Re: Owl melonheads’ “insider-outsider” central conceit

The thesis of Apocalypse Now is that borrowing authority from an institution is like being stuck between a hammer and an anvil. On the one hand, you have to bring your own initiative, exercise individual judgment in pursuit of the mission, and get blamed for every failure that happens under your command. On the other hand, you have to carry out nonsensical missions to achieve contradictory strategic goals and follow arbitrary rules of engagement (written by people with no understanding or sense of responsibility) that prevent your success. This leads to the paradox that is tearing apart Colonel Kurtz’s soul.

https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2021/02/22/first-draft-of-apocalypse-now-part-3-of-3/

Imagine that you’re a colonel in the modern military and a general orders you to both win a battle and achieve a zero carbon footprint, and you’ll have an idea what that’s like. You don’t get to choose your orders or challenge them legally, it’s logically impossible to achieve both missions, you’re on the hook for the blame, and you can’t desert. There’s no way to maintain your honor in that situation. The central conceit itself is therefore pretty simple and easy to understand: it’s the desire to wield the power of institutions (particularly military power) without being beholden to them.

For example, John Ringo’s character Mike Jenkins (the Kildar) answers to no man and is king of his castle, but he’s also personal friends with the president of the United States and can basically call in a nuclear strike if he feels like it. So on the one hand, if there’s ever anything bad about America he’s not on the hook. But he also gets to flex on people and be all “Do you not know who the fuck I am? I can get on the phone and call the president on you in two seconds.”

In one of the books there’s a bunch of senators and such going to a snuff whorehouse. If Mike Jenkins were himself the president, he would have to take at least a sliver of responsibility and perhaps even do a formal apology on behalf of the US. Instead he can just sit in his bunker like Trump during the BLM riots and tweet “Man, that looks bad. Someone really should take responsibility!” (That’s not how the Kildar story goes, but his moral high ground for sitting out the fight allows him to negotiate for more money for the job of knocking down the snuffhouse.)

Now, obviously everybody wants power without accountability. It’s the perfect vice and that’s why it shows up in a pure wish fulfillment character (and an enjoyable one, I’ve read all those books three times). Owl melons are only distinct in that they get off on informal networking with insiders while retaining formal autonomy from the chain of command. In contrast with, say, snake melons, who retain real autonomy in positions of formal responsibility. Because they don’t mind backstabbing, ignoring orders, etc. They feel much greater responsibility to follow informal rules than formal ones, and what’s the actual moral difference anyway?

(Reacts on this from a certified troo owl melonhead tomorrow.)

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Re: Owl melonheads’ “insider-outsider” central conceit

  1. bicebicebice says:

    https://clip2net.com/clip/m197736/e2485-clip-137kb.jpg?nocache=1

    …so you see, snippets like this is all the people gonna get

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I can’t imagine why Edenism lore would become fragmented…I mean other than every surviving record other than this blog being deleted years ago.

      • Zeb Zebley says:

        even if there’s no link to the GUTOE, (say it isn’t so) Is there any body of knowledge that still exists, that’s worth the read?

        I asked Koanic about it the other day and he told me that itz “all obsolete anyway”.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Sounds like he’s gotten more helpful with age.

          I don’t know what the state of he forums is these days, but that’s where most of the good stuff was. Worth reading? Depends what you’re into and if you’ve got anything better to do.

          • Mr. T. says:

            Those Neanderhall links in the sidebar don’t seem to be working, unfortunately.

            I was thinking about archiving some of the stuff. Years ago I posted Tex’s relevant writings in that “Vault-co’s Edenism Posts” thread, but didn’t save them locally. Would rather not go though the blog again if I could get to that Neanderhall thread…

            I also had the idea of going through this blog’s edenism posts and saving the links/pages/texts, but not sure if I’ll get to doing that. Will see, maybe.

            It would be nice if there would be a PDF of all the relevant Aeoli Pera/Vault-Co/Koanic Edenism posts available, but work work work.

        • bicebicebice says:

          >Is there any body of knowledge that still exists, that’s worth the read?

          https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/vaught-s-practical-character-reader-1902 there you have it page by page, throw in some genetics about neanderthards and melonboons and ancient civilizations….

          basically edenism is a eulogy to phrenology which was real socio-biological science all along unironically basically political religious and national subscription services don’t work unless you need lots of blockpushers or meat for the grinder – I WIPE MY ASS WITH TABULA RASA the jewish century (1900-1999) erased all real white man science itz over abandon ship

            • bicebicebice says:

              You want Edenism?!? BUCKO YOU*RE LIVING IN IT!

              Start date of industrial revolution;
              1760 + 250 = “2012”

              Start date of middlge ages;
              1469 + 500 = 1969 nazi moon landing and peak of white man™ world
              The “Middle Ages” first appears in Latin in 1469 as media tempestas or “middle season”

              pride before fall and thats when the jews decided to stop skulking around in the shadows and instead wage open warfare on the white family unit-the sixties-white man peaked™.

              The bottom line is that certain people are born to schmuck or be schmucked and then you have the good guy neanderthals who wish for an apocalypse to restore the carrying capacity of earth and destroy the psychic pedo satanic vampires who wage dishonorable “war” through pen paper and the aether

    • what says:

      Aeoli needs to grow a spider in his head before he can write that. Occs aren’t good at formalizing things.

  2. Pingback: Owl re: central conceits | Aeoli Pera

  3. carbon sinking that enemy tank! says:

    “…achieve a zero carbon footprint…”

    You set the calculus up so that destroying enemy equipment and personnel is carbon positive. Think of how much future fuel you’ve save the planet by carbon sinking that enemy tank!

    Zero carbon footprint is BS anyways; so piling more BS equations on top of it is exactly what everyone wants you to do.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Right, which is dishonorable.

      • carbon sinking that enemy tank! says:

        Funny. I was going to suggest, “not if the boss agrees to the methodology”. Then recognized the sociopath.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Regardless of what the boss says, a samurai or knight wouldn’t make up BS formulas to preserve his station. That’s dishonorable peasant behavior.

          I’m actually sympathetic to the peasant perspective here, but it’s worth noting that dishonorable orders are a catch-22 for an honorable man who’s pledged his service and can’t walk away.

  4. carbon sinking that enemy tank! says:

    :Machiavelli grins: Go ahead start purity spiraling that gyro compass.

    Perhaps the problem here is that you put it in the context of warfare. There is only honor in winning. Losers don’t get to populate the future.

    Granted, sometimes the only chance of winning is in the hands of Fate; therefore, you have to fight regardless. But you don’t break your sword before the battle.

    Anything else and I could be convinced honor mattered.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I’m not attached to honor either, but I acknowledge that there are people who take it very seriously. Machiavelli would advise empathy over reductionism here.

    • what says:

      Honor is a method of male-group adhesion. There’s not enough area covered in your conception of honor to reliably discard it, a people will most coherently work when there’s an informal boundary that limits their possible movements. Knowing when to break the rules is better than discarding the rules entirely, although ideally rules will never be broken. No, informal rules shouldn’t be the entirety of a people’s ethos.

      It’s a method of coherence. Within the domain of warfare, don’t lie to your people, but it’s practical to lie to the enemy.

      “i know owls who have succeeded in finance explain to me that they like it becaues its ruthless and calculating, but openly and honestly so, and they find politics a disgusting cesspit because of the duplicity and hyprocisy involved”

      No, intrinsically knowing everyone is being hypocritical isn’t being honest.

      >:Machiavelli grins:

      Don’t do this again this is retarded. The idea you’re describing carries the intention well enough without it.

      >Losers don’t get to populate the future

      My response is unrelated, but some losers are built into a system, in many contexts it’s a space and not a material. You can’t kill all the poor and expect that to be a solution to poverty, for example.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s