What a waste. Without a taste,
stretching out for help, but found
none in suns on yellow days,
frowning drowning pastel clown.
Nothing’s sweat in salty tears,
only smeared & only itchy
make up made up of those years—
dark, & yet they still bewitch me.
Dump you down my creaky drain,
please remind me of the rain—
Please! I promise to behave…
Recuerdo cuando oía aquella canción en el radio.
No la toca no más.
…
I remember when I heard that song on the radio.
They don’t play it anymo’.
…
While an authentically equal economy may be perhaps Utopian[1], those from all corners o’ the Quadratic Inanity[2] who usually use this argument to bolster each o’ their own particular form o’ benign capitalism are hypocritical, for capitalism without corruption is not e’en Utopian, but flat-out logically impossible. Hence why it’s ne’er existed, while true equality did sorta maybe for a short time in Spain once, a’least.
It’s so obvious that capitalism @ its core is corrupt that only American’s deep discomfort with questioning the core principles o’ their dominant ideology, regardless o’ truth & logic, could ‘splain the prevalence o’ this mythical meritorious capitalism—or “equal opportunity without equal outcome,” as conservatives call it. & it’s not just the right that hinges on it: liberals like Paul Krugman & Joseph Stiglitz in their books make lofty promises o’ returning to some mythical fair capitalism that they imagine existed in the glorious 50s—well, to whites, a’least—thanks to moderate welfare & regulation. It’s probably true that these—the welfare & regulation, not the white supremacy—do improve society o’er laissez-faire capitalism, if the success o’ Nordic social democracy is an indication; but corruption is not simply a relative circumstance that’s worse than what’s possible, but an absolute circumstance that applies regardless o’ what worse alternatives may exist. In truth, ending political/economic—I only use both words ‘cause o’ westerners’ wrongheaded insistence that they’re different—corruption would require change so radical that it’d probably require outright equality, which I’ve already states is probably Utopian. If that is the, understandable, belief o’ moderate liberals, then they should honestly acknowledge that the true end o’ corruption is impossible, but that their moderate reforms are the best people can hope for. Showing policies’ relative strength compared to other existing policies doesn’t prove those policies’ absolute quality.
What makes capitalism inherently corrupt? The answer’s hid in the name: capital, the creation o’ wealth from wealth, whether investment, interest, $ itself, or through using property to gain an advantage. The definition o’ a corrupt system is that the output affects the input—a’least in a positive way. This is ‘cause it creates a self-perpetuating cycle o’ victory creative further victory. This is why the equal opportunity that conservatives tout is necessary for meritoriousness: in order to be truly competitive, all contestants must start @ the same position. Obviously wealth—money & property—is the prime outcome, the measure o’ success; thus, any instance in which wealth itself creates opportunities for wealth-creation, including the common methods I’ve mentioned earlier, is corrupt. This obviously wouldn’t fit within conservatives’ call for equal opportunity: since opportunities such as investment are obviously influenced by how much wealth one has, then equal opportunity & equal outcome are the same.
What’s funny is that this is e’en mo’ obvious when one looks @ a common metaphor mainstream economists use to describe money’s affect on “the market”: $ votes. Consumers—people with money, & thus some success already—control how the market runs, which controls how money is outputted. Such a system is the equivalent o’ gerrymandering: the rich controlling the criteria that decides who gets to become rich. &, as economists themselves clearly agree, it’s the core o’ market systems.
[1] Those who argue that Leninist countries like the former Soviet Union & North Korea’s evil were due to excess democracy or equality should merely be pointed & laughed @; their ideology has clearly left them immune to any semblance o’ reality.
[2] Conservatism, laissez-faire libertarianism, centrism, & liberalism—the 4 mainstream ideologies.
I’m not ‘fraid o’ the night,
where light illuminates the dark & dark illuminates the light;
‘stead I fear the day,
when the flesh-faced hunters—Aughooo!—wake,
marching out on the open plain,
as if we don’t all know what’s @ stake ‘tween our stakes.
Day like a desert saps me dry
till I become drunk on inebriated light & stumble blind.
Contrastingly, the night makes me much less anxious,
wrapping me with its twins: breeze & blankets.
Ignore the slander that night has no light
from those who ignore electricity & fireflies.
Seriously,
everyone knows ’bout the electricity & fireflies.
Lay sorrow for the sorrows I thought I harbored but didn’t,
drain,
now listen to that same spinning disk
I’ve been frisking for days now.
How ich bin itching loud.
When I’m starving to leave,
I say chow,
I do.
« Cat, get your face off my hand
& sit in a marching band.
Bash those drums off my hand
¿& sit? ¿Is marching banned? »
When the clocks get dusty,
¿y’know what I get in my bag?
A li’l timerag.
When the rocks grow rusty,
¿y’know what I’ve got on my back?
It’s not just his 1-night sand;
it’s all hour jazz.
« I don’t want to be em,
I don’t want to be hot,
I don’t want to grow young,
I | want | to | go | emooooo.
¡So medicate! & get late. »
—Smashing Berenjenas, “So Hot”
Look what: you warped my tape;
this is why I
shook rough you wrapped in tape
in this twilight.
I wish I had jam
to go with this pop
lock rock tock glock.
—O, ¿why all the blues?
Too poor for my blood;
I need a horn that blows—.
The loudness
only e’er makes the quiet louder, too.
—Now come, I’ll trade your tears ‘fore my fear
¿How come? I’ll make your bears … my fear—.
The beer o’ cheer only makes it run out;
its taste in my mouth
is only it leaving my mouth.
—Your problem is you keep trying to make music that ne’er stops.
¿Why stop the schlock that stops?
So you don’t stop stopping
& ne’er get round to music that stops,
much less los otros;
you’re obsessed with Easy-E
& ne’er get round to the humans that stop,
much less los otros—.
« …we threw things cruel—
eliminated the crannies & twigs. »
— OVED, “The Metaphor, My Sis”
O, ¿who am I ribbing?
I can’t be on the rag,
no mind how I rag.
The nearest I ran
was mooching a mini moocher.
I need to come back to the future;
I need, too, comfort when through sure.
I’m not sure these words are worth.
« When the talk’s all musty,
¿y’know what I packed in my keg?
A li’l timerag.
When the chalk falls fuzzy,
¿y’know that I made it in my sack?
It’s not just her, 4-morn sea:
it’s him, phony. »
— Some asschasm, “CUANDO LOS CEROS SE ALINEAN EN EL RELOJ DE VEINTICUATRO HORAS”
Already it’s getting laid
& the ligh-ligh-ligh… dim
& the 0s line up on the plenty for our lock
& I don’t remember why I scratched,
but I did.
Lay sorrows for the sorrows I thought I had but didn’t.
—Mike, check—.
I haven’t earned em.
—Mike, check—.
I don’t think I e’er will.
—Mike, check—.
¡We gret it, already!
Out o’ the blue
in creamy blue–
afternoon moon.
Through a web stroll that is now a haze to me—save its origins: an email promising me a job where I can “Mess Around on FaceBook And Twitter!” while making over 700$ a week—I stumbled ‘pon generic-brand Lifehacker known only as Lifehack, whose name only brings me images o’ those clunky pirated games like Super Donkey Kong 99.
Speaking o’ which: to fit the mood, I suggest you listen to this lovely song on-loop throughout the whole article (sorry I couldn’t find an extended version).
The specific article I ran into is called “10 Reasons Why Some People Will Never Succeed,” which sounds terribly original. Good thing somebody finally handled this rare topic.
‘Course, none o’ these reasons are “Bourgeoisie Conspiracies,”1 so we already know these are wrong. That doesn’t mean we can’t point & snicker with consummate seriousness.
& it starts creatively, too—by quoting someone else:
In O.G Mandino’s The greatest salesman in the world, a very important fact was made which said that:
Stop, stop… Sorry, I just need to savor this diction—like stale “Fruit Circles,” which shouldn’t be mistaken for “Fruit Loops,” no, they’re totally different.
Tragically, nobody told Lifehack‘s editors that facts aren’t made by saying them & that said facts can’t talk themselves. The sad thing is, this could’ve been improved by making it simpler: just say, “In The greatest salesman in the world, O.G [I’m not sure if that’s a typo or not] Mandino said:”
Anyway, the “fact” is nothing but folksy wisdom without an ounce o’ evidence. Apparently all 1,000 “wise men”—I hadn’t realized that was still an occupation—agree that failure is the same: not succeeding @ what one wants. Wow, that is deep: turns out they all agree that “failure” is its own definition. Next you’ll tell me 2 = 2.
Turns out, this quote has no relevance to the rest o’ the article. The writer tosses it to the side & then introduces the list o’ things “people do to fail on purpose.” I can only imagine all o’ the scoundrels sitting in their dark caves, rubbing their hands roughly & cackling as they conspire to fail just to spite Lifehack. These fiends must be stopped!
The 1st reason is not valuing time, which apparently includes going round helping everyone in various situations. This ‘splains why that dumbass George Bailey’s bank failed. Should’ve put mo’ effort into jumping off that bridge, Bailey, ‘stead o’ getting distracted by that “angel” you keep seeing.
‘Course, some people might consider going round helping people in a variety o’ situations to be a fine goal to accomplish itself. They’re wrong & they should feel bad ’bout themselves.
Lifehack was nice ‘nough to give us this gorgeous animated GIF o’ some woman twirling a pencil in her fingers with a glazed look on her face. Her school assignment must be reading this article. As wacky as this bandwidth-wasting GIF is, it adds nothing to the content, & probably shouldn’t have been included. Whoever took the time to add this GIF clearly wasn’t taking this article’s advice.
The 2nd reason is, get this, that they don’t do things that help them accomplish their goals. This leaves me curious as to what the later reasons could be, since this is clearly the prime reason; I’m quite sure that not doing things that lead to a goal being accomplished is itself the definition o’ not accomplishing said goals.
Lifehack ruins this by spewing nonsense below: people who don’t value their goals won’t accomplish them. Then they’re not goals. Goals that one doesn’t value aren’t a stubborn problem; they’re Zen riddles. Nobody has them ’cause in order for someone to have them, they must’ve divided by 0 & blown up the world with a logic bomb.
Thankfully, Lifehack follows this with actually useful advice:
Writing down in a journal what your gaols [sic] are and implementing strategies which can get you there will help you identify things that are not on par with where you are going [emphasis mine].
I agree wholeheartedly: inspire yourself with fear by listing all o’ the nearby jails you’ll end up in when you’re forced to rob convenience stores to keep fed. It’s ’bout time somebody on the internet got it.
This reason’s picture is just bewildering: some asshole yells @ some woman with 90s hair reclining in a movie theater & the latter tells the former ’bout her “horizontal running.” Isn’t most running horizontal? Is that s’posed to be the point? “Ha, ha: look @ this idiot who thinks running but not doing it up hills is great. Successful people always run up hills.”
Mmm, mmm… You can’t imagine the taste in my mouth when I see the next reason: “They never step up to the plate.” Probably ’cause they’re not playing baseball, asshole.
O, come the fuck on! Look @ this next quote:
“People seem to think that success in one area can compensate for failure in other areas, but can it really? True effectiveness requires balance” – Stephen Covey
That’s the exact opposite o’ what you were saying before! You were just saying that balance is bad! That’s spreading yourself thin! Now you’re quoting this dickweed saying not spreading yourself is evil without giving a rationale. Why can’t I consider success in 1 area my goal?
Also, Lifehack’s editor is terrible. You don’t put quotation marks in the blockquote; the block itself indicates that it’s a quote. Haven’t you people ever read a manual o’ style? Next you’ll be telling me you don’t spend nights curled up with the Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus—which is ’bout 7 by 4 by 3 inches & weights a’least 5 lbs., so it must be made for huge pockets.
The article continues with the same reactionary victim-blaming cliché I’ve read 3 times already: “[L]ife has this universal law of giving you what you put in.” Huh, must’ve missed that breakthrough. Must’ve been sleeping in my Physics class when that topic came up. Silly I might think that there’s no evidence for this—that there is, just from a cursory search, some evidence gainst this claim by authentic scientists. But if Lifehack’s work is any indication, successful people don’t use scientific evidence or that ilk; they just spew ideological assertions like Bible verses.
The next reason is the same nonsense that one’s abilities are simply a manifestation o’ their dreams—which is the equivalent o’ saying that magic exists. Magic doesn’t exist & people who stay stupid shit like this are no smarter than people who still believe in the humors system or witches. We should treat Lifehack just as seriously.
Ha, ha! The next reason has a quote that isn’t even relevant, & seems to belie the general tone o’ this article:
“If you can’t make it good, at least make it look good” – Bill Gates
Well, that ‘splains Windows.
These are the people who will find reasons and logic as to why they can’t and why they shouldn’t.
& they should be butchered! God damn it, if I tell you to build me a flying car, you’d better believe you can. I don’t care if you’re 5 years ol’.
Also, if they “find” logic, then that implies that they’re successful in logically ‘splaining their ‘scuse… & thus it’s valid. See, the very definition o’ “valid” is that it’s logical, as opposed to illogical. I think Lifehack‘s actually arguing that their ideology is ‘bove logic itself. That’s awfully precious o’ them.
They sometimes mistake this abhorrent tendency for “just being realistic”.
I love how Lifehack creates an intentional nonfalsifiable argument here: e’en if reality says something negative, ignore it in favor o’ my arbitrary religion o’ happiness.
They lack imagination and always find ways to justify why something shouldn’t be but they never really try.
“They’re strawmen, basically.”
The best remedy for this is to stop your mind when it’s about to start making the excuses and re-ignite the engine that has started it all.
What does that e’en mean? You just said that they lack imagination, so they’d clearly ne’er ignited it, anyway. & why would you want to stop it just to start it ‘gain? What’s “it all” s’posed to refer to? I’m guessing the vile doubts—which makes me ask, ‘gain, why you’d want to “re-ignite” them… God damn it, Lifehack, you make Jack Chick look like the next Aristotle.
Ha, ha, ha. I think that animated GIF o’ the guy jerking round with flickering & the words, “Writing is hard” is a representation o’ Lifehack themselves.
6. They lack class
“They weren’t born into the regency family.”
Unsuccessful people usually tend to have no social IQ.
“People with psychological problems are losers.” No shit. Next thing you’ll tell me that people without arms won’t do too well, either. Good job rubbing it in, asshole.
They say things like “well at least I’m being honest” or “this is how I am, deal with it”.
Um, no: those are assholes. Look, just ’cause assholes go round calling themselves autistic whenever they’re dicks doesn’t mean you’re s’posed to truly believe they’re autistic, stupid-ass.
(By the way, I have Hollywood Tourette’s Syndrome, so you can’t be mad @ me for calling you a stupid-ass.)
Actually, I have to agree with her on my bewilderment on why anyone would think such a defense would work. Most people don’t give a shit ’bout others, so they’d just respond, “Well, I don’t like who you are, so fuck off.”
Nobody likes a big mouth, a show off, a humble boaster, or people who don’t know how to just say thank you when given a compliment.
“Yeah, editor whom I’ll never compliment for putting these nice GIFs in ever ‘gain…”
It has been said…
Nope! I don’t listen to advice given by thin air. Go back & put a name ‘hind that “said” & maybe I’ll listen.
7. They are procrastinators
The funny thing about this one is that they are usually self-proclaimed procrastinators. They see no shame in it.
Sometimes we agree; though this may just be coincidence: I’m always gainst people not feeling shame for things. Shame on you for not feeling shame.
This goes back to them never understanding the value of time.
Thank you for pointing out that you recycled this idea. A less scrupulous writer would’ve been wary ‘nough not to do that.
They are okay with living a life that keeps up with yesterday.
I agree with your criticism here: how can they be OK with something that doesn’t even make sense?
They live life as though they just have another one in the bank.
‘Nother what? Slow down; I can’t keep up with all this skip-skippin’ lingo, fat pajama cat.
Let’s just see how round one goes and if all else fails we press next or rewind or pause.
(Laughs.) What the fuck is this? Who are you talking to?
Understanding that you start dying the moment you are born and wisdom to realize that every day is a gift and you owe it to yourself to do everything you can do in those twenty four hours because nothing’s ever promised today tomorrow.
I think they just gave up @ this point & wrote whatever came to their head. Considering how li’l this Milks & Boon 2.0 probably paid them, I can’t truly blame them.
Unsuccessful people tend to ponder and leave footprints in the sands of time.
“Quit dirtying up my sands o’ time, you bums!”
The worst thing you can do is ponder.
“You don’t see me thinking ‘fore I write you gotta jump the hoop & dodge the giant eat the fish & make a 4-pointer.”
Stop dreaming about what will be, dreams in themselves are not bad but get up, show up and DO something.
“For god’s sake, anything must be better than sitting round reading these articles.”
9. They can’t face adversity
“All sunshine and no rain makes a dessert [sic]” – Arabian Proverb
“& I’m diabetic, so wash ‘way all those simple sugars, please.”
There was a shepherd boy, he was not a warrior and he was small in size. He looked at a giant and said “I will strike you down and cut off your head” and that is exactly what he did.
See, Lifehack was paying so li’l attention that they accidentally pasted some microfiction into the article. It’s probably the best part o’ this article, too: “[A]nd that is exactly what he did” is right up there with “& then Gatsby died.”
The thing with challenges is, they’re only as big as we make them seem and as strong as our weakness will allow.
“You think curing yourself o’ Huntington’s is impossible; but that’s only ’cause you haven’t imagined that you can… Probably ’cause your brain has already wasted ‘way.”
Unsuccessful people have not understood this and they give up all too quickly because things got uncomfortable, things got a little bit rough, they want roses without the thorns, babies without labour and a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow without bearing the storm.
The true moral here is that you’ll always be a loser if you set your win condition to something that’s literally impossible. I agree that that’s, indeed, stupid.
Also, I’m glad to see the Labor Theory o’ Value applied to childbirth. It can only happen when 2 share the means o’ production, after all—I’ll be here all night (so you all must suffer, ha, ha!).
I fell asleep for the last reason. Sorry, I just don’t care anymo’.
1 o’ the related articles, by the way, is titled, “13 Ways Successful People Deal With Toxic People.” 1 obvious contribution would be, “stay ‘way from Lifehacker or Lifehack.”
En los sueños vi una obra por Henrik Ibsen
que no ha estado visto por nadie jamás.
Los actores se sentaba y se hablaba para una hora
(pues, a veces uno se levantaría y caminaría al fregadero
y miraría afuera de la ventana),
pero el reparto incluyó la parca.
Después hubo otra obra sobre Pokémon,
que posiblemente fuera erótica;
no sabría porque me distraba la silla que seguía cayéndose atrás,
que causaba echarme miradas agrias los otros vagos spectadores.
No me encanta que avergonzarme ante spectadores imaginarios, silla.
In my dreams I saw a play by Henrik Ibsen
that nobody had e’er seen before.
The actors sat & talked for an hour
(well, sometimes one would get up & walk o’er to the sink
& look out the window),
but the cast included the grim reaper.
Afterward there was ‘nother work ‘bout Pokémon,
that was possibly erotic;
I wouldn’t know ‘cause I was distracted by the chair that kept falling backward,
which caused the other vague viewers to throw sour looks in my direction.
I don’t particularly like being embarrassed before imaginary viewers, chair.
Limbs sway suggestively in the wind
just like shapely human hips.
How your leaves scatter here & there
as humanoids fling their loose hair.
If roughness were treasure, I’d invest
in your trunk o’er the hairiest chest;
for I know your bronze wood’s renowned
& e’en supplements my own.
I know your wide black hole holds mo’
nuts that any human’s could hope;
& Sweeter the sap sucked from your branches
than butter splattered from the beefiest phallus.
So, oak, I dedicate this song to you;
for I know when the years suck all o’ my skin’s juice,
you’ll still look no older than 22.
Maybe I shouldn’t feed myself so much regret
when there were so many different animals I got to pet.
