posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 11:17 PM
I mean the trouble I’ve always had about all of this is determining what, exactly, is the point? It sounds like we sometimes take for granted that
the end must be worthy of the means, but what is the end? Is it really worldwide subversion or domination and/or enslavement of everyone? Is that
really it and what does that get anyone? What does it even mean?
We all know power is an aphrodisiac, but it’s not the only one, is it? And aren’t the other aphrodisiacs much easier and perhaps, even more
satisfactory? Or is the idea that “ruling the world” really would be the ultimate thing of all time? No one’s ever done that – I mean, the
whole world (and everybody and every thing on it). In this case, is it not so much that power is an aphrodisiac or the thing needed/wanted in order
to do something else; but that power, itself, is the ultimate and only goal? And this is not the big-guy-on-campus kinda power or CEO-type power or
senator/governor power or even president or king power; this is the real deal – completely at the top, worldwide, absolute power. And because of
that, it’s impossible for us slaves to understand that goal and to know how it would feel and what it would mean for the one or ones who had it?
As for me, I figure that if I had no restrictions of any kind, there are lots of things I would and would not do because of the money, power and
absence of authoritarian control that I would have at my disposal. I can imagine, at some point, though, while taking a vacation from beating my
slaves or screwing my harem or blowing up cities with nuclear bombs for amusement (were that to be my thing), I might want to take a vacation from my
life of … vacation … and really, just chill out on a beach on the French Riviera, let’s say, drink a particularly good piña colada or three and
maybe listen to some Stevie Nicks or Live or Beethoven on my iPod … or iPhone .. or iWhatever. (After all, it’s a cliché, right, how hard and
incredibly taxing it is ruling the world, right?)
I have to think that even though the flavor of my indulgences might be different than those in the elite who would qualify as practitioners of world
domination, surely they too would, even if it were for temporary respite, have their guilty pleasures: a world-class opera? The finest five-star
dinner from one of the world’s finest chefs? A luxurious gown created by a world-renowned designer? One hundred and fifty acres of sublime and
profusely-stocked wildlands for hunting my favorite big-game? But these guilty pleasures would surely be dependent on the socioeconomic reality of
the modern world: an infrastructure of mind-blowing complexity is incumbent in providing the world with all the tools, resources and requirements it
needs, from the simplest to the most gratuitous; whether water, fibers for clothing, materials for assembling shelter, the creation and assemblage of
books, auto manufacturing, air conditioning, television, the Internet or the latest cell phone or tablet.
I mean surely kings of old would luxuriate in their pleasures; but back then, we might be talking only about matters carnal … or booze, court
jesters, plays, poetry, music, food, dancing, what have you. But in simpler times, most of these things could be provided by an individual or a small
group. Even a castle full of gold, jewels and meat wouldn’t take all that many slaves – easy if you’ve conquered a neighboring land or two,
which surely you would have were you the king or whatnot.
But today, who wouldn’t want to be able to check out the latest Channing Tatum movie or eat caviar and/or pâté or go to the MoMA (even if you do
end up stealing its bounty for your own abode)? Not good enough? Would it sound better if you slept in a waterbed on a jet airplane while you
traversed an ocean so you could do some of the same things on the isle of Capri while sipping Champagne and nipping at priceless truffles? Wouldn’t
you want a Maserati in your garage? Or a Tesla? Maybe one of those souped-up houseboats? Speaking of houses, who’s going to build your house,
connect the sewers, cut the grass and maintain all of this? Who’s going to protect you from hurricanes, tornadoes, fires and civil uprisings?
Slaves, yes of course. But how about the fertilizer for the lawn, the gas for your vehicles, the foam for the chaise-lounges in your screening room,
the processors for the electronic equipment that runs your projector and/or espresso machine, the clothes for your slaves, the actors and crew of your
favorite flicks? But all of these things are the output of a worldwide infrastructure that depends on so many people and systems working together.
Strangely enough, it’s almost as if this is support for emphasizing how even the most insignificant person at some little junky factory in some
Podunk, middle-of-nowhere town plays their role and ultimately, is vital in the grand scheme of things. But this almost seems diametrically opposed
to the “principle” of worldwide power over everybody else. How can an individual slave be even relevant?
Of course, you could stand by the oldie-but-goodie that the best slaves are the happiest slaves and the happiest slaves are the ones who don’t know
they’re slaves. But, that’s already the deal, right? That’s not something anybody needs to be working toward … we already know we’re all
Even an engine is just greased cogs, really … and so is the brain of the driver of the vehicle that houses the engine. Is the grease on the cogs
inanimate for a reason? Has the mission already been accomplished? Are postmodern slavery and freedom maybe the same thing … a tripped-out
interpretation of a sociological singularity?