Nelson Lowhim's Blog, page 110

Algo, another story...

Algo, one of the more interesting authors currently writing is now in full-bloom—creatively speaking. It's always good to remember, though, that no man is an island, even the most unique ones—or, if you must use such a metaphor, note that the seas and sea beds represent other diverse humans—and Algo is no exception. 

We were in Costa Rican bar then: howler monkeys screeching off to the side and the ocean breeze helping to alleviate some of the humidity's rotting breath. Drinking beers, sniffing that ocean salt in the air, we only stopped talking when a young man selling his wares walked by. It was art, his wares, made out of trash. Using apple product packaging as his canvas, he had come up with some original work in the form of mathematical proofs. We bought a few pieces of this art; Algo grabbed some peyote as well.
The art got us talking about influence again, as the young man stated that his influence was nature. Algo mentioned a female author he was trying to mimic. A virtual unknown, she was just gaining a cult following. No little thanks to the efforts of Algo; even though he admitted to wanting to keep her a secret, to read all her work and reap the benefits alone. 
He first learned of her when reading a Bible with all sorts of parables and stories he was sure he hadn't heard before. Come to find out, she was the author of that Bible, changing things here and there and paying a few people to hand them out. Most of these Bibles had radical aspirations, while others had a mocking neo-liberal tone (Pharisees were job creators and what have you). 
The authorities tried to burn her versions while attempting to find out who she was to burn her at the stake of "freedom to starve"; though in the end the authorities sparked enough interest that some radicals took over and doubled down on her efforts to send out fake Bibles of all sorts. 
She did the same to the Quran (and other Holy books) and some of these activists turned on her (still a faceless author). Beware what sacred you topple, I suppose, it might come back to haunt you. 
Algo found her and was soon impressed with her other novels. She had no desire to gain readers' empathy for a character—not a human one, anyhow—and instead created learning algorithms which twisted and turned their way through worlds of uncaring humans. Some were pure fiction; others were based off ones she designed in real life and tested out. 
Empathy for humans? she once said, never. And the worlds she created were mostly done with algorithms as well: scraping data and comment sections to create this or that community or dialogue. I remember Algo fumbling about, for he had been completely outclassed when talking to her. And when one is outclassed in reality, we all know what that does to the memory.
She had another theory on humans, one which further solidified her hatred for following one or a few human being(s) through a book. The theory was that humans were conduits and sure the material of the conduit mattered some, but did it matter all that much? No. And no mediocre male would ever convince her otherwise. For even if we appear to make decisions, it is at best a quantum randomness that makes it and most likely a reaction with the world around us that does it. And being that the world has more mass than us... around this point, Algo paused to understand what he was saying.
I broke the silence by telling Algo I would have to read her work, but deep down I was immensely jealous at not only her talent but her originality. Algo, really not understanding what she had been getting at, chewed some of the peyote and walked off to the beach to watch the sun plummet into the ocean. 
I stayed at the bar and started scribbling, but felt too much of an island, felt the muse escaping my grasp and felt the weaknesses in these very sentences to say nothing of the English word I was relying upon. I would have to read her then. Read her and create something better.

Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

Once Upon a Time

Once upon a time, there lived a poor family with three daughter. one day they went out to the forest to pick mushrooms, for they had nothing else to eat and were near starvation. 

The girl cried and cried and the monster only laughed. Then it said, "well, I'm going to hunt, but you must stay here and if you don't I'll chop your head off." And he showed her a field of dead people and she said, "how could you?" and he shrugged and said, "well that's how mushrooms are made, without this to fertilize the ground, your family starves."
The girl agreed to the monster's deal, but the moment it left, fear and the horror of the field of dead people got to her and she fled. The monster found her and chopped her little head off. The family mourned, but couldn't find her and so the second sister soon found the mushroom. The same thing happened to her.
And the family mourned.
And the third daughter found the mushroom and saw the monster. But she stayed without fail and they married and she lived in comfort with plenty of food and when she had children she told them stories of their great father who had done so much for them and they lived happily ever after.

Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

On Snowpiercer, Movies, & the Zeitgeist

 For a good while I was turning old before my time. I speak not of the pain in my joints, the decrease in flexibility in my muscles, and the slight increase in the viscosity of my thoughts. No, I mean the decoupling from one's society's zeitgeist: you know, when what is stated to be good or representative of reality does not seem so. Once this is added to the wont to not keep up with the zeitgeist, I'm told, one is truly old [1]. 


But then I'll go and make the mistake of watching a supposedly good or edgy movie and find myself disappointed once more. One near-exception to this is Snowpiercer . Yet here's the thing: I couldn't find anything worthwhile about this film except the ending. 
Let me backtrack a little. I did find the world, the train cars as classes, to be somewhat interesting That end, though, what's one to make of it? Of course, I would think it reactionary: the man who leads the revolution is so filled with rage that he willingly blows it all up. If only he knew what sacrifice meant and had been willing to be docile. 
For when they stepped out, what happened? The ideologists had destroyed the only protection the humans had and left them exposed to uncaring nature. The cold and the polar bear, as it were. The latter would surely see them as only food and would show no mercy. What then is the moral? That any leader should only then be as kind as nature? It probably speaks to my narrow imagination that I cannot see any other reasoning for this ending. What did you see?



[1] Of course, now this seems at best a narrow view of the world for it ignores the need to have a sliding scale of which zeitgeist matters—from entertainment to politics. The former usually being the purview of youth and the latter of those who are older. (I should also add that I'm speaking of entertainment in general, I suppose, but one could separate them into two different kinds: that of the movie/music of the day kind and that of the political theater... and a case could be made for history as well). This also misses many aspects of "my story. By which I mean the status quo has rubbed me the wrong way and thus I can't stand many simple facts about the zeitgeist. The other point that is missed is how the Internet has fractured the zeitgeist, so it could very well be that the idea of a national zeitgeist could only be a part of mass media... a whole other post.
[2] I'm talking high school levels of understanding.
[3] I take this to include the books from the mainstream as well—yes, even literary types.
[4] And usually the veneer wears off these films with the passage of time. Even a weeks will do it. Contrary to what my better half says, I can walk out of a film fully entertained, but slowly find that the movie was tripe and speaks but to the status quo of the time. This makes me hate it. An interesting psychological phenom, this. I suppose one could look at me simply enjoying it to begin with as setting aside all my learned reservations about such tripe and simply enjoying a moment with those I'm watching it with.
Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

On Some Art

The writing is going well, and I've started the end of the When Gods Fail saga. I do not, however, have an end date for that book. If you've been reading this blog, you know I've come to love art as I age. On that note, here's an article on the statue of David and the politics behind it (you'll have to register to read it). Brilliant stuff and certainly worth a look to see how art can be treated by any population (should, perhaps). 
Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

No Words

So Tony Blair has said that millions of Muslims are not "compatible" with the modern world. Yes, the some one who decided that bombing the hell out of the Middle East was fine while lying to his own people. The chutzpah is impressive. 

So it goes, but the comments essentially look like this: it's a backward religion and it needs to be cut off like a cancer. I'm an atheist, and no fan of any fundamentalism. But that these people (even the self-proclaimed atheists) are falling for the same tidy-mindedness of fundamentalism makes them just as big of a problem. 
Anyhow, that's my rant. Not well thought out, I admit, but it's something. I was once such an atheist as well, but it's sad to see people think in the exact same terms as their supposed enemies, then go on to claim that their views are some how better. 
Also the view that Islam just needs a reformation, is similarly silly. As if post 16th century Christianity was some bastion of peace. Again, it's tidy-mindedness, or fundamentalism. It refuses to see the world as complex. Uses the primate's ability to separate things into type and token and ends it there with a simplistic solution. 
Oh, and that there are fundamentalists on our side influencing our foreign policy in worse ways does not strike them as worthy of mention. But me ranting isn't enough. How to change their minds?
Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

Why I Write: Rebel

As you may or may not know, there was a reason I wrote Rebel . This novella is about a man in the south stuck under growing oppression. The main reason was not that an occupation in the southern states were likely, or to play to their already prevalent sense of victimhood. 

The second reason was that I wanted to paint as foolish the current calls from certain subsections of the population—people of mid to lower SES [1]—for glassing the Middle East or torturing undesirables or sustained terrorism from the sky via drones.
I wanted some of them to at least understand that their leaders with their crocodile tears, were not doing this out of love, but rather something like manipulation: whereby they were more than willing to make money, and if they had to use the pleb's us vs them tribalism, they would. Granting this power to these leaders was fool-hardy and it was even dumber to allow them a free hand to use it as they pleased. Why? Because I sensed (and this is also me speaking as the author, mind, a whole separate entity) that this could and would be easily used against them.
Now, there was a certain use of this military force and tactics against minorities here at home, but outside of a few exceptions (in the 1990s) it wasn't used against whites on the edge of power [2]. So why would anything be different this time? Well the use of military force has (is) been directed against minorities, but more than ever I was certain that it would be turned against whites on the lower end too because their use to those up top seems to have run out. 
Again, this is me, the author speaking, and there's always an element of truth combined with hyperbole with that side of me, but I sense that I am right. Note the establishment's desire for certain people to just go away. Beautiful, isn't it? And as automation takes away these people's power (in terms of working) as well as directing it more easily at them, in terms of automated weaponized drones, won't we see vile labels launched at this "no longer useful" sector? 
In other words, too much power has been placed in certain hands and now we're faced with a need to take back that power before it's used against us citizens (more than it already has). [3] Hence the reason to raise the consciousness of the nation before it's too late. Hyperbole, possibly, but you should read the book, or listen to the audio book. Good work all of it. 



[1] Whites, usually. Social economic status. I'll stay away from words like white trash and rednecks as they have no place here.
[2] Perhaps for minorities it could be said to be used against any one trying to even stand up, whilst against whites it was used for those actually standing up to power. 

[3] History has plenty lessons on this matter. The Bolsheviks giving Stalin the power to torture, only to have that torture used against them, is one. In general such powers are rarely used for what they are claimed (to keep the population safe) but usually used to keep power and to keep the population in check. 
Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

In Which the NYTimes Proves its Idiocy

And now, with the specter of the Brussels Attacks hanging heavy over the land, we have the innocence of idiots in the form of wanting the days of pre 9-11 [1] . This is a comment coming from the readership of the NYTimes, and one wants to think it as a joke if not an attempt to rile up anyone with an inkling of history or who has stayed informed of the current events, but this is what we're stuck with—in terms of a canvas of people on which to try for a better world.

Fair enough—minimal nigger or sand-nigger human-interest stories allowed—but at least be up front about it. And when it is allowed, it is only done when aligned with our geo-political interests. Yes, yes, not an original view, this manufacturing of consent, but one would hope they were less obvious about it. This threatens to become as silly as Soviet era or Baghdadi Bob kinds of propaganda. 
Nevertheless, what the NYTimes tries its hardest to never do is a human interest story on victims of State terror, especially our own. Note how this plays into the public's—even the self-proclaimed literate ones who read NYTimes—perception of being under attack. Or even, as I heard in my last place of work after the Paris attacks "what did they ever do to them?" [4] But to those who are reacting to much worse than what these attacks ever add up to, they will never get human interest stories in the NYTimes, and if they do, never to a level that's even remotely equal. 
End rant. I will say again, that this book perfectly speaks to this phenomenon, just read that first page . What are your thoughts? On that note, here are some good points from Glenn Greenwald .





[1] This odd world view, in which all was fine before 9-11 is as narrow as they come. A little less inane than the one on the right section of our citizenry (you know, the one that has America always under attack from darkies of all stripes), but it's still childish. Also childish is the view that sees how we came together after 9-11 as some great moment, instead of a moment where many people decided to take advantage of that blank check written by the American people and take them for all they were worth.
[2] Among the dumber and more ruthless (in terms of trying to make hay out of this situation) of us, this "expansion" of the terror problem is a means by which we can spread state terror. 
[3] And if they are, it's with a better accounting of context—geo-politically and historically.
[4] Again, I don't know if this is temerity, this forced innocence of the world, or naivety. It does only allow for a specific narrative, doesn't it? Europe stands as a place of purity, the place with trains which we love to visit, and the barbarians are at the gate. 

Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

On Trump & Populism

I mentioned in a recent post that I'd kept abreast with the comment sections in conservative websites and this had, in turn, allowed me to be well-prepared when Trump's sustained rise happened. Of course, this isn't to say that I perfectly predicted it, just that I knew how much against an establishment candidate the people on the right were.

But it seems to have caught many people in the center off guard. The trouble with the mainstream media is that they still don't seem to get it [1]. Now, go ahead and read that article. It's done in a somewhat condescending way. In their eyes, the media never lies or makes mistakes and so the people's distrust of them is uncalled for and part of some sad heuristic [2]. But it's not. Sure those Trump supporters seem to be using a strong level of confirmation bias when seeing what Trump says, but they're not doing it to a greater level than other supporters of other candidates. 
I'm not saying there's some equivalency between the left and right, but I am saying that the reasons the media and the establishment are going against Trump doesn't seem so clear. Or doesn't seem to align with what they're saying in public. In the end it seems to be about Trump's belligerency more than anything [3], for the media. While the republican establishment seems shocked that everything they've been hinting at has been absorbed as true and now has morphed into something else. [4]
Again, this is no pro-Trump statement, but it is a statement that those in the media & establishment now trying to run against him seem smug [5] and do not understand anything about his rise: from the diversity behind its ideas to the people taking those ideas and morphing them to fit in with their reality and sense of selves (one that requires some egoism, I would imagine). What are your thoughts on the matter?

Update:  And Bill Maher has decided to speak about that which is the choice between Trump and Cruz and sided with Cruz because the Trump might be thin-skinned and a little more nutty. Sorry, I still don't see it. Basically the only hope is that Cruz might be lying? Perhaps I'm missing something


[1] Worse yet, they don't seem to get it in many ways (read that article, really), using all sorts of condescending words to describe the likes of Trump or his supporters. Even with John Oliver, ostensibly part of the smart of the media, the best that could be done was to try and call Trump Drumpf. I mean, is that serious? If Trump is as bad as they think, why not come up with something better than that?
[2] That they, the media, are not a part of and not susceptible to, magically. Again, if they were actually able to report things without a status quo tilt, this would make sense, but they can't. I've talked about this in length before, and others have done it with much more research: the media definitely has a tilt towards the status quo and only will discuss other matters when people are pissed off enough to protest about it. This has been true for issues important to the left. 
Now that the right picks some odd points and comes away with a sense of disenfranchisement is interesting to me (so are some of their out of the way conspiracy theories) as they seem to cherry pick a few matters that are dear to the left and twist them for their own reasons (i.e. add nationalism to it)
[3] With Trump, it's how he says it that matters. And the media doesn't appear to like how he says certain things. So he doesn't want to play that part of the dog and pony show. To me this appears infantile (Am I missing something?). Also some who would mock his speeches as word salads would do well to study them: they seem to be perfect with a repeat of his main points (I'm the best etc) and a few slogans stuck here and there. What more could be needed for this day and age. And his Twitter presence only goes to show how well that 70 year old is able to use new technology to his advantage (better than me, at least). 
[4] That analysis of the dog-whistle versus someone belligerently saying something has been bandied around. In the end, Trump's only differences so far is that he has pointed out that Iraq was a mistake and that he was willing to state that he would solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue by being neutral. Again, a matter of heuristics, but it could be that these are minor, but people see what they want and they see him willing to stand up for something, don't they?
[5] The use of the term white-trash, by those on the left and now those on the right is something to behold. I suppose it stems for a hate for your fellow man. I know that such people, the "white trash" probably have no time for someone like me (and some might use worse epithets against me and others), but it's abhorrent to be so condescending to other citizens. Yes, I know this opens me up to much criticism, but it appears to a complete lack of empathy again... no matter your views on other matters. 
Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

Le Carre and the Ultimate Spy Novel

I think of John Le Carre as one of the more interesting spy novel authors of our time. His early work, at least. I fully understand his anger with the international status quo of  today, but his current work seems all too invested in an outcome [1] as well as his apparent raging without saying anything new. [2]

And I mean hated. 
Though X's graffiti has the same political direction as his novels; both were text-based, but one earned X jail-time while the one with covers earned him money. And that X gave up the latter for the former, makes this a wholly unreal story. After all, he was 50 years old, what was he rebelling against? 
I had the luck to meet X in a dusty cafe in Jordan before his untimely demise [3]. I asked him that question: why give up on the novels? He paused, mumbled something about the dough of society, that spies in our midst stretched that dough, and if there were too many spies, among other pressures, that dough would be stretched beyond repair. It would fall apart.
I wasn't sure how that mattered. He replied that the novels were allowing such a world to thrive. I left soon after, angry that I'd spoken to him, that I'd broken the membrane between text and author—profaning both in the process. I put his madness down to too much success.
And yet the next day I bought his book of graffiti. It contained all his work. It was mainly simple slogans: die on feet, etc, etc but each letter was made of minute text of related short stories or mini pics. I was impressed. Nevertheless, that meeting stuck in my mind, and after his death I hoped that someone would write his biography for I wanted to know what really changed his outlook on life.
[1] Note that I'm aware this goes completely against my previous statement of knowing books without politics aren't possible, but bear with me. I suppose the complaint isn't about the politics in his current books but rather what one is able to represent.
[2] Again, I'm questioning tactics rather than politics. 
[3] That in itself was a tragedy of epic proportions: X soon had a warrant for his arrest with multiple international agencies hunting him down (known sedition artist, terrorist, they said... you know such organizations, never looking at the world's problems, only worried about made to look bad). He must have been scared, but no one expected what happened next: body parts were soon found next to his work. The agencies claimed this as proof that he was taking innocent hostages (though later it would come to light that they had known the entire time that it was his DNA, long after the media didn't care). He was found shortly thereafter dead from blood loss—yes those were his parts.  
Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing
Donate Bitcoins

Comments as Id

If you remember, I have a thing for Internet comments. But lately, I've been annoyed by comments sections everywhere. Even in reputable places there doesn't seem any way to get a proper discussion in place. If everyone agrees, all that occurs is a circle jerk, while if there's someone who raises a  good counter argument, they're dismissed as trolls. There is no solid way to get a good discussion going as most seem to devolve in one way or another (people never seem to get over definitions and thus start arguing past each other).

Well, not as places where discussions can lead to anything but they are still entertaining. Thing is, they seem more like the id of people, and in that sense they can provide a lot of context for the current zeitgeist of a particular group. Some of my friends were surprised by how Trump came and had staying power. But since I kept an eye on comment threads from conservative websites, I knew how strong the desire was to have someone who was anti-establishment and would say things similar to what Palin said before. 
That Trump has staying power speaks to how much he represents that id. Again, keeping an eye on the leftist blogs also helps to show the anger against the Clintons and the neo-liberal order (though this one isn't as strong as the conservative one, being that the conservatives have been out of power). If you look up Minerva and other DOD research, you'll see that most people know this. The Minerva research looks to certain societies to see if they can find some societal wrinkle online that speaks to that which happens on the streets. [3]
I do hope to see better comparisons in the future between what's said online versus what happens in the real world. Certainly, with all the trolling it can be distasteful, but I still contend that it represents the people's id. [4]


[1] And when it happens, since the comment is not meant for long form, it's still not good for refining certain points. 
[2] The Russian and Chinese governments purportedly do this, and now so does ours. They don't try to hide the fact and yet, online, they try to hide their identities. This should be troubling to anyone, that they're trying to influence discussions online. And, as I've said before, it also shows that comments still hold some value. 
[3] Odd stuff because one knows that this information is only used for oppression and not for actually solving the issues the people are angry about. If used that way, it could be very useful for a society's health. And yet governments want to influence that debate and thereby will kill that golden goose.

[4] As well as narrative. They do serve as a great place to collect stories. Any government trying to ruin that is surely spoiling that which is beautiful.
Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins