Neon Indian (FOR SMART PEOPLE ONLY)

Contents of a communication (version 1.1) to professor Janis Johnson (expert in American Indian culture, professor at the University of Idaho):

Intended for immediate circulation among academic professors (especially those who specialize in music, music history, American culture / literature, and the American Indian experience) direct from a nice little college town in Idaho:

SUBJECT:
NEON INDIAN (Am. Indian voice in (recurring?) Electropop revival fad)

BODY:
I'll contribute a little hard-hitting pop philosophy in the Western analytical tradition.

What I'm calling the (hopefully recurring) Electropop revival fad (otherwise known as synthwave, or retrowave, and things like that) is a very interesting grassroots movement in the independent music community. For myself, it's a little important to look into what appears to be the aesthetic focus of the movement.

Although many very legitimate exponents of the idea are cropping up all over the Internet, the aesthetic brainchild (properly understood) of the movement appears to be a man by the name of Seth Haley.

The whole focus of the new / revised genre involves exploring different ideas of organic[ity] regarding sequenced, looped, processed, sampled et cetera, digital and analog electronic, digital-electronic, and algorithmic sound synthesis / resynthesis techniques. So far my favorite exponents of this genre appear to be the work of Seth Haley and a private digital edit of my favorite track by Neon Indian (which I cannot release for copyright reasons).

The name of the track is exactly this: "Mind, Drips". (It's important to note that capitalization, grammar, and so forth are all fairly important in the title, and that it be properly quoted to signify that it is in fact the title of the work in question.)

I'll endeavor to use my knowledge of synthesis techniques to try to explain the cultural significance of the movement, as my knowledge, I think, is fairly extensive in this area. I'll try to keep it short, but it may take a while.

I think the most important cultural factor here is the well-observed and fairly obvious fact that digital synth techniques (digital-electronic as well as algorithmic) are almost never expensive, and very easy to come by. On the same hand, however, authentic analog electronic techniques are invariably difficult to procure in just about every possible way. This fact pretty much cuts to the root of scientific and philosophical inquiry itself in the Western tradition.

It would take an extremely long time to get into what I mean by that, and since that's not the focus of this, I'll let that by for now.

I'll first use a short burst of theory to explain this. Authentic analog electronic paths introduce true-random noise into the synthesis structure of the technology, whereas digital techniques are usually suffocatingly precise. In terms of a single step in my aesthetic journey as a musician: I had a struggle at one point trying to come up with powerful, bassy sounds. I assummed, incorrectly, that the right way to do it was with sharp and exact digitally-produced synthesized audio wave files. My working theory at the time was, the more sharp, and the more exact, the more powerful.

Upon even modest historical investigation of the subject, however, it became very clear that I was exactly wrong. The ONLY way I can think of to produce truly powerful sounds is the introduction of reasonably true-random noise.

We don't have to worry too much (as artists, anyway) about the mathematical/philosophical/theoretical notions regarding the definition of "true-random" as I'm fairly sure this is still a point of controversy. However. The salient point here involves organic[ity] using electronics and computers. (Although from time to time so far I also hear a guitar.)

I can't delve too much further into this due to lack of time, though it's all over the Internet. Perhaps it would be best to offer a couple of examples and how they illustrate the point. (Be aware, from time to time, I may fudge a few details.)

TITLE:
Com Truise (aka Seth Haley) — ControlPop

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This track involves some of the most cheezy synth techniques not from the '80s, but actually (I think) from the '70s (wide filter sweeps). It's very much looped, very repetitive. It begins by (and by? it did repeat at least once here) harsh and grating pop music (esque?) samples. The point of organi[city] mainly involves the exact model and build of the specific synthesizers used, and their respective circuit-paths. I actually don't know any of these models and builds at all, but that's the factor. It's very much about figuring out the exact right insane genius who created the exact right synthesis technique (and embodiment) and coming to terms with their particular and individual method of introducing randomness to generate powerful sounds. After that, the aesthetic decisions regarding placement (in the track) should be very simple, however, it may be difficult sometimes to procure the necessary funding to buy the equipment.

TITLE:
Com Truise — "VHS Sex" (listen on YouTube)

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This one is a little more controlled. By appearances, far less synthesis techniques were used than the last track, and the power here relies mainly on the theoretical notion of introducing randomness primarily regarding such-and-such synthesizer (I know not which). The main point is that there are less synths. (On a personal note, I find this track a little difficult, because of the vocal sample, because, as a budding filmmaker, I continue to have fantasies about using this exact track in the official My Little Pony (FIM) movie regarding important scenes focusing on Princesses Celestia and Luna, where power is particularly relevant. I find it difficult to imagine, unfortunately, how a large corporation could possibly get away with such a thing, though, even if the samples were removed, which sort-of would've been my creative decision.)

TITLE:
Jeff Mills — "Phase 4"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This isn't really part of the movement, per se, but it's still relevant, and I can explain quickly. Organi[city] was easily achieved using two repeated samples of some esoteric, virtuoso technique on the violin. The rest was mechanical.

TITLE:
Com Tuise — "Data Kiss"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This one is very difficult to explain. The track is actually one of his weaker ones, aesthetically (in my humble opinion, which of course should be understood within the context of my own, personal, aesthetic commitments as an artist at this point), but that's not what I want to talk about.

The main thing I want to talk about here is the video produced by a man named "David Dean Burkhart" for the track. It is only a remix of what appears to be a low-budget '80s flick by the name of "Looker." Organicity, here, appears to have been amazingly achieved merely through the editing of the video. There is one point of organicity I'm certain about, and one I'm not so sure about. The first (I'm fairly 100% sure) is exactly this: organicity achieved through asynchronous usage of rather categorically different modes of editing and capture technologies. If you watch some of the "subliminal"-(ish) cuts very closely, you'll notice that as the cuts get smaller, the screen flickers more. I cannot conceive of any possible way to achieve this except through exactly the method I described: asynchronous usage of (rather) categorically different modes of editing and capture technologies.

The second, which I'm not so sure about, is the very last motion clip at the end, where the protagonist-girl kind-of dissolves like a rainbow (except a little more like a mathematical rainbow of just one color). It looks like the kind of thing which you'd do using "analog, modular video synthesis" (emphasis on the word "video" and "modular"), but I don't think this technique was in vogue in the '80s, and is rather expensive to produce, particularly on a limited time-frame. But I'm not sure.

TITLE:
Neotone (aka Nathan Foster, the author) — "Crystadeline"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This is my own contribution, but it may be difficult for some. For one, of the one's I've mentioned, it appears (to me anyway) to be the least organic. And the main problem was that I was forced to use mainly weird math, as well as exactly 1 and 1/2 of exactly the wrong kind of synthesizer, as well as (luckily) exactly the right authentic, analog filtering technology.

In addition to stock FutureLoops (FruityLoops, I think, at the time, but they got sued) samples, I used two synthesizers. They were not authentic-analog, by any reputable understanding of the term. One of them was one or another of the Casio brand of synthesizers. However, interestingly, I somehow was able to get away (aesthetically) with using a fairly lossless and unmodified live-recorded sample line as the second bass track from this synth. Simply by choosing exactly the right preset. (I'm not sure how I did that.)

The second synth has a little more troubled of a history. The model of the synth is the "Korg Poly 800 MKII". First of all, the circuit path of this synth is pretty much flawed in every way a circuit path can be flawed in a digital-electronic synthesizer. It was produced, I think, to sell quickly. And second of all, the previous owner had no idea how to take care of vintage synths, and it's a miracle the thing still works. (I also kind-of broke the rules by playing on the synth keyboard directly, instead of sequencing through a midi connection. It does help, though, that this was one part of the way organicity was achieved.) Most of the synth samples were collected using this synth.

There were a couple of other ways, too. For one, I used an amplifier-to-microphone sampling technique using a fairly acoustically dirty amplifier. The dirtiness of the amp helped, and (though I didn't intend for this to happen) it also helped that some background noises involving the Audacity metronome were picked up, and I was able to accept this eventuality aesthetically.

The third, and most important factor in the synthesis technique I used was really the miracle of the story. Somehow, at some point, I was able to come across a good deal of money. One of the things I purchased (true-to-form in the musical tradition in question) was exactly the right synthesis (module) produced by exactly the right insane genius. The product is the revised version of the Sherman Filterbank (rack-mountable, but that's not important). I was able to create an ad-hoc modular analog synthesizer with a very pleasing circuit path simply by connecting an audio patch cable between the MKII and the Filterbank. I used automatic ADSR triggering techniques in the filterbank, as well as a little distortion, and it all seemed to work out. (It's a very nice module because it's not that expensive, easy to use, well-designed, and anyway, there are a lot of them in production, I believe. It has a strange reputation of being able to inject organi[city] everywhere it goes.)

Another important point to note was the focus of the track. I set out with exactly the intention of achieving exactly the same "sound" (or "style," or whatever) as the track "VHS Sex," and furthermore, by using exactly the same, minimalistic chord progression. While making, of course, my own artistic statement. And I achieved exactly that. I suppose due to echoes of my previous aesthetic commitments as a musician, the track also ended up being more minimalist in nature. I threw in exactly two strange, fetishistic female vocal samples derived in these respective ways: One was conceptually fetishistic ("I feel you coming"), which was shipped royalty-free and licensed as a stock sample in the version of FruityLoops I was using at the time, and strangly and a-tonally modified using various functionality in the program. The second was a woman (Psifon) faking an orgasm, who recorded the sample herself, and uploaded it for free to Freesound.org. (I feel strange noting this, as an artist, but by the way, she did a very good job.) A couple sequencing decisions later, and I had a track.

I'd also hasten to note that another sample is an extremely speeded-up one of a something-or-other (probably another Casio preset), and the other is a very well-collected, well-selected, and well-used sample of a Sanza (traditional African musical instrument). Hope no one's aesthetically offended by either of these.

TITLE:
Neon Indian — "Mind, Drips"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
This track is extremely rare as an artistic achievement. It's very, very organic, first of all. Synthesizer techniques were used in exactly the right way. Some of the details were fudged, but it turned out very beautifully. And one, oft-overlooked aspect of this movement, by so many authors, is the presence of beautiful and complex poetic lyrics. (Only once did I see something like this on the Internet — what appears to be Com Truise's remix of Foster the People's "Helena Beat," but it isn't really the same, since two different sources produced the work. It's another amazing track which I also have fantasies about using in the official My Little Pony movie, but as a director, I'd be satisfied to settle with the track in question here ("Mind, Drips."))

I hate to bring this nonsense up AGAIN, but in my HUMBLE opinion as an artist, due to my current artistic commitments as an artist, I do wish the track were a little longer, though I'm willing to accept competing opinions. I've already produced my own edit, and I listen to it all the time. (Of course, for the purposes of the My Little Pony movie, it'd certainly be better to use the shorter version, which would run during the credits. Perhaps I'd be able to get away with both songs, if there were enough artists involved in the making of the film.)

TITLE:
Airliner (also Seth Haley) — "Illuminism"

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
Organicity is achieved through dialectical negotiation between artistic intent and skillful prediction of / happy accidents regarding algorithmic results, all revolving around the musical notion of rhythm.

TITLE:
Airliner — "Everyday"

DESCRIPTION:
Organicity is achieved through dialectical negotiation between artistic intent and skillful prediction of / happy accidents regarding algorithmic results, all revolving around the musical notion of chord progression.

TITLE:
HYPERDRIVER — "KEEP IT HARDCORE (...RUSHES IN WITH A HAMMER)" (title in all-caps as it appears on my hard drive)

RELEVANT DESCRIPTION:
I'd better hasten to mention this track, although the genre is very different. I'm a little unaware of HYPERDRIVER's creative process. But organic[ity] was easily, and probably very quickly achieved in this track by what appeared to be a long-distance phone call between two friends in different countries who met over the Internet. (The story behind this one takes a while to explain, but I may have already gotten one or two of the details wrong, and I'm sure the folks in question can speak for themselves.)



Pretty much all of this music is available for free over the Internet. However, I'm absolutely certain that all these people REALLY REALLY REALLY want to make money. It is available for free, per se, but it's pretty much just a slick marketing technique, and in a sense (I suppose), all (or at least most) roads lead to Ghostly Intl. (a Corporation). (With the exception of a couple artists, for instance Neon Indian, who releases under a different label, and manages his own webpage: neonindian.com.)

It's important to understand the notions here regarding the concept of Organicity, and the various ways in which it is achieved, within my specific tradition of electronic pop music synthesis.

a remix and / or edit of the words of "The Goddess"

I'm going to have another shouting session. I'll try real hard not to piss anybody off this time. So you'd better f-ing listen.

HEY. Last night, I was asking Mother Earth Herself to reach up with water, dirt, wind, fire, microbes, dioxyribonucleic acid, weird quantum shit, and so forth, and start yanking around who is hurting Her the WORST—setting up these fucking impossible rules and laws exactly 0x0002 feet high with only twenty minutes to read, IF you are lucky enough to KNOW about it... and it LOOKS LIKE the doors are open for business, BUT, guess you need a secret handshake for that. Anyway, I think it'd be funny when SHE starts reaching up and yanking those who have thought "G, let's put a pipeline over a natural well of water to pump oil across the exact fucking place where most of the foods are grown."

Since WHEN is that EVER a good idea? >__<

<end of line>

I'm going to have another shouting session. I'll try real hard not to piss anybody off this time. So you'd better f-ing listen.

HEY. Last night, I was asking Mother Earth Herself to reach up with water, dirt, wind, fire, microbes, dioxyribonucleic acid, weird quantum shit, and so forth, and start yanking around who is hurting Her the WORST—setting up these fucking impossible rules and laws exactly ten feet high with only twenty minutes to read, IF you are lucky enough to KNOW about it... and it LOOKS LIKE the doors are open for business, BUT, guess you need a secret handshake for that. Anyway, I think it'd be funny when SHE starts reaching up and yanking those who have thought "G, let's put a pipeline over a natural well of water to pump oil across the exact fucking place where most of the foods are grown."

Since WHEN is that EVER a good idea? >__<

<end of line>

I'm going to have another shouting session. I'll try real hard not to piss anybody off this time. So you'd better f-ing listen.

HEY. Last night, I was asking Mother Earth Herself to reach up with water, dirt, wind, fire, microbes, dioxyribonucleic acid, weird quantum shit, and so forth, and start yanking around who is hurting Her the WORST—setting up these fucking impossible rules and laws exactly 10^2 feet high with only twenty minutes to read, IF you are lucky enough to KNOW about it... and it LOOKS LIKE the doors are open for business, BUT, guess you need a secret handshake for that. Anyway, I think it'd be funny when SHE starts reaching up and yanking those who have thought "G, let's put a pipeline over a natural well of water to pump oil across the exact fucking place where most of the foods are grown."

Since WHEN is that EVER a good idea? >__<

<end of line>

imaginary conversation with ms crush

Nathan:

--------------

So I wrote this post on my blog that I think you'd like. (Color me marketing professional. Now I'm sending marketing messages to you. I know, pretty fucking low.) It's about something entirely different, but it has some interesting stuff about grammar and particularly punctuations.

So here'a riddle: What is the single most definitive grammatical termination of a vocal utterance in American English?

I'll give you a not-so-subtle hint. It's exactly this: <eol>. Has to do with pre-Internet computer communication technologies. (I do NOT envy the people who tried to figure this kind of shit out back then, by the way. It's exactly the kind of thing that'd maybe drive some people really crazy.)

(crush):

--------------

You're wrong. You need to do your homework. *sigh* You call yourself a Journalism major. I'm not sure what the whole eol thing means. It's this: "###" the triple-pound sign. You should really study this stuff.

Nathan:

--------------

Oh dear... I hate to do this but actually you're not quite correct about this one. Journalists did actually use the triple-pound to signify an end to communication, but <eol> has a far richer cultural significance.

(crush):

--------------

Not sure what you're talking about. Looks more like an aesthetic significance to me. Maybe cultural, but certainly not grammatical.

Nathan:

--------------

I think what you have to investigate here is what was going on in the minds of the programmers who actually invented this stuff. They were trying to figure out how to make direct, line-to-line communication between not-very-advanced computers.

They basically understood that any direct communication message could be condensed by chopping it all up into exactly one line of code, and further condensed by chopping that up into 1's and 0's. But here's what I don't envy. It's pretty easy to get two computers to communicate the message between one-another reliably, unless you don't know the computer you're talking to. Then you have to introduce a way to actually tell the other computer to STOP COMMUNICATING. There are mathematical reasons why that is extremely difficult to do.

I'm a little spotty on the theory in this stuff, but I think what they did was they tried to create a specially-encoded message that only a computer would recognize signaling the termination of a line of code. That's why I choose eol (stands for "end of line"). I put it in angle brackets because of the cultural significance regarding markup languages (such as HTML).

You could put the letters in all-caps, I suppose, for more emphasis, but that's a little over-dramatic. (Again, spotty research here but...) I'm pretty sure the computers back then didn't care about capitalization at all anyway, so it's not that significant.

There's another wonderful cultural significance, too: by far, the most BEAUTIFUL movie in the American filmmaking tradition was a movie by the name of Tron. It is so beautiful, in every possible way that a Hollywood film could possibly be beautiful. (Put out by Disney, too! That shit's never gonna stop selling.) The thing which the evil enemy computer called "MASTER CONTROL PROGRAM" kept repeating which was driving everybody crazy was, "END OF LINE"

[the rest has been temporarily edited]

Sincerely,

—Nathan

On the Indestructability of Things and the Destruction of the World

There are two conditions which must be met in the conceptual praxis of a thing in order for it to be indestructable. It must be a) focused, and b) concept-agnostic.

"Focused" means that the thing has a conceptual coherence with is not overly loose. The conceptual coherence of the thing does not let loose of itself and dissipate. It does not wander, freehand, all over the place, refusing to alight on any kind of an identity. In other words, there must be no internal will or forces which lead to a diffusion of conceptual characteristics. There must be a sense of overriding conceptual unity and coherence.

An example of this kind of diffusion would be shattering a plate. If you shattered a plate, the plate would be destroyed. Plates, therefore, are not indestructable, because they can be shattered. A plate is "focused" because it is created as a work. It has an internal coherence. It is round, it has artwork on it, and it was created using specific techniques. All of these elements came together to form the plate. That is what gives it its focus. It is not, therefore, indestructable because it lacks focus. Rather, it is not indestructable because it lacks concept-agnosticism.

The term "concept-agnosticism" involves a very specific set of words. "Concept" involves an idea with a sense of relatively strict internal coherence. Implied in this word is the idea, mentioned above, of "focus." Concepts always have focus. A thing, in order to be indestructable, must not only be a concept, and hence have focus, but it must also be concept-agnostic. The choice of the second word here is very important.

I could have, but did not, choose the term "a-conceptual." A-conceptual things are things which strictly negate any sense of being a concept, or having concepts. They are non-conceptual. Such things may exist, but the attribute of being non-conceptual is not a primary facet in its indestructability.

I could've also chosen the term "anti-conceptual." This is a different concept altogether. To be anti-conceptual, a thing is opposed to any kind of conceptual coherence at all. It isn't merely that it lacks the attribute of being a concept, but that it repels whatever forces would have it become a concept. To my knowledge, the only things which bother to be anti-conceptual are annoyingly cliche New York artists.

The choice of words, here, are very specific. "Concept-agnostic" implies a certain geometry of related ideas, which work together to make sure that the "focused" and "conceptual" nature of the thing in question remains existent. We could return to the idea of the shattered plate. A shattered plate has lost its focused, conceptual nature. Now imagine if the plate were, in fact, concept-agnostic, in addition to being focused. Whatever the means which attempted to shatter the plate would have introduced a conceptual idea to the plate, but since the plate is agnostic of its own internal conceptual makeup, this means of shattering the plate would not have actually destroyed the plate.

So we can understand a thing's "concept-agnosticism" as a sense of openness to new conceptual ideas with regards to its internal conceptual makeup. The idea is that the thing in question is agnostic of its own internal conceptual makeup. This, of course, allows external concepts which talk to it to contribute to, rather than destroy, its own conceptual makeup.

Naturally, concept-agnosticism is important with regards to the indestructability of a thing, but it is not the whole thing. The thing must also be focused. Simply being agnostic of one's internal conceptual makeup does not allow one to be indestructable, unless something about it defines the thing as an actual concept. A thing which is not focused is not a thing at all, and therefore it is meaningless to apply any kind of attributions to it, or identify it at all, even with regards to its internal concept-agnosticism.

Now, to relate this to the end of the world.

The hippies believed that everything had to be completely concept-agnostic. My opinion is that this aspect of the movement can be traced not to the idea of Prajnaparamita and Buddhism, but to the influence of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (and perhaps also to certain aspects of the Hindu yogic tradition, though I haven't studied that very much). The Golden Dawn were a group of occultists who came about near the end of the 19th century. However, by all appearances, in the course of their studies of the occult, these folks became frightened of the significance of their own discoveries. As a result, they moved more and more towards a strict insistence on concept-agnosticism, and respect and reverence for imaginary deities which didn't really exist. It should come as no surprise, then, that the Golden Dawn has since fractured and fallen apart. They were not indestructable, because they had no focus. (It's important to note, I think, that modern Paganism and Neo-Paganism, as well as most Wicca, and other magical orders, are descendants of the Golden Dawn.)

It's not surprising that studies in occultism would lead people to become frightened of their own discoveries. There is a well-established link between magical practice and psychosis. Crowley (as it appears) drove his first wife insane, and she ended up in a mental hospital. People who take magic seriously often fall prey to the psychiatrists. The reason is the link between psychosis and magical practice. And the reason for this link is the obvious similarity between psychosis and power. The purpose of magic is to gain primary, mental control over the external world. Wiccans will deny this, and anti-Illuminati sentiment among Wiccans is very strong. But really, they don't know what they're talking about.

The exact same thing can be said about people who practice pedophilia, or Ritual Satanic Abuse, and so forth. Such people recognize their attraction to little boys or girls (or whatever), and they discover the correct way to exercise their desires and "get away with it," but they become afraid of the significance of their discoveries. The karmic result of this is magical suffering and/or psychosis.

Naturally, we can relate the idea of magical practice itself to the creation of the world, or at least to the creation of a "world order." But we also have to relate all this to the destruction of the world. Hopefully, we can all understand the link between magical practice and psychosis. And now, we may be able to understand the creation of a "world order" to psychosis as well. In my vast experience with psychosis (which I have experienced to a great degree and still experience from time to time), the most important thing to do to heal yourself from its grip is to kill yourself a little bit. If you're feeling psychotic, the only way to heal is to kill yourself with something like alcohol or sleep medications. Naturally, you don't have to physically die, but we all know what alcohol and sleep medications do: they destroy the ability of the brain to hold onto itself. If you introduce this sort of drug into your system, you'll begin to lose control of your mindstream. This is essential to healing from psychosis, because the essence of psychosis is too much control over your own mindstream.

Psychiatrists, unfortunately, might claim that there is no difference at all between psychosis and magical practice. This is not the case. There is a difference, but the difference is subtle. Magical practice is first-mental control over the external world. Psychosis is mental control over your own mindstream. (Yoga, too, is different. My understanding is that yoga is primarily external control over one's own mindstream.)

In terms of personal experience, we can identify two broad categories for each phenomenon (magical practice and psychosis). You can have magical practice which is natural, and magical practice which is suffering. Likewise, you can have psychosis which is natural, and psychosis which is suffering. I've already explained the way to heal from the suffering form of psychosis (by killing yourself a little bit). The way to heal from the suffering of magical practice is similar. You have to break things up a little bit, externally. Now I don't mean you have to destroy things. All I really mean is that you have to get a little dirty. You have to invite in a little bit of dirt, and allow a modest and measured amount of "probing" from other beings external to yourself. You have to make changes, compassionately, in a way that doesn't hurt people. In other words, if the words in the books you read begin to look more like shadows than words, the solution is to let other people read them, and then discuss it. Or to read different books.

If you look back over my blog, and if you're friends with me and read my personal correspondences, you may notice a recurring theme of myself calling for the destruction of the world. If you analyze the reasons why I'm saying these things, the picture should become clear. I call for destruction of the world when there is far too much control involved in the way the world works. That is why the world must be destroyed. Now I don't indulge in conspiracy theories, and I don't believe that anyone who attempts to control the world must be killed, or anything like that. However, it's obvious, if you think about it, that the compassionate thing to do when someone has too much control over the world is to destroy the world a little bit. Otherwise, it looks too much like suffering—suffering which is relevantly similar to psychotic suffering.

You may also jump to the conclusion that I'm talking about "The Illuminati." That is, when I call for the destruction of the world, the attack is directed at the upper echelons of whatever secret organization you think I'm referring to whenever I talk about "The Illuminati." This is nonsense. There is no such thing as an organization that has only a single member. And in any organization, some members are more advanced morally than others. And in any case, there are different kinds of organizations who call themselves "The Illuminati." And regardless, I may not even be talking about such groups as The Illuminated Seers of Bavaria or The Freemasons or the O.T.O. and so forth. I could just be talking about a specific coven of Witches, or perhaps scientists, cult leaders, or psychiatrists. It's obvious when I'm talking about the destruction of the world (synonymous here with the destruction of the "world order") what I'm talking about is the destruction of the controlled world order of whoever it is that is creating a world which is identical with a world of suffering.

As a matter of fact, whenever I say these things about the destruction of the world, it's probable that I'm talking about psychiatrists, or rapists. Rapists have the potential to cause people to become psychotic. Psychiatrists dedicate their lives to committing genocide against people who are psychotic. A rapist will call in psychiatry in order to snuff out someone who they've raped, so that their voice is never heard. Or, psychiatry, on its own accord, will sniff out someone who is psychotic (perhaps because of previous rape) and due to their hateful nature snuff them out on their own. Each group, the rapists and the psychiatrists, have created their own, neat little world order, and each world order must be destroyed, to the extent to which is enough to cease magical suffering.

The problem, in all cases, with each of our "world orders," is a lack of either sufficient focus, or concept-agnosticism. To use my own world order as an example, if I elect to completely forget about trauma, and forget about my own psychosis, and to give up on my ambitions regarding my sociality and possible future family life, career, and so forth, I will lose focus. If, on the other hand, I retain too much contact with people who try to control my life, or if I do too much to control all exigencies regarding personal finances, creation of artwork, and so forth, I will lack concept-agnosticism.

How to Tell if there's a Conspiracy

Conspiracies exist. Everywhere. A conspiracy is defined as an attempt to do something unethical, which you don't want anyone beyond your circle of friends to know about. Of course, there are times when doing something unethical is necessary, usually to protect yourself. However, unfortunately, there are certain people in the world who are ignorant of the effects of unethical actions, which are always bad. These kinds of people commit conspiracies and think they'll "get away with it." You never get away with a conspiracy, but if you were trying to protect yourself, or something similar to that, then you may be able at least to survive the negative effects of the natural consequences of when the truth comes to light.

How to Tell if There's a Conspiracy:

You check the independent channels. They won't know all of the truth. This is because they're independent. They don't have a lot of social resources, so they can't access all of the truth. Some of them, you can't trust. Some of them have been infiltrated by conspirators who don't want the truth to be known.

You check the people who you think are committing the conspiracy. They'll mechanically repeat the exact same thing: "There is no conspiracy here." Or something relevantly similar to that. If they actually did make a mistake, and as a matter of fact they are decent people and not conspirators, they will send out marketing information revealing exactly what the mistakes were, who made them, and what they're doing to correct the problem.

You check the people who you trust, who have seen the truth. This is called an empirical observation. Eventually, you'll find a couple empirical observations through the appropriate channels which contradict the last mechanically repeated statement, "There is no conspiracy here." Then you know there's a conspiracy.

However. Even at this point, not all the questions have been answered. You don't know for certain who is the one committing the conspiracy. Depending on how much you've been hurt by the conspiracy, it's up to you to determine how extensive of an investigation you want to make to determine who the real conspirators are, and it's also up to you to determine how you're going to use violent means (like the government or the law) to neutralize the conspiracy and bring the criminals to justice.

This goes for corporate conspiracies, Illuminati conspiracies, government conspiracies, raver conspiracies, Satanist conspiracies, Buddhist conspiracies, etc.