provincials

"it was the first care of the senate to dissolve those confederacies which taught mankind, that, as the roman arms prevailed by division, they might be resisted union." edward gibbon-"the history of the decline and fall of the roman empire" vol.I chapter II___________________________________it is a fact of human nature that, however benignly we look at our fellows, we still think that the group we define ourselves as "belonging" to is better than those outside our own...this exceptionalism can range from mild forbearance to ethnic cleansing, depending on who is pulling the group['s control levers ( and so community is a pharmakon...in reasonable doses it creates a sense of security and belonging...in larger doses the "other" becomes the cause of all problems and their destruction is the only cure...we have seen this...we will see it again )...the n y times "t" magazine "culture" issue came in today's paper...its focus is "56 months that changed the culture"...the culture of n y city...as if that burg had a lock on what passes for culture here...the n y times is an elitist newspaper, acting as the mouthpiece for the hegemonic culture [gramsci] ( elite, the rich, the 1%..the deep state....whatever you call it ) and their intent is to display to me how uncouth, provincial, and culturally illiterate i am......hegemonic culture is in the hands of a distinct minority and it is ion their interest to keep the population at large deflated and subservient...divided and unaware of the fact that they are the majority...a possibility of self-awareness that so troubled hamilton over shay's rebellion and moved madison to decry and "interested and overbearing majority" as faction...an informed and insistent electorate could gum up the works of extraction practiced by the few..the framers of the constitution tried to present the federal government as a neutral umpire of the special interests that make up the polity...( dividing us into interest group...nra/gun control, pro life/pro choice, coke/pepsi, ford/chevy is a first principle for subsuming the individual voter into a bloc where, like it or not, they are forced to compromise their individual positions to the group's which may not accurately reflect how they feel on all issues...and groups are much easier to control than individuals...orwell understood "groupthink" as a weapon of power...behavioral command and control )...the problem is the government is never neutral...influence is bought and sold every day in the capital and no amount of digging will drain swamptown...at some point it will collapse from its own weight into a simpler form ( read tainter )...it has tried to dissolve itself once...it will try again...comparing this decadent empire to rome may be folly...they are not the same entity ( although the sheer amount of greco-roman kitsch in whoretown does reinforce the perception of the founders as being their heirs )...yet the parallels are striking ( and give fodder in the form of uncertain and disillusioned people to manipulators like david meade and the evangelicals who rant about "the end of days"...planet nibiru tomorrow...i will post photos from the apocalypse ) there are more parallels beyond this, and, for an 18th century member of parliament, ed gibbon had some interesting ideas about religion and it purpose in the hegemonic culture which would be the kiss of death to a political career in these uncertain and interesting times...we will get to those...if we survive tomorrow.

cultural paranoia, class warfare, and you

"however, you are quite at liberty to take food home from the market once the dining halls have been supplied, for everyone knows you wouldn't do it unless you had to. i mean, no one likes eating at home, although there's no rule against it. for one thing it's considered rather bad form, for another, it seems silly to go to all the trouble of preparing an inferior meal when there an absolutely delicious one waiting for you in the dining-hall just down the street." thomas more from utopia._________________a communal society is an observed society..behavior surveillance and modification through peer pressure rather than state coercion...self-policing for the oligarchy...no wonder the teleolgists love thomas more..i wonder if b f skinner read this_______ today's n y times...

had a "special advertising section" wrapped around the outside of the paper so you'd see it first..

it folded out...

into a four page spread...

all about the need for vigilance and security in the face of an increasingly dangerous, divided, and hostile world...

with a kicker on the back to make sure that adrenaline rush of fear ( greatest marketing tool ever! ) grabs hold as tightly as the marketer wants it to be...impelling the purchase...from more to orwell with stalin and hitler's paranoia thrown in, authoritarians and oligarch have always been obsessed with what "the mob" is up to and what they're thinking...it's the source of more's love for the communal...the catholic church's and every secular religion you care to name as well...the 1% are oligarchs and no exception tot his..the want public and private surveillance and orwell's telescreens are not long off ( i am using one of the grates surveillance tools the elites possess at the moment...google is eating this stuff up and laughing all the way to the bank...facebook too..just so we know i am alert to this...i am not feeling naive today )...they need to know...fortunately the are not all that good at understanding the non-linearity of causality..oh they say they do but in their heart of hearts they think they "know" where human history is heading and that they can control it...this is nonsense..human cognition is limited and we are in the environment...part of it...not external as the self-absorbed wealthy and their lackey economists would tell us..they can watch us..we watch as well..and the planet will have the final say.

and just to show we are dealing with an paper aimed at an elite audience, here's an advertisement from today's n y times magazine for a watch no one on my block will buy...some wanna-bes may like the idea...but it is not in their price range and not nearly utilitarian enough.

elitism is a subjectivist position

a ways back the new york times ran an editorial titled "priced out readers" in which it denounced its reputation as an elitist newspaper...it was a fair shot at propagandizing the paper's alleged populist stance but their actions continue to belie their position...today's paper is over four pounds of elitist pretension including ( but not limited to ) a t magazine "men's style" issue that weighs in at over a pound...aside from the obscene amount of money this behemoth generated for the times through advertising the aim is in some doubt as far as the ass of citizens is concerned...most "men: in their right minds wouldn't wear ( or could afford to wear ) most of this stuff and besides...every feminist i knows insists men have no style...so why bother...for me though, the center piece of this utterly disconnected issue is the gigantic fold out of headshots of the main cast members of yet another film about fucking steve jobs and his apple swindle...a goad towards a "must see" film about the rightness and wholesome goodness of venture capitalism, technology, and the human need to further splinter its already shattered attention span with more novel gizmos that make other people wealthy...yep...the nyt is a "paper for the people"...as long as your people are those of wealth