Don't Leave Me

At the dispersal of a party, be it family gathering at holiday, friends for a drink, a dance club's closing, or any occasion there's a sensation of emptying in the revelers. Neural rows of connections between us snap off. Like series of usb ports unplugged.
It's hardwired in us to crave company, to love society. Some are satisfied with the gathering and look forward to the next. A remainder of the last party stays together to continue elsewhere. Singles split off to return to solitude. Some stay at the place of meeting to clean up or 'cause they live there. Maybe to linger and admire the setting. Some work to counter the flow of the mob, convince people to stay, and sometimes have charisma or new events enough to hold onto most of the crowd. On the greatest of scales: this last role in the party is fulfilled by politicians, bankers, and bureaucrats.
In the context of mingling, lawmakers are party-planners. Lawyers referees for our games. Cops and armies bouncers who decide who gets in without sneaking and who stays without wanting. Executors are hosts who won't give dinner to guests who repeatedly refuse to play. Then oppression is the neurosis of someone who fears the band he has assembled hates him and takes every measure to keep as many people as close as possible. Of course "The Man" in his manor is not inviting the rabble into his house but he's touching us through his currency, military, and infrastructure. He doesn't want to let go. The shame is these types seem to eventually become the depraved bully. The madman who hits a woman if she tries to run away and then will say how much he cares while stroking her face. Like that chick from the Stephen King movie who breaks a guy's legs...

Banhammer

An ascendent's first action, if he'd be a ruler, is to hinder those like he was from becoming as he is.



He burns the bridge behind him for if h3 is to k33p p0w3r h3 |\/|ust re|\/|ain elite.

It is the men w/gunswho would ban guns.
The governor hates other thieves, taxmen loathe their fellow extorters, those who issue currency most fear coiners. Did God bar sorcery to subject man?

Inevitable

Every shape in universal scape squashed flat, a y-axis of zero.
Schedule.
Planned in a boardroom.
Help me mount my horse sirrah.
Briefcases canary yellow letters tell the cues.
Bring timber to the saw.
Your blue skin does glow.
Yeah you descend from clouds and nagas lift you up.

My body is as solid as a face in a painting seen from a distance. But up close each splotch of paint is telling.
What's it about?
Release receives boos.
Tricks of the light are subjects of awe.
Aurora Borealis isn't a magician's bunny, sniffing cutely for carrots over the brim of a top hat, smelling mercury. Our eyes are crooked telescopes showing a McDonald's sign where there's a yellow line.



There is only illusion. Lifegoals are shams. The falsities are so many they distract from one another's faults. Cutting through a wall's fabric shows there's nothing solid or better beyond.



Probing at best finds a better prestige. Else the searcher is consumed by lack.

Blemish

There is transformation but not equilibrium, novelty, or destruction. Existence is eternal and unaltered. When new code is included in a videogame it must be sound w/in itself and in its' correspondence w/the game's other constituent parts else there will be a glitch. Games simulate reality w/personalities of polygon expressions, actors' voices, houses, and roads. When a pathing command is fla3wed a man in a game's town may walk into a wall forever as a method of reaching the tree on the wall's opposite side. If a glitch is severe enough in damaging other parts of the game (interrupting their processes) it may cause the entire game to crash. Humans, outside the gameworld, aren't impeded by the game's crash. We may reboot, observe the problem, and correct it. Were it possible for a novelty to be added to our reality we would have to simulate its' incorporation to predict any patterns it would impair and how the degradation of existence could be avoided, continuance assured. But if the element to be added were new there would be nothing to compare it to amongst those parts already in operation. The results of its' inclusion would be unpredictable. Afterwards, w/our dimensions crashed, we or God could not correct the fault, existing as we do w/in the thing affected. It is also probable that b/c a truly novel thing would not correspond to those existing it couldn't be interacted w/in ways existing things already do and may not have a means of interfacing w/the rest of reality at all. Also, what impetus could prompt a thing to be w/out composing it of what already is?

In the Bible God hears the blood of Abel cry out from the soil where Cain slew him. He hears the oppressed cry out. He hears the afflicted in their affliction, the haughty in their haughtiness, the secret hearts of men and is moved by some sounds to destroy. Rain falls on upright and wicked alike. Fire consumes righteous men alongside the vilest. When God brings punishment on a city it is impartial. He spared Lot but other places were visited w/famine, flooding, plague, brimstone, war, earthquakes, and other manslayers caring not whether they took a Devout Servant of Love or a Hater of Everything Good. In our own bodies, we hear nerves. If enough nerves in a spot cry out consistently, agitating, we'll bring our nails upon them to cut at and scrape the outcriers until their annoying pester becomes a report of pain. It is more pleasant to us to feel pain than irritation. Perhaps then we are God's nervous system. A city cries out for much wickedness is in it. Eventually the persistent call brings down God's destruction. Voices in the city turn to lament, crying out in pain, and there are fewer voices raised. God is comforted.

Party Planner

A man in a town full of neighbors who hate him would not propose a body be formed w/the authority to rape any of the wives in town for fear of his own wife's safety. For a man to propose a body be created w/some power over others or an existing body have a power added onto it he must be confident this entity atleast agrees w/his goals and at-usual won't escape his control. For the body to be successful it must be stronger than those opposed to its' practices. The proposal of a body's creation can be an act of opposition, a rebel faction meant to usurp rule for different standards establishment. Who will most pander for, work towards, and instruct fealty to a new institution? The men who gain influence by its' actions and their servants. So it may be determined that when Bush wants a department that'll capture people and torture us w/out a trial coming he shows he wants to have people tortured; when Gore brings before congress plans for a global credit system that'll tax corporations he reveals he wants to steal from these corporations.


A gang of friends is boldest when sure they're already the most popular and no rival clique can unseat their rule: the smaller/weaker associations and individuals will be unable to stand against the majority's force. A ruler pads his land w/laws which are oppression moreso separating him from other single men so they'd have to strive against more infrastructures, objects, people, etc. to overthrow the ruler or otherwise act against him.


Whatever goal a man gives for the changes he proposes is irrelevant: the state prerequired by the goal in his plan is the thing surer and more regular to be and so'll be more impactful and is his greater goal. Cameras to lower crime. Will crime be reduced? Maybe. It's more likely surveillance'll increase. Because the fundamental change is what must last (and will persist despite the goal coming no closer) it's what makes or breaks a plan. Robbing is not okay b/c you say it'll feed the homeless. The taxman robs, homeless starve, he robs more, still the homeless starve his state-of-looting persists and grows though the goal is no closer. A shining city on the horizon.

So it is the necessities of a proposal that're important. It doesn't matter if he says it's to save the Earth; it matters that he says we can't drive gas-powered cars. Like other forms of wealth, the ability to dominate isn't a zerosum game. Armies don't only take personal decisions from locals, enforcing curfews so the dead lay outside and the living stay en la casa, they can acquire weapons or implement systems (drivers licenses, stars of david, deer tags) to track, identify, and organize other people. The efficcient application and power of violence increases w/communications networks, tracking, etc. A paranoid/fearful (or wise?) ruler is willing to sacrifice all other forms of wealth to continually expand his ability to pin us to a position and pen us in at that location.

Cramped

In a crook the corners push
my tush. The cloth of dress
causes duress as it scrapes
when shook by paper
paleness a quill and
inkwell took. In a glimmer
of little silver sun reflected
moonbeams it seems my
jittering frame is an
arrow too big for its' quiver.
I shiver not from some
draft of cold come aft from
old cellars hatched against
storms where worms turn
in pickled bottles, dirt
excreting, deviled egg
eating. Nerves deliver
shakes through my spine
these wooden confines
come incomplete: where's
comfort, room for head
and feet? No sooner is
one set down nice'n easy
than the other's squeezed
out, teased from this
narrow gap, like a pea
pinched from pod by
fingers. Damn! Spilled
my well. That'll do for
poetry. Guess I'll crawl
out of here; don't need
any torment to
perform a soliloquy.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Now I'm comfortable

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~my enemies are dead.

He likes Writing

http://mises.org/story/3064

The Fed. has no liquidity. It possesses no inherent value, produces nothing, sells nothing by which it may pay off its' debts. All its' gains are agreements to a lie:that it's a privilege to owe the Federal Reserve, in recognition of which charges of interest on principle are added. Each of these schemes are means of theft; none are meant to "stabilize the economy" keep it healthy or any other phrase that sounds like frugal, well-managed resources are what we have the Fed's board of directors to thank for.
Society, in our interactions, already utilizes every tool necessary to optimize production. If I do not want what you sell I won't buy it. If you're not selling what you're offering you're being told folks don't want what you thought they would. Banks, investment firms, government agencies, and others I don't know to list yet presume exist are not told if what they offered's wanted. They're told they'll be supported in their pursuits. Spoiled brats, a rotten rich kid who doesn't know he's being wasteful, they take wealth and use it (or sit on it) w/out giving someone/s else thing/s equally valued. Where does this wealth come from? Who pays for it? We do. Every excess is greased by a currency hijacked and debased by central bankers, its' wealth funneled to strengthen our enemies: for who is the man that threatens your life or claims it his own but an enemy? Should a woman love a man after rape? Shall a ghost love his murderer? Not only nationals but folks of other nations using our currency, relying on its' worthiness, are failed by the endless expansion of credit that's the Federal Reserve's cornerstone. They're worse than entitled kids. Atleast the product of a rich man who's shitty loudmouthed company may've been funded by the worth attributed his father. But issuance of credit is the most direct theft yet implemented by man. The robber doesn't have to even know the names of those he robs from: just keep other trade-intermediaries out of our hands.
Consider the scenario this article proposes: banks owe the Fed for loans and may default. The Fed's proposed solution is to buy their holdings outright. How great, in the magical fairyland where a man's will alone makes real value. Look at these mechanics: the Fed is given unlimited credit, like Barney from the Simpson's whose bar tab was sent to NASA for calculating debt owed. Credit is nothing. It's, "I owe you", "c'mon I'm good for it", "ain't we pals?" etc. But because the Fed's credit is in unholy union w/America's national currency, which is to was the world's most popular currency, real value is extracted from everyone who has invested in American Dollars when the Secretary of the Treasury, Ben Bernanke, or Richard L. Carrión gives a loan. Banks can't pay the loans so -under the pretense of acting for the common good- these robbers buy the real assets of the banks. There're probably more but here're 3 evils I count by these actions
1) The initial loans steal value from dollar-users.
2) The units in $ created to buy back the loans devalues $.
3) The Fed consolidates assets under its' control.
Remember, a loan is not a favor. I could loan you a million and you may go, "gee whiz, thanks a bunch, I can buy so much w/this million!". But if you can't pay me back I take all your shit. Wickedly-clever, this scheme of the Fed seems made to convince fucking idiots the Fed's their buddy. It seems nicer to say, "don't worry about what you owe, I'll buy what you're trying to sell a bit above what you're being offered* elsewhere" instead of "you owe me so I'm taking your assets". This additional transaction of buying the assets is b/c the Fed would rather own some real items -land or whatever, than another bank. The Fed is a bank and America's banks are already tied to it. Owning some more outright isn't as much of a gain as new possessions.


*probably still under the price it was at the time of the loan

Fools may wonder, b/c the news-anchors keep asking as if it were a mystery, how such economic crisis could be averted. To dodge something you must know where it's coming from/towards. Who gave all these loans to banks so they needed to sell off assets, causing asset-prices to drop? The Federal Reserve. The Fed is the inside trader of America(and via America the world)'s impoverishment. Fed-men set policy for rates of exchange between banks, what fraction of loans-created bankers must really own, etc. The Fed is our oppressor, not our savior.
That's why the Liberty Dollar headquarters was raided: it was working. Men were beginning to rely on a monetary standard w/naked doings. Does a man not treat you as an adversary if hiding his doings which affect you? If what he did to you were harmless or beneficial he would not fear your understanding of it and have cause to hide it. He can only want to hide what he does in relation to you out of anticipation of justified hostility. It isn't as if the Federal Reserve board has refrained from publishing a complete record of all forms of credit (whether new notes, bills, bonds, or any other names for sub-schemes) issued b/c it has been planning a surprise party for folks using its' credit for the last 95+ years. Men who have worked for the Rothschilds, expanding their control for favors or a fraction of power are fools. They are not God who -were he real- would have insurmountable power over all things so service to him must be taken for granted. They are not fathers, friends, or allies who would one day allow an underling to go his own way, working for his own dream like the Pentangeli family. When America didn't renew their national bank's charter Britain, still paying homage to a central bank, invaded in 1812, breaking peace treaties. One lending system=one oligarchy over economic affairs=one government. _________ Unions are just erasures of national identity and pride, bureaucracy concentration.

Knowledge is powerless.

Empty Auditoream

A hollow chamber's echoes let speakers be listeners, self-audience. Hear the crackle? Trembling stuttered mumbles for a voice. Pitch shifts as if a sneeze is imminent. The playback misses tonality instilled by brewing audio in sonorous chest or skull amplifiers: pockets of air between bone where sound can toss itself around, playing. Sonics arrive happy in the brain.

No Protectors

If one being valued another's existence as worthy as its' own it would protect either from death at the expense of its' body. When it failed to safeguard the equally-valued body its' own would be eliminated so the once-protected would have to rely on its' own body-. The protector must be the stronger if it is appropriate for him to be the first line of defense and if he is overcome by an enemy of his protected how will the once-protected survive?-..

A greater force requires more than a lesser force so a protector must work to supply himself more than the protected; whether he values another body as worth protecting in addition to his own or not he must maintain his strength to protect any body--- If a would-be protector can not bear the burden of his enemies and another body's he would have to increase his strength; for greater strength to be provided to him he must be given the utilization of another body's provision-generation and what body owes his but those he protects?..-.

A would-be protected who does not want to increase the protector's strength must use his own strength to resist the would-be protector and so become his enemy---- The protected from whom strength is taken can contribute less to defense against enemies w/his own body; he must rely on the protector more than he did himself b/c the protector takes enemies for both of them and he is weakened to strengthen the protector ...--

Then the protector destroys greater vessels to maintain weaker ones, multiplies enemies in trying to protect, and weakens the body whose strength he fights to maintain

Joker or Actor

Sitting at this computer I was across from a pretty woman or atleast a woman who manages makeup well-enough to mask ugliness. Chalk up such observations to idleness, quick wits, or masculine drive. She presented either a pleasant background to the computer screen, akin to a mountain-range an old man may appreciate during lulls in thought, or a distraction from legitimate exercise of mental faculty. While my mind was elsewhere she'd went to chat with a friend at another computer and a fat chick had lumbered over to take what she'd a right to presume unoccupied. So my view was unfavorably replaced. As I gazed around (all these observations before I started writing here) I noticed a guy had just come into the room who looks like a relative of..


It is awful like someone were telling me a joke and I get how it could be funny but don't laugh. I'm still drowsy.
A Peruvian waiter the elder of my sisters took a picture of brings to mind interesting possibilities. She showed me his picture because we look an awful lot alike. (sorry it's not available for posting). There's the old German idea of dopplegangers: that we've got duplicates of ourselves somewhere out in the world which we may encounter to fantastic result. If you want to be boring you could leave our phenotypes at similar genotypes owning to a common group of ancestor-traits that're expressed in us both. That idea has some neatness to it: imagine a version of yourself in every culture on earth: Chinese you, British you, Mongolian you, Ethiopian you, etcetera. It'd be like having a superteam. My guess is that a German's genes are what we share.

An existentialist maxim I'm put in mind of is that all of life is a joke so try to get it. Not to mean that there's meaning but that the surprises can all be enjoyed like a punchline. Our lives could be thought of as parts in a game or play and we get to adlib. So let's pretend to be the characters we want written in and then the story will be more to our liking. In absence of justice or morality an existentialist must be pleased with such narcissist-flippancy.

Turn up this mic

Three things do I deduce doubtless:

1. I exist (whatever I am something exists which questions)

2. God exists (I had a start so I owe my existence to something else, something must exist which owes its' existence to nothing else)

3. Something else exist (however wrong I may be in my beliefs pertaining to this thing there is something I interact with not myself nor God)

In thinking well of the things I perceive, enjoying my interaction, I better infuse myself with that/those thing/s which is good in the pleasure it gives. Yet the other thing is transitional like myself so it is lesser to God. Therefore, my best, surest, greatest pursuit is (connection with)/(excitement over)/(love of) God.



If you want some things more mundane to consider, here you are:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=507


By Smellybug of ConceptArt.org