Warning: When reading this post, assume that I view all humans as insignificant specks in an infinite cosmos and that I do not wish to give special treatment to any specific group of people, because this is indeed what I believe.
I’ve searched @Outsideness’ Twitter page for the exact post in order to avoid being “called out” for making up lies. However, not only was I unable to find the specific post relating to what I am currently writing, but it also occurred to me that the NRx community doesn’t usually care about false information anyways.
Don’t get me wrong, Nick Land has done a lot for the philosophical community and his works should be read by every aspiring student of schizo-philosophy, but in recent years, his ideas have gone from a relatively high quality to retweeting blue-checkmark establishment mediavores on Twitter in order to prove some sort of point to his followers.
In this post I will be taking aim at his opinions on the riots and “somalianization”, but while using his own ideas against his current ones, to drive home the point I intend to make.
Starting off, one of his most defining moments of his creeping senescence, is the unironic retweets of Liberty Hangout, aka the Trumpian monarchist Kaitlin Bennet. He had agreed that the chaos in Minneapolis was a direct cause of the increasing “somalianization” of the city, which he hated. Some people called him out on this with the “but isn’t accelerationism about chaos?” to which he replied, stating how accelerationism is “about the feedback circuits” and not about chaos. This is true, for accelerationism is about the deterritorializational nature of capitalism and the “riding of the wave” in order to achieve social change, but this is where Archaeo-Land arrives from the past and corrects him.
The cause of the social unrest in Minneapolis and the rest of the world can be directly traced back to capitalism. The increasing abuse of the proletariat (a large amount of which are African American) at the hands of the corporations and wage-slavers, as well as from the abuse of the policing-class sent to keep them under control, sparked the riots. As in, the riots are – in themselves – the process of deterritorialization that capitalism exerts on the world that it exists within, which makes the “somalianization” of Minneapolis a product of capitalism’s accelerative deterritorializing qualities.
The mistake Neo-Nick from the future-present makes, is he assumes that his racial biases are somehow proven by capitalism’s exertion of force upon the black proletariat as a sign of the white elite’s superiority over them, but is unwilling to accept the riots are the result of the subsequential release and deterritorialization that capitalism also goes through when dealing with the black proletariat.
What does this imply about Land’s current beliefs? It implies that he is no longer any true accelerationist, for he picks and chooses what capitalism deterritorializes and doesn’t deterritorialize in order to maintain his racist views, as well as no longer loving capitalism for it’s deterritorializing effects, but instead loving capitalism for some other reason. It also implies that while he espouses an anti-humanist ideology, he only seems to use this to justify his views on black people, which doesn’t make sense in the long run, because how can you be anti-humanist and simultaneously believe that somehow capitalism deterritorializes to the benefit of the white elite? Tell me, how can one be an accelerationist and simultaneously whine about when it accelerates over your beliefs?
“Anyone trying to work out what they think about accelerationism better do so quickly. That’s the nature of the thing. It was already caught up with trends that seemed too fast to track when it began to become self-aware, decades ago. It has picked up a lot of speed since then.”
Nick Land said this very thing not too long ago, and it has evidently been proven true by his own inability to grasp the nature of acceleration, for, in the end, acceleration is not a traditional, white, elitist force that improves the conditions of the elite, but it is a merciless, uncontrolled, and inhuman accelerative process that doesn’t care whether or not your property rights are violated or if white power is deterritorialized and then reterritorialized with black power. It’s doubly ironic considering that he talked so extensively about the deterritorializing effects of capitalism, and then went and created a tripartite unification of religion, ethnocentrism, and capitalism known as NRx, which somehow suggests that two anthropocentric control-based ideas can be united with an inhuman economic system that quite literally devours, shits out, and then re-devours the first two.
Also, for an added point, even if black people are a force of chaos, how would that be a bad thing? Does the accelerationist not see deterritorialization as a tool for change? Do they not see capitalism as a useful source of deterritorialization? And if black people themselves deterritorialize, then why not back them up too? How can you claim to love capitalism for the sake of deterritorialization, while simultaneously hating a group of people for the same thing? Perhaps you just like capitalism for another reason?
Regardless, I am done for now. I have made my point and expressed my confusion at the contradictory nature of Land’s viewpoints, as well as the strange favoritism he gives to capitalism as a force of deterritorialization, while despising the deterritorializational capacity of the black proletariat.
Manhood. That is a concept that has been haunting me for a long time. As a “male”, I’ve often asked myself what it means to be a man, in a world where a man can be as simple as saying you are, to as complex and esoteric as to consciously choose not to wash your hands when you exit the bathroom at Red Lobster (I saw that, Greg). So, what is a man?
Masculinity can potentially be anything, so I am going to stick to the “traditional” state of masculinity in the West, in which it is defined as a superiority over a woman. As Sadie Plant put it in Ones and Zeroes, the technological prowess throughout the past few centuries, has lead to the uprooting of the social gender system, by giving women more power over their production, and thus giving them more say in events. From being the universal seamstress of clothes, to the seamstress of code, factories, and politics, the woman has undergone – and is still undergoing – a process of liberation brought about from the material conditions of the world after the industrial revolution, instead of any simple benefactor from the male gender. Of course, there have always been people who have advocated for better conditions for women in prevalent Western societies, but the cause of modernity’s liberation of women, is more to do with the material conditions that lead women to gaining more of a say in governance and organization, than any benefactor or renegade.
In Ones and Zeroes, the book likens the woman to the computer – a sort of seamstress of code and processes that only exist to serve the administrator of the server or the husband. And how women – and potentially machine – have reached a bigger level of prominence and “freedom”, due to being the MoP of things that are so valuable, as in, liberation through being of significant value, of having women no longer be a slave to the machine, because they are the machine. The woman is no longer able to be under control by the masculine, because womanhood itself is no longer defined based on subservience, but instead, defined on the act of being a woman, a being of value. It’s unfortunate really, that we reached a better state for women under the pretense of their material value and not for their personhood, but alas, that is how our timeline has gone so far.
While women have become more than just a gender based on the subservience to a man, the man has been left in the dust, still basing its identity on the act of dominance over a woman. Masculinity can be seen as strong and brave and ferocious and protective, and this in itself is not a bad thing, but in the traditional sense, being a man is about the dominance over the feminine. Remind you, that being subservient to a man does not necessarily make you a female in your own right, as we have seen how society has made certain men “effeminate” in their own right, and how these certain men are seen as “weak” or “subservient” to the stronger “masculine man”. Femininity and masculinity has always been a yin-yang situation, a pair of identities that relied on each other’s exclusivity in order to sustain their own identities. For instance, in order for their to be light, there must be dark, and without one of the two, the other one will fall. Masculinity being the one that stands on top, and femininity being the one that stands on the bottom, this hierarchical superstructure of culture and sociology and psychology has been a near-constant in contemporary Western history, but only relatively recently, was the woman able to become more than an identity based on subservience, and an identity based on something that does NOT depend on a hierarchical dependence on something else. This is a good thing, for now, that women no longer need a man in order to BE a woman, this has led them to not only gain more power in environments dominated by men, but has also given them to be able to thrive and build their own environments without the masculine, without the hierarchy, and without the binary. Women have been released from the cutting-edge duality of the gender binary, and are now women within themselves, relying on their own being and not the being of subservience and seamstressing.
However, not all genders can be as lucky. The male, for instance, has been castrated, and can’t recover. The West, having based its masculinity on the dominance of the woman, has lead to the masculine being little more than a parasite on the hip of Gaia, a parasite that – without the usual host of the feminine – has begun starving. Since women are no longer defined as subservient to men, this has led the masculine to become a baseless gender. As in, now that the masculine has no yin to its yang, it collapses in on itself.
Nyx Land mentions a lot of this in her G/acc blackpaper, and one particular mentioning of a “neo-masculine” updraft in society has caught my eye. The neo-masculine, in her eyes, is a sort of “retvrn to tradition” kind-of perspective on gender, in which men try to sustain their identity and their being, by basing it off of a continued (and often forceful) dominance of the feminine. The Incel ideology, for instance, is an example of a neo-masculine or a virulent and mutated version of NM, in which the Incel has become so castrated and so weak of a masculine entity, that they go through force in order to sustain their identity.
And as a “male”, I am not going to simply state “hee-har men are dying” and leave it at that. The issue with masculinity – other than being a needless and useless hierarchy – is that it hurts men as much as it hurts women. It does this by raising, good, kind, and impressionable boys, into hateful and spiteful machines that can only feel like valid men, by being violent. The sharp rise in pornography that bases itself on misogyny, along with the sharp rise in neo-masculine ideology, can be linked to the fact that men when left with no ground to base their validity off of, can become violent towards others, and themselves. The suicides of gay men is often due to the fact that their father rejects them for not being “their son”. Why? Because more often than not, the male is not seen as a male if he does not base his identity on the dominance of a woman.
Masculinity hurts men. A gender that no longer has an identity, due to the fact that the process in which that identity is made is no longer valid, can not continue to exist. The solution? Masculinity should either be abolished, reformed, mutated, rejected, or substituted. I am not going to propose which of these you should do, for I find the nature of gender to be something that every society should decide on – however I do insist that in order to maintain a balance to society, as well as help the many hurting men in our world – and the women they abuse – we need to get rid of the old masculinity of dominance, and replace it with a masculinity that does not rely on the dominance of woman, and instead, a masculinity that is masculine because it is masculine. A self-withstanding and self-reliant Yang to a currently non-existent (or increasingly scarce) Yin.
So… masculinity is weak because it relies on something that no longer supports it, and in order to save both men and women, we need to propose and adopt alternatives that no longer lead men to seek dominance in order to justify themselves, and instead seek them towards goals that are healthy to them, the woman, and the masculine gender.
Starting off, everyone knows how much I despise the dichotomy of the left and right. Why? Well, not only is it more annoying than the Frozen franchise, but it has varying weaknesses that make it a malignant tumor to anyone’s philosophy.
This entire post is dedicated to a relatively insignificant interaction between Nick Land and one of my followers who’s known as @EmojiPan.
The post itself was rather ordinary, and I’m surprised that it ever got to become its own topic, but alas, Nick Land gave me an idea, and my gut tells me that anything that Nick likes, will probably be well-liked by others. However, this is not necessarily about reinforcing the post “Hell-Baked” on Outside In (http://www.xenosystems.net/hell-baked/) or even taking a stance from the left – as we all know I despise that term – but it is instead an offshoot directly from my own philosophy, and contextualizing it in a way that references the “hell-baked” nature of Land’s short and sweet description of Nrx.
Starting off, I hardly remember the exact thoughts and justifications I had at that moment that culminated in the creation of the post, so you are not really going to be getting a direct explanation, for not only do I not entirely remember, but my ideas have grown far past what the original post was implying.
The first thing I mentioned that sparked the response it garnered, was how I mentioned that my philosophy was similar to Nrx as described by Nick Land in “hell-baked”, but it was a step “forward” towards a less horrific and “bright” future. I do not take this back, but I need to explain it in the terms of my own philosophical justifications and not just in a small, insignificant twitter post. And in the slightly less immortal words of Daniel DeLeon, stick a pin in this. We will get back to this shortly.
Starting off, in Nick’s “Hell-Baked”, he talks about how the social and cultural mutation of Nrx has – in a rather cocky way – paraded past the path-blocking societal dogmatic insults of “fascism” and “racism”, and then he goes on to explain what it is, and what it isn’t. He goes on to say that what Nrx is, is Social Darwinist. Social Darwinism in this context, is not necessarily limited to race or social class as a lot of the original ideologues of this philosophy make it out to be, instead, Land’s hell-baked vision of Darwinism is more-or-less a recognition of the futility of calling Social Darwinism racist. Social Darwinism in the post, is practically a more honest and realistic perspective on Darwinism and puts it in the context of society and humanity itself. Darwinism is something we all live “within”, a sort of natural law, in which Social Darwinism is just the amoral and contemporarily “evil” recognition that yes, it applies to us, too.
The laws of nature – however vague and controversial that maybe – are always based in a constant of the survival of the fittest, which in this case, is the source of Nick’s terminology in “hell-baked”. The rigorous “butchering” of living matter and structural adaptations in Nick’s dramatization of the billions of years of evolution on both the micro and the macro scale, is likened to an “eternal hell” from the human perspective, in which the natural law of the universe is directed against us, and that even a moment of rest can lead – in his own words – directly towards degeneration and dysgenic existence. The post practically calls itself a case of Schrödinger’s racist, where it does not explicitly claim to be racist – in fact, it rather approaches Darwin from an inhuman perspective – but it does however state that if there is a weakness to a person, or in the contextual sense, an entire race, that nature and the butchering hell of Darwinistic evolution wouldn’t hesitate to slowly and steadily wipe those weaknesses out of existence. And not just through predictable and steady changes, but even through insane and seemingly random events that can dictate whether or not you are good enough to live.
Reading the dramatization of hell-baked made me remember the way Neil DeGrasse Tyson (yes, I’m a nerd) dramatized the natural processes of Earth’s tumultuous natural history in a gimmicky – in my opinion rather inspiring – bit called “The Halls of Extinction”. The bit went like this; Neil would look at the viewer and describe how the mass extinctions went, and he would look into an “exhibit” of this grim museum, and the viewer would get to see what each extinction looked like. I remember rather joyously, seeing how the Permian Mass Extinction (also known as The Great Dying) was not only another extinction event but how it quite literally was hell on Earth. The extinction event was caused by a mix of volcanic activity and chemical imbalance in the ecosystem, and this eventually leads to the catastrophic and – in this context – revealing nature of the process of natural selection. This is where the misanthropic and inhuman perspective of Land and his “inhuman racism” comes into. He himself is not advocating a hatred towards anyone in specific, he is just stating that the Universe itself will pick favorites and determine who lives and who dies, based on the trials of hell that it gives all its plentiful living beings. As we all know, the once-great class of lifeforms known as the trilobites was – despite being the most diverse group of beings on Earth at the time – were not the winners of the hell-trial that was hell-on-Earth.
Natural selection in the figurative sense of Land’s inhuman perspective on Darwinism, as well as the timely and realistic sense of the Permian Extinction, is quite literally a process devoid of compassion, which only serves to rigorously tear-down and rebuild every structural entity in the Universe.
One of the funniest interactions in my experience dealing with the works of the misanthropic counter-culture revolving around the current state of contemporary philosophy and understanding, is one found in the comment section of Hell-Baked itself.
To me, this is something rather hilarious but also, incredibly educational in the terms of what Darwinism is, and how it relates to our current society. The humanistic and “progressive” nature of the views of modern society as well as the dominant trend in Western culture, has to lead to a curious interaction that quite accurately describes what’s wrong with the human perspective as it exists today. As Michael in the comments says, he sees Social Darwinism as an accurate description of what the world is like, but he also treats it as an ideology and something that one must not idolize or creepily obsess themselves with. However, despite the etymology of the word Darwinism, which implies it is an ism, it is much more than that. As “Admin” (which I can at least assume is Nick) states, Darwinism is more than an idea or something to “adhere” to, but it is quite literally, a state of nature, in which – just as gravity – is something that does not go away, but can only be described and interacted with, as well as potentially justified.
The inhuman nature of Darwinism is kind-of ironic, where a lot of the old Social Darwinist philosophy put humans at the top of the food chain, and would occasionally place non-european or non-japanese races lower down the pyramid, which in a way, would justify the existence of a master race, which is a lot of what Social Darwinism was used for. However, in the Landian sense, Social Darwinism is just a more active, honest, and realistic example of the nature of Darwinism as a whole, and that it does not “pick favorites” like the SDs of old, because in the end, Darwinism does not care whether or not you are white or black or asian or cyborg, every structure will be tested through immense pressure, and only some will come out alive and improved.
This inhuman Darwinism is described as a “hell” in which all humans are subject to the eternal and dire cruelty of the Universe, where the Iron Law of Darwinism subjects us all to a constant stream of environmental change, which inevitably leads us all towards an “improve or die” situation.
Now, I hope you remembered where we left off from my tangential philosophy, because after describing what Hell is in the Hell-baked sense, I can now explain to you one of the ways in which my “Hell-baked from the left” perspective is different from the Landian sense.
Starting off, when I said “bright Lovecraftian” I was not implying that my view of this reality is any more cheery or happy, and in fact, in my opinion, it is far more dark. In the post, Land went into visceral detail as to what the machines of nature did to organisms, and how everything of value has been built in Hell. This is true, however, I have one issue with the approach given to this idea.
In my opinion, I prefer not to look at the aspect of reality as a “hell”and “heaven” situation, and I know that Nick probably doesn’t either, but for many people who would come to read hell-baked, they probably do think that way. Hell is often seen as a cruel and bloody state-of-being, and this is true, however, I do not understand why cruel and bloody is seen as a bad thing.
Let me get this straight, I am in no way advocating for Dahmerian levels of cruelty or anything of the sort, I am however stating that in a world that is inherently this “dark” and “cruel”, that it can’t possibly be hell when we have never experienced anything other than this world. In fact, I would argue that the attempt to build a worldview in “heaven” or any other utopian ideal would be more of an act of futility and cruelty than anything that this natural “hell” could ever throw at us. This perspective that the natural world is truly a dark, cruel place is technically true when compared to the idealistic optimism of progressivism in the modern world, but it is horribly wrong in the retrospect, in which that if the world is truly so cruel and dark, then why do we enjoy and continue to “see” through all the fire and the darkness?
This is where my “bright Lovecraftian” concept comes in. I actually call this “pitch-bright”, which quite literally means that “it is dark as shit, but I can see clearly”. The continuation of the heaven/hell dichotomy is itself a weakness, a Western, Abrahamic, and an outdated vestigial organ of progressivist ontology that can only be described as an ideo-genetic disability. The hell-baked nature of this world and its workings is something we can not fight against or escape, however, we can begin to build a more realistic and “dark” ontology where we shun the dichotomy of heaven and hell and begin to see clearly and lucidly, through the power of darkness at its brightest perspective. If we are already damned, why not fucking enjoy it.
Just as Darwinism looks at us and cares not about it’s cruel and eugenic nature, so does Horror look at us and care not if we are afraid of it. Horror is a cultural thing in nearly all circumstances. Aside from the basic psychology of primates, a lot of the typical representations of what is truly horrific can always be subjective. I as an individual, have always suffered from horrific experiences of both the real and the unreal – although I often see no difference between the two – which has led me to grow accustomed to living in a world where I am always surrounded by horror. The “less horrific” nature of my philosophical take on hell-baked is not based on the “shining of a light” on the subject matter, but instead getting used to the dark and building an ontology that is based on the new-found “brightness” within the world of hell-baked.
My acquaintance and tumblr-hornyposter @Cyborg_nomade (Dark Mutualist) mentioned this;
His reminder that everything of beauty comes out of the Butcher’s Yard, and that there is no guarantee that the results of evolution are at all “tasteful” to the consensus reality of the modern world, is exactly why I am so madly in love with the dark. Many people look at the existence of the world as a mix between light and dark, and maybe even a battle, but I see it as something a tad different. The world, in my opinion, is always bathed in darkness and chaos, however, the biggest misconception is that this darkness and uncertainty is bad. One can easily imagine how dark vs light originated when they witness how light itself constantly fights against every wraith of shadow that exists for it to uncover, but one must also realize that in the absence of this battle, in the absence of any sort of meaning or “X vs Y” situation, what is always and constantly there, is darkness. Without light there is no shadow, but there is darkness. Without shadow, there is only a light waiting to die. To accept the nature of reality as it is and to build an ontology of “seeing in the dark”, is to reject the concept of hell, it is to reject our affection for the light vs dark scenario, and it is to reject any horror we may feel when faced with the seemingly inhuman and anti-human reality of nature.
To sum this statement up, I must say that the situation kinda goes like this; when Cthulhu rises and others run, I will be there with a copy of Wii sports and sundae ingredients. Kick back, enjoy hell, you’re going to stay here forever.
Also, finally, my explanation for my philosophy being one that “isn’t racist” has nothing to do with any sort of predisposed nature of mine, and it is based on a more “PC” retelling of the same statement that Nick Land was making.
The existence of the inhuman overlord of Darwinism, opens up many lines of thought that many would consider to be insane. The racism of Social Darwinism in the Landian perspective (and in my perspective), is not actually about race, but it is just a harsh and inhuman “fuck you” to the dominant ontology of the world, for the modern ontology places humans as sovereign lords over this Earth, and it takes us as all equals. This is obviously not true, but to worry about the nature of race is a microscopic joke to the grand-scheme of Darwinism. The cruel inconsiderate nature of Darwinism does not care about race and even humans for that matter, and to call it “racist” is a sadly still-human perspective that people need to get rid of.
To put it lightly, if Social Darwinism in the Landian sense is racist, then the Darkseekers of I am Legend are the true master race of Earth. In a PC sense, the easiest way to justify the inhuman Darwinism is to simply state that the best are always forged in fire, and that even though weakness will always exist, there will always exist a butcher to cut it open, take it out, stitch it together in a new mutation, and then repeat the process.
To sum up this lengthy and hopefully good series of paragraphs is to simply agree that even though the world is scary and cruel and dark and inhuman, it does not mean that it is hell, and it also does not mean you have to be afraid of it, or even accept the notion that it is dark.
This has been Hell-Baked from the Left.
P.S. I still hate that term of left/right, I am a happy Darwinist, when someone says which direction I lean politically, I look in my pants and say “left, but some days it leans right”
I think one of the most interesting issues that face modern media, modern politics, and the way people interact with each other, is how we misunderstand and mistranslate context.
For the longest time, the British and their colonies often saw the new-world fruit of the Tomato, as a poisonous and deadly fruit. They avoided it until someone was brave enough to try it. But who is to blame them? Are the tomatoes not red like all the other poisonous berry-like fruits? This is where understanding and experience comes in. The act of being able to experience and then record that experience in one’s mind is the act of learning. Learning can be a simple thing, but it can also be hard for some people and creatures. There are still images and beings and stimuli that can cause an unpleasant emotional reaction to those even if the media itself does not have any inherent negative influence on the experiencer. One might have one bad experience with a dog, and forever be afraid of the dog, even if there is no reason to be afraid of a canine in any baseline manner. Tomatoes are similar. You can spend your childhood in pre-modern Britain learning not to eat the red berries, and you will probably not eat any red berry-life fruits if you are wise enough to respect what your past experiences have told you.
However, there is an issue with this way of thinking. One of the most intelligent actions a human can take is to approach a phenomenon or an experience from another perspective, even if it goes against perceived experiences that gave you negative feelings or a bad injury. Many children are afraid of the dark, but if one can come to learn and adapt to the dark and be able to replace their fear with a more meditated response, you can “overcome your fears”. The first person to try many a food, probably resisted an uncertainty and a fear of poison, in order to understand the nature of the phenomenon they wanted to experience. Tomatoes have all the warning signs (they are even closely related to the very deadly nightshade) that one relying on taught and self-taught experiences would avoid, yet here we are, eating food that many people in older times would consider deadly.
But enough with explaining an analogy of fruits and the second biggest island of floating garbage found in the modern world, and focus on the message that more accurately relates to KD’s messages of philosophy.
Politics are fruits.
In a world where people divide ideology and conceptual organization into left/right and red/blue, you will come to find that in a lot of ways, politics function the same way one would treat food. If you are “blue”, then you might take a gander at a red and see that as poisonous or deadly. You might take a look at something and mark the intensity of the red (the position on the right) and perceive that as “more poisonous”.
Politics for the longest period of time have resorted to left/right as a form of categorization tool, a tool that can divide and sort ideas and systems in their own respected boxes. However useful this may be, the organizational structure has become something that categorizes based on color instead of what the fruit is. The right/left dichotomy originated as SEATING POSITIONS of an organizational body during the French Revolution. How can centuries-old seating positions dictate the organization of modern thought? How can we limit ourselves to such a primitive and eurocentric concept? The worst part is, is that right/left is no longer based on actual policy or the factual methods of organization that the organization/ideologue/philosopher/individual follows, it is more accurately based on simply what one presents themselves as. The economic models of many a left-wing politician in the 21st century is hardly based on anything contrary to tradition or capitalism, and it is simply a category that defines itself as “not the reds”. This identification system has lead to people associating ideas, organizations, family members, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and people both significant and insignificant to us, as “palatable” or “deadly”.
In the USA, the existence of the political dichotomy is one of the best examples of this palatable existence. The USA and the entire American Hegemony that has existed in the West after World War Two, has also mirrored and mimicked this system of color categories and oppositional politics. For instance, many people will never choose the reds because “blue no matter who”, and many people will never choose the blues because they perceive anything on the left as something toxic and inedible.
The left and right dichotomy have become something of a joke to me. When it used to apply to actual policy, it has lead to becoming a tomato of a world. Regardless of the systemic “edibility” of a concept, if it is red, it will be perceived as a deadly nightshade-esque fruit that you must not eat, because the only edible fruits are the blue tomatoes. The color-associations and the contextual language of mass media and the modern political mainframe, has led to a depressive and useless era of philosophy, where people care more about the look and the appearance of the “fruit” than they do the taste, the usefulness in a recipe, or the growth of the fruit. I guarantee you, that if you begin looking at politics at a perspective of what the fruit is as a whole, and instead of what the fruit is as a color, then you will find, that many of the tomatoes in your life are not as toxic as you might think.
Of course, you can’t have a dichotomy within a perceived democracy without a facade of compromise. In fact, many people who have stewed their minds in the cultural soup of the status-quo, have found themselves to be a tomato of not really any specific color, but one of universal palatability.
The genius of the system and its desire to maintain an eternal sense of palatability has led to the cultural system of control imposed by the West and its hegemony, to position itself in the middle of the blue/red spectrum, a “center”, if you may. This is a way of saying “hey I’m edible and tasty! Eat me! I am not too red or too blue, I can be edible to anyone if you truly care about those reds and blues in your life!!” in order to get people to reject any extreme, anything that is perceived as too bitter-blue or too sour-red. This is also a mistake for anyone who calls themselves “far-right” or “far-left”. The system of right/left has been reduced to nothing more than a label that translates to edibility and appealing ideas, and it has nothing to do with the actual nature of any of the fruits that are of either color. The dichotomy is smart, however! When the system says “go right”, the extremists say “how far?”. People on many of the far-right and many of the far-left, do not care about the center of palatability, they do not care about the tastiness and “compromise cooking” of the self-described “centrists” or “moderates”, they only care about how blue or red they can get! The dichotomy still controls them, however, because by following the blue/red divide’s rules of “how close to the center you are”, you are still validating the existence of the center.
People typically fall into two categories in this situation. They are either those who are close to the center of palatability, or they are purposely as far away from it as possible, because they see the distance away from blue/red, to be a determining factor of how good the idea is. The farther right, the tastier. The farther left, the tastier, etc. Some people have even gone as far as to making a theory that says that both sides farthest points are of the same taste! Some people suggest that the only edible part of the dichotomy is the center!
Sorry if this is confusing, but let’s hope that you understand what I am saying so far. To sum it up, I say that the world is no longer defined by the contents of an idea/fruit, but by the color of the idea/fruit. However this does not mean you should say “fuck it, I’m yellow” when it comes to fighting the dichotomy, because a trinary validates the center as well as a binary does, albeit with a little more complexity.
To fight the issue with modern politics, we must throw away any concept of blue or red, any concept of whether or not an idea is defined by its appearances, and instead, focus on the contents of the fruit. We must look at the reds and the blues and the yellows in our life and ask ourselves “are they poisonous, or am I wrong in that assumption”! If we constantly taste, learn, stew, and experiment with the fruits of ideology, and choose not to limit us to whether something is red or blue or yellow, then we can differentiate the tomatoes from the nightshades, and we can find what we like, what works for our groups and our societies, while destroying the dogmatic prejudices that lead us to validating the status-quo in the first place.
This is in no way the best I can write, but it is true in what I say. I will go deeper into topics of political context in the future, but I will probably stay away from tomatoes from now on.
Also, one thing I forgot. Ideas are not fruits. To assume that an idea can be rotten or too unripe, is a disgustingly simple idea. Do not apply colors or expiration dates to your ideas. Simply think and then pick how you communicate it. Categorize it if you may, but be warned, someone will look at your new form of socialism and say “hey, is that looking a bit red to you?.
Hello, hello? Uh, I wanted to record a message for you to help you get settled in on your first night. Um, I actually worked in that office before you. I’m finishing up my last week now, as a matter of fact. So, I know it can be a bit overwhelming, but I’m here to tell you there’s nothing to worry about. Uh, you’ll do fine. So, let’s just focus on getting you throughyour first week. Okay? Uh, let’s see, first there’s an introductory greeting from the company that I’m supposed to read. Uh, it’s kind of a legal thing, you know. Um, “Welcome to Freddy Fazbear’s Pizza. A magical place for kids and grown-ups alike, where fantasy and fun come to life. Fazbear Entertainment is not responsible for damage to property or person. Upon discovering that damage or death has occurred, a missing person report will be filed within 90 days, or as soon property and premises have been thoroughly cleaned and bleached, and the carpets have been replaced.”
Blah blah blah, now that might sound bad, I know, but there’s really nothing to worry about. Uh, the animatronic characters here do get a bit quirky at night, but do I blame them? No.If I were forced to sing those same stupid songs for twenty years and I never got a bath? I’d probably be a bit irritable at night too. So, remember, these characters hold a special place in the hearts of children and we need to show them a little respect, right? Okay.
So, just be aware, the characters do tend to wander a bit. Uh, they’re left in some kind of free-roaming mode at night. Uh…Something about their servos locking up if they get turned off for too long. Uh, they used to be allowed to walk around during the day too. But then there was The Bite of ’87. Yeah. I-It’s amazing that the human body can live without the frontal lobe, you know?
Uh, now concerning your safety, the only real risk to you as a night watchman here, if any, is the fact that these characters, uh, if they happen to see you after hours probably won’t recognize you as a person. They’ll p-most likely see you as a metal endoskeleton without its costume on. Now since that’s against the rules here at Freddy Fazbear’s Pizza, they’ll probably try to…forcefully stuff you inside a Freddy Fazbear suit. Um, now, that wouldn’t be so bad if the suits themselves weren’t filled with crossbeams, wires, and animatronic devices, especially around the facial area. So, you could imagine how having your head forcefully pressed inside one of those could cause a bit of discomfort…and death. Uh, the only parts of you that would likely see the light of day again would be your eyeballs and teeth when they pop out the front of the mask, heh.
Y-Yeah, they don’t tell you these things when you sign up. But hey, first day should be a breeze. I’ll chat with you tomorrow. Uh, check those cameras, and remember to close the doors only if absolutely necessary. Gotta conserve power. Alright, good night.