Cars, Libertarians and the Fracturing of the American Right

Transcript:

It's really great for the first time since before I even had the apartment all my fucking shit like my clothes Are in a drawers, and that's kind of cool Because I had that at the apartment, but I never used the drawers Because I was never there because I Eight days in was no longer staying there for the most part, but Anyway But yeah, my car completely fucking broke Room, so it was actually really lucky Sort of so the first time so it so I was driving to my dad's house, and I turned into the neighborhood and it And All of a sudden a fuck ton of smoke comes up and the or whatever it is the steam of the engine coolant comes up and From under the hood, and it's like okay. I'm turning into the neighborhood. That's really lucky and the Temperature gauge is going off. 

It's flashing red and blue and it's like Shit Luckily we were able to fix that but it was just like for the next two days It was just non-stop with that Like because what had happened was the upper radiator hose had Broke and so then Somehow within the time frame of that or something I don't know when it actually would have happened, but um The Whatever it was it caused the engine to expand and the coolant and then the engine coolant and the oil in the car somehow mixed together, which they're not supposed to and Long story short the car is unrepairable Well, it's not that it's unrepairable. It's just worth about $13,000 to repair in total and I Could you know like I might have other shit to pay but like a whole Like I could get a car for less maintenance off of Facebook marketplace for about 4,000 Which like yeah, that's two three months of saving up, but that's better than Not but you know then Going to a Libertarian Party conference and Over Valentine's weekend because I got invited to do that and I was like, you know, hey, that's a great idea. I'll do that Thanks David For that so I'm gonna go to that we're gonna get I'm gonna get interviews with some Libertarians Um Hopefully Karlyn Borysenko there maybe I don't know she's really goes to Libertarian shit, that'd be cool to Interview her But you know, it's like You know, I'm just gonna go to that get some interviews in February cuz that's about when I'm gonna be able to travel next. 

I mean I could Now but I don't really want to fly because planes are looking like shit, it's in San Diego, which is only an eight-hour drive, but I don't have a car. I mean I could get a car by then but You know Right now and everything flying is shit Why that is I'm not entirely sure I see people blaming Trump, but that's beyond my understanding so I have no idea If you want to if people are gonna blame Trump, maybe it is his fault I don't know. I don't like for as much as damage as he can do It's like, you know for as much damage as the president can do for better or worse It's like, you know, these things operate not solely on his accord like he might have an ego and might as right style sort of Authoritative bent to him, but you know, it's like, you know, it's blaming leaders like is so fucking stupid like you know like it's It's an entire fucking country and yes, he's the figurehead but this is a giant country I don't think one person runs that and it's very clear. 

Not one single person does hence the Foreign lobby running a lot of things and messing with a lot of things And it's like, you know, there's too much blame placed on leaders and stuff Like, you know, it's like if you even want to call them that because I know most like, you know No people even it's actually really interesting. There's a there's an active fracturing and the right and It's about to get really major because it's a complete break between like the old old View of things which is characterized by a post-world war two Mentality versus the new right as it's called which is Not very for that because it's a completely fucking different time and It's like, you know I'm not on the new right, but I can certainly fucking see why someone would be and why it's attractive because it very much is the new right like it might be rooted in Christian tradition, but It is Not at all what you know the typical Republican has been or you know this whole idea. It's like, you know, like in fact, it's super interest Like it's like, you know, it's like people want to call Nick Fuentes a neo-nazi or something. 

Like, he's, like no No, it's not neo-nazism. There's a very very clear separation between something like James Mason's siege or Nick Fuentes Admiration for Stalin and Hitler, you know, James Mason is an ardent neo-nazi his idea Drastically differs from Nick Fuentes America first America first is solely America first fascist yeah, you can say it's fascist because it's insular and it's you know, not it's it's the state for the state, but You know if you want to use that but it's also not fascist because it's completely against the corporation's controlling things it's completely against you know, the these like these Systems and control the same as left is it's not like there's gonna be a it's really interesting how this is gonna play out because There's too many people focused on right now but the future of this stuff is gonna like what's like the future is what is Interesting like like I like That the right and this is focusing on more and it's like because I agree with them on a lot and it's like I'm not On the right. I'm not on the left. 

But you know, that's neither here nor there, but it's like it is it's gonna be really interesting because I don't think that the right the new right and the Left are all that dissimilar because they aren't you know overall, you know the While ideologically speaking Yeah, they differ drastically in Implementation what their vision for the future would pertain to but In terms of what they're talking about You know being against, you know the interests of Israel in America being against, you know corporations Controlling things and profit over, you know people it's you know, it's not It's not mutually exclusive it's not like those two things couldn't work out but you know and it's gonna be really interesting to see especially especially because you know, it's happening in real time, you know, because you know people are commenting at all on it all the time, but You know, there's gonna be this major shift in the right and it's gonna be really interesting regardless of your opinion or persuasion on it and it's Happening and I think it's best to get You know to focus on the future of these things because you know, this is the pitfall of the left they are too focused on right now with Trump and They're like and there's a stupid fucking thing that Gavin Newsom is gonna do something Gavin Newsom is Trump in a blue MAGA hat He is not this fucking Answer or whatever, you know, like if you know, it's like people, you know, it's If you want if you want if they want to if both Republicans and Democrats want to completely alienate people Yeah, they'll either run Democrats will either run Kamala Harris again or Newsome or maybe even the guy that just became mayor of New York. I can see that as a possibility to maybe in 2028 if he gets enough traction, but I don't see that happening, but or and the Republicans are either gonna Figure out how to run Trump a third time JD Vance or Someone else Not sure who but You know Democrats are scared to death of Trump never Leaving office and it's like okay. Well the guy's fucking 79 and bet and he's not gonna be here Like he'll die within the majority of our lifetimes But You know Too much is focused Like as much as I love the here and now too much is focused on the here and now and you know it really abstracts from the future of all this stuff because that's really what I want to know about because No one's talking about the fucking future and that's why the new right is gaining traction it's because no one's considering the fucking future and Like yeah It is attractive because they consider the future and I don't disagree with them on a lot of things And you know it's like I also do but you just have to have fucking nuance and consider the fucking future I guess…

Full Video:

The Last Hominid’s Inheritance Of Extinction

That in the time of our being on this planet similar entities have come and gone, just as swiftly as we inevitably will in the grand scheme of things (given there’s no concrete evidence for or against an afterlife, this is the given assumption), is terrifying to us. 

Humanity evolved among differing groups of like-hominid creatures, most of which have since died out. What remains is us and non homo-genus species of primates. Similar bone structure and very close genetic coding aside, the difference is clear. Humans can tell an ape from a human as well as a chimp can a gorilla and a woman. Recognition is gut instinct. 

The road to understanding just how our species came along continues to this day. All the time gaps in the lineages are narrowed; and the observable adaptations and variations of animals over time and place through natural and eugenical means are constant. 

In a sense we probably study the traces of extinct lineages because we fear our own. Mortality Salience, as described by Terror Management Theory (TMT), goes to purport that given our conscious development we have an awareness of extinction as a possibility beyond the base biological prerogative of self-preservation. We fear death. 

We also fear things that liminally resemble human beings. The Uncanny Valley— now more prevalent as a concept as a result of the internet horror communities fascination with the aesthetics and developments in the field of AI in recent year— is the hypothesis grappling with that thought. Why things that appear human, but are clearly not; even if looking at it unnerves people makes sense, aesthetically at least on face value. Like attracts like, until there’s something amiss but you can’t quite place what. Think of a corpse at an open casket funeral. 

Throughout our cognitive existence, we have created many explanations for that occurrence in the scheme of the universe. Most have fallen into myths of antiquity and anthropological study, folklore, even reinterpretation to match up to modern understanding of the natural world. Currently, even while sitting on a flimsy scale, Darwin’s dice and Creationism sit at relative agreement. 

Myths surrounding the origin of not only our species, but the subsequent world and living existence as a whole; arose from our development asking two simple, fundamental one-word questions: How? Why? 

How is being filled in quite regularly and consistently now, there’s overall supporting evidence for the concepts currently known. Such actually goes to explain the Why. 

Coinciding with tales of the topic, are usually a form of a promised finishing point. For everybody. Everything. By our innate imperative towards neglecting thoughts, as TMT posits, around our own death, these myths take a more contextual and natural form. Alchemically, creation stories tended to dictate both the start and of everything and inevitable collapsing moments, with a usual promise of new continued existence thereafter. 

With that, our fear of death was able to be bypassed, and made simultaneously front and center as a societal understanding. 

Unlike other hominid species such as Neanderthals or Homo-Floresiensis, Homo-sapiens survived. However, with the advent of most relevant Creationism coming about in the last 2,000 years or so with the Abrahamic faiths taking hold, the model was set. Though not as prevalent due to a large amount of general Biblical literalism being negated in favor of synthesizing reinterpretations of Genesis to the modern understanding of evolutionary process and archaeology, it is not as commonplace the concept of a six to ten thousand year old ‘young earth’. 

There is a habit of either backtracking or whole negation in some cases. Ken Ham and his massive Ark exhibition being a poignant example. The closing gap in general base perspective, the debate between Creationism and evolution is rather irrelevant here (and overall done to death to a counterproductive conclusion all around at this point), aside the motives behind understanding the impulse. Permeating it, is human grandiosity around our cognitive development and resulting technological advancements in civilization, a touch of the Uncanny Valley and to tie it all together, Terror Management. 

Not-quite-homo-sapiens we inhabited lands with going the way of the dinosaurs reminds us we are mortal. If they could go extinct with the only ones to remember us, being us (as far as we know), so could we. Humans want to live on after death in some way or another. 

In the end, extinction is inevitable; not a positive or a negative just a natural inheritance. 

The Future of Occultism, An Interview with ChaosInvictus

 This conversation explores the future of occultism as part of a bit of a project/projects I’m working on, with commentator ChaosInvictus arguing that the practice is collapsing due to a modern overemphasis on "Unverified Personal Gnosis" (UPG). This focus on subjective, individual experience is causing practitioners to discard thousands of years of tradition, leading to a break in continuity. ChaosInvictus argues this will dilute occultism into unresearched, contradictory "hearsay" , unlike historical occultism which, while flawed, was at least built upon deep analysis and established frameworks. 

How do you see the future of Occultism, be it philosophically or socially or any way, just the future in regards to that word, going?

It's gonna shift more towards new agey stuff and focus on UPG to the point that connectivity within the community will almost become impossible or stagnant. 

UPG?

Unverified personal gnosis. It's essentially your own experiences with certain entities or rituals— if I meditate on demon named X and while meditating, I discover he likes blueberries, this is UPG.

You can't verify it, and some other guy might discover in their experience that X actually hates blueberries. 

So there’s an overemphasis on personal experience, in some way?

People nowadays only focus on the personal experience. 

When debating occultists, I might bring up a quote from a random ancient text talking about a certain demon, and they’ll go, "This isn't necessarily factual, I saw Bimbo Looney in my visions and they were like this instead…” It's similar to Christians who say they only need the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible. 

Is there a way to discern fact with metaphysical abstracts or is it more for consistency in understanding?

There is no such thing as actual facts when it comes to the supernatural realm. But, when you have 3000 years of tradition explaining something, you can't really just throw it away and say that it's worthless.

Lilith has been understood as a child killer in the last 4000 years, you can't just say that she doesn't actually do that and turn her into a feminist icon because her whole premise is about killing children. 

That doesn't mean that you didn't have multiple traditions in the ancient times, but the way things were back then and how occultists operate are fundamentally different. 

Given that difference does it make sense to hold to traditions or can things be revamped or changed to people’s fancy? Would doing so conflict with history or can the progression be shown?

Progression exists within the traditions themselves. And people are free to reinterpret things, even get inspiration from other traditions, leading to syncretism. But things like that should be done attentively and being mindful to not read things that aren't there. As in: doing actual analysis on things. 

I myself practice Jewish mysticism and I have very drastic reinterpretation of certain concepts while still working within a jewish framework, and I have 0 UPG experience. 

Do you think UPG could be real experience or just psychological manifestation?

The latter. Even if it is real the human psyche heavily distorts it. 

How does this intense focus on individual experiences cause issue for the future of occultism? Is it just that it’s so unverifiable? That it breaks tradition too much without regard to the past?

The second part. It's too far from actual tradition you may as well be talking about something else— there’s no continuity. It just breaks in the middle and then terms and names get coopted without any understanding of their roots. 

Occultists aren't doing deep interpretations and analysis like ancient occultists did. It's nowhere near close to for example, Christians mixing Christianity with Egyptian mysticism in the 1500's. 

And modern occultists don't do much research. Like, the Goetia is such an important thing in modern demonology— 90% of modern demonology relies on it— and yet the Goetia is a satirical work. 

Occultism was at its peak in the late middle ages in both Christian and Muslim world. 

And it's not that I am gatekeeping, but Occultism is like Science. 

So, has more modern occultism sort of diluted things in a way with the emphasis on extreme individualism?

Individual experience, yes. 

Will that model collapse on itself or completely ruin occultism?

That's what I think. 

Does anything come out of or survive that?

Essentially "occultism" will just become a thing based on  hearsay and random Internet posts, not actual studies of things. 

[But] I am not sure, the only thing that comes to mind is sharing your UPG behind a paywall, which is somewhat a thing already. 

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying UPG is necessarily a bad thing, in fact I encourage the practice of UPG. But people should know that you can't just have UPG carry everything. 

If we wanna use the term anachronistically, a lot of occultism comes from UPG, but it has many layers alongside it built upon previous traditions and ideas. 

Is this all that different from historical occultism though? It seems like in the past much was done in certain orders like say the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Templars or with more modern forms like Theosophy, TOPY or even the Temple of Set. With the paywall it’s somewhat akin to the Church of Satan in that regard.

Yeah, but when it comes to groups, it is underestimated because it's occult knowledge; as in hidden. The whole point of occultism and mysticism is that it is secret and hence not everyone is allowed to partake in them, unless you follow a certain way of living. Obviously some tried to democratise it and make it widespread… To practice occultism back in the day, you had to be pretty well versed in the different religions and ideas, obviously what you said didn't necessarily need to be true but at least you were working with something. What Eliphas Levi says in his books sometimes makes absolutely 0 fucking sense but at least he has well developed tractates and ideas. And as much as I hate Thelema, it is still occultism although more modern form of it. But I can't blame Eliphas and Crowley for their misinformation because they based their ideas on already faulty sources… Okay maybe I can in certain parts but other parts I can't. 

The more widespread form of Occultism nowadays doesn't base itself upon anything. And with the heavy emphasis on UPG, no one is right but also no one is wrong. If we both work with the same demon and each one of us have completely different experiences, what is it? Which one is correct? Me? You? Both? Or none?

But, if we have a text/texts associating this demon with lust…

So it’s the consistency of it that matters? Say that occultism does collapse into itself, by standards of occult ideas, at least with the term Solve Et Coagula, shouldn’t this lend to something newer in makeup? I’ll refer to this quote from Ted Kaczynski since it’s poignant in this, that, “you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.” 

Sort of like Dune: at first it’s a bunch of scattered pieces of syncretism mashed together every which way like an all you can eat buffet, but in that it eventually levels out and develops into new systems. While not exactly in mirror or in the same meaning of the historical tradition, there is the vague memory at the least still. But it evolved. 

Consistency is the only way to evaluate personal experience with traditions; when it's overreliance on personal experience without actually looking into traditions of some sort, there is no real memory. 

New systems have developed within traditions themselves. It’s natural. But you can at least trace back their ideas be in actuality or in potential to something,  hence how they pass their ideas as credible or having always been there. 

The average demonolater will mention the Qliphoth, for example, and how they read a book written by some occultist on their experience with the Qliphoth, but you read the book and the guy has literally 0 understanding of what Qliphoth actually are in Kabbalah. 

I don't mind reinterpretations, syncretism or any of that, but at least have a basic understanding of the system. 

Does it even matter if Occultism has a future?

No, because 90% of people who use occultism are just larpers, people coping or have mental illness. 

And those necessarily discount it all? Is that the broader landscape of the occult or just the segment that gets seen as a result of their attention seeking behavior, no thanks to the internet.

I think the entirety of occultism has become like this. 

Those who actually seek occultism wisdom, will look back into the past because that's where it resides. Or maybe current religious traditions— where people don't consider it occultism. 

The Internet is a massive place and I only have found two occultists that I am genuinely reading their books and learning stuff from them. One is a guy who while inventing his own rituals, gives a lengthy historical analysis to the subjects he is discussing and when he adds something from his own, he states it clearly that this is his personal interpretation and shouldn't be taken as fact. The other is a legitimate member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. 

Will the idea of the occult at least continue even if in a broader sense it doesn’t mean much, if anything?

Yes. 

End of Interview.

Interview With Sheik, A Rave Organizer

Listen to the full interview here.

What did you say your name was?

My name is Sheik, like the shoe store back in the day.

And you’ve been doing it [raves] for 40 years?

I've been doing the scene for about 40 years. I go all the way back to the house— like back in the day with house music— which turned into techno.

What's the progression from then to now?

This right here.

Like in between it… 

In between it was just straight techno. It went house, techno, to right now’s just straight beats. You transition to certain beats… I’m kind of biased because it’s easier to do digital than vinyl. Vinyl you have to know ‘here you’re gonna put it on’ and you gotta know what the problem is you’re looking for. You have to judge a crowd. Back in the day if you could mix hip hop and old school punk rock, it’s like, you the shit… House music and techno, it used to be bands. It was like underground, you were like yeah it’s a band.

Has the atmosphere inside of them like changed over time by that?

It has but it hasn’t; because now it's more mainstream now. Like back in days [a] DJ wasn’t making a hundred dollars. Now, they make whatever the door makes. Now they can make up to a million dollars. Especially if you go to Vegas… they can easily just show up. It’s a good DJ thing, to do in Las Vegas.

How does like somewhere like here with this compare to say like Las Vegas?

Actually, it’s more open. Everybody’s more open to each other. Vegas is like, concluded. If you’re not in the ‘it’ crowd or if you don’t know this person, you know there’s trouble. It's totally different though, you know, you have a lot more younger into it. Everybody’s themselves; no matter what your gender is, what you’re associating with. That’s basically how everybody is.

This is the future of this country, you know, nobody wants to admit it.

One thing with Tucson; Tucson is more open and more liberal to this than Phoenix. Phoenix is still, like, underground. It’s like, here and there but it’s not like, open. Here it’s like nobody cares.

Do you think that it could possibly dilute it by being less underground and more mainstream?

To a point yes and to a point no. Somebody is— it’s always like youngsters like you guys coming up with something different. Coming up with something like this. Coming up with something totally accepting.

How would here compare to say, Chicago?

Oh Chicago… it’s wow! Chicago, New Orleans they play more like a blues mix but it’s, it’s biiig. There, everybody getting funky… Like I was telling… Tucson, it’s more open minded. Phoenix is closed minded. Vegas is all about money; money as long as, you know, they can pack. Here, we like, everybody’s having fun […] in other settings, you know, we have classes…

So, this is what you think the future is?

No, this is the future. Simple. Yeah it is. I remember like back in the day like say 15 years ago at a rave, everybody’s having fun. We’re not stopping till like, 10:00 on a Monday, have like 30 DJ’s coming in…

Does it come in cycles, with like people’s ages and stuff?

Yeah it comes in cycles. But one thing is, this group never dies.

How does the U.S. differ from Europe?

In Europe, it’s more acceptable… It originally started in New York, then it moved over there because it went underground. Everybody went like, fuck house music, it went back to techno then everybody said fuck, this you either you're with us or hip. They said you went hip hop. You can’t have hip hop without techno or house. They go in, they’re all underground. But they’re all expressing theirselves. You know, you come in with your own different swag. That’s what it’s all about. Create your own swag and shit. Being yourself. You can’t be yourself without it.

But the biggest scene though, believe it or not, in Florida. Miami. It’s like, rated right there with ten to thirty thousand people just rocking it out, having fun… 

It’s rare you see a fight that needs establishment. Normally when you do see it, it’s an outsider that don’t understand the people. They don’t understand the environment. That’s the sad part about it, though. When idiots come in and fuck it up for everybody. That’s not what it is, it’s not supposed to be. It’s supposed to be accepting. Everybody, you know gets tired of work [then just] have fun and you know, do whatever.

End of Interview. 

Is There A Link Here?

 The Telepathy Tapes is a program online positing the extra sensory perceptions of non-speaking individuals with Apraxia. The group running it actively travels to find parents and people willing to relay their experiences and test the possibilities. In that they present their own tests and evidence to the idea. To say it’s hard not to be convinced would be a lie, it is quite clear there is something going on. What it is overall I’m not entirely sure. It could be supernatural, it could be a result of vibing on the same frequency as others. 

The endeavor takes heart what Nikola Tesla posited, studying non-physical phenomena for the sake of progress. Whether now is a decade of coming advancement with that is up to societal agreement however. 

The platform is biased towards the idea, fairly. For, well, ever non-speaking people without full bodily control generally are not afforded as much depth a person can have. When the body fails, the mind makes up for it. 

Not claiming overall occurrence, what is shown and given are a series of active case studies on the phenomenon where it appears to happen. 

But, what I want to know personally, is about ‘the Hill’. 

According to those in the tapes, there is this sort of point of convergence in the mental plane. In other words, it’s like a hub of astral projected people. Through this Hill, non-speakers are apparently able to communicate unrestrained by anything. Through this, these individuals are able to learn incredible amounts that they really couldn’t by purely naturally understood means. They are quite obviously wickedly knowledgeable on a multitude of levels, as can be heard on the tapes. 

While the tapes do wonders in explaining, I have to ask. What exactly is the hill? Is it actually a thing? If it is, how can it be qualified? Accessed? Should it be? Can the broader body of people have that sort of access? Should they?

Ego Death

“Row row row your boat gently down the stream;

 Merrily,

 Merrily,

 Merrily,

 Life is but a dream.”

—Nursery rhyme

“I must insist on being a pessimist/ I’m a loner in a catastrophic mind”

— Green Day, ‘Armatage Shanks’

Genetics load the gun and environment pulls the trigger; is a fanciful phrase for the argument between nature and nurture synthesized into its working components. It goes to explain, in simple analogy, that people’s nature is understood and acted upon by their nurtured habits. Another way of putting this issue into an understandable description is it’s free will vs. instinct. 

Will is based on instinct; people’s instincts direct their will. Typically, these surround base needs— or at the very least can be traced from a few innate traits, the three f’s. Feasting, fighting and fucking. These drives all originate in one simple prerogative found in any living species: survival. Self-preservation. The denial of death.

Homo sapiens are the only species which shows a distinct and notable capacity for suicide. Well, sort of. To say that behavior that can be likened to self-destructive in primates and other species isn’t observed would be untrue. However such instances are most, if not in every case from domestic, caged environments. That, “most experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest,” noted Emma Goldman, then connecting that, “With human nature caged in a narrow space, how can anyone speak of it today […] wounded and maimed?” 

That the human species is a caged creature, is unarguable. On some level it’s an open unconscious secret: the word ‘civil’—as in civilization— comes from Sanskrit and Celtic meaning ‘to have fallen’. Like any caged animal, we are not in our own element as totally as we could or should be. In that, some instincts that are constant on some level thrive throughout species and setting. Constants that confirm condition. Underlying it all is the tendency towards personal preservation. So, why do some people kill themselves?

The development of self-awareness was an instrumental as well as monumental evolution in consciousness. No other species we observe contains such a capacity, however in that comes the knowledge of our own mortality. “This awareness of death is the downside of human intellect. If you think about this for a moment, death awareness presents each of us with an appalling predicament; it even feels like a cosmic joke. On one hand, we share the intense desire for continued existence common to all living things; on the other, we are smart enough to recognize the futility of this fundamental quest. We pay a heavy price for being self-conscious.” The majority of our thoughts and actions as a result of this are done in order to avoid thought about dying. Death discomforts on a simple biological imperative. 

To objectively lay out why people kill themselves is impossible. We only have ourselves for comparison. With that, we have the ones that do end up ending their own life. Survivors even report a fight for life during an attempt; though others sometimes still succumb to the impulse even if they live through one. 

People are catastrophic daydreamers. There is a consistency of being ‘trapped in one’s own head’ when it comes to suicide. That would on some level explain why even if in the process of attempting suicide, most have to be out of their own heads via chemical means in spite of feelings. The denial of death is constant, even if in the enactment of dying. In fact, much of the time, people who commit suicide (by their own implications) tend to believe in some sort of continued detached existence thereafter. It’s escaping a perceived nightmare for nothing; a complete break from everything. 

Though, to call it a dream is rather a misnomer. It’s escape from a dream one is often too awake for. To these people, it’s to not live a life of behind the living dead. 

Environment influences how one lives according to their instincts. Some people merely go through preprogrammed motions and thoughts for some 60-80 years then kick the bucket. Take that how you will, but such is applicable in a multitude of ways be it regular schedules and cycles in life that come about regardless; or generational abuse and trauma and soul-sucking stagnation of some sort. Something in this life cycle which has an impact on the individual’s sense of self esteem, as that is, “what protects people from their deepest fears,” and, “they will do just about anything to get it. The pursuit of self-esteem is a driving force behind just about everything people want in life.” Even wanting to die. 

Long story short, it’s ego fulfillment. Environment affects ego, naturally. While, “many of us will fight to preserve our self preservation in the same way that worms or bats will fight to stay alive […] because self esteem is our symbolic protection against death.” But for the suicidal, it is the symbolic protection of death that gives self-esteem, comfort. It’s an escape; a release. No one is more cheerful than someone about to die on their own terms after living mechanically for so long— just remember the smile. You won’t forget it. 

So, So, So Celebritarian

“If you die when there's no one watching/ Then your ratings drop and your forgotten/ If they kill you on their T.V./ You're a martyr and a lamb of God…”

—Marilyn Manson, ‘Lamb Of God’

The day before the 24th anniversary of 9/11, political podcaster Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck before an audience whilst debating with a member. Instantly the footage of the pundit’s neck opening up went viral. Confusion still surrounding it even now almost two months later.

Now, reasoning behind the event is really irrelevant here. What is made apparent in this, is that the world is Celebritarian; killers and killed both recorded in history so long as they have an audience for their performance. 

Prior to Tyler Robinson’s neck shot, there was both the killing of a CEO by Luigi Mangione; to serve as a partial point, recalling the name of the CEO is an issue. The killer as a result of his actions being broadcasted and what they were, became more important than who he murdered— whatever the why or wherefore. Along with that was the ear grazing attempt on Donald Trump during his 2024 reelection campaign. While it likely only aided in his victory a bit, the knick and idea of watching Trump almost die mid-speech made way for the current reaction to the death of Charlie Kirk. It’s terror management theory in real time.

Such encapsulates the concept of Celebritarianism, an idea, “about dying when everyone's watching; doing anything for fame. It's also about worshiping death in the media. The world knew about Harris and Klebold, the Columbine killers, half an hour after the tragedy. It's about how we give Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark David Chapman the status of celebrity by showing their masterpiece to the world…” 

In a social sense, at least based on what the internet shows in all this, Luigi Mangione can be likened to Chapman killing Lennon while Kirk’s assassination has been likened by some to MLK.