Regarding Parrots, Oversocialization is Not the Right Word

To be fair it is something like oversocialization. Omni-ritualization. Slave socialization. 

Theocratization. Everything in the religion, nothing outside the religion, nothing against the religion. Omnidogmatic.

The Parrot reveals that nearly every non-child has severe social anxiety and has to frantically search for the approved ritual for interacting with a parrot.
They find there are obvious rituals but using them would de-legitimize other rituals. There are errors in the error codes, eliciting more error warnings.

Like bro you don't need to interact with a parrot at all. 

It does not have the ostentation of the peacock, the imposing presence of the ostrich or the latent lethality of a falcon or hawk.[...]

Yet, the parrot is not a threat, so you clearly cannot panic or be overwhelmed.

You can very safely ignore it. Even if it decides to attack you, after a moment of disorientation and dismay you'll have plenty of time to react to it. 

Americans are so desperately afraid that they can't ignore it, just in case that's heresy.  

 

Here in Reality, the only reason to look at it or otherwise interact with it is sheer idiosyncratic taste. There's no political or economic or reproductive ramifications whatsoever. You won't even be the next to pick your friend group's outing destination if you correctly ritualize the parrot, and nobody is going to ostracize you for ritualizing it wrong. 

In other words, doing it because you want to. If you want to, you can. Everyone can afford it. If you don't want to, then don't. Everyone can afford that too. 

That's it. That's all there is to a parrot. 

 

To my list of profundities, I will add the following: a free mind is one which the parrot can occupy easily, and stay in as long as it chooses. 

Now, the little black children engaged the parrot as completely as the little white girl. So if the little kids are born free and demonstrably remain free until at least age six

 

The adult American, however, has to reconcile the parrot with their vast system of cognitive dissonance. "How do I a world with a parrot without making this even worse?"

We are therefore forced, out of sheer necessity, to look at it.

"Oh shit I have to interact with the physical world instead of the social world." 

Rao doesn't know what he's 'supposed' to do with a parrot. His first and last instinct is obedience to a stronger power. Does he want to be tyrannized? I suppose he must. It makes him boring and fake 99% of the time, though. Why would I talk to a human-parrot about bird-parrots when I can talk to their master? And indeed their master is blasting NPC command codes all the time, so I already know what he said. No need to repeat it.

The parrot slightly jogs him out of this. He forgets, for a moment, that it's all lies by hacks, and accidentally takes some of the political exhortations literally.

Would it occur to him that whatever lofty abstractions it triggered, the parrot qua parrot would not make an appearance in the edifice he was building? Sadly, I must suspect that the thought would not have occurred to him.

[...]The parrot would again have been lost, subsumed here by the Absurd. As far as the parrot is concerned, Camus and Hegel differ little.

He wants to react to the parrot 'authentically' as a way of denying that authenticity, as he understands it, is yet another artificial ritual. 

A mind with ‘parrot’ on it should not look like anything recognizable.

Rao cannot imagine someone who doesn't have to ritualize and model the entire world.

Imagine someone as such: "Huh, a parrot. I don't know what's going on. That's okay. It doesn't matter." Rao cannot imagine it. 

That said, he's not wrong: none of the non-child New Yorkers could react to the parrot. Only to the politico-religious implications of a parrot.
It reminds me again of Fussell: there aren't any, which is their problem. There's no way to dunk on a Twatter by pointing out a parrot was in Ithaca today. You can't "score" any "points" by using that parrot to virtue-signal. And if you aren't scoring points, aren't you falling behind? Your mortgage is twitter-follower indexed, right? Right?

the “Awww!” you might direct at a puppy. A puppy is a punch you can roll with.

There's something you're 'supposed' to do with a puppy. You don't have to go off-road to deal with a puppy.  

When an American sees A Parrot, they suddenly have to be themselves instead of who they're 'supposed' to be. 

 

I think I'm onto something with omnidogmatism. It is not merely that you must obey the 39 strictures or whatever. Every situation has a stricture and you must obey it. Truly omnityrannous.  

P.S.

More on Truth as Darkness

They say that no matter how dark the night, it cannot snuff the candle's glow.

Indeed. 

No matter how overwhelming the truth, it cannot stop you from covering it with a lie, living in denial. 

All vices are parasites on virtues; without some virtue, the vice is meaningless. A lie is always true in a sense; it is true that you just lied. It is true that the words or ideas you expressed were indeed the ones you expressed. It is true that the idea contradicts Reality. It is true that someone found them convincing, and they did so due to mechanics that can be truly studied and understood. 

No, ultimately the candle snuffs itself. Lighting the candle is to, inevitably, destroy the candle. The only way to preserve that which powers the lie is to destroy the lie. 

Likewise, no matter how bright the light, no matter how overwhelming, it cannot destroy the darkness lingering behind it. The darkness isn't gone, the light merely renders it invisible. The light is merely temporary. Contingent. The darkness is absolute and eternal.

Vices Requires Virtues

Wrath is meaningless without courage.

Addiction is meaningless without wealth.

Sloth is meaningless without opportunity.

Waste is impossible without security.

Envy is meaningless without community.

Pride is meaningless without initiative.

Lies are meaningless without trust.

Egalitarianism Inherently Effeminate for Contradicting Competition

Men need to compete. It's a basic drive, like hunger. Women not only fail to understand this but actively try to stop men from getting what they need. ("You would be much happier if you were a woman!" "Bitch, why do you think you look happy to me?")

Under Egalitarianism you can't compete, because the winner is inherently a heretic. You inspired envy or jealousy! Burn the witch! How many times have you heard that it's not a competition? 

I mean, don't you always immediately think maybe it should be?

This is in part what causes such frantic, desperate status competition. Men are starving for contests and use backhanded methods to try to insert competitions everywhere just to get a fix. Worse, the Egalitarians and women try, often successfully, to nullify the results of the competition. To make everything [[fair]]. The men almost got water in the desert, and then it's snatched away. The desperation becomes desperate desperation.

This [[fairness]] response, of course, itself constitutes a competition. A competition to suppress competition. Which they just won.

Carlson took Stewart's Advice and Therefore Kicked His Ass

 https://www.thewrap.com/tucker-carlson-is-clearly-still-mad-about-the-time-jon-stewart-humiliated-him-on-cnn-video/

"Tucker Carlson Is Clearly Still Mad About the Time Jon Stewart Humiliated Him on CNN" 

I saw it live. At the time I was a Stewart watcher (I thought he was anti-establishment, lol@me) and I basically agreed with everything he said. I had no idea who Carlson was (I assumed he was some Party hack) and I wouldn't for many years. It struck me as by far the most sincere thing Stewart ever said (or would go on to say). Carlson was indeed humilitated.

Then, admitted by Carlson himself, he took Stewart's advice. Whoops. You weren't supposed to do that. It was 100% full-test hypocrisy. Stewart was confessing his sins via projection, as in standard for narcissists. It sounded sincere because, like all narcissists, the only thing he sincerely feels is self-hatred.

Have to say the results are in. Carlson wasn't just some court jester. Not entry #54325 deep state propagandist. Carlson dominated all video-form news for all of America, which means for the entire world. Carlson was the TV news anchor. Globally. 

Get fucked, Liebowitz. Yes, you deserve to hate yourself, and everyone with a modicum of healthy grey matter hates you too. I hear the Canadian healthcare system has a solution for situations like this. Should have responded to Trump by moving to Canada, apparently.
Jonathan's little rant didn't just apply to Carlson. It applied to every American journalist. Period.
However, it was only said to Tucker, and only Tucker repented of his sins.

One of the best ways to call out a liar is to take them seriously. Trust them fully and then reason through the consequences of what they say. How should you react? A logical reaction is almost always the opposite of what they wanted. Liebowitz wanted Crossfire cancelled, and he got what he wanted. He did not want it replaced with Tucker Carlson Tonight. Haha, oops. 

Having abruptly fired Tucker at the height of his popularity, Fox news has utterly 100% proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that American nonfiction is not a free market. It's Communist. It's all government agencies. Thanks Fox! I mean, Tucker wasn't good enough anyway, so fundamentally everything will continue working as intended. It's nothing but a very dramatic case study; a scientific paper they paid millions for the privilege of providing us.

He who pays the piper, and you don't pay for it. You're the product, not the customer. 

 

Carlson leaving Fox cost their stock price $500 million or so, and that sounds about right to me. Does Tucker constitute capital/equipment worth about half a b? Yeah, seems plausible.

Fascism: Direct Self-Contradiction

Communism is the idea that if the rich didn't exist, everyone would be rich.

White nationalism is the idea that if the Jews didn't exist, everyone would be smart and "ethnocentric" like the Jews. 

Democracy has changed its self-contradictory myth several times, but it seems it has settled on the idea that if white men didn't exist, everyone would be a white man. If nobody knew math or showed up on time, bridges would stay up, but even more so. 

Point 3: Plot of the State Enemy. All imperfection is due to [insert card-carrying villain].
That said, I particularly enjoyed the minor Democracy B-plot which was that if the Communists didn't exist, everyone would be rich and powerful and [[free]]. That one was too stupid for even Americans to buy into often or for long. 

Fascism is the idea that if the high-status didn't exist, everyone would have high status.

Harry Potter's World is Insecure

If one Voldemort can do it, another Voldemort can do it. 

Honestly it doesn't look that hard. Doesn't take a genius of sabotage. 

The Ministry has to win every time. Voldemort only has to win once. They're doomed, it's merely a matter of time. Rowling only has a story because the Ministry won't secure its shit. Rowling also only has a 'happy' story because she stops there (aposiopesis) and hopes everyone stops thinking with her.

By the way, story of Voldemort: he kills himself with a spell rebound due to violating an obscure wizarding technicality, then comes back to life so he can kill himself with a spell rebound due to violating an obscure wizarding technicality. 

Female writer; naturally the plot, with all its sharp, un-cozy points, is not a strong suit. Nor the "hero" having, you know, agency. The school and its procedures and knick-knacks are what Rowling is good at. (So, taking care of kids and their environment. How bizarre and surprising. Who could have predicted this.)

Without Voldemort committing Canadian Healthcare, Rowling's wizarding world has no chance. What if one of the Wizengamot happens to secretly already be a dark wizard, and decides he's tired of red tape? Game over. 

Rowling's world needs a big strong man to save it from itself. 

--

Rowling's world is unconsciously inegalitarian, and has the dark mirror of the problem of the real world.

The Ministry always wants to decay into the Imperium, explicitly privileging noble blood over muddy magicless common dirt farmers and their ilk. "Yeah, uh, we really are better. If there's a dispute, we're probably in the right, you barbarians." Has to fight savagely against purifying its own principles, and will inevitably lose. 

The Global Loser-Egalitarian Empire (GLEE club) has to fight savagely against decaying into pure Marxist Communism, meaning everyone starves to death, and will inevitably lose.

I Want Everyone to be Upper Class

Obedience results in copying upper-class behaviour. In most cases a compassionate lord will tell you to do what they would do in your situation.

Nevertheless, the correct response to anyone lower-class who refuses to obey is disgust and ostracism. With a few notable exceptions, upper-class behaviour is simply better. Anyone trying to cling to their lower-class roots is deliberately vandalizing their own experience and the lives of those around them. Revolting.

Perhaps it's not intense enough to call it a crime, but it's certainly criminal-adjacent.