The Master's Textbook - Why do girls seek you out ?

This is a translation of a 2011 piece, Manualul stapinului - De ce va cauta fetele ?

Since the recent liberalisation of societyⁱ ever more people are seeking their place in the world.

Liberalisation always complicates life ; the more that's allowed, the more opinions you're required to form. This would be the principal reason oldsters regret communism : it was a lot simpler, mister, you knew what's what, good and bad, conventionally, because you were told. You knew what fits you and what doesn't fit you, indifferently as to whether it fit any or not at all whatsoever, because there was who to take decisions for you. The dummies became car driversⁱⁱ and shop girlsⁱⁱⁱ, the smarties engineers^iv and teachers^v, everyone married, everyone two children, everyone bedroom furniture Felicia^vi and kitchen sets Christina or whatever they were called. The problem of choice was essentially absent. What kind of milk we wish to buy ? What do you mean what kind ?! Milk! What furniture do we intend to buy ? Well, that depends, what are we furnishing ? Is it a kitchen or a bedroom ? See how readily all problems find their solution!

In a free^vii society this isn't nearly as easy, because there's kinds of milk, of which some aren't even milk, so caveat emptor and I wonder what kind of milk does Mary buy, and what kind does Jane drink, and why's Eve not drinking milk at all, what's better, to drink or not to drink ? Does anything happen if you drink milk ?^viii How much milk did Napoleon drink ? What matters, in the ruckus of options, possibilities, opinions, preferences, warnings, dangers (which are real ? which are imaginary ?) and so forth ?

The concept entered our life at some point in junior high, when during French class, among the words and expressions of distinguished inutility (moissoneuse-bateuse ?!) a new camelostrich^ix rose its strange head, the so called "embarras du choix". Some kids dressed about the same (but not quite as the same as the previous generations) read there all about the problem, the impossibility, the difficulty and the degout of choice, and thought in their own heads "What suckers, what degenerates unworthy of the world are these Westerners we admire! Let them bring their choices forth, and we'll make them for you, yo! Louses! To not be capable of that much, to choose what you want or what you should or what is best ayayayaya your poor heads, the women at least, are you capable of mounting those^x ?

Yet seen from the other side, the problem of choice is the principal limit to scientific development. Logically speaking, who or what prevents you from building a teleporter ? A, it's possible that it's impossibile ? Of course it's possible. Maybe it breaks the laws of physics. You know what else breaks the laws of physics ? A pump. Yes, a pump, it pushes water uphill, whereas the laws of physics demand water flow downhill. And an airplane breaks the laws of physics, the same ones, because it floats although it's heavy. And computers break the laws of physics, and absolutely everything around breaks a certain, sufficiently pedestrian, formulation of the laws of physics.

What prevented all those who lived before the pump was invented from inventing a pump ? What prevented Newton or Pericle from inventing an aeroplane ? Ah, exactly the paradox of choice. It seemed to them they have better things to do with their time, by virtue of the fact that there existed areas in the universe of representations drowning them then that seemed more apt to receive their ordering. That's why the Greek steam engine, or the atoms of the same Greeks, or Michelangelo's helicopter didn't end up too far at those times : people failed to make the correct choices.

Every act of scientific research (which is, essentially and paradigmatically speaking necessarily the model of any act of existence in the world) is based on choices : between the important and the irrelevant, the possible and the impossible, the functional and the dysfunctional and so following. The problem of choice isn't, in other words, a defect of freedom. It is a defect implicit in the world itself, which authoritarianism aims to cover, often by inventing false problems, thereby creating a false silence.

False or not, said silence can be very useful, very productive, and absolutely beneficial for the individuals, given their limited capacities. In fact, the word "silence" is not used by accident : currently, admitting that you're sitting in silence, you have in your own ears a fine example. This apparent silence that surrounds you is actually based on your own deafness, for you don't hear the noise of Brownian motion. If you heard it, it'd sound about the same as white noise on an old TV set disconnected from its antenna (which works exactly as a detector of background noise, not resulting from Brownian motion however, because it's not a mechanical detector like the eardrum, but instead resulting from charge variations and quantum phenomena in the amplifier circuits).

If you found yourself surrounded by deafening, perpetual commotion, it's improbable you'd manage to think, or live. In fact, what'd happen is pretty well documented : you'd die. Crazy. Which is why it's not surprising that the human body, this cvasi-perfect object, induces deafness if it's confronted with loud or overlong noise, as a defense mechanism. A false deafness, to create a false silence, to allow life to continue.

This then takes us, after the lengthy introduction, exactly to being able to answer the titular question. Why do the girls seek you out ? Well, they seek you out because of your magical capacity of ensuring their silence. Obviously many of them represent this search in sexual terms, or psychological, or who knows what else, especially if they've no experience in the field. Nevertheless, the fundamental truth is that the Master can assure at least some degree of silence.

The notion that slavery implies necessarily less existence, or a weaker degree of existence than freedom is false. The majority of researchers, and especially the vast majority of young researchers carry their work within bounds drawn by others. Dicklet the Physicist does not establish the research paradigm at the age of twenty except for the rarest of cases (and then his name's never Dicklet, because can you imagine how that'd sound in a textbook ?)

As such, the role of the Master is precisely this, to systematically discern the essential from the unimportant, and to impose these choices as an absolute given, thereby freeing the slavegirl from the burden of answering all questions at the same time, and allowing her to answer a few exceptionally well.

That's why the girls seek you out : because you're capable of making silence, annulling the noise such that they can focus on the things that actually matter, to them. It's not an altogether common capacity, it's true, and it rather goes against the hopes and aspirations of the kids, as lo it's neither a matter of a large organ, nor of money nor so forth. Again and again exceptional situation comes down to exceptional ability and exceptional competence. Isn't it fucking annoying ?

But such is life.

1. Sounds weird, doesn't it ? What's it mean "recent", it's always been liberal, neh ?

   Not really, no. But then again the only thing new in this world...

   Moreover, liberalisation here does very much not denote "increased progressivism", "raised awareness", etcetera, as the text will no doubt reveal to you in its unyielding flow. [↩]

2. In Romanian, always male. [↩]
3. In classical Romanian, a shop clerk is always female. [↩]
4. In Romanian, almost always male. [↩]
5. In Romanian, always always female. [↩]
6. I've stated this numerous times but it bears repeating : a planned economy, such as the US is moving towards (by necessity rather than choice, you think the Chinese will long indulge the pretense of consumer choice from some people who have no money ?), contains one kind of underwear for all the girls, to be taken off on the one kind of bed found in the one kind of bedroom. That's it. [↩]
7. Perhaps a better word would be "open", such as Soros spent his adult life trying to help build, at least declaratively.

   For what it's worth, I believe. And I also could have told him in 1960 that his efforts, not in spite but because coordinated, insistent, financed -- which is to say, not exactly impotent, outright and visibly so -- will in due time earn him a spot on the Enemies of The People List. Because that's how "The People" fucking work, what. You think Stalin did the Stalin purges ? What else do you think ?

   Intr-o tara comunista, cind esti fire arivista si-ai si-un caracter sinistru poti ajunge repede Ministru.
   Dupa ce-ncasezi la prime, si te faci partas la crime, esti bagat la inchisoare, si-apoi condamnat pentru tradare.
   ~ Jean Moscopol.

   Ie, in a communist place, if you're an upward mobile nature also blessed with a sinister character you can readily end up a state minister ; after you cash their checks and become part of their crimes they'll stick you in jail and then convict you for treason.

   That's plain enough to read, but what does it mean ? How's it to be understood ? Perhaps that's not equally plain ?

   Whatever you may think "communist" means, or is supposed to mean, what the string denotes here is one of the two possible manners of organising society. If "the people" are sovereign, to make their own rules for themselves, as they best see fit, that place is communist. Conversely, if the people are not sovereign but subjects, of an individual invested (arbitrarily, of course) with immanent transcendence (aka divine right), then that place is... not-communist. That's the dichotomy here, either you have Plato's monarchy, as he imagined it, or else you have Plato's democracy, as he himself actually lived it.

   Do you know how that went, by the way, Plato's democracy ? How a bunch of imbeciles set out to butchering their betters in Athens ? How they sent people to every respectable citizen's house to force him to either kill someone on their list, thereby becoming a party to the carnage, or else engage in "treason" as they defined it ? Oh, don't tell me, teh FBI agents training courses you took to date inexplicably omitted these little historical details. Did they also forget to mention how the whole idiocy cost Plato Socrate's respect ? How they rather made the foremost thinker of the classical world repent thought, or at the very least the effort of teaching ? As a matter in principle, teaching anyone anything whatsoever.

   So : "if the land is unsettled, which is to say the lower class is going about brandishing items inadequate for its station", so far. Let's continue.

   Ariviste, the French concept, similarily found in Romanian, is not well served by the UStardian notion of "upwards mobile" for the very simple, obvious and direct reason contained in the "tard" part of UStard. These people are fucked in the head, is the point, and they imagine the irredeemably bad notion of arivism as the indisputably good concept of "upward mobility". This failure, where they look at shit and think to themselves "food" is very much the diagnostic, whole and complete, of what exactly do we mean by them being not simply "others", auslanders, but actually not-people. Yes there exist organisms which see shit and think food. Necessarily, as a biological absolute, those organisms can't be of the same kind as the organisms that produce the shit!

   If indeed you are a great man, what Plato'd have referred to as "made of gold" accidentally borne to inferior parents (and I do not mean "socially" inferior, as an excuse -- but entirely, substantially, personally and inescapably inferior, as what they actually are) ie made of tin or zamak or whatever, then yes it's perfectly fine and good for you to float to your own level. However that's not how UStards think the matter, but in characteristic fashion they reverse the cart and horses. They say "because I floated to the surface, therefore I must be good". This is wrong, turds float to the surface "intr-o tara Comunista". That's the point, that the replacement of legitimate authority with the always illegitimate authority of the sociopath horde leads to widespread environmental destruction, affecting in second place the production of objects, but in first place the structure of meaning.

   That's the point of Cicero's "equidem is sum qui istos plausus, cum popularibus civibus tribuerentur, semper contempserim" : that "intr-o tara comunista" the applause of the delusional mob seeing itself as some kind of arbiter is actual poison, and will lead you astray. It is, if you wish, a negative signal, which is why Hussein Bahamas or Britney Spears are turds (and indistinguishable turds at that) while Joe Stack a hero rather than the other way around. Thereby our correct translation continues to, "if the land is unsettled, which is to say the lower class is going about brandishing items inadequate for its station and you are one of those lost souls apt to confuse the passing of the exam with the faking of the exam". Good so far, further now!

   What is a sinister character ? The word comes into current language from late Middle English, where it ended up stranded from Old French, which imported it from Latin, where it meant... left. As opposed to right, which was in fact confused with the Sun and properness. Will a natural directness, a firm solarity, a square sort of dullness save you from the scum of your own nature and the collaborating pressures of the shitty environment ? Or are you rather a subtler kind, an "adaptable" sort of scumbag, the sort of sinister character that will imagine alignment between his own nature and the sorry state of the world is some kind of proof of correctness ?

   And so here we go : "if the land is unsettled, which is to say the lower class is going about brandishing items inadequate for its station, and if you are one of those lost souls apt to confuse the passing of the exam with the faking of the exam, and if you're not blessed with a functioning heart to moderate the broken head, you can readily end up a government minister."

   Because no, it is not a respectable thing, it is not a proper thing, it is certainly not an impressive thing and absolutely not a good thing for you, Richard. A man should go where he won't be tempted, said sir Thomas, and right he was. Here :

   "Italian silver. Take it. No joke."
   "Thank you."
   "What will you do with it ?"
   "Sell it."
   "And buy what ?" (For what does it profit a man to take the whole world if he giveth his soul for it ?)
   "A decent gown!"
   "But Richard... that's a little bribe. At court they offer you all sorts of things, home, manor houses, coats of arms. A man should go where he won't be tempted. Why not be a teacher ? You'd be a fine teacher. Perhaps a great one."
   "If I was, who would know it ?" (For I'm an UStard so unconvinced of my own existence, I need others to inform me of it!)
   "You! Your pupils. Your friends. God. Not a bad public, that. And a quiet life."
   "You say that. You come from talking with the Cardinal."
   "Yes, talking with the Cardinal. It's eating your heart out, isn't it ? The high affairs of state."

   Now do we understand each other ? [↩]

8. Why exactly do you suppose kids' chocolates must include a toy inside ? Being good ain't good enough, something's gotta happen to translate the good to you ? What exactly should happen ? Flying, screaming, jumping through the air ? Spiking volleyballs, jetskis, girls in bikinis ?

   Maybe you're putting too much ice in yours. [↩]

9. The word is celebrated in Romanian because it was introduced derisively cca 1600s, by Dimitrie Cantemir, a sort of Novelist-King of Romania. He's still widely read, by the way. [↩]
10. Enfin, it can't be said junior high kids thought in exactly these terms, but it can be said they thought the exact same thing, much like they had wet dreams which worked exactly like all other wet dreams of anyone else, except that in their case as opposed to the "normal", their juvenile wet dreams did not include any representation of cunt anywhere, given that they didn't know what one looked like. But otherwise everything was functionally the same.

    Speaking of which, I recall reading in some periodical recently the story of some guy, from his youth, when he had at his university some overactive Latinoamerican for a colleague, who didn't understand why aren't they making a war ?! When was there a war last ?! And when someone retorted that his grandfather had enough of war, he came back very dissatisfied with a "Yeah ? Then let your grandfather do all the fucking, also!" [↩]