Hemorrhage

My situation is simple, and Vaknin says there's no such thing as a problem.

The cost of living is a literal phrase. What is more jarring: they charge me for tickets, they charge me for food, they charge me for drinks. And every time they charge me, they literally take money away from me. If I want a new iPhone, they will go as far as charging me money for it, all of it. It is straightforward that this is unsustainable.

As young as I may feel and look, my body's workings start a silent decay, and the money won't go up. Not just would money not appear by itself, it also loses value every day that passes! How worse can it get?

I can eat cactus cuz I don't particularly care. Sure, I'd rather eat yummy stuff on the daily. But I can survive on very dull food. I however like drinking and smoking and the different other social tools.

It is shady how expenses work. I should keep track of my money. But I also shouldn't. I don't see myself saying “Nah, I will pass on that cool thing” just because not passing would mean a –$2 imaginary bank balance. Hence tracking is quite useless. You don't "adapt" to situations, you should instead make the situation adapt to your maladaptive behaviors.

Hemorrhage for I need money to spend, and I need to make it even. What a ludicrous, ludicrous thought: “generate money”. Lies. Truth is this: people like wasting money for themselves; people hate wasting money on other people (unless these are hot women, but that qualifies as "for themselves"). People hate giving their money to other people. People gotta hate whatever problem they have more than they hate the giving money away.

Traction may be a real phenomena. Doing a work three times may be enough to kickstart a routine that works. I believe that I am remarkable at doing certain things. As I was saying, a routine that works can sound good. To become particularly great (easy for me, I believe) at a "someone's problem" kind of problem. Note that comes to mind is to disregard completely B-players—even if they understood that their problem has been effectively solved, their B-status would be useless to the proliferation of my service. To do something that greatly and with meaningful people only would potentially embed me not just in spaces but in income realities that would ultimately fund me enough to not work.

Some thoughts.

On money

I have never worked in my life, so I may have something interesting to say about money.

Income is but a continuum of one's social status. Social mobility is a lie in that you can't embed yourself in a social class which is not yours. True mobility happens within decades, and is mostly passive unless you are planning 30-40 years ahead a la Sheev Palpatine. When people talk about social mobility and improvement they mean quick, hence they are lying to themselves.

Income is a reflection, a consequence of your social status. If you are middle class it is hard to escape that. If you are high class, it is damn hard to escape that. If you are lower class, it is as hard to escape that.

By social status we don't wish to evoke fuzzy ideas. Social status is the position you're in within the social scene. Again we stress: social status is a result, never a choice. It is something you find yourself in.

Think of start-ups that get big. You never become profitable unless you are doomed to become so. Now, Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak did became comfortably millionaires. This is a result of decades of work while in good positioning, in where they worked around the big players (IBM, Xerox, HP) until they locked themselves, embeded themselves into their ecosystem. That's the definition of a parasite—a stranger who now has a stake in an organism not his. The case is the same with start-ups who “blow up”. There is no such a thing. Think about it, no VC would invest in a one-day-old start-up, or one-month-old, or one-year-old. They buy things who have roots. Some may be uninformed and reckless enough to consciously give away money at some two-week-old thing, sure. But this does not matter to us. Giving 100K to some out-of-league dude guarantees them to waste it in the blink of an eye. Social mobility is not even theoretically entertained.

One thing is to become embedded, which is the long-term game. To make yourself hard-to-remove. Again, it is parasite art. Because no one really sees it coming. They didn't see it coming when Google was ad-free, when GitHub gave credits away, when Apple donated computers to schools, the list never ends. Once they are locked in, there is no escape route.

To become embedded buys you what any other thing will not: they are dependent on you.

There's this classic experiment in where some guy exchanged a paper clip for things until he gets a house. Besides it being clickbait, the metaphor works: in theory an average man could become the owner of the world, given enough time—or should I say, given enough lives. That's how you get Stalin or Putin. It is decades of work along with favorable pre-positioning. They of course don't really own much, and they power fades fast, and is very dependent on many other shadow people. Not the case with the Royal family, for example. This is a more proper, actual example of owning the world. It works, but just as much, it spans several lives and centuries. It can be done, very theoretically, but the problem is you only live once.

Let's go back to income. If income is a reflection of one's social status, then it is clear that one does not choose his income.

In a way, social embedding is like human relationships: the other person eventually leaves. Human relationships are actually structured identically as social status. What you inherit it follows you for life. And let's say it: all tech billionaires of today would be peasants had it not been for the witchcraft which is modern technology. What technology did is it transformed these start-up CEOs into entities with a kind of immunity. Back in the old ages, if your small garden of potatoes was destroyed, you would have nothing to sell for the month. If you were kicked out of your lot, you would have nothing left. Technology and its black magic tricks allowed these tech people to effectively become cyborgs: they resided in many places. They could afford to be ignored, to even be blacklisted by countries. These are not humans in any remote resemblance of the word.

What you inherit follows you for life. If you never made a friend on kindergarten, if you never kissed a girl on high school, these things become de facto laws. They stay with you the way air and gravity stay with you. Now observe: not having a friend in kindergarten is atrocious. It is a horrible smell. A sharp object poking at your neck. It is especially despairing because kindergarten there is one. You don't re-do kindergarten. You don't re-do high school. It takes sad luck to be stuck in a place with a dozen people who don't really like you back. And then came the personal computer. Kids could just reinvent themselves forever in front of new crowds of people. This led to the proliferation of unwanted and untold crime waves, but that's another topic. Overall, a pretty sad invention for humanity, but such invention is now part of us all, no use in self-loathing.

And just like kids could reinvent themselves, tech people could fail over and over again, they could produce and remix and reuse and change names and change locations and change IP and profile picture and personality and gender and many more infinite things.

Failing socially is part of nature, and it can be erased. Imagine this: you are in kindergarten, nobody wants to talk to you. So you press reload. New people appear in your classroom. Maybe one attempts to talk with you, soon finds out he doesn't like you. You press reload. New people appear in your classroom. Maybe one is an understanding girl. But what do you know, two days later she finds herself a new best friend (the one who found out he doesn't like you). Do you cry? No. You press reload. New people appear in your classroom. A girl and a boy soon connect well with you, and you with them, and you wonder if they will soon leave you too. Do you take the bet? No. We are not at the casino. You press reload. New people appear in your classroom. One boy joins your group. Now you can afford to lose one component of your friend group, if such thing comes to happen. It seems to work, and your girl friend asks you for a favor, clearly signaling that she wants to take advantage of you. Do you submit to uncertainty? You press reload. Many more people appear in your classroom.

What you inherit is a rhythm. Of course not having made one friend on high school does never mean that you can't connect with people. It just means your percentage of a match is low as fuck, for example. If it is 5%, you can switch schools three times and still find nothing. After all, classes are of 30 students. Switching three times gives you 30+30+30=90. Unfavorable odds. But invoking hundreds of people, thousands of people, it makes your 5% something translatable to several dozens of perfect matches.

What you inherit is a rhythm. It can't ever be modified, it can never be improved. But it can be exploited with numbers. People are numbers. In fact, each person is 30 trillion cells.

Social embedding is like human relationships. When anonymous said "embrace infamy" it didn't meant "surrender", it meant "understand your hardcoded architecture and exploit it". Don't dream to be a pony.

Social embedding is like human relationships. You first find how much it sucks or not, and you solve it by scale. How much a virgin Mark Zuckerberg had to be to scale his site all over the world—just in case, right?

So you find your enough-numbers, what number of people raise your 30% or 40% or 20% "connection match" to workable, livable numbers. You build stuff that scales up to that. Going higher drives you crazy, so you gotta be careful with that too. Crazy in the bad sense, like a Sims 4 game in where your simoleons (Sim dollars) are infinite. Game loses its meaning and you drive yourself to the coffin. It is a science, what we are talking about, and needs to be carefully calibrated.

So, you find the lucky number and build enough of an infrastructure to feed you just that.

Love is a consequence of the connection ratio you inherit. Infrastructure manipulates that, converts whatever ratio into common-enough instances of connection. Money is a consequence of the income ratio you inherit. I argue that you don't need to "earn more", just scale your baseline income until you earn as much as you need. People spend their lives "improving" on themselves in order to get the right partner. This should be avoided as pest. A better approach is to understand what your baseline is, and scale that until you get what you want. This way you are not changing, you are not deluding yourself. You are making inevitability do the work. It is you, just times a scalar.

Two people

What I want to do is divorced from reward and praise. It is the fact that happens that excites me, and I am oblivious to it being kept in obscurity. Be it research lab or dead cinema, what I want to do requires people. I have lost all interest in executing my vision myself. Also, I have no interest in participating with people in the direction of my vision. And I can't use AI tools or similar witchery for I want real consequence. This puts me in a unique spot.

I don't have infinite money. The bleak (real) answer is I shut up for an unknown number of years, hope not to die, get some bag in the meantime, and start my shit when enough cash. The other option that comes to mind is I start it now, what does that say about my patience threshold. To me, starting begins like this: pay the actor, pay the crew, done deal. No returns. Pay the undergrad, pay the secretary, done deal. No returns. The fact that it gives no returns means I can't do this for any meaningful amount of time unless something else is backing me up in a way that's set in stone.

And that's the big thing. Every attempt at doing something equals something ephemeral. Even if it works, even if it gets large. It had a beginning—artificial—hence it'll fall soon. Hell, even if you save money, in ten years that money won't be worth the same as today! How do you reconcile with trends? 

I saw this film Elephant and it's brutal to me that filmmaker just took this sensitive American episode and twisted it to his whims. Inglorious Basterds did history rewriting too but there was the mainstream "Hitler is bad" agenda. In the case of Elephant, there was no reason to remix a high-school massacre.

I am not a fan of Hitler's ideas. However. The hatred he had for invaders, it just happened enough people were naturally inclined to support such sentiment. He didn't turn anyone against invaders. He didn't turn anyone against invaders. He just became the scapegoat. Same happened with Jesus Christ. He allowed "his followers" to exercise their feels. Hitler didn't posture, nor did Jesus Christ. They were ready to die for what they knew was right. Crazy people like them happen all the time, and I am proof. Their rage just happened to Tinder-match that of their people's. Had Hitler been posturing all along, he would have picked the greatest unaddressed discomfort.

You know, people forget but before he became Fuhrer, Hitler was humiliated and put in jail. A prisoner.

But Hitler was a statesman. He fought on the Great War. He survived his own party. Lived in high poverty. And so on. Jesus too was handpicked by powers bigger than him. You wouldn't make a random person a scapegoat for such history-turning events.

It's fair to say Hitler had control of things relevant to the will of Time. When Time decided to let blood flood, it did not need to look further: Hitler owned the German government and the German public opinion. Even before being elected, Hitler owned his past as war hero and the conviction against him. Jesus was in control of his share of outcasts. The Romans need look no further.

None of these people were successful. Where there is a rise there is a fall.

If you would stop seeking things, like actually, you would see your unstopping, unescapable trend. Maybe in that respect there's two kinds of people. Because it is theoretically possible for someone to just stop seeking things.

You would have to make the argument that they didn't seek much at all. Or that their drive was more about themselves alone than about millions of people. Hitler selfishly went to the front lines. Jesus called himself the “Son of God” in front of the religious jury of his time. They served themselves solely. Did they seek fame and power? I doubt so. They were very faithful of themselves. In a key way, seeking outside things is self-treason. Seeking things starts with “I am not enough” but oh do you think Hitler would have taken the shotgun had he thought that? Would Jesus Christ had forgiven the jews had he thought that? If Jesus Christ would have thought that, he would have said “I am sorry”. He instead redoubled, “They don't know what they are doing”. In his mind, there was no doubt that he was right. Hitler redoubled on his views while in prison, made a bible out of them. They never needed people's approvals. They self-approved. There was no need to seek. There was nothing to seek.

INC vision

Philosophically driven, speaks the language of current trends, works for the avant-garde.

9AM at the HQ (any room will do). We discuss latest news briefly. Ask ourselves what are they hiding, what are they running away from. 10AM we focus on the enemy. War is crucial for us, it keeps us engaged with the real world, safe from becoming abstracted. Type of enemy matters: a small, inconsequential one doesn't last enough and may even redirect us to irrelevant solutions; a formidable opponent forces us into unrivaled competence. Friction or attrition, this is the question. A quite existential one for INC. In a way, INC's task is to seek failure, overt failure. Contempt is our secret weapon, it really really is. Other companies try to give people what they want. We want people to lose. A beautiful redemption for humanity.

For the rest of the work day we develop technologies that have a chance at making everyone else useless.

Give them what they hate

Hate is a strong word. Hate is a strong word. It drives our lives, and it is stronger than sex.

There's the saying, “From hate to love there's just one step”. I propose hate and love are the same thing.

Hate is reactive. As such, it bypasses consciousness. More interestingly, it is a charged emotion. There is reason behind it, and this kind of reason is elementary. Give them what they want, they will eat it up and leave. People want everything, therefore want is meaningless. (You can convince a homo sapiens that it needs e-girl bathwater, or to go to church.) People don't hate everything. People are very selective in what they hate. More thrilling: people don't choose what they hate. Hate is deterministic.

Everything comes back to the beginning many more times than we'd like to admit. People hate who they are. People are fueled by the need to escape the origin. This, because they can't stand it. They rather suicide than stare at themselves. In a way, people attempt suicide all the time. In vain.

Companies are desperate for people's money (or else). They helplessly listen for what people want—“the customer is always right”—and deliver it as soon and as cheap as possible. Given what they want, they eat it up and leave. Companies then invest in R&D, “what's the next big thing?”.

The next big thing is their violent collision against the asphalt which is their origin.

“Let me entertain you” is a request for being eaten up and left. “Let me be what you hate” is the stable, durable thing. Want is the ever-shifting, short-lived whim among other million more wants. Hate is the beginning.

Give them what they want, they will eat you up and leave. Give them what they hate, they'll be stuck with you.

(Note: For future reference, by title we mean “a chance to reenact their relationship with what they hate”.)

On adoption

Abortion, gay rights, who cares. Narcissistic questions dressed up as moral issue. Redundant: does not matter what anyone thinks; things are already playing. If you are not a highly influential politician, you are practicing pure indulgence. Evil. And twisted.

I don't care about either, and I accept both the way I accept air. If I was a nation's leader, I'd deem them ideological invasion and act the way a nation is to treat invaders.

Adoption, however, I never thought about it. Not flashy news, not enough nudes. Whereas abortion and queerness can be mitigated implementing enforced trajectories, orphans can happen the same, crimeless. A sudden death of both parents, and what do you do with the child? On the other hand, two parents who can't conceive may want a child to help grow. Sounds like a nice ending. In practice, I suppose the rate of orphans who aren't picked is just that high. Which means adoption is discriminatory. I'll go with my gut and say it should not happen. Adoption should not happen. If a child is truly alone and there remains no other family to take care of them (uncle, grandfather, et all), they should be put in the state's orphanage institution.

An adult or a couple of adults wanting to get completely hold of an unrelated child because they can't survive without him/her is disturbing and has no place, a priori, in a nice society. I think orphanages accept donations. It's not all about you.

Two more things

I realize that people on-line are on-line people and real-life people are people in real-life. There is no in-between, especially in the context I navigate in. On-line is for consuming or at best advertising running projects (at this stage, with the goal of profit). Follows that it is useless to know on-line people, to a virtually absolute degree, and this is to be chiseled, this is truth.

Secondly, my latest post (on guided distortion via passive persistence) can be applied to myself. In fact, it may make for a good testing ground.

Ambiencestein

Every good thing was distortion. “Does every little (...) have to die? Yes”. They weren't ever alive. It just fit the pic perfectly. Rarely afterwards. God has its way to fool us, and every last conclusion is a mirage once again. Not INC.

A succession of frames has one with a pink dot. “Mpff!”. Noticed. Eradicated.

A succession of frames has one pink dot. Felt. Unseen. A dark gorilla staring, in the middle of a dance number.

Recurrent pink dots, recurrent air, common syllables, familiar scent. Embedded as needed, white needs, white lies. The kind of need that you wouldn't describe as an actual need. Perfect entry point.

Distroller

I have been following many such sagas, pure assertion of reality. Remixed, rewired, rewritten. Science: neutralized. Thermic? No. Thermonuclear.

Such much very deluxe. Much such rush and really fast Thermonuclear. 

The hands of INC around the spirit city high. The hands of INC around the spirit high streets. Spending crystal shreds and attempting to remix rewire.

Energy flow to INC—better yet: neuromantic. INC in the middle of endless energy sprites. God's endless overdose. INC does not move. INC has no will: it usurps will. Shadow agent on hosts that move just too well. Hosts that follow their least resistance. INC is a parasite with no legs. INC is a parasite: no legs. INC: no legs, yes parasite. INC: its own path of least resistance. INC: injects itself in least resistance.

INC and the dirty digits. INC and the binaries and zero. INC and the limited one and the endless zero. INC in IEEE and INC in ASCII. INC sniffing under the underground. Everyone in the city and everyone who will be too. Future comes in past packages. ID experiences! Life packets. Code 555666777, means first kiss. Code 333999333, means band-seeking raw vocals. All is meant to happen again like a sweet-deal curse. INC is the first-mover advantage. INC is the “here you go”/“where you looking for this”. INC is the interconnected, it is what moves recently. It is what it wraps. INC is observer and smart thinker. INC is fullness. INC is extraterrestrial. INC is the next step in evolution.

Eyes wide filter, then inject shadow. This hyper logic.

Want operates on delusion, decision operates on default

Defaults and people in them trying to redesign them: like black people smearing flour in their faces, getting angry after a shower. Default is what happens when no care is put. Conscious action is delusion: the desire to suddenly reject habit; self-aggrandizing, “I can overwrite age-old trends by just wanting to”.

Resistance is her calling me out for suggesting marriage. Delusion is my attempt to convince her that modern standards are American decrees. “Oh, as you know, marriage is cringe”, a more appropriate answer. Aligned with her beliefs. Marrying her in the end: final victory.

We would do good in differentiating two things: to want and to decide. All wants are delusions, all decisions are inevitable. Some examples: “I want to play alternative rock live” as a want of mine. It is pathetic, it is completely divorced from reality, it may also be self-harm. On the contrary, I can decide what color of t-shirt to wear today. There is nothing to figure out, just decisions. It is not in question whether I will wear a t-shirt or not. Now, say I am a Casablancas. “To play alternative rock live” is now a decision, not a want. There is nothing to want. It is not in question whether I will play live or not. There is only decisions to be made: what music genre do I want to play?

Wants should be exterminated, naturally. Only decisions should be made, decisions that shape outcomes that would occur nonetheless. Working with such levels of universe indifference in when you start making things. Because you would have anyways. There's nothing to create.

Transcript

 Yea, I could not pinpoint the steps. “Do not chase, do not seek, do not wish”. I agree with that. If INC is to introduce itself in target audience, it should do it on mute. It is a combination of INC's observation plus soft positioning and real life's own living structure. I said it before, “INC should do nothing”. I was right, will betrays fate. INC does not initiate shit. Second law of thermodynamics. Starting things is almost repugnant. It is an abhorrent illusion. Observation plays a great part, then. INC observes and positions itself. It asserts itself the way gravity asserts itself. So much for grand words. INC is not an alternative, it is the default. The default. Water follows the path of least resistance. People do stuff against their wishes, people have no wishes, people are not real. Scripts are real. Chemical reactions are. INC is but the next step in evolution. The boring, deterministic development. I am circling my ideas. I think a good start would be to keep killing all aspirations. Let real life talk and position for entry, for staying, for permanence. No wishes allowed in Minnesota. Flying people crush themselves to the ground.

On fame

Introduction: I've always discarded fame as a solution or intermediary to a solution, possibly because it was uncool and anyways it was not something I was good at.

What is fame? Briefly described, it is a network. It is what happens against all will when you are born or raised around people who govern relatively influential social channels. A couple examples are mafia and Hollywood.

Fame is dependant on positioning. Fame is not a choice, it is a consequence. Skrillex was not a nobody before he "met" Joel and got himself a record deal. No one who is famous was a nobody. Everyone who is famous was never a nobody. Tales of "I used to sell shoes" are completely misleading and are to be considered outright lies. All famous people were recognisable since inception.

There is a difference between being poor and being the most famous of all poor. Being the most famous of all poor means you are a positioning away from being the most famous of all rich. This is why niggers like Jay-Z and Dave Chapelle got popular. When they were "broke", when they were "fighting for bread", they were already famous around their people, they were around the most famous of their people. What they call "luck" is a shift in positioning. They had to put no effort—none additional, it is meant—to become mainstream.

Just being poor guarantees you stagnation. Being the most famous of all poor guarantees you the top stop, and the top stop is fully dependant on positioning; it indeed is theoretically unlimited. This explains niggers in diamond chains and 7-digit mansions.

Fame and the just poor

Niggers like Jay-Z and Dave Chapelle were born and/or raised among the elite of their whatever slum class. What about the just poor? The psyche of the just poor is that of the just poor. Regardless of their desires, their actions—result of their psyche—will, just like gravity, take them back to who they are: the just poor.

"But, Mr. J, there are famous people, breed of network, that have the psyche of the just poor. Does this mean—could this mean—that a just poor can be famous just by exploiting location? Can they get famous just by standing there? I should answer: yes, especially by standing there. Jaden Smith.

Jaden Smith has a bigger body count than me.

Where is there?

There is wherever you want it to be. For an aspiring politician, there might be a political party; for an aspiring inventor, there might be the local inventor's club. The key is to stick and later to kick. Some competency is needed. Luckily, I am particularly talented. Sticking is the hardest part. You need all to dispose you to naturally be around that place. Since we are dealing with social environments, you need connections, as in, people who keep you connected to the place. One connection and then another and so you solidify your stay. You kick by making others irrelevant.

The just poor who are also famous are so because they are stuck there. To make an extreme example, you can meet Brad Pitt all you want, but you can't stick with him.

My life is a computer

Let's write some dull axioms, just so as to get a picture that's less foggy, in the hopes that this will shorten my pain:

There is no best approach to life. There is just the approach to life, completely determined and unique for everyone. Knowledge is utterly useless in changing, it is merely an observational device. Going against your tide is similar to self-harming. Somehow this is sadder, because it means that those caught on a loop will stay on it, regardless of how aware they are about it, regardless of how much they despise being trapped in it. This is a fact and anyone claiming to have been through something similar and succeeded at taming it is just extending their pain until the eventual comeback to the way they were and the pain it brings. It is painfully ridiculous to claim such things, no different at all different from the videos about "becoming millionaire in a week" telling you to type on their comment section phrases like "I am grateful for living in a mansion and I smell the scent of my ten grands which I receive every hour" such that what the video claims ends up working. I use the example so that you can visualise it for what it actually is: pure denial. 

There is only one approach to life, and it is happening right now. If you're cutting your skin, that's your life. If you're reading this, that's your life. If you're a millionaire, that's your life. In a bucle.

You are already a machine, a titanium machine that can't be modified. What may be worth trying is to embrace the machine, not refute it like everyone in the West coerces you to do.

Do what the fuck you want, see where that leads you. You will probably end up dead; guess what.

THE END. FUCK THIS SHIT.

Theory into practice: can our changes change us?

No.

Whatever we do and however we put ourselves into it, everything returns to the main form, quite quickly and quite brutally.

Changes happen: changes that are not changes. You could say that the creation of the continents was a change compared to the Pangea, but you would be misusing—worse yet: using correctly—the word "change". Today people use this word as a synonym to "create". This is the problem. "I want to change into someone new" is a meaningless statement. Change is predetermined, of course. And quite ugly, usually. Your wants modify nothing.

What defines all your predetermined changes is the spacetime in where you appear. (Which is a happy way of looking at things, slightly misleading, because, of course, you are but the results of unfolding events; while you were quietly unconscious, your fate had already been decided, you were meant to appear,—funny, isn't it—but these are ontological rumbles we will not touch here). Men wanted to go to the moon for quite some time, thousands of years before 1969. For Aestoph Eramaclius, it didn't matter his will nor ingenuity and not even money. Had he risen from peasant to King of the known world, he wouldn't have gotten to the moon. Had he converted dead leaves into millions of dollars, he wouldn't have gotten there. It was impossible.

"Impossible is what Americans do best", said Trump yesterday. He was tried and he was convicted and yet he won, "against all odds". Rejecting the most telling evidence is what people do best. They gaslight themselves into notions of ever-shifting narrative and free will. Nobody likes to say "this is how it ends". Nobody wants to know. This is generally good.

Impossible is what Americans do best. They spot emerging trends, bet on their perceived eventuality, and start marketing them as to increase their returns. Impossible is an American brand; like most words, it conveys feelings and a distorted view of the world. Americans are good at branding.

D'you know the idea that if you were born in Nazi Germany, you would have been a Nazi?

I used to dream of a place on Earth where all of my heinous wishes would materialise almost instantly. A spacetime like this exists.

Time is an ally. If you observe, you know where it all leads.

Space entraps the modern man. An unwanted routine which is never chosen but assigned. Call me deterministic; you know all of this is true. Don't run away from love.

Time is an ally and space takes us hostage. We are left with one conclusion: if you are a Nazi, you better embrace for a new Reich. This is all you can do. Billions dreamed of walking the moon yet a couple dozen did; all trained for it. If you're a fool, you may as well buy a ticket.

Now, there is a difference between wanting to footprint the moon and wanting a Coca-Cola. There are occurrences which are more cyclical than others. Everything repeats itself; does what you want repeat enough? "How do I know if it does or does not". Well, how often has it happened before? If the answer is bearable, then you may as well go for it. There's a reason Christians are the kings of ridicule.

I think you should use the sober knowledge of your past events and evaluate from there. Thomas saw an elf once, hiding in the corner of his bedroom. When it realised it got spotted, the elf ran away. Thomas later learned that when spotting an elf you are supposed to cover one of your eyes: this way the elf can't move and will grant you a wish in exchange for his freedom. The next time Thomas finds an elf, he will know what to do. Don't look for new opportunities. Instead, wait for old ones to happen again. This is a more informed buying of a ticket.

If you do find an elf, I advise you not to open your one eye. Put a patch on it like a pirate. Gauge your one eye if necessary. Then make it fulfil all your wishes ad infinitum.

The path of least resistance

Water follows the path of least resistance. I think of cunt. I think of submissiveness. I think of a closed system. Everything that happened will happen again. There is a particularity to this. Say, if a flower burns every weekend, it will keep on burning every weekend. But if a fireman waters flowers every weekend, what do you make of this? Sure, both cannot exist at the same time. Which would be an incorrect statement. The correct statement is this: Both cannot exist at the same time and place. Both can certainly and do exist.

A flower that burns every weekend can exist at the same time as a fireman who waters flowers every weekend, as long as they are apart from one another. As long as they don't come onto each other, these events will carry on with determinism. What happens when they come onto each other?

There is a saying that goes: if one wakes up in a different place he will be a different person. As far as my limited knowledge (or trivia) goes, only the environment can have an effect on the individual. This is because the individual's habits stand in an important degree on his relationship with his past environment, and a new environment may—or may not—challenge his discernible ways.

What happens when a burning flower and a fireman's firehose happen at the same time? Some would say, "the unpredictable". What happens is actually, also, determined. It should be obvious to the trained observer what will be the recurring fate of the burning flower and what will be the recurring fate of the fireman that waters flowers. Some would consider this collision as new—a diverting branch of timeline. But these reactions have been always there, chiselled in stone. Water follows the path of least resistance.

Most of the time, the reaction is repulsion. Out of place, they would fight to go back to their original orders—chemical reactions indeed. But some times, they would stick. This is also determined.

Subliminal messaging molds, just like everything, only at a tender age. Had a farm girl been exposed enough to the savage rituals of the West, and later in life would she come across a Mick Jagger lookalike, she would follow him to the ends of the world. Had she been properly educated, she would find him utterly uninteresting. We never chose a single thing.

If the flower that is on fire would come across a fireman with his firehose, it would depend on their childhood experiences if they would remain together, or be repulsed by each other, or the fireman catching himself on fire and dying shortly after, or the flower being showered in deadly amounts of water. These last two metaphors convey something important: if they don't run away from each other, one of them will die/rebirth, see it as you like. What would keep them stuck—and unravel the consequences—is a powerful déjà vu, an inner connection each has with their children selves, a latent relationship with the other person that has always been there—running in silence, one poke away from blowing up. A different location confronts them. Their stagnant childhood traumas decide what they will do with each other.

The autist

Why are autistic people top players? They remind me of sustained fire on near-perfect defences. Near-perfect because everything seems more locked-in than before, heavily reliant on the theoretical. But these are humans, or humans running systems. Despite the theory, they will fall short eventually.

The autistic keeps going, relentless in his modus operandi, his trend crystalline, flawless at times. They don't seem to understand loss. Do pay attention, they are not people that overcome loss. They just can't grasp the concept of losing. There's nothing noble about it. If anything, it recalls of machinery. They are brute-forcing rivals until it works, and then the audience gasps in marvel, but after a cold analysis you are left to admit that their feat was not otherworldly, but that defence was lacking tremendously. There is nothing special in their individual conquests; what is impressive is the victim's degree of relaxation in that moment. Autists exploit the lowest of guards and make a movie out of it, get the spotlight because of it.

I watch an autist against near-perfect defence and I watch a man against near-perfect defence. The man, face to face with it, tries hard and fails—you don't say. The autist seems to understand that a clock is a perfect machinery in theory, but it is also a man made, hence it is broken. The clock is broken and nobody realises this besides the autist. It portrays numbers and moves hands, it's ticking suggest that it works, but it really doesn't—hell, it really doesn't work. It is broken.

The clock is broken and the autist knows of this. To everyone else the clock is ticking, it is working, backed by the infinite forces of engineering and science. This is the furthest from the truth, the autist understands this. He is waiting. He seems visceral in his attack, unforgiving in his method because every time he applies he gets through it. But he just waits. Most of his game is waiting. They open fire that seems sustained because they always get it right. What is relentless about them is their eyes. Their patience is violent, and their offensive is lightweight. This is the autist. He knows all clocks are broken. Just like a broken clock is right twice a day, a perfect clock will be wrong as many times a day.