Super User

The Dreams of Grander Men

266 views    posted 02 Mar 2015, 23:04    
Once in a while, the harsh realities of the geopolitical order make it past the Great Wall of Australia and suffuse themselves into New Zealand's political landscape.

Us kiwis live in a bubble. Our geographic location affords us the rare luxury of not only having our castles in the sky (the brotherhood of man, love, peace, lady gaga, whatever), but moving into them.


Now in times past, New Zealand's place in the British Empire nullified this distance and mentally placed us right next to the disposition of the mother country. But after a generation of baby boomers who have never seen anything like WWII, or who have scarcely a residual affinity for England; we began to jerk ourselves off.

Matters came to a head when one of our prime minsters banned nuclear powered ships from NZ waters in a snub to the Whitehouse. If such an action, taken at the height of the cold war, seems eminently stupid to you, you would be forgiven. I find this bamboozles even left leaning people from other Western countries - not your 'activist' type, just the relatively normal people who believe in strong social welfare etc.

There used to be a joke, 'my car is so old its insured against fire, theft, and Indian raids.' And this is how our political commentators perceive geopolitical security. They see no reason to take out a seemingly useless insurance policy.

We prate to ourselves about our 'independent foreign policy' (a euphemism for knee-jerk anti-Americanism). Consider we have no problem signing free trade deals with an oppressive regime like China, but we cannot abide a friendly port visit by another democracy. I speculate the only explanation for such contradictory behaviour is the post-modern pathology of Western self-loathing.

The reality is, of course, there is an international pecking order, and small countries either put up or shut up. We have much grander ambitions however, as we like to fancy ourselves a 'middle power', presiding over endless councils and committees at the UN. They like to call this soft power, yet I seriously doubt anything the UN does counts as any sort of power. Working toward a 'rules based' international order is rather silly when every state interprets those 'rules' according to its own whims (Russia on Ukraine, NATO on Serbia, NATO on Libya, American on Iraq in 2003, China on the Spratley Islands, Iran on its right to the atom, etc).

Let's assume for a moment we did wield genuine soft-power, hell, maybe we have a relatively effective military (presently the only real combat potential of the New Zealand Defense Force is a couple of frigates and the Special Air Service). We would still be a geopolitical pip-squeak. Such pip-squeaks should count themselves fortunate Great Powers look favourably upon them.

Lately, the Prime Minster was castigated for saying New Zealand should commit troops to Iraq as the prince of membership in the 'club' (the 5 Anglo-Saxon nations). He's been depicted as some craven lapdog of the Whitehouse. As a matter of fact, I tend to agree putting boots on the ground in some Fukkastan is a waste of time (the clue is in the name), but that's not the point. America does think its worthwhile, and if we expect their protection, we should make some sort of reciprocal effort. One of the reasons we live in peace is because other countries are willing to expend blood and treasure to keep it that way.

Here is the crux of the whole matter. Our civil culture perpetuates the myth we need no protection, and thus Kiwiland can thumb its nose at the rest of the world (the 'independent foreign policy.') But as our 2010 Defense White Paper says...

Physical isolation remains New Zealand's principal source of protection against direct military threats from another state. It also offers some protection from non-state challenges. But New Zealanders recognise that distance is not insulation, especially given globalisation and technological reach.

Our aspirations to an 'independent foreign policy' and 'masters of our own destiny' are the dreams of grander men. France, a Great Power, disengaged from NATO and effectively quitted itself to military and diplomatic independence. We are not France. Even Australia isn't France. For better or worse, our international political destiny is set. Rejection of it can only be a temporary, and pointless resistance.

New Dawn Fades

183 views    posted 26 Feb 2015, 08:39    
New Dawn Fades
= or =
TheLemur and the FIRST GIRL

[Insert image of over-romanticized romance here]

I know what you're thinking.

This will be juicy one.

You pervert. While this blog will contain explicit depictions of things that are real, there will be no phrases like ' the moonlight played on her delicate features, I softly grazed her neck with my lips...'; or, '...I took that sexy dame right then and there, with so much vigor she couldn't walk straight until Christmas.' (One for the girls and one for the boys respectively).

TheLemur dislikes the post-modern culture of self-broadcast, but as I turn to this event in my mind, I find it merely an aspect of universal human development. And from that perspective, I think we can have a clinical discussion divested of over-wrought nostalgia.

What I bring to mind is a memory of a memory. Around my 15th tour of the sun, to borrow the military parlance, my family had the (mis)fortune to attend a convention of sorts. Now at this shebang, there were these things called 'girls.' They were just running around free range like a bunch of young women. I had had relatively little truck with these creatures. I admired vaguely from a distance of course. Absent had been the centrality of the FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVATION. Not to worry. Evidently, the socio-biological imperative thought it was high time to set the 8-ball rolling.

THE girl. We'll call her Lena.


No, that not really her - it's Summer Glau. But she looks similar. Most of the girls I've gone out with are Glau derivations. I don't idolize her, she's just an archetype. (Occasionally I find Israeli girls persuasive, and NZ born Westernized Indian girls with the lighter skin tone. The latter I like because a 10 - 15% retention of the Indian accent makes the intonation really sexy).

I have set the stage. My big move was inviting Lena to play in this soccer game, where the silly bird immediately busted up her arm and had to go to accident and emergency.

After she returned, I can't remember much of what happened. When I was leaving camp though, she came rushing over and gave me a hug and peck on the cheek.

Tsunami tsunami
came washing over me

- Manic Street Preachers

As it turned out, there was nothing much on her side, so the fire eventually burned out. For a short interval though, it was Halcyon On and On. Then it upon receipt of her non-reciprocation it felt like a Fairytale Gone Bad.

First there was the one who challenged
all my dreams and all my balance

- Muse

Point is, I don't really need to describe it to you. You've already been there, done that (or not, in my case). It's a universal human experience, a defining moment. Not the preeminent one, but still significant (apparently you remember your first car better than your first love - but did the scientists factor in what use you made of the backseats?). So what of this 'first love' business? Films like to imagine this person will leave an indelible mark on your life. I disagree. They are merely a catalyst for the first instance of a complex chemical reaction in which your endocrine system drenches your brain with a concoction scientists call PEA. It's all about you tripping on a native high.

The trick to effectively integrating the experience into a coherent life narrative, I believe, is conceiving of it with a mixture of cynicism and idealism. Much like how a telescope requires two lenses appropriately spaced to view a heavenly body clearly, we need these two extremes in equal measure to perceive 'love' objectively.

Cynicism is necessary to divest ourselves of the overpowering biological imperative, which is no more real in and of itself than Lucy in the sky with diamonds. The fact we feel strongly for someone in no way validates the errant notion we are 'meant to be' with anyone.

The complete cynic cannot properly make sense of what has happened to him however. At their most element level, these people are your bitter biddies (as ZombieQueen47.45K would say) and whatever the male equivalent is. They are the people who, whenever you have someone new in your life, like to regale you with stories of how malicious and unfeeling the opposite sex is. Just because they didn't get they wanted, even though they never thought about what the other person might have wanted.

At the more advanced level, they are the self-help gurus who get a kick out of didactic bromides like 'we have to learn love is a choice [and in the event they have a spiritual bent]...a sacrifice.' The turkeys of this persuasion are secretly bitter about romantic experiences they have had, and so seek to entirely de-legitimize it with a completely abstracted theory. Problem is...choice without reason is pointless. And the feeling of being 'in love' is one of the reasons we make the choice of love.

You could be my unintended choice
to live my life extended..
- Muse

So we need a measured idealism, an appreciation for the experience ('in love') to which we attach a conscious meaning ('choice'). In this way we unify our planes of being, simultaneously emancipating ourselves from the excesses of the biological imperative and the nihilism of choice for choice's sake.

Everyone should be severely disappointed in 'love'. We grow from from the short sharp shock. No one can adequately resist all those chemicals coursing through the body for the first time. So the point is to ride the rollercoaster, then get off the rollercoaster. But don't pretend it doesn't exist, and in future, ride it with awareness.

This has been TheLemur and you've been a moderately good audience. See? Even sucking up is about balance.

The Oldest Game Once Again

429 views    posted 23 Feb 2015, 14:04    

The struggle for dominance defines the ages, and the present. Everything in this world is ultimately a question of power, whatever the order of magnitude.


Today I'd like to consider briefly the global state of play, as the world once again beats its plowshares into rocket launchers and all the other good stuff.

Tales from 8x8 Logic


Chess is a common metaphor for power politics, mostly because it epitomizes tactics and strategy common to both 'games.' But we can also think of the chessboard as a geographic space. The nature of this space informs how the opponents will direct their games to an extent. Geography is a constant in international theory (land formations are relatively unchanging). It impacts actors to varying degrees, often according to their ability to mitigate geographic advantages or disadvantages. So we're not going to become obsessive fan boys of the importance of geography; we'll think of it as one of the many factors influencing the balance of power.

Enkindling Mackinder

I know I have a penchant for the complex, so I will endeavour to explain the following ideas simply.

Basically, there was this British dude way back before the start of WWI who was to foreign policy as James Bond is to shagging. He believed the heart of the world lay between Western Russia and Central Europe, for that was the nexus of the 'World Island' (Asia, Eurasia, Europe, and the Middle East). This World Island comprises the greater part of the planets resources, and thus whoever controls this super Island controls the world.

So now events in Ukraine take on a new light, don't they?

To cut a long story short, historical events since Mackinder coined his theory have both confirmed and disconfirmed it. One of the biggest, easiest assumptions to attack is even if we say control of Eastern Europe grants control of the 'World Island', the aspiring megalomaniac may not yet be master of Spaceship Humanity. The oceans of the world, which apart from the Caspian Sea, are ultimately one connected body of water. Exerting influence over the sea consequently gives you huge economic and military advantages.


Five Flags to Rule Them All?

Some historians argue the cardinal causal factor in the Western domination of the globe was their domination of the sea lanes, in particular those between the Old and New Worlds (The Atlantic Ocean). Today, we could also include the Pacific, Indian, and Arctic bodies of water. Of these Western sea-going nations, Britain became the most powerful. Since the UK is an island, commerce always concerned the sea, and thus successive rulers/governments prioritized the Royal Navy. England successively thwarted the Spanish Navy at the beginning of its rise to fame and fortune. The Battle of Trafalgar in 1815 defeated the last attempt by another naval block to take positive control of the seas. With oceanic superiority, Britain controlled roughly 1/4 of the globe. The land forces committed to this empire were, except in times of emergency, not much larger than the British Army prior to the 2010 defence cuts (circa 100,000 men).

As Britain's star waned, the seat of power shifted to the United States. The empire was over. But Anglo-Saxon hegemony remained constant. America carried the torch as a Super Power, and Britain was still a great power.


Is it a conceit including New Zealand, Canada, and Australia as an integral part of the Anglo-Saxon bloc? No, for the following reasons:

- Canada's landmass ensures US domination of the North American continent by proxy, as a heavy middle power in its own right.
- Australia has tremendous natural resources, is a strategically important Island continent, and is capable of projecting considerable force in its own right.
- New Zealand can produce large quantities of food, provides a friendly backyard to Aussie, and may be strategically important in the future if competition over Antarctica ramps up.

The Periphery of Power

Continental Europe

Britain's culture and geographic disconnection from continental Europe draw it toward North America. A UK exit from the EU looks increasingly likely (the latest poll shows a majority wish to disengage). As a global financial cross roads, the UK has a more resilient economy and business friendly environment.


So it seems reasonable to consider Western Continental Europe entirely apart from Britain. And what can we make of them? Economically inefficient, mired in the problems of post-modernity (social upheaval, immigration, declining populations), and woefully lacking the cultural stamina to play 'big boy' real politic. France is the most crucial country politically in Western continental Europe, and it's a mess. Hell, if Marie Le Pencil comes to power it may even affiliate with the East. Both France and Germany failed in their bids to control the World Island (Napoleon, Hitler respectively) and currently it looks like TheKremlin3682 is now roundly trouncing them combined.

A lot of commentators like to stress how the Eurozone possesses the greatest GDP on the planet, and is therefore a force to be reckoned with. Problem is, economic power has to be honed politically and militarily. Successive crisis (Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Ukraine) prove Europe's collective ineptness and disunity. The EU is a collection of dying stars. Banding together to temporarily increase their light never addressed the real reasons behind the decline of the constituent units.

South America

Resentful of 'Yankee imperialism,' these birds will go with the anti-West bloc from the World Island. Problem is, the water separates the two forces.


India, South Africa, Nigeria, Indonesia

Same principle applies. Their affinity for Russia and China (less so in India's case) is compromised by their separation.


So this is one way of considering global forces. If I am correct, this century will be defined by competition between the World Island led by China and the Anglo-Saxon/English speaking Oceanic powers. To paraphrase Samuel Huntington, it will be some of the West vs some of the rest.

Crucial security issues will include:

- control of Eastern Europe
- The ability of the Middle Kingdom (China) to challenge US naval supremacy in the Pacific.
- Russian control of the Arctic.
- The alliances of Asian Pacific states (Japan, South Korea, Indonesia).
- The ability of Canada, the US, UK, and the ANZAC powers to coordinate foreign policy.

A Public Service Broadcast

795 views    posted 13 Feb 2015, 21:00    
A public service broadcast by the LBC (Lemurized Broadcasting Corporation) for those of you who need something a little fancy for today (or tomorrow, depending on your timezone) to go with that round sliver representing 3 months pay in your pocket. I kept it simple but poignant, so this will work on idiots and intellectuals and everything in between. You're bloody welcome.

My love its time
we dance this rhyme
called life
in whatever strife
whatever weather
this metal, gliding
around your finger
like a feather
will bind two


Future History 2: Apple Releases iLove

349 views    posted 10 Feb 2015, 06:08    
February 10, 2018

Apple consolidated its dominance in the virtual technologies market today, releasing the iLove app to Apple devices around the world. Users must additionally purchase the 'bio-hardware' for the app, which comes in the shape of a small pill, not unlike over the counter pain medication. When ingested, the patented chemical formula travels to the brain, attaching itself to the cortical structures that handle sexual activity and sensory processing. Once bonded, the iLove app can lock on to the neuro-chemical link.

Next, an ultra-long distance Bluetooth connection between devices can be activated, thus allowing for virtual copulation over enormous distances. Dubbed the iShag by technophile pundits, the software will revolutionize one of the most fundamental human activities.

The iLove technology comes with a free U2 album, The Nectar of the Apple. Bono stated the files can be played through the iLove app as a background aesthetic.

Future History 1: Britain Declares No Fly Zone Over English Channel

380 views    posted 09 Feb 2015, 05:13    
February 9, 2016, London.

Downing Street announced today the Royal Air Force would commence combat patrols enforcing a no fly zone over the English channel in an effort to prevent Franco-Russian violations of UK airspace.

Tensions between the U.K. and France have been running high since Marie La Pen assumed the French Presidency in a snap election after massive riots forced the resignation of Hollande. La Pen promised France the immediate withdrawal off all French military units in Eastern Europe not destroyed by the Russian tactical nuclear strike which took out their main base near Tallinn. "France was dragged into a pointless war with a fraternal state by neo-liberal American adventurists", she claimed.

General Breedlove, the supreme U.S. commander in Europe, and former head of the now defunct NATO, countered Russia's intractable foreign policy over Ukraine necessitated first the arming of the Ukrainian military, and secondly, direct Western intervention to push back against Russian aggression. "Poland, the U.K, the U.S., and Romania are determined to halt the Russian advances into Ukraine and retake the Baltic states."

Meanwhile, German leader Angela Merkel called upon the belligerents to refrain from further use of tactical nuclear weapons. "A tactical launch could easily be misconstrued by the other side as a massive strategic first strike", she said. As the world teeters on the brink of a nuclear exchange between the Saxon Axis + 1 (the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Poland) and the Council of Three (which derive its name from the vote by Russia, China, and France to dissolve the U.N. Security Council), spending on strategic nuclear forces has surpassed that of the First Cold War. Britain will shortly reintroduce the nuclear trifector. In addition to the submarine deterrent, the Army will receive 50 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, and the R.A.F. 20 Canberra II Strike Bombers.

It is these moves which have angered La Pen, who responded with aggressive military flights. State controlled Media in France have repeatedly run op-eds in which a French intervention against the Saxon Axis on the behalf of Russia were posited.

World leaders, including John McCain, Putin, La Pen, Merkel, and Tony Blair, will meet at a peace conference convened by the remmants of the EU - the ENS (European Neutral States) - in Rome. - ASSOCIATED LEMURS


This little piece is designed to illustrate the unpredictable results elicited by certain foreign policies. Remember, probability does not matter when the weight of an event is great. As the situation in Ukraine heats up, let's hope cooler heads ensure the necessary preconditions for a catastrophic causal chains are averted.

Do you have a suggestion for another lemurized future history of a current event? comment below and let me know.

3 Albums

176 views    posted 03 Feb 2015, 11:12    
Tonight I'm going to select three albums I like, and explain their significance both general and personal. I will avoid 'ranking' them. If you want to know why, consider the sort of music which occupies the top 40 in your country. These aren't necessarily my favorite albums, just the ones flowing across my mind ...let's free ourselves from the strictures of hierarchy for the moment...


[but to hell with that 'peace love and music' shite all the same]

Robert Miles - Dreamland (1996)
Genre: Dream House


This album contained the hit single 'Children'. Inspired by pictures of the Yugoslav wars, the song is a lilting, wordless ballad seemingly conveying the whole spectrum of human emotion simultaneously. Hope, sadness, longing, transcendence, and relief, among others, are all in there. The melody and beat has a curious affect pulling you gently into the moment. You almost start to flow through time with the song.

Miles also designed the song to play at the end of raves at Italian nightclubs. During the '90s, strage del sabato sera (Saturday night slaughter) plagued Italy. The phrase refers to the phenomenon of road crashes caused by excitement and tiredness among home bound clubbers. 'Children' exerted a calming effect as the revelers prepared to leave. I like to think it was Miles, in his own small way, countering the horror of the Yugoslav disintegration. Unlike all the other peace out 'don't kill' tracks, this song actually saved lives in the immediate sense. This also explains why its such a great driving song.

Children is TheLemur's favourite track. I initially heard this song in my early teens on the radio. At first I disregarded it, but it gradually grew on me. Fortunately, I heard the announcer name it, otherwise I would not have discovered it seeing there were no words. Can't say how many times I have been swept up in the hypnotic beat while driving, listening to the synth cascading around me as the highway unspools. I always feel truly grounded in the motion of the car and the song - the three are fused into one.

The other songs on Dreamland are well worth checking out too, particularly Fable (Dream Version) and Landscape.

Mercury Rev - Deserter's Songs (1998)
Genre: Alternative Rock


The world wasn’t exactly waiting for another Mercury Rev record. -- Mercury Rev frontman Jonathan Donahue

The world of Mercury Rev was imploding after their 1995 flop See You on the Other Side. Drugs, broken relationships, a worn out sound (bass distortion, layers of guitars), the precedent of a failed album, no manager, communication breakdown, and depression stalked the members. Donahue returned to the simple melodies augmenting spoken fairy tales of his youth. Centuries before them, Rousseau had theorized a return to nature would restore nobility lost in the morass of civilization. In Mercury Rev's case, he was proved right.

Well, she tossed all night like a raging sea
Woke up and climbed from the suicide machine - Opus 40

To wide acclaim, they had completely changed their style to whimsical melodies which accentuated strings, horns, woodwinds, and falsetto delivery. The most intriguing aspect of the lyrics is how their syntax matches a child's fairy tale, but the message is decidedly realistic, dealing with themes of loss and leaving.

Satellites are chasing the silver clouds away
Mercury's are falling, yeah, who forgot to pray
Silver trains will whistle, glisten by the moon
Molly has her kite and Joe has his balloons - Hudson Line

For me, Deserter's Song guides you to the vicissitudes of life, then bathes them in a warm glow. Somehow, you cannot resist feeling better.

Au4 - ...And Down Goes the Sky(2013)
Genre: electronica, post-rock, dream pop, and shoe gaze
Name explanation:
Au4 [oh-fohr]
Au: to the, at the, with
4: Life (Chambers of the Heart, Valency of Carbon); Reality (Dimensions, Great Elements); Death (Far East Tradition, Horsemen of the Apocalypse)


I can't describe their music better than they can. From their site:

With story-like lyrics and meticulous soundscapes, Au4’s … And Down Goes the Sky sweeps its listeners into a world where fantasy dances with science, where the sacred joins the profane, where simplicity embraces complexity, and where life meets death. Listeners travel amidst the lush layers of pads and strings, operatic incantations of angels, pounding rhythms of deep electronic sequences, and the intimate whispers of singer and guitar.

While telling stories of a man sneaking into hell as a last effort to avoid the finality of annihilation; or of a girl who is, herself, the ether of the universe; or of a man so enraptured by his creation, he would sooner die than share it with those around him; Au4 explores the deeper sides of electronica, post-rock, dream pop, and shoe gaze and makes it their own with fearlessness.

If you want to become completely lost in a sonic soundscape, this is the album for you. The sheer immensity of the themes, ideas, images, and layered electronica makes you feel like a tiny spec in a cosmos only the music understands.

So my darling don’t give up
On these steps you’re making up,
When it all has gone away
It’s your dance that will remain.

So my darling don’t give up
On these hopes you’re stirring up,
When the earth caves in one day
It’s your dance that will remain.

So my darling don’t give up
On these dreams you’re dreaming of,
When the sky falls down one day
It’s your dance that will remain.
- Forever Dancing Under a Fallen Sky

Meaning: "A girl dances until the natural end of the world. The earth caves in beneath her feet and the sky collapses down upon her, but her melodious patterns and waves of movement carry on, suffusing the dark voids of space." - site

These guys also release their music for free...

You can dl direct (or buy) the album here.

FAQ's of TheLemur 3 [+ Bonus FEE's!]

172 views    posted 30 Jan 2015, 03:58    
FEE's = Frequently Exclaimed Exclamations said OF TheLemur. Batteries not included. Try to keep up with the acronyms.

1. Q: Lemur, tell me, how does a little fella like you get him some tucker?

A: Well, to find something to eat, I find an upstanding little miss, daintily devouring something delicious....

Lemur: a-yo little miss...
Girl: Oh, hey Lemur!
Lemur: That looks like a righteous lunch.
Girl: Oh it is, peanut butter and jam sandwiches.
Lemur: Nice. Yummo. Did you know they put the harvested peanuts in these big bins? Yeah, well there's no way to keep the rats out, so that's why every now and then someone finds foreign matter - you know, a hair or something - in their PB.
Girl: ewww, g-rros! I've lost my appetite.
Lemur: There's starving children in Africa. Leaving that food uneaten is just sinful. Here, let me help you out...

2. Q: C'mon Lemur, post us a picture of your girlfriend.

A: I'll do you one better...a video! (That's how we met, I beat off I mean out all the competition).

3. Q: What's your pet hate?

A: Things being stuck up his bum. Ok, well actually, in just about any tv or movie where a map of the world is in the background, New Zealand is always obscured in some way or other. Bastards. A conspiracy, I warrant you.

4. Q: You are so full of yourself, you little weasel. Have you ever listened to anything anyone has ever said to you?

A: Yes, actually. ScubaLoo19.01K recommended The Abstract and the Dragon by Busta Rhymes and Q-Tip. Gave it a listen. Even recommended it to a female friend of mine. 'Just the Q-tip, just for a second, just to see how it feels', I said mellifluously.

5. Q: Could you describe yourself in verse?

A: The Lemur struts, TheLemur crows; and everywhere TheLemur goes; shy little lady lemurs step aside; blushing as they watch his stride.

6. Q: Lemur bro, did you know olderthangod1564 is on yet another pot-fueled rampage?

A: We can't really blame him. He's probably seeing TheLemur in the sky with diamonds. Still, can we get one of the Canadians to lend us a bear trap or something to catch this old codger?

7. Q: Big L, you're too clever by half. You know that, right?

8. Q: Hey, you forgot to answer the last question, eh?

A: Actually, that was a rhetorical question. Now "who's too clever by half"? A Canadian by the sounds of things.

9. Q: WHAT are the Lemurized Protocols (mentioned on your profile page)?

A: A ancient code devised in 1212 A.D. by the Lemurs Templar. Also TheIlemurati could have been involved.

10. Q: Is there some mystical significance attached to that date?

A: Yes, the NALO (North Atlantic Lemur Organization) Phonetic Alphabet equates L with Lemur. L is the 12th letter of the Lemurbet. Thus, 1212 covertly communicates the phrase 'Lemur Lemur.'

11. Q: And what does 'Lemur Lemur' reference?

A: William Blake's intrepid poem, 'Lemur Lemur.'

"Lemur Lemur burning bright
among the Foosa of the night
What immortal hand or eye
dare frame thy fearful symmetry?"

12. Q: Aren't these questions a bit wanky?

A: Not as wanky as this...


[Public Service Announcement: consult wrong user link for advice on how to remove underwear with your shark teeth.


1. E (Exclamation): "Che Lemur omg you are beyond redemption!" - SirSeedsAlot99.14K


Response (R). Yes, I am becoming the symbolic love child derived from the respective mythologies of Che Guevara and King Julian. A confluence of Che's fixedness of purpose with King Julian's charismatic confidence renders a neo-Machiavelli with elan.

2. E: "Damned Lemur!"

R: That is actually quite a common response to TheLemur. The female version is little more nuanced, appending the phrase, 'get out of my panty draw'.

3. "Pseudo-Intellectual!"

R: The implication here is there is a "true intellectualism", an unmistakable river of truth poorly duplicated by those to stupid two recognize 'the original.' Unfortunately, the dimensions of this fabled watering hole are inherently inaccessible to ordinary mortals. The only real pseudo-intellectuals are those who think there's such an thing as non-pseudo intellectualism.

4. E: "pfffft!!!" - MainOffender936

R: TheLemur took receipt of this comment after rejecting yet another friend request according to the Lemurized Protocols.

5. E: "...well, then you can just go take a hike."

R: TheLemur loves to hike, romping through the dandelions, tip-toeing through the tulips, zazzing through the zineas.

Sayings of the Interloper Vol. 2

283 views    posted 25 Jan 2015, 07:44    
Many moons ago and to the present day, a man (a man, not a lemur) has come among the denizens of Kat. Opinions nailed to the mast, his analysis ripple with fire, the polemics echoing off the chambers of this fair site.


Successively banished for his refusal to bow the protocol of the designated order, he has appeared to the faithful in many guises -
ChrisCross218 (the first coming - ended in IP block for flaming the reds), Lionel_Richey4 , Pinky_Brain33 , Bobafett782279 , Goat_Parts37 , bill_cosby33 , Jakk_Frost18 , Barney_Frank24 , Rodney_King24 , Tim_McVeigh15 , Tronald_Dump, and Vladimar_Neo28 . Truly, an ecumenical figure.


Like any prophet, his message was lost in the storm which inevitably accompanies those of the highly independent mind. But today, bearing in mind how Mill noted it was the idiosyncratic who moved society forward, we remedy that by playing the ball, not the man.

Cleansed of their mild flaming, the substance of his comments have found merit in the eyes of the TheLemur because:

- Stylistically, he writes with energy, flair, and conviction. Each idea (whether or no you agree with it) finds itself expressed in exactly the right words
- The comments bespeak a well thought out , coherent worldview. They delve deeper than mere statements of allegiance to a particular viewpoint, positing reasons which peel back the layers of causality.
- They are CONTROVERSIAL (I know, weasel alert!), and as we've learned from the recent free speech blogs, this is the most important speech of all.

I am aware he has stepped on a few toes, but as I said before, I am determined to play the ball, not the man. I do not endorse the behaviour which gets him banned (flaming, negging, multiple accounts), but I reiterate, I think some of his views have merit.

And when accounts are cancelled on here, perfectly legitimate expressions are deleted along with them, which is unfair. Because his more disagreeable comments have annoyed some people, that is no reason to summarily reject the ones which abided by the guidelines. Imagine if a prominent philosopher was gaoled for a crime, and we then proceeded to discount - delete from history - everything he had ever written. There is no valid reason for condemning the latter because we condemned the former for something completely different.

While KAT communications are private, and therefore no inherent right to free speech exists, the moral imperative should still inform moderation on the site. VTS71.93K stated, "Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean it is inherently worthless, even if they HAVE resorted to personal attacks in the past." Furthermore, the whole point of free speech is rendered a simple nullity if we start shutting down, by deleting comments or otherwise, anyone who's views incense the majority.

I'll close with a great observation from 9d9wiad9i164 [note: he is not the interloper] here:

I just want to address the banning of the user Bobafett7822 after seeing his quote in here. It illustrates how this website works and its ever present hive mind, glorifying banality and child-like humor. If one ever dares to function as an individual and express himself in a way other than trying to be funny and catastrophically failing at it, while trying to make up for it by adding quadrillion of emoticons, all of his opinions and actions will be covered up by the communist regime.

This is where TheLemur stands.

So below are some of his most insightful assertions - or as he calls them, 'horse fuckings' - , along with my lemurized comments. [Note SirSeedsAlot99.14K and I worked out this means effing over people with a great big horse dick.]

His comments are in italics, mine are in blue print preceded by 'Commentary:'.

On the Morality of 'Controversial' Speech:

There's a whole lot of bad that happens as a result of "moral" people enforcing superficial standards dribbling words like "respect" in order to protect the feelings of a class of people that are incapable of understanding anything other than the fact that they want something at some particular moment, and will do whatever is expedient in order to satisfy that desire

Commentary: There's a reflexive relationship between refraining from speech because it will hurt someone's feelings, and making that a moral standard. Sometimes, the non-offensiveness come from the moral standard, other times pragmatic effort to avoid 'offence' generate this faux moral outlook.

On Those Who Suspect Asking for One's Date of Birth Is the Same as Asking How Old One Is:

Lol, REALLY? You "felt" that asking for Date of Birth was the same as asking how old you were? My GOODNESS! Well, lemme tell ya sonny, there's a WORLD of difference. In order to know how old you are, a person would have to 1st know your Date of Birth, and then 2nd, they would have to know the current data. Do you realize how unlikely it is that the same person would know both of these at the same time? THEN, they would have to subtract your Date of Birth from the current data, and let me tell you, youngster, that ain't easy. They don't have any calculator functions that will do that for you, or anything. So, they'd have to work it out either in their head or they'd have to go to an antique shop and buy a pencil and paper. HIGHLY unlikely. Most people aren't smart enough to figure-out how old you are just by knowing your date of birth and the current date anyways. It's almost like calculating the trajectory of a rocket. As Heisenberg's Principle tells us, you can know how old a person is, and you can know their date of birth, but you can't know both at the same time.

Commentary: Samuel Johnson and Jonathon Swift would be proud.

On the Duplicity of Universally Condemning Nazism While Excluding the Possibility of Universally Condemning Other Belief Systems:

Some Nazis ran gas chambers. Most did not. Some Nazis tortured, experimented on, enslaved and killed people. Most Nazis did not. Most Nazis were FORCED to be Nazis. While it may be true that at some point in their past they might have voted in favor of Nazis, once the Nazis took over EVERYONE became a fervent and loyal Nazi, or else.

Or else they didn't eat. Or worse.

Not ALL Germans were bad, but ALL Germans were Nazis. And, as soon as they had an opportunity, particularly after they discovered what some of the Nazis were doing (Concentration camps, etc...) they stop being Nazis immediately. They made it ILLEGAL to be a Nazi. They made it ILLEGAL to display the Nazi symbols.

Did you know the swastika was at one time a folk symbol for "good luck". It wasn't until the Nazis took it for their purposes that it became a symbol for evil.

On the subject of Nazis, and Nazism, the whole world is in agreement. They're bad. They're ALL bad. Every single Nazi was, and is, bad. No splitting of hairs, no long-winded explanations, no expectations of respect for history, culture, yadda, yadda, yadda.

NO ONE, in the ENTIRE PLANET, expects people to treat Nazis with "respect". NO ONE says "You should differentiate between the "bad" and "extremist" Nazis, and the "good" Nazis, the ones that just wanted a better country, wanted out of poverty, thought the Treaty of Versailles was unfair, felt discriminated against, treated badly, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

No one cares anything about all that windbaggery. Some Nazis try to pull that stuff, and they get shot down immediately, by everyone. Some Nazi might stand up and say "B-b-b-b-but the JEWS..." and everyone pulls out their AK-47 and shoots them dead, right there.

There is ZERO tolerance for Nazis on the planet. You can't use their symbols, anywhere, ever, you can't use their history in a positive manner, anywhere, ever, you can't demand respect for Nazis, anywhere, ever, NO ONE GIVES A FUCK about treating NAZIS with respect.

But we ARE expected to differentiate between the people that wake up in the morning and choose to believe in a religion and then go out and kill people, and people that wake up in the morning, choose to believe in a religion and do not kill people.

Commentary: TheLemur has always suspected the world had learned very few lessons from the advent of fascism aside from the fact 'Hitler was bad.' So fixated have we become on Nazi hatred, we have failed to realize the broader worldview behind the Third Reich's enterprises. As Churchill said, 'the fascists of the future will called anti-fascists.' Hitler's regime was all about identify politics - the nationalist mythology which informed every aspect of life in Nazi Germany. The construction of 'the other' - in his case 'international Jewry' - is vital to any identity-based political movement. These days, various groups have merely substituted 'the West', the patriarchy, 'hetronormativity', the whites as the new Jews.

Sayings of the Interloper Vol. 1

329 views    posted 24 Jan 2015, 07:30    
Many moons ago and to the present day, a man has come among the denizens of Kat. Opinions nailed to the mast, his analysis ripple with fire, the polemics echoing off the chambers of this fair site. (Really, I'm not talking about myself here).

Successively banished for his refusal to bow the protocol of the designated order, he has appeared to the faithful under many names -
ChrisCross218 (the first coming - ended in IP block for flaming the reds), Lionel_Richey4 , Pinky_Brain33 , Bobafett782279 , Goat_Parts37 , bill_cosby33 , Jakk_Frost18 , Barney_Frank24 , Rodney_King24 , Tim_McVeigh15 , Tronald_Dump, and Vladimar_Neo28 . Truly, an ecumenical figure.


But like every prophet, his message was lost in the storm which inevitably accompanies those of the highly independent mind. But today, bearing in mind how Mill noted it was the idiosyncratic who moved society forward, we remedy that by playing the ball, not the man.

Cleansed of their penchant for mild flaming, his comments have merit for the following reasons.
- Stylistically, he writes with energy, flair, and conviction. Each idea (whether or no you agree with it) finds itself expressed in exactly the right words
- The comments bespeak a well thought out , coherent worldview. They delve deeper than mere statements of allegiance to a particular viewpoint, positing reasons which peel back the layers of causality.
- They are CONTROVERSIAL (I know, weasel alert!), and as we've learned from the recent free speech blogs, this is the most important speech of all.

Below are some of his most (in my opinion), insightful and/or debatable assertions - or as he calls them, 'horse fuckings' - , along with my lemurized comments. [Note SirSeedsAlot99.14K and I worked out this means effing over people with a great big horse dick.]

His comments are in italics, mine are in normal print preceded by 'Commentary:'

On the Retarded:

I find baiting the retarded to be supremely enjoyable, and can spend hours and hours in rapt fascination with all the myriad ways that a hard-core retard can react to having their buttons pushed. Better, and cheaper than Viagra, less risky than exchanging bodily fluids and none of the psychic aftereffects of watching hard-core porn.

Commentary: Here, the interloper could well be talking about the activist, the neo-zealot of whom the lemur has warned before. A retarded person has limited mental prowess by dint of neurological degradation. The activist, or metaphorical retard, has similarly limited mental power by action of the narrative which has ensnared him. He has lost the ability to think outside his belief; thus his range of mental movement has been retarded.

The damage "muted" language does to thought. When we dumb-down the discourse to allow the retarded to participate, and then dumb-down the language again in order to avoid hurting their feelings, younger people lose an opportunity to learn from the precise use of language, and instead they "learn" how vitally important it is to not anger the retarded.

Commentary: This was in response to one of my weasel blogs, and is most astute. Weasel words are often constructed to avoid giving offence. Often the offence they shy away from is, or could be, the truth. Weasel words condition their users to opt for conciliatory speech instead of truth-seeking speech. Since weasel words thus inherently assume the rightness of non-offensiveness, the retarded's use of weasel words drags everyone down with them.

On the moral and economic decay of the West:

They call it "progress", but what it really is, is a backslide into barbarism, with the government paying trillions to hide from the people the natural consequences of their uncivilized behavior.
Someday the Chinese are going to demand their money back, the party will be over, and we [the U.S.] will collapse into a 3rd world, 3rd-rate country of greedy and retarded perverts that are willing to trade every last shred of human dignity for a new and exotic way to experience orgasm.

Commentary: An interesting social contract between governors and governed can be inferred here. In exchange for power, the establishment agrees not only to facilitate the morally and economically corrupt behaviour of the populace, but alleviate the consequences. Whether the sexual obsessions and perversions of the West is a central driver of the contract could be debated. It is a good hypothesis nonetheless.

On feminine beauty:

Tattoos on women are always ugly. They make beautiful women less so, or even ugly, and they make ugly women more noticeable.

Commentary: I think this raises two interesting points. First, can you improve upon your natural beauty? This is how the second point is raised, for the advocates of 'choice' (weasel word alert) will tell you this is a woman's right not to conform to 'hegemonic standards of beauty.' I respond, 'if you feel impelled to act out the post-modern glorification of the self-referential self's inherent 'truth', let me have my 'truth' too - that tattoos mitigate against attractiveness."

On the practitioners of psychology:

I also think a lot of these so-called "psychologists" should seriously FUCK OFF. EVERYONE knows that Psych was the easy courses, and that most of the people that went into Psyche were lazy, not as smart as "real" science-oriented people, had serious mental issues and were mostly interested in curing themselves and as many patients can tell you a lot of the "Psychological Professionals" are fucking bullshit manipulating liars that make up a bunch of shit in order to make themselves feel and look important, and they require someone more fucked up than they are to "diagnose" and "treat".
Most Psychological professionals use the patient in order to give themselves (the illusion of) a constructive role in life. Otherwise they'd barely be qualified to run the fryer at Church's Chicken.

Commentary: As a university graduate myself, I can tell you a lot (but not all) people are in psyche 101 for the reasons outlined. The final paragraph teases out an interesting perspective on the narrative. We feel an acute need to make other people subject to our views, for this assures us of the validity of our mental construct, thus allowing us to 'make sense' of the world around us (however non-nonsensical that sense may be). What more subtle way to do this than by psychology, a profession with a pedigree of elevated poppycock?

On the Discourse of Victimhood in Politics:

Some people have learned that in many situations, whoever is socially recognized as "the victim" wins. So people work real hard at trying to portray themselves as victims. The Muslims do this, constantly. One of their whack-jobs kills someone, and suddenly all these Muslims come out of the woodwork to talk about how they've been victimized in some way (while ignoring the dead bodies). Some Social Justice Warriors by into this propaganda and start railing against "Islamophobia" and other perceived, "discriminatory" attitudes. Sometimes they even try to make it into a case of racism. (Using racism as a means of achieving "Victim" status is the number 1 and most powerful way to "win" when you haven't got a credible argument. If you can make the other side "racist", you win. Stupid people fall for this all the time.)

Commentary: Our 'participatory', social welfare democracies thrive on victims. Elections are competitions to prove who was most screwed over by the Western white, middle class male. Victim based socio-political theories (basically post-modernism, Marxism, and its children - post colonialism, feminism, queer theory) are all narratives who's central purpose is to blame others for their possible, perceived, misfortunes. You will never notice Westerners accusing a non-Western author of racism for writing a book critical of the West. When the positions are reversed, an ad hominem label is always applied.

On Zealotry and Religion in Light of the Paris Shootings:

I figure, it has to be a VERY feeble religion, a weak-kneed, nervous, scared-little-virgin-on-prom-night God, or prophet, that requires just average people to get worked-up to a frenzy of rage and then start killing people in order to "defend" their religion. When you think about it, the level of defense and outrage by (in this case) muslims over whatever it is that offends them is really a statement BY THEM about how weak and insignificant their religion, God and/or prophet is/was. Strong Gods can take care of themselves. Powerful prophets do not need mass-murderers killing people in order to "avenge" them. Weak, scared, irrelevent and insignificant pissant religions need defenders. In short, every example of an outraged or insulted Muslim is actually a statement about how weak and feeble their belief system really is.

Usually, the "true believers" are ALL wrong. People who are consistently "right" (in the moral sense) approach each issue carefully and thoughtfully, with a full awareness throughout the process that they could be wrong. Zealots are ALWAYS right, and never wrong. They are absolutely certain of it, to the point that they feel qualified to kill someone over the issue. But the wrongness starts with the zealotry, and the substitution of passion for awareness.

Commentary: Yes, when you open a belief to severe criticism - even 'vilification' or 'ridicule', you soon find out which have sufficiently well-reasoned beliefs that make them feel secure, and those who's beliefs weak (generally because they've been non-critically accepted). Weak beliefs require violence to defend them, because they cannot defend themselves.

On Certain Elements Supportive of the Death Penalty:

"One of my best horse fuckings ever" - Vladimar_Neo28 , aka Tronald_Dump.

But mostly my concerns are with some of our own US citizens right here, these people that seem to really, REALLY "get off" on the idea of the Death Penalty. I mean, you can be in favor of it quietly, as if it's simply one of many different bullet-points that make you the political person that you are, i.e. "pro-life, anti-gun control, pro-death penalty, lower taxes, smaller government, strong military", etc... I'm not talking about those normal people.

I'm talking about the weirdos. The freaks, the nut-jobs, the whackos, the attention whores, the straight-up kooks that really, really LIKE the idea of the government executing someone. I get the distinct whiff of THAT stench from the OP, when it comes to his seeming LOVE of an oppressive, tyrannical, godless and uniformed country killing it's citizens. I think some people LIKE that, and it scares the hell out of me.

Me? I guess I'm "pro-death penalty" if I have to choose one or the other. I see down sides to both options, and I don't see ANY up-sides at all. On the one hand you give permission to your government to kill it's people, which as a theoretical concept I have problems with, and on the other hand you have to warehouse people that can never be set free, and that costs money, and in many cases it would be better for everyone, to include the victim's family, the State, the general society, even the convict himself would all be better off if the convict were executed. (Whether the convict wants it or not; I don't think that should count for anything.) Then there's the possibility of executing an innocent person, the idea of executing someone that might have the mental development of a child, the idea that killing someone can "right" a wrong might encourage some people to take the law into their own hands, the idea that there HAS to be some kind of clear "ultimate punishment" for certain crimes, etc... and when I add it all up I'm (weakly) in favor of the death penalty. The idea makes me sick. I don't know if I could go watch one. I don't know if I could do one myself. I don't know if I could be on a jury and sentence someone to death. But, on balance, again when I think it all through, we're better-off "with" the death penalty than we are "without".

I said ALL of that in order to establish what "normal" looks like. You can be weakly against the death penalty too, and still be normal. Maybe even STRONGLY against it. I can understand that, even if I think it's wrong.

What's disgustingly, freakishly and unforgivably weird beyond my ability to tolerate are these filthy, disgusting freaks that seem to enjoy the idea. Almost like they are GLAD that some poor person was murdered so that they can then enjoy the thrill of someone being executed in response. Tiny, little tyrant people with the Napoleonic "little man" complex, these frustrated losers spend their entire lives failing at one thing after another, and have never been able to accomplish anything, not even once, in their entire lives, and the BIGGEST THRILL that they can imagine is to drive down to Huntsville and whoop it up in some parking lot while some convicted felon gets a lethal injection or electrocuted, or whatever.

Those people truly disgust me, and they truly worry me. I worry about them more than I do the convicted death row inmate. We know who HE is, we know what HE has done, what we DON'T know is what these creepy sickos are doing crawling around our streets at night when no one is looking. Those people freak me out, big time, and I get the stink off these kind of people when I read the OP's comments about China, executions, executions in Texas, etc... It disgusts me. It's not normal. It should not be tolerated, and must be confronted by normal people. I don't want these freaky people walking around unsupervised in society. There's something wrong with someone that is whole-heartedly in favor of the Government killing a Citizen. After we lock up the murderers, I think we should start investigating these people, and put them under continuous surveillance, because I think their love of government executions is an indicator of something very, very bad, and very, very wrong inside of them, and I think it's evil, and dangerous.

Commentary: A rarely discussed point, and one rarely raised by rightwingers themselves. It's actually a good example of thinking outside your belief systems. These people discussed above do have some sort of pathology, I agree.
Report a bug
. Thank you*/