Announcement: my new PM policy.

[SkyNigger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nextlevelshit

Why bother with this shit ? What is your point? Is this "satire" supposed to be funny?

I already wrote about The Secret Life of Toddlers, in my story about CJ. I really do believe it's a story worth reading. I have tried to edit it as best I'm able and if you want to know about why people embrace fake identities and make-believe and fantasy personae, I dare say you'll find at least part of the answer in CJ's story.

The Secret Life of Slaves

Better Bar - "home of The Artists!"

For months in Manila, I kept hearing about these famous Artists; everyone kept talking them as if they were out on the town 24/7 but no one had pointed them out to me so I had no idea if I'd even seen them let alone been introduced to them. I'd ask about them whenever someone would mention them but I'd get blown off or waved away as if I were stupid (possible) or just being a jerk (not possible). People would act as if they thought I was mocking them or something but my inquiries were in earnest; it seemed as if everyone knew The Artists but I.

I didn't even know what kind of art they produced until I met CJ. CJ is short for Christina-Joy. There are a lot of trailer trash names in the Philippines but you couldn't call someone "trailer trash" in the Philippines because it wouldn't make any sense; only a tiny fraction of the population of that country will ever be able to afford a luxury like a trailer home.

Well, it is a Catholic country so...

So they're hard-pressed feeding themselves and their families every day (far too often, it's the other way around of course).

Well, it is a Catholic country and if you know nothing about religion then you need to understand; that's what children are for.



Hey dude, I don't make the rules. The Bible does. But it's time the rules changed because we're not doing ourselves any favours exploiting children, that's for damn sure. But hyphenated first names like Billy-Bob or Christina-Joy are kinda cute, if you think about it. What is it really but agreeing to disagree?

CJ is a tiny little girl (or "woman child", if you're religious) who is very agreeable on the eye, and she was booty calling me only every Tuesday night (or Wednesday 'morning') for a few months when I was in Manila. The reason she only ever called on Tuesday was because CJ was hiding a dark, shameful secret that she'd have died rather than 'fess up to. All her babies were dead. Why else would she try so valiantly (if ultimately, utterly redundantly) to keep her relatively recent C-section scars hidden from the guys she's having sex with?

The only other alternative is that the children are alive.

As she was a little too full of joy and in love with life to be the former mother of recently deceased young children, I presumed her children to be alive but simply classified information that she had decided I did not Need to Know about. So that was that. She just didn't want me to know that she was a mother. I'm not sure who she imagined she was fooling however, because I'm not sure anyone has ever managed to hide the scars of a C-section from someone they're having sex with, in all of human history.

I never did find out for certain; but when we first hooked up (at 4 am on a Wednesday morning) one of her first questions inquired after what I "normally" did on Tuesday evenings. I tried to think but I didn't really know, truth be told; so I just told her that I didn't have a set routine for Tuesdays. Of course the question itself warranted inquiry and with curiosity, I asked why she wanted to know my Tuesday routine.

As it turned out, she had no reason. How about that? That was her position and she was sticking to it. There was no reason - whatsoever - for her wanting to know what I normally did on Tuesday nights. She was just curious, is all; but for no reason in particular.

I snickered. People lie a lot but the thought has always struck me that if they didn't, they'd be a lot more impressive; if for no other reason than people suck at lying. Though I suppose, these things are relative.

And so every Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning for the next 2-3 months, CJ called at some point to ask me what I was doing. As it turned out, I did have a set routine. I'm a filthy liar as well; though I'd argue, never intentionally nor with malice. But lying is lying and I was lying to CJ. As it turned out, my Tuesday evening routine was Not Doing Anything. Then it became Fucking CJ. Well, that's not entirely true. It was still Not Doing Anything but I would take a 15 min break at some point to fuck CJ before returning to scheduled programming.

CJ, for her part, might only have been interested in sleeping with me for my FHM and Esquire magazines. She loved those magazines. I almost asked her why she didn't get a subscription before catching my stupid, thoughtless blurt in time. Obviously, she would have had her reasons and the vast majority of flippant questions asked of others in this world are entirely unnecessary. What was I hoping to achieve by asking the question? Did I think she wasn't subscribing to them because the idea had never occurred to her? It's really quite an offensive question, if you think about it. Clearly, she had her reasons for not paying for what gave her so much joy; one can only speculate as to what her reason/s might have been. They say Money cannot buy you happiness and that is true, but only indirectly or should I say, only directly? Money can buy happiness for others and you can back door into happiness by thinking outside the narcissistic bubble of ME ME ME.

It's the only way to be truly Selfish. YOU YOU YOU will be miserable if you only feel in terms of ME ME ME.

CJ's disadvantage was my advantage, but then I wasn't hoarding wealth from her to get to sleep with me. I wasn't using the magazines as leverage to get her to do something she didn't want to do. That's what the wealthy do. They hoard the cake from those who want cake and dole out the crumbs to whomever finds favour in their eyes or pleases them. I understand the sentiment but I think it's really dumb for a few reasons; primarily because I don't think you can hoard your way to happiness - it's a hijack and no one is fooled by your 'charity' - they're going to resent you for withholding the cake which leads into the other reason why I think it's a really dumb idea.



"Let them eat cake."

I'm not entirely sure why the ladies who said that have been vilified by history; when considered without the clouding of emotional smear, it sure sounds like she or they were telling the hoarders of cake how to save their necks. No doubt predominately focused on saving their own necks but when it comes to saving necks by getting the answer right, does it matter?

It didn't, as it turned out or at least, it never has. The hoarders of cake have always failed to heed the women who told them what they needed to do with their stockpiled cake and it matters little who said it first or who repeated it or who repeats after I've repeated it now because - for as long as there is hoarding - the answer will be the same.

Let Them Eat Cake.

They didn't. They don't. They won't. No one ever has. And so the heads have rolled into the bloody dustbin of our miserable history. They will roll for as long as there is hoarding for the purpose of hijacking the Without's into doing something they don't want to do for the With's.

The only thing we learn from history is how to lose our heads. Over. And over. And over again.

There is almost no one who truly believe racial apartheid benefits Society; but it's flabbergasting how many people on the wrong side of economic apartheid would take up arms against wealth redistribution (conducted for the betterment of the welfare of everyone). It's something to think about and if you think there's a right side to be on when it comes to any kind of apartheid, you're not especially bright at all. It would be stupid if you were hoarding a lot of cake; for those who are hoarding no cake at all, it's batshit insane.

In Manila, I was on the preferable side of the poverty line but if it were up to me, there wouldn't be any divisive lines or divided sides. Period. It's not in my best interests for there to be inequalities; I don't need to lord my fortunate birth over others but perhaps you do need to belittle others in order to feel big? I didn't need the magazines for CJ to want to sleep with me but perhaps you would need to pay girls to (pretend to) want to sleep with you? I'm not here to tell you what to do because I have no power and wouldn't want any; I'm here to make convincing cases for why people should act in their own best interests. I can categorically tell you that, much like every other girl (or boy) in all of living history, CJ would resent anyone who leveraged her into being a whore. Do that and you won't get CJ. She might marry you but you will not have CJ. You'll have mere married a (grossly inferior) version of CJ.

Treat humans like whores and whores are what you'll get. Leverage CJ into marrying you for your wealth and she might, but you'll have married a whore. I would never - ever - need (let alone want) to do that but perhaps you need to turn humans into whores?

In the eternal dispute over who or what is sane v insane, you can actually break it down very easily and solve the dispute once and for all. It's a question of need. Whomever needs less, wins. I have no need in a very needy world where people do a great many unpleasant things to each other not because they like unpleasantness (outside of Hollywood, who does?) but rather because they don't. No one likes chopping heads. They just don't want to be leveraged into doing things they don't want to do, like - for example - die from starvation.

But no one ever listens to what I have to say. One can't shake the feeling this is a leak that Society has. I have some intelligent things to say. Try not to get lost looking for them, mixed up as they are and camouflaged by other intelligent things which are being said.

But I would say nothing when CJ started reading those magazines; she loved those magazines and I was glad to provide them. She'd lie on my bed and aside from some soft giggling, I'd hear nothing for hours before a delighted shriek announced her imminent racing over to show me something entirely uninteresting but then these things are relative. I wouldn't fake interest in what I wasn't interested in because I don't think anyone would ever want such a thing so it's a little patronising and offensive; but I was interested in CJ so I'd engage her to discover why she found delight and joy in what I mostly felt was pretty generic and mundane. I would never belittle her capacity to find joy in something I couldn't; on the contrary, I was envious of her capacity in this regard. It's a matter of perception, really; and perception is perhaps the most relative of all subjective qualities.

One Tuesday evening, I didn't appear to have any magazines when CJ walked in - I think the maid threw them out or stole them or something (i.e. stole them, but I used to have a problem with thinking positive) - and I was 20-30% certain CJ was simply going to walk straight back out. She was not a happy camper. CJ really loved (her) magazines.

But CJ loves other things as well. She's a complex and layered girl; her idea of a swell time isn't limited to glossy magazines and disappointing sex. One Tuesday afternoon she called to ask me to take her to some specific club and I wasn't interested because it was far from Makati (the CBD) and I'd heard it was a dive but CJ wasn't taking "No" for an answer. Unfortunately for everyone who has ever tried, I am not one of those insane people who says "No" but really means "Yes". You know the type.

I'm unique in that I say what I mean and I mean what I say and when I say "No", you cannot twist my arm in order to get me to say "Yes" unless you're like really powerful or terrifying; in which case, I'll say whatever you want me to say however and for as long as you want me to say it. But under normal circumstances, when I say "No", what I mean is "No". It's amazing how everyone gets confused.

This is not to say I don't change my mind; I often do, but you'll need to bring in new evidence or increased incentives or rephrase your argument to make it sound more appealing. You need to improve the strength of your case to persuade; this is what it boils down to. You cannot simply repeat the rejected terms in a more persistent or whiny tone or - and you won't make this mistake twice - by simply DIALLING UP THE DECIBELS AS IF I WERE DEAF BECAUSE I HEARD YOU FINE THE FIRST TIME AND THAT WAS WHY I SAID "NO". No means no. I don't care what girls say.

Once I've said "No", you need to come up with something more or you have to let it go. I will be unmoved and everyone will be the worse for wear if you attempt to force me to do something I do not want to do. When people do this, it's terrifying how persistent they are. What I do whenever someone is trying to twist my arm is imagine I'm a frail, uncertain girl who has had a few drinks and a few items of clothes removed and I imagine they're trying to get me to have sex with them when I've said "No". When you look at it that way, you really start to understand how often girls must get raped. The fact that they submit at the moment of rape doesn't really change the fact that they said "No" and were struggling to communicate the fact that No means No to whomever wasn't getting it, and only stopped struggling when it became apparent they were going to get raped one way or the other.

When it comes to girls and rape, I think their overall strategy might be something like "We can do this the easy way or we don't have to do it." The idea that there is heroism in fighting redundant fights is really more of one of your mother's insanities, truth be told. In reality (where you live), you can resist or you can submit and girls who submit aren't making the mistake you imagine. Survival ain't as black and white as it should be.

It's unfathomable how many people will attempt to rape their friends by twisting their arms to get them to do something they don't want to do; it's almost as if they imagine they Know Best. That's the hallmark of a sociopath, you know? It's a dead give away; only sociopaths Know Best.

CJ was not an arm-twister because, in reality, everyone would always want to do what CJ wanted to do and perhaps, in hindsight, this might have been why she wanted to do very little with me. But realising she would need to be more persuasive if she was to get me to take her to this specific club, CJ whispered conspiratorially (for effect, I guess; if my phones are tapped, it would be news to me and if they're tapped they would hear whispered conversation anyway), "You know, they say you can meet The Artists there."

I had been about to fake a disconnection and the right way to fake a disconnection when talking to someone on the phone is simply to hang up when you're in the middle of making an emphatic point, and then you turn off your phone. Simple. I've been hanging up on people for over a decade with that trick and never once have I raised any suspicions. There was no chance of my pulling that trick once CJ mentioned The Artists; suddenly, she had my full attention.

I yelled out excitedly, "WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE MYSTERIOUS ARTISTS I KEEP HEARING ABOUT?"

To my surprise, CJ wasn't able to tell me. Not exactly. Confused, I allowed CJ to steer the conversation onto less important things (which is to say, I let her ramble on speaker-phone whilst I gave something else the vast majority of my divided attention). I semi-consciously scanned her incessant babbling for bits of information but for the most part, it was just standard meaningless babble. Almost childlike, which made me gulp on more than one occasion because CJ might have been 35 kg? She might have been less. She was a tiny little girl with children though and I'd have to remind myself of that when her childlike chatter matched her childlike frame and the entire thing suddenly took on an Amber hue.

As I scanned her babbling for items of interest, I noted she was irrationally thrilled about a new dress she'd purchased on account of its prestige (or heritage, depending on which way you look at it I suppose and personally, I'd look at it as second-hand or pre-loved or used). I don't really get how people attach inflated value to things which may or may not have been indirectly linked to someone famous (or infamous); like (for example) their biological children.

This grizzly, bloodied, insane world has got to get away from insanity like the constructs of heritage and hereditary title and property rights; everything needs to move away from illogical and unjustifiable 'entitlement' so that everyone can benefit. It's collective v exclusive and in trying to exclude the world, humans did something unfathomable. They succeeded.

But we need to abolish the filthy insanity that is the sociopath lie of exclusive love and turn away from all intangibles in order to embrace what is real; our surreal reality. We need to return to arguments that can be defended using logic a little stronger than "It's mine so I can do what I want with it."

How is that supposed to make sense?

You cannot destroy what has collective value just because a piece of paper says it belongs to you, like (for example) your children. Nothing belongs to anyone but everything belongs to everyone and things should belong to whomever can make a logical case for best use (it goes without saying that use will need to be sustainable; we cannot use up the world and then discard it for another one because we only have the one). When you die, what right do the biological children of hoarders have to what was hoarded? The land a standing army can simply take and reassign? No one has any exclusive right to property. Throughout all of (known) history, standing armies have done exactly that with land. It is simply taken from its rightful owners and parcelled out. We might as well take it from its wrongful owners and reassign it for the benefit of the collective. Property rights are a (really dumb) Confidence trick; they're as valid as they can be imagined to be and if your imagination doesn't include a standing army or friends in the judiciary or legislature defending your property 'right', then lol @ you and lol @ their property. It'll be 'yours' if you want to pretend that it is; but it will never be yours in a world where power takes what it has no right to by virtue of having (invariably, merely illusory) might.

A Confidence trick is simply a bluff and when it comes to Confidence tricks, you're all getting steamrolled.

And it's embarrassing at how easily they run over the top of you weak-tight faggots.