Cyborg Lite

Celebrities separate themselves into a separate realm from others, because they are overly 'normal.' Thus is it always with capital. It wishes to separate itself out into a ruling class, but presses others into resentment against these and into attempting to displace them. Where it wishes to posit difference or separation, or even a 'bellum omnium contra omnes,' it instead posits dependence and service to those who should be apart. These struggles do not themselves diverge from the norm in capital, but eventually this self-harming 'love' will tear it apart.

The more people in the West aim for publicity, the more they open themselves to attacks by terrorists or others. These people will often kill themselves after attacking, or use suicide bombing. This leaves few clear ways of preventing it. The very best is to have the supposedly notable celeb or singer constantly dependent on a network of others whom they are only vaguely acquainted with. These are the real 'stars' of the show - the more Westerners stand out, the more they make themselves targets, and then they only go further to court danger. People want to stand out, but they only hide their reliance. People like Christina Grimmie go through many hoops of capital's self-interested struggle, but they run after opportunities to be shot notably. It's like Western society is just a clumsy euthanasia.

To stand out in such a way when you are a walking target, is to stand out only through promotion and fancy lights. There is reliance on a vast network that could either fail or themselves harm you. It is unlikely that people being thrust out as targets and then thrown to the lions would be stable, socially, so there is likely some forgery there. Nonetheless that is their aim and general dynamic, so realistically in a system where all fight each other and forming systems within it is courting their failure, it's a venture only of worth for adrenaline and if your life didn't seem worth conserving in the first place.

Nonetheless, this is ultimately an extension of capital's tendencies if left unchecked. It has to be conceded in any case that for a society of mutual animosity you have many areas which rely on the absence of this. Hence, you have the conventionally 'religious' - those who would stint capital's own tendencies just to help make it functional. This religion is ultimately the worship of the society and people's real ultimate end, capital; nonetheless, it gives this the illusory guise of a transcendent being standing over capital. Capitalism is hence degraded by this piousness, somehow. Yet people have made recourse to figures of capital as a society of 'love' and universal 'collaboration,' that capital itself has no time for.

Against capital you also have a tendency of piousness and unifying sentiment, that would plunge us below capital but is forever limited by its lack of any ability to systematically consider society - or re-configure society on a systematic level. We can see this for instance in events around the British monarchy. Though blunted, these things run rampant. They would turn the whole of society into a collaborating household.

Although piousness fears capitalism, this fear merely serves to promote it and its lasting nature. Piousness ultimately wishes to be done with considering social systems, and instead find a substitute society in the domestic realm - where it can rest and ignore the social system. Capitalism, however, can rarely be strict in preventing tendencies which detract from its organisation, and hence gives way to many things which might seem 'foreign' to it. It distorts these actions, but leaves them in place. At the same time, they will not harm it completely, only leave it in place in an 'alloyed' or peculiar form. This is the extent of 'revolution' allowed by such tendencies. Capitalism is very open to the input and influence of those who would have members of it all 'collaborate' and operate in 'harmony,' who would have 'love' and 'enthusiasm' dampen the conflicts of this society, even as it functions in a quite different way. Hence, it remains hemmed in by these sentimental tendencies, which means that even 'capitalism' demands the establishment of a social control which it cannot provide.

Ultimately, a 'separation' founded on others continually interacting is a counterfeit separation. In this sense, it is symptomatic of capitalism. Looked at from the perspective of difference or distinction, capitalism appears limited and contradictory from the 'abstraction' of commodities onwards. This is the only appropriate perspective from which to criticise capitalism. It is difficult to 'fight' a society which continually abstracts from difference, without a firm insistence on it. Without this, one will instead inevitably be assimilated into it. Still, if it is 'counterfeit' it is because it is stolen from genuine separation and pretends clearly to be the same.

However, it is hence always fending off difference and opposition, because it could easily collapse into this again. Hence, the frequency of 'fads' and 'gimmicks.'

In any case, we are hence going to indignantly follow this with longer, intentionally tangential posts about capitalism - what it is, in what manner it constitutes a social system, etc. Hopefully you enjoy this exciting new direction for ZNS.

The Donald Android

With Donald Trump's campaign mostly revolving around immigration, it would be nice if we could have a Democratic challenger who is a true opponent, a 'Donald Alien' if you will.

Otherwise, the election sounds quite bad when you make noise about it. Donald Trump, an alleged fascist, defeats 'Hillary Clinton' after she beat the Jew Bernie Sanders who had relatives involved in the Holocaust and was spurred by this in their liberal politics. It sounds like a joke made by Adolf. Meanwhile, Trump is a candidate whose name resembles 'alone,' and who continually talks about isolating the country. This, though admirable, would not have passed in much of the 2000s, when people still found such things alarming. It reminds one of the following charming painting by Hitler, that Zanthorus would no doubt admire:

"Have you read Marx?"

One can see that some objects there have imbibed the lessons of Soviet exercise so thoroughly that they have gleefully broken down and lain down unresisting.

Shout-out to Zanthorus

(In the style of a certain Rosa L.)

To welcome back the returning comrade Zanthorus, we issued this stunning condemnation:

"Welcome back, Zanthorus!

"We're sorry this is slightly late. We'll put up a post calling you out because you have an amazing name. For one thing, it starts with a 'z.' It also has an 'n,' 'o' and 'h' in it. Any profound thoughts on the emasculation of the West and the tyranny of the matriarchy?

"You just said that a journalist had small balls. I'm invoking the fifth. I accuse you, sir, of choosing an easy target. This is a most heinous crime. Nonetheless I shall follow your advice and pursue the true path of archery, and in the process no doubt found several dystopian states until they form a genre. They shall then brainwash young adult minds, until they can no longer feel pessimism. They shall then inform them that human nature is an enemy to these states, and must be eradicated wherever it is found.

"The capital shall be in Egypt, which has a history of worshipping cats.

"We appreciate your posting, and the subtle yet poetic entrance. You did not clarify whether the rugby was league, union, etc., which some might find offensive and to suggest a support of slavery. In addition, the Labour Party might take issue with your perceived support for Ken Livingstone, and would request that you change your name to 'Zionthorus' to repent. What Zionism has to do with Thor might be uncertain to them, but nobody said that Christians' doctrine of salvation had to coherent. However, other than a list of possible offence your post has caused (other than to journalists, who are a sub-human race anyway), which is as obligatory in 'leftist' dialogue as 'Heil Hitler' in Nazi Germany, welcome back. I'm sure the online left could do with a resurgence of reasonable discussions, as opposed to most (dead and dying) fora and the occasional and hated dissident commenter."

We appreciate you see the sheer cutting and critical nature of this, without us annotating the whole passage with exclamation marks at the appropriate points. Nonetheless, we shall do so anyway, for the first paragraph. This shall hopefully give readers a hang of how to go on:

"We're sorry this is slightly late." (!) (Sorry? Of course we're not sorry! We hate the scoundrel. This sets a trap. They expect us to be taking on a favourable tone, and are unprepared for the following zingers.) "We'll put up a post calling you out because you have an amazing name." (!) "For one thing,  it starts with a 'z.' It also has" (!) (refer to the Economic Manuscripts of 1844 for details) "an 'n,' 'o' and 'h' in it. Any" (!) "profound thoughts" (!) "on the emasculation of the West" (!) "and the tyranny" (!) "of the matriarchy?" (!)

Verily as destructive an attack as if you dropped the Tsarina Alexandra on a country and they all died of fright. You may have watched Wrestlemania recently, yet you may easily forget that: this is the real thing.

Now, you may be asking, what does all of this have to do with Georg Friedrich? Well, it might not be clear at first. We might seem initially to have just unleashed a devastating attack on a perfectly civil commenter who did not mention Hegel. However, do not be fooled. They speak of 'mastering the art of archery,' by going from small to large targets. However, Hegel mastered German philosophy, did they not? And did so by going from basic and abstract categories to more complex ones. So you see again that 'if the essences of things correspond to appearances, all science would be superfluous.' Their comment is still offensive, although this is veiled.

I am sure that, had Marx lived, they would have ended Das Kapital with that very sentence.

However, we shall also welcome back Zanthorus. We shall welcome them back as Lottie Moss - the eternal enemy of I, ZeroNowhere - welcomed back Alex Mytton after a drunk tiff. With an amicable disposition, but also trepidation and the poignance it holds. However, rather than being as "stately as a slot machine," we shall offer a courteous but refined reception. And besides, taking advantage of Kate Moss being our relative would tarnish our name. And what is the result of sounding like a lotus, when this lotus would be incredibly out of place in a Made In Chelsea context? It is a mere painkiller in a degenerate scene.

We shall conclude this post with this fervent attack on Thor, who 'Zanthorus' no doubt worships. By attacking that which they hold sacred, we bring this highly critical post to a fitting crescendo. After this, they may face the world with 'sober senses,' and all welcome each other generously.

Finally, we would like to note that the 'Rosa' mentioned was not Rosa Luxemburg. Just in case anyone thought this was some other blog, where Rosa Luxemburg might be highlighted in any way whatsoever. I am sure a few of our readers will catch the reference, and I exhort them to consider in good humour what others less so will make of it. The tone might help these others to get the gist of it. On that note, we would like to end this condemnatory post with the following sentence.

This is my world now.

7th Amendment

We would like to amend our previous post, on 'Easy Targets,' with the following observation. Bashar Al-Assad has made several objections to it based on Syrian conditions. As such, perhaps the Anathema song should read 'sarin,' instead of 'seeing.'

However, we also like our favoured term 'scarcity of miracles,' or perhaps amending the whole phrase to 'In sarin so caustic.'

We hope this will clarify matters to our readers and the general public. Hopefully they do not take offence because we mentioned Bashar Al-Assad, and hence the word 'sad,' which disturbs either their passive ensnarement in dreams furnished by the media or their pious journey towards enlightenment and inner harmony. We repeat again that our intent in this post is not to offend.