’t yearn for it, but you can’t really get yourself to worry about death anymore either.
You don’t watch Dancing with the Stars, you don’t watch Gordon Ramsay berate some guy working in a kitchen. You don’t know what the latest new superhero movie playing in the cinema is either. You mostly stopped playing video games as a college student. No, you now just get the same vague stream of content about the world that all of us in your IQ range and age get. And it’s not looking good.
You realize there’s microplastics in your brain, you realize we’re at 1.6 degree above pre-industrial. You realize you’re getting old, you realize your days of surfing, drinking and hookups are ending. You realize it’s now the office that awaits you. Sinking into the banality, that’s what lies ahead of you.
And so what do you do? You decide to turn yourself into a martyr, because why not? You’re not really that hungry for sex anymore, something about it feels wrong at a very deep level. No, now you’re hungry for love. Why not spend the last moment of your life, being loved by millions of people? What else is there to do really? So you pick your target, some rich CEO of the most evil health insurance company in the country, you seek out the most indefensible of indefensible situations in your country.
You have to maximize that rift between the people who see it and the guy you murdered. If you really wanted to save the world, you would murder some CEO of an oil company. But we can live without health insurance companies. We all know they’re parasitic middle men.
The CEOs of the oil companies on the other hand, exist not because our system is broken, but because we are broken. There’s exactly no need for us to eat meat, drive cars or to step into a plane to go on holiday abroad. But when you pick your target, it has to send the message that they are the problem. The problem are these abstract other people out there somewhere, not us. You want to flood millions of brains with dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and phenethylamine when they look at you, you don’t want to be the male Greta Thunberg.
You don’t align yourself with any particular ideology, you half-ass a manifesto, because you don’t want to alienate yourself from anyone and you don’t have any real answers anyway. We buy into the ideologies, because we want to belong somewhere. And nobody sincerely believes in the ideologies anymore anyway. It’s why Mark Fisher committed suicide: He realized there is just no alternative left to capitalism.
All you know, is where the excesses of the system lie. You’re looking at an old decaying body with a thousand things wrong with it, covered in warts, cysts and sores, trying to determine what you can do to buy it some more time: “If we get rid of that growing mole on your back, that should buy you a few more months.”
And so you become the Eric and Dylan of CEO shootings, a new subgenre of martyrdom or a revival of early 20th century anarchism, depending on how you want to look at it. You’re the sexy psychopath and the lovable depressed kid who was dragged along, all in the same guy.
Because, what else is there left at this point?
Polls are showing 40% think what he did was okay-ish. There’s a good chance they won’t find a jury that will convict. Especially adding a terrorism charge. Overcharging is a mistake because you’ve given people a good reason not to convict.
What then??? Hire a hit man to get rid of him, or let the cops go apeshit??? Sorry, but most cops have a friend or family member either killed or bankrupted by the medical industrial complex.
40 percent of those polled are willing to say to a pollster that they think that what he did was okay-ish. The percentage who think it but aren’t willing to say so to a stranger could be twice that.
If there is jury nullification it will indeed be interesting to see what the government’s next step is.
One reason this guy is so popular is that he is Italian American. The New England state I am from was heavily English Yankee when my grandmother was growing up. Then the Italians moved in. Or maybe they moved in earlier, but they started to be noticed then. It was a real relief to have spaghetti as an option rather than horrible Yankee cooking. But the main thing is that they intermarried all over the place and now the state is only ten percent English Yankee. Italian is now culturally dominant, there and a lot of other parts of the country. A person who has even one Italian grandparent almost always takes on Italy as their cultural home and heritage. So this guy has a huge cultural-ethnic boost.
Talking in purely hypothetical terms over fictional scenarios. Karma is a bitch and it’s best not to tempt her wrath.
Ideally the political assassin horrifies the audience and forces them to confront their own morality through a flair for the ironic and dramatic death of their victims. Normies should be deeply disturbed.
A based assassin would be Greta Thunberg with a cock who kills a factory farming CEO with a butcher’s knife; and his manifesto would be talking about veganism and the anti-tech revolution and love. Make him racist too, have him talk about how evil chinks are for eating cats and dogs but then have him go on to say that westerners are no better for eating pigs and cows. Slaughter every sacred cow.
Mario is fine though, he did his best.
When Jesus used a whip on the money changers in the temple he stopped being a spiritual leader and started playing their power game. A week later, the whip was in the hands of a Roman soldier, Jesus was on the receiving end, and the Jews felt safe and righteous.
This pattern plays out over and over. Play their game, and they will not only beat you at it, but they will go to bed that night full of the righteous feeling of justice served.
Who?
Imagine taking all the psychedelics on earth and the height of enlightenment you achieve is to scroll slightly different news feeds
> Imagine taking all the psychedelics on earth and the height of enlightenment you achieve is to scroll slightly different news feeds
Yeah this is how God feels when he watches your petty human struggles. You might as-well be fictional compared to him, yet he still seeks your salvation.
Well tell me. What exciting things are you upto? What’s going on inside your mind? What are you contemplating? I’m genuinely curious.
Just been thinking about life.
Apropos of nothing:
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIOLENCE
*The greatest cause of violence is the refusal
to label violent behavior violent.*
All human behavior is violent.
By violence I mean, the act of getting more, the act of
collecting space, the act of competing and negotiating, the
act of living itself. Even digestion is violent.
Violence, the killing and transforming of energy sources
is not a moral concept but a biological and psychological
one. Making violence moral simply politicizes the making
of weak, sick slaves. It is time that some of us have the
stomach to face up to what we are really doing. In reality
all living things are doing the same thing -— living off of
other living things.
What makes humans different and possibly more dangerous is that we lie about it. Remember, lies are useful as well as dangerous. We must ask ourselves who requires what set of lies to function. The more complex and confusing the
standards which motivate lying the more cowardly (though
possibly) creative the liar.
Civilization and the social contract have at their base the
exchange of personal violence for collective violence repackaged as deception.
We agree to let other people be violent for us. The use of
the word violence in this context is usually reserved for
physical violence against other people. The social contract
exchanges the “right” of physical violence of the individual, for collective violence known as “justice.”
In other words, the concept of justice is “necessary” for
the practice of collective violence. It removes the guilt and
shame from the individual for not “fighting” his own battles
and “justifies” his cowardly and sneaky behavior.
It is claimed by those who benefit most from the “social
contract” that one of its purposes is to protect the weak from
being exploited by the strong. This is a gross deception.
The truly strong find it inefficient to exploit weak individuals by physical violence. Direct exploitation runs a risk of
revolt and a reduction in gross profits. The social contract
allows the strong to exploit the weak without fear of thier
own blood being shed. Blood is too expensive for the
strong. Insurance policies are cheaper and more profitable.
When physical violence is seen as necessary and the goal
is reached, the first act of the victor is to outlaw the use of
further physical violence. Like all governments, America
was founded on violence and has survived on violence. Yet
when individuals act violently to assure their existence they
are beaten-up by the system. Then the leaders tell the victims that violence is not a solution to their problems.
The social contract allows the development of a class of
individuals which act as a protective buffer between the
upper and lower classes. This is the *middle* class. The worst
of these is the upper-middle class.
This subgroup is intellectual, cowardly and inflated, and
prefers lawyers and sleight-of-hand to guns. They use law to
steal from each other. They make the weaker minded impotent by using metaphysical concepts such as right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral. They use law to
commit murder, they use law to steal and they use law to
make impotent those who might rise against them. This
they call education. What they want is “more.” Too much
competition is dangerous so they create more laws and
regulations making it more difficult to compete with them.
Law is the ultimate act of camouflage.
The upper-middle class (UMC) label these laws as necessary to protect weaker people from being exploited. This assertion is the bait which most everyone can agree with
because everyone from time to time feels weak and dependent. Boiled down, the whole procedure is a “club” with various levels of initiation.
They thrive on regulatory agencies who are staffed by
lesser (middle and lower-middle class) individuals who
have nothing to lose if their regulation fails.
The intermediate class, like all groups, are allowed — up
to a point -— to steal, rob and murder for profit, much like
the strong. The only differences are that they do it on a
small scale and they label it differently. For the doctor and
lawyer it is called “service.” For the shopkeeper it is called
“merchandising.” Whatever it is called, it is violence.
“More” is what is wanted. Nothing more or nothing less.
“More” is the answer. The nice thing about this plan is that
everyone is doing it to everyone else. There are no honest
men. Everyone is a thief. To make such harsh statements as
this will not make me popular; no one likes to be stripped
of his camouflage.
It is important to note that all that I have said is true only
if we assume that the lies of the propagandists are true.
That is, the idea of an “honest man,” a “man of virtue,” etc. as
described by the Bible: the lawyer and the educationist. As
the “necessity” of these values -— their “other-worldly”
quality are simply assumptions, or whims -— we are forced
to ask the horrible question: “who do these values serve?”
These values, like any other values, are “unessential” in
their content. Thus we are left with a relativistic picture
making the moral tone of my discussion simply misleading.
There are no thieves -— dishonest men -— *a priori.*
They only become so within a system of relativistic
values which change as the wind blows. But, the secret to
all this is to make these relativistic values “necessary” for
life to continue — in other words, necessary for survival. We
are then faced with the question: whose survival?
Forced now to ask the question, “What is necessary for
survival?” I reply, “For whom?” For a man without a pancreas
insulin is necessary. For a man without lungs an artificial breathing device is necessary. Yet, the question I have
asked concerning survival is misleading. A more interesting
question is “What is necessary for life to expand” since, as
we said earlier, man is interested in “more” and not simply
in staying alive like other animals. What is “necessary” for
“more?” For one thing, time. “More” is also self-defined.
For one man “more” can mean “more” lovers, for another
“more” can be safety. I knew one fellow who spent his
entire life figuring out ways not to be hurt by other people.
No matter what plan he came up with he always found
“more” ways to improve it until he reached a point when he
figured out that he couldn’t afford the money it would
require to build his ultimate fortress.
Man survives to make “more.” If we can, for a moment,
assume this to be true, the foundation of life itself is a value
system which might have its basis in the nature of man
himself and not in other worldliness. As men are different,
the “mores” which they desire are different in kind and in
degree. Yet, there is conflict and the purpose of civilization
is to provide bloodless means of resolving these conflicts
and allow for the creation of “more.” What I am positing is
that the means have become “more” important, “more”
essential than what they are supposed to resolve. And this is
something we would expect from the “more” hypothesis.
However, what we observe is that the “essential and more”
of civilization is now creating “less,” and the only way
around the “less” is to violate the “more” factor of civilization.
In other words we have a means-ends reversal. If the
end was “more” the means to accomplishing “more” is
creating “less.” Thus, the means for “more” is restriction
and not freedom. What is wanted is “more” control. “More”
control can only occur by reducing variability (individual
differences). A “golden mean” is created, allowing for
“more” control. This is created by Law, a three letter word
for violence. The purpose of law is first and foremost to
prevent those in power from losing it. All other explanations are propaganda, albeit necessary propaganda for those
who require massive amounts of illusions.
But, what about those who require less illusion and more freedom? This
desire is the beginning of the underground, a world not
seen, but felt. It keeps the upper-lower class, the entire
middle class, the lower-upper class, the middle-upper class,
and some of the upper-upper class nervous. Those who
really understand the problem of information and wealth
are fortified by the underground; they know that information,
used properly, creates wealth and that true wealth
creates information. The street poor understand this too, but
are unable to apply it beyond certain limited situations.
They know what it means to live off of refuse. They know
what it means to kill or be killed. But is this all that civilization promises? Less painful and horrifying ways of dying and having unused goods? No. Civilization means
safety for those who require it and from our analysis they
seem to far outweigh the ones who prefer freedom and
“more.” The majority of the population demands “more”
without payment. And what is the payment? The possibility
of having “less.” The majority of the population requires
more safety without the concern of price.
LIES BUILT UPON LIES BUILT UPON MORE LIES
Psychoanalysis is a prime example of lies built upon lies.
A behaviorist can remove a phobia in a few months for
$1000. A psychoanalyst cannot, as a rule, remove the same
phobia in five years for a cost of $50,000. Yet, psychoanalysis is allowed to be labeled a treatment. Now, a treatment
which fails almost consistently should not be called a
treatment. Yet there it is. It takes years of training to do
nothing but provide an environment where change takes
place simply because of time and a change of “scenery.”
In fact, many psychoanalysts understand this and justify
their “profession” by calling it “research” into how the
mind works. Now is the patient interested in paying for this? Of course not. There is little scientific evidence available to show that the “treatment” called psychoanalysis is any better than “maturation” or time itself.
Psychoanalysis is simply a holding intervention at best. To call it treatment
is like calling blood-letting a treatment for fever when an
antibiotic is cheaper and more effective.
Psychoanalysis is safe because it can do little harm to a
person except separate him from his money and prevent
him from getting a treatment which might be of value. The
labels make it both attractive and workable. Of course,
psychoanalysts have much to say about more effective
treatments. They say it is not a cure and new symptoms will
occur. What is the evidence for this claim? “Freud or so
and so said it.” And what is their evidence? Well?
Who *are* these psychoanalysts, be they Freudians or
Jungians or whatever? They are the upper-middle class,
those who get “more” by acts of deception. Their hands are
clean. There is no blood. As laws create criminals, the
profession of psychoanalysis creates psychopathology and
patients -— eternal patients -— some staying in “treatment” for
as long as 20 years. Yet, this form of violence is done
legally and morally, as long as the Doctor is qualified by
some qualifying agency. And what qualifies the qualifying
agency? Law, of course. Yet, where did the law come
from? From those who had the power to enforce their will
upon others and then outlaw the possibility of someone
doing the same to them.
Thus physical violence is filtered through enough labels
and procedures that it no longer appears as violence. The
longer an institution exists the further it is separated from
the blood it shed to establish itself, the more “legitimate” it
appears to its “graduates” and to the public.
Time not only heals wounds, it hides the blood.
BECOME WHO YOU ARE
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES
(–1994)
I’m sorry, but as far as I’m concerned anyone who guns down an unarmed fellow human being out of some belief that their company is ripping people off is a sick individual who hasn’t learned anything of value from psychedelics or any other source. I highly recommend the Alan Watts talk at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cx8_e1zNcfZcqfNJDaX44ZmOKhhdEdtX/ and his book at https://terebess.hu/english/AlanWatts-On%20The%20Taboo%20Against%20Knowing%20Who%20You%20Are.pdf . I don’t claim to fully understand Watts but I find him way more interesting than anyone else I’ve heard and think his talks and books are a great resource everyone should know about.
It is the Italian way, Schultzy baby.
Globo-Homo fucked them over, so the CEO got wacked.
No hard feelings, just business – capiche:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I77YeyDYacA
> I don’t claim to fully understand Watts but I find him way more interesting than anyone else I’ve heard and think his talks and books are a great resource everyone should know about.
I followed Watts for some time.
I still think he was very wise in his own way. I respect him.
But I remember encountering a book by Gopi Krishna back in my college days, wherein Gopi shared the story of Alan Watts.
Apparently, Alan Watts was having a terrible time in his marriage (Redpill/Incel bros will understand). Alan was going through “marriage counseling”
One night, Watts showed up to the doorstep of either Tim Leary or Gopi (I don’t remember which)
He had an almost empty bottle of vodka, visibly drunk, and he told his friend:
“The secret to life is to be a sincere phony”
I never forgot that apocryphal story.
Make of that what you will.
This story may be only relevant to normies AKA non-autists, who stress out about interacting with other normies.
Thanks for your thoughts. What I make of his reported weaknesses – and the fair amount of ambiguity, if not contradiction, in his works – is that he didn’t want people relying on him as an authority but rather being catalyzed by his teachings, among other things, to discover the truth within. In numerous ways Nature seems to be selecting for people who can think for themselves and separate the wheat from the chaff.