Reprint on cultural dominance

Linked this 2017 piece in previous item. Worth a reprint if only because it’s smarter than anything I can write now.

= = = = = START REPRINT:

A couple days ago I tossed in a techy sidenote on UNARY VARIABLES, just as a random pointless pun:

ANTI-WAR is the key. Left and right, liberal and conservative, had some meaning in earlier centuries, but since 1946 there is only one variable. Globalist vs non-globalist. In other words, Graybill’s law is recursive. It not only narrows skills and resources down to one skill and one resource, it eliminates all laws except Graybill and all variables except globalism, which is a unary variable. Binary variables have two values, True and False. Globalism has only one value, True. Any country or person or organization that attempts to set Globalism to False immediately ceases to exist.

This is, of course, Orwell’s BIG POINT in his essay on Newthink and Newspeak.

It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods.

Orwell wasn’t a tech nerd, so he assumed that the job could be done by dictionaries. It’s not that simple, and now that the job is well underway we can see that it’s not being done by dictionaries.

Earlier branches of Die-Versitarians also assumed that dictionaries would do the job, merging waiter and waitress to waitperson, changing busboy and usher to busperson and ushperson. It didn’t work, and those words have faded out except in hopelessly demonic places like NYC.

Vocabulary doesn’t control thinking. When you look at a variety of languages, you see a strong NEGATIVE correlation between gendered words and gendered culture. People who are firmly grounded in the facts of Nature and Natural Law (eg Indonesians and Persians) USUALLY have a language that doesn’t represent gender in its forms and words, often lacking separate pronouns for He and She. People who are totally wacked-out delusional (eg Scandinavians) USUALLY have a language that forces every single word about people into male and female forms. The latter lunatics try to remove their forms, but the removal is both unnecessary and useless. Unnecessary because they already lost their minds WHILE using specific gender forms. If they stopped to think about that, they would realize that the forms are NOT the driving variable, so neutral forms are useless.

= = = = =

The modern Newspeakers understand that SYMBOLS ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN WORDS, because symbols short-circuit the logical modules of the brain.

When I see a house displaying a Rainbow flag I get irked. This is, of course, the purpose of displaying the flag. Heretics know that government at all levels is Rainbow and will defend the Rainbow. Heretics know that any attempt to display the opposite will be met with lethal force.

Aha! But what is the opposite?

There isn’t an opposite. That’s the point.

Unary variable.

If the Rainbow irks you, you cannot display a countersymbol because COUNTERSYMBOLS DO NOT EXIST. You cannot respond at the level of symbols and speech, therefore “freedom of speech” is a NULL variable, a pointer that points nowhere. You either have to swallow your irkitude or express it violently. The latter is what the Persons Of Spectrality WANT you to do, so the only SURVIVABLE rebellion is to ignore the whole thing and MAKE SOMETHING USEFUL. Increasing the order of the universe is the best answer to a symbol that increases chaos.

= = = = =

If I wanted to get subtle, I’d display a non-interventionist flag. Subtlety is lost on Persons Of Spectrality, so I won’t waste the effort.

Non-interventionist flags were fairly common before Globalism became the unary variable in 1946. For instance, I could display Okla’s flag,

which was described thusly:

Oklahoma’s state flag portrays an Osage warrior’s circular buskin shield from which hang several eagle feathers.

Across the shield is the Indian’s calumet or pipe of peace, crossed with the white man’s symbol of peace, the olive branch. On the flag are small crosses, the Indian’s graphic sign for stars, indicating lofty ideals or purposeful high endeavors. The background of the flag is a field of blue, the Oklahoma sky, signifying loyalty and devotion. But the predominant symbols are the calumet and olive branch. These override the shield, the symbol of war, and speak of a predominant love of peace by the united peoples.

Almost every word in this paragraph is


The crimiest part of all is LOVE OF PEACE BY THE UNITED PEOPLES. A non-interventionist flag, signifying an attempt to work together.

When you look at real Okla history, the modern myth is even MORE wrong than you might think. The Osage had been the imperial power in the middle part of the continent for a few centuries. Their empire was brought down by other tribes BEFORE the Euros invaded that part of the country, and the Osage were pushed down into a small area BEFORE the Euro tribe started pushing the other tribes around. Since 1889 the dominant power in Okla has been the Cherokee, expert slaveowners who brought their slaves with them on the Trail of Tears. When the Hillbilly tribe (who were NOT slaveowners) moved in from Tennessee, the Cherokee remained dominant because they’re smarter than the Hillbilly.

So the use of the Osage shield was a peace offering by both the Cherokee and the Hillbilly. It wasn’t a highly successful gesture because the Osage, a warrior culture, never fully assimilated to the farm culture of the Cherokee and Hillbilly; but nevertheless it was a peace offering symbolizing a peace offering.

= = = = = END REPRINT.

See also this discussion of NULL.

%d bloggers like this: