Your razzmatazz and the nights on the town (Security, 9-1-1)

In England, culture is rather monotone. Figures of focus include Je-sus Christ, Shakespeare, and Socrates. All with effectively the same name. People are generally hence introduced to the same sound for 'exemplary' figures - suggesting that perhaps it is the 'sound' that perseveres, not the people.

Likewise, pop music in English - though often American - tends to feature heavily people involving an 'ay' sound: Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Hayley Williams, Hailee Steinfeld, Lana Del Rey, etc. This has increased since the mid-2000s. In films, 'eh' sounds like Jessica or Jennifer are more prominent. Heavy metal, for the sake of variety, can trace its way back to 'Black Sabbath' - although admittedly many other bands could have led in the same directions. It also happens coincidentally to resemble 'Hitler,' a figure who admittedly leads to most metal bands seeming tame and hand-wringing by comparison. What is counted as 'heavy metal' in say Black Sabbath's title track is closer to Fates Warning's 'A Pleasant Shade of Gray' - 'heavy' notes interspersed with softer segments with vocals. A lot of it is 'rock.' In some ways, the heavy metal derives like punk from musical simplification. However, perhaps in part due to the radical historical resonances of the name, it has gone in other directions which separate it from rock and 'milder' or 'false' music; these might go beyond the earlier aim.

Christianity, like plays, often encouraged passivity. Plays are a world of characters that pretend to be normal, but unlike actual people are held by the author like a puppet on a string. The author wants to construct people different from them, all they end up with are absurdities and chimeras in the attempt.  If you look at these from the perspective of forms of government or social organisation, it should be evident that the societies constructed are an absurdity - the author holds a fictitious authority that obscures or renders farcical any governmental structures or social order. In a novel, despite the pretence of characters the true nature of things is that the author could have characters walk upside down, fly, etc., in the next sentence if they wanted to. These are the actual characters, as the novel form construes them - without the pretence that they aren't characters in a book. Nonetheless, plays prospered in a time of monarchy, when as a format they could easily seek to allure people with a passive, hopeful world of puppets. They should therefore be seen as a format appropriate to an age with an established monarchy.

Nonetheless, they tried to avoid interfering with certain things. Capital still requires passivity, the subjection of man to objects. Hence, novels have caused the infiltration of these passive characters - albeit of far less worth - into schools. They specialise In the fictitious arts that are actually fictions of the author and give the format of passive adherence to author the form of a way of life or 'magic.' Hence, passivity is encoded and enshrined, what is in truth 'going with the flow' of the author is instead pretended as 'magic.' This was in many ways a new low for literature.

Also disturbing is when these passive pseudo-people engage in glorified love affairs, which people assume to be normal - often accompanied with things like 'shipping.' This isn't possible unless people actually relate intimately as passive and empty beings, and take this form of existence as normal. Hence, they are an extension of the 'magic' previously mentioned. Hence, popular examples include 'Twilight,' 'Naruto,' 'Love Hina,' and other things with similar themes. Also troubling is when authors pretend to set passive characters against 'dystopian' and totalitarian regimes, as if they have a right to do so with these characters. That may be referred to as a suicidal novel, and in general it substitutes strange but incorrect things for politics. The historical novel is also an amusing triviality - the author purporting to control a society in a way they didn't. At no point did Henry IV die and leave historical novelists in charge of their kingdom.

The novel form is at its best when it is an overlay or satirical, when it takes events or articles and adds a poetic gloss. However, it is still an inferior form.

The play form is in some ways more constrained, however despite this it is obviously inferior to many things. If performed, it could do so many things as to be amorphous - serve republicanism or monarchism, serve any cause and hence in truth serve no cause besides passivity. Hence, considering performance primary while praising a playwright is hollow - not only do modern renditions in all likelihood not represent an authentic presentation of the historical author, people having other concerns, but it is an empty vessel that can be filled in any manner. Hence, in some way an author's popularity here has to do with other facts. As a text, or insofar as the author wrote it (though still limited by the need to perform it), it is usually too dry. Performed organically, without females for instance, it is still too dry and besides has a different context. In any case, the play form - less honest than the novel form where the author tries to announce their presence or is allowed to issue warning - is a form probably out-moded. Films also have problems, however they are the manipulation of colours on a screen and need not have the same problems as novels or plays. These are both in any case usually chimeras, worthwhile only for when they are self-critical - and there they are inconsistent, for they do not end and cease to exist.

Christianity often deals in strange ways: God separates from Himself, then feels betrayed by Himself. It is ultimately polytheism. Nonetheless, Jesus tries often to separate the divine from earthly matters like the government, actions, etc., and dies in obedience. They are a suicidal 'God.' Likewise, Shakespeare does all that they can to obscure themselves in characters, however these characters are not only creatures below animals - creatures with no semblance of human traits or self-determination in truth - but they are nothing and merely represent Shakespeare in a senseless form. Nonetheless, Jesus acts more definitively: they wish to also make demands on the world, and undermine aspects of passivity by showing people the demands of the kingdom around them.

If Christ's kingdom has not come, and communism is considered dismissed for less, there is still much specious about claims of Christianity. Christianity often diverged from and vulgarised the capitalist social system, it could claim with Three Days Grace that, 'This house is not a home.' If it contained an anti-capitalist element, in general it just preached collaborationism or that virtually anything could be forced to serve the capitalist order. If the Catholic hierarchy inverts and distorts the capitalist order eerily, subverting its lust for accumulation and hence consumption (money is nothing outside of its universal purchasing power) with a hierarchy involving stringent measures to the contrary. Nonetheless, this stubborn anti-capitalist element is mediated by the need for these to serve the 'external' capitalistic society, and hence to serve the capitalistic order and ultimately capital. Thus, there is the assurance that elements in opposition can be tamed, that people can go on in social activity in peace and without acknowledging opposed social forces. These would undermine the things they aim for and are passionate about, so it is no surprise.

Intimate relations like marriage tended to rely on the economic system's fancy and hence on the favour of capital. Hence, the distinction between a Church and a whorehouse was often subtle. And once a Church gives in to most capitalist governments, what more can it submit its religion to? It seems that it takes a fundamentally empty religion to achieve this.

Mostly, then, religion under capitalism was identical. It had to accomodate an irreligious order, and hence eliminate or tone down its distinguishing features. However, while Christianity prevails where it is 'at peace' or comfortable with itself, 'Islam' is often the form taken in more war-like or conflicting elements of the world order. They are nonetheless similar things expressed differently. However, Christianity and Islam are of course different religions, although Islam likes to pretend that it can accommodate Jesus. They have different bases, and people associated with them. Nonetheless, they are ultimately identical in capitalism. This hence diverges slightly, in a positive or negative direction. If capital is 'conservative' or retreating from religious demands, it will seek to pacify this or regress from religion to comfort opposed elements; if there is an insurgent or uncomfortable society, it will seek to go beyond religion or transcend this accommodation of opposed elements. Of course, any religion must involve elements of this accommodation, to survive in capital in a familiar fashion. Sometimes, they will turn against this, or seek to go further. This is implicit, as religion contains resistant elements. However, they contain them like flowers kept in a book, as things that are apologetic about this and are preserved in such a silenced state.

Of course, religions can be dragged further into something comfortable, as Baz Luhrmann can adapt Shakespeare plays. However, these need not be definitive or without controversy, as by that point each loses their overall point. One could go elsewhere if one wanted a film like that, but with an appropriate text that does not come across as comical - and with half-decent people in the main roles. Likewise, a religion mostly involving doing other things would soon give way to these things. The explicitly polytheistic religions sought to limit this, however they eventually pointed to too many alternatives to retain any substance or strictness. The most notable parts of such religions were often things like emperor-worship, which integrated religion with law and gave it some authority and unpredictability. The Caesars, for instance, were associated with this, after taking on the name of the dead Julius Caesar. Eventually, they could dissipate to allow in more 'monotheistic' religions. A religion which habitually deifies things is conservative. It is likely to dissipate, and is idle. A religion which deifies everything, like monotheism often tends towards, can also be so and in a more notable way. Nonetheless, monotheism can contain efforts at limiting this tendency, which Christianity attempts most thoroughly.

Football players are named after Messiah figures, albeit with some doubt implied as to the piousness of their religious beliefs. That could be put down to the laughter of the gods.

Hence, capitalism generally selects for examples of these things which distance themselves from what they are. The fields, such as art, can express some resistance to the commodification of activities and their formulation as abstract labour. 'There is no poetry in money' - and such things. Nonetheless, examples of them where they cede ground and draw the fields back to give way for civil society to carry on uncaring and as it is, tend to be found most secure. Nonetheless, they require some identification with this field and relegate others from it, hence they are inconsistent figures. In any case, this inconsistency and their problems are generally focussed on in their reputation under capitalism, their strengths obscured. Hence, their role has generally gone in this direction.

Hence, on the one hand they need to identify with the terrain and keep others out, on the other hand they let others act freely. They cannot necessarily do all of these things at once, so there is often some forgery around them. However, if they cannot happen at once, they can be represented in a story. This is still slightly inconsistent. Nonetheless, it would imply that someone secures a position or can repel others freely, nonetheless they eventually decide to give in to them and take on their viewpoint. Hence, from a story along these lines, appropriate figures might be generated. However, these are still self-limiting figures, ultimately. Further, they essentially secure a position - they keep others at bay, they do not place obviously shiny propositions that could be attacked and trouble them. They do not try to offer possible weaknesses, or things upon which their appeal clearly hinges, rather they remain secure. Hence, they are 'serious' or 'classics.' Hence, their adherence to a given field is important, as it staves others off - however, this only applies to those specific others. It is nonetheless a weak adherence. Religion, like art, has several elaborate and complex ends that aren't easily subordinated to the uniformity of value - and can subsist in a Masonic suspension which allows them to avoid undue subjugation. The hollowness of popular formalism is merely the subjugation of this to the 'content' of capitalistic society, which is so empty that only formalism can truly advocate it. In any case, then, these tendencies need to have a basis in something that staves things off, perhaps in a direct conflict, albeit with this accompanied by a general story. They control the terrain, and later are not defeated but submit and agree with the other. This is the basic format, and is not suicidal. Some of these stay closer to it than others.

In any case, then, clearly some uniformity prevails between fields. It continually infests them. Nonetheless, this is not to be taken as actually granting them priority of any kind. In general, the forms which these drew on were limited - some more than others. As they are hollow, things like plays resolve to garbled poetry. Marlowe accurately figured with Faustus - despite the play's own flaws - how the playwright gives themselves up to speak directly for others they cannot speak as, and yet it is ultimately fruitless. It is a rather dark message, for a play: a place where the playwright thinks they can play God because they have a pen. Nonetheless it accompanies some interesting religious portrayals to foreground a notable play.

Recent Statistics

In other news, recent reptilian statistics report startlingly that up to 1 in every 4 American government officials are reptilians. Not all are honest about this, in public governmental duties.

We bring you the FACTS and SCIENCE about reptilians.

Intro: A Dialogue, translated from German

"So what do you think of Hillary Clinton - ?"

"Who? Sorry, the name was tl;dr."

"Do you know what you just did?"

"Woah."

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.