search instagram arrow-down

Copyright Notice

© rauldukeblog and The Violent Ink 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to The Violent Ink and rauldukeblog The Violent Ink with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.


Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Greta, Greta, Greta.

“What good would politics be, if it didn’t give everyone the opportunity to make moral compromises.”

— Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain



Greta Thunberg wrote an opinion piece today for The Guardian. In it she expresses the need for the fossil fuel industry, and its remoras – the banks, and related industries – to end investment in fossil fuels, immediately.

She and her allies will be making this case at Davos where the people who finance the running of the world empire gather and where if you listen closely, you can hear a cart full of oxygen tanks rattle down the hallways at night.

Most people don’t listen.

Obviously Thunberg is correct. As we outlined in multiple posts ecocide is occurring and we’re all going to die because of it.

The next president should build on Arnold Schwarzenegger’s point, that because the energy companies knew they were destroying the environment, they are guilty of murder – and add to that accusations of crimes against humanity.

To knowingly destroy the environment is to organize the deaths of billions.

Imagine being more successful at it than Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Henry Kissinger combined.

Using the Patriot Act for good instead of the depravity and tyranny for which it has been used, the next president should declare the energy companies (in the generally absurd patois of the political and chattering class) an existential threat to the nation’s national security.

And seize their assets.

Predictably such action will produce hysteria and cries of godless Bolshevism, and calls for armed resistance not to mention endless lawsuits.

Lincoln and FDR would say: I welcome their hate.

The next president of course won’t do any of that so relax.

You’re trajectory towards dystopian horror remains on track.

But then there’s Greta.

She’s young and single-minded and earnest.

And a fool.

In her polemic she expresses a kind of temper tantrum.

And graciously admits it’s all complicated.

She does not admit that people with the ethics of a virus are using her to generate click bait revenue (which is why she was plucked from irrelevance to “relevance”) and she says nothing about what would happen if the powers that be suddenly pulled the switch – and oil production and investment just stopped.

For example, consider the utterly odious, decadent, depraved sadistic poet warlords of the Gulf – and we mean both Texas and Saudi Arabia.

Think ISIS, Syria and Iraq are a mess?

Now add in the collapse of the these regimes (and again, we also mean Texas and we’ll add in Louisiana, and Mexico, and Iran, and Venezuela, and Nigeria, and Libya, and Canada and Russia) and the aristocrats will run for the border (and their estates in London, and Manhattan) and the poor will be in desperate need of food, and a way to heat their homes, drive their cars and move things like people and food from a to b.

Resulting in a humanitarian crisis and calls for UN (i.e., American) intervention.

Which means dead marines.

And hostages.

And car bombs.

And money.

Lots and lots of money.

And, well, you know the rest.

Yes, they should not be driving cars that need gas and they should not be heating their homes with non-sustainable energy.

But that requires an infrastructure.

Which requires people to build the infrastructure.

Which requires either nationalization of the means of production, or a shift in investment.

And many of the people involved have the right to vote.

And many don’t.

China for example does not hold elections per se, and the transformation of the Chinese economy from its current Mao sings the capitalist blues gangsterism, to something else is like asking King Kong to dance – in a teacup.

Should it happen?


Is it necessary to save the environment?


Exactly how is it going to be accomplished?

Well, on that point Greta is apparently silent.

Does the technology exist to make the change?


But in order to use it the gangsters in China will have to convert their investments in the use of indigenous slaves by the plantation owners in America – you know all of those environmentally consciousness liberals at Apple, IBM, and Walmart.

Or as Ricky Gervais said – if ISIS launched a streaming service you would all be calling your agents begging for a deal.

Obviously Tim Cook and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and the Waltons are guilty of making their fortunes off the labor of slaves.

That should be a crime against humanity.

It won’t be though unless as someone said about Jeff Bezos changing his mind – not until someone puts a gun to his head.

And notice that wee Greta has said nothing even remotely left wing – nothing about seizing the means of production, nothing about nationalizing the banks and the hedge funds, nothing about grabbing the tech lords by the balls and saying it is immoral and poses an existential threat to the planet to keep using conflict resources and slave labor to make your government sanctioned tracking devices.

Because if she did the click bait pimps would drop her because she’d be ginning up the peasants and the plebes to think about direct action.

Instead of ginning up gangs of teenagers to get angry on a Friday afternoon.

And then go home.

Because of course Greta is a bourgeois gnat.

Who has been adopted by bourgeois liberals as a pet.

If she were educated, or aware, she’d call on her followers to boycott the internet for a week.

No texts, no apps, no internet, no videos, no calls no nothing for a week.

And then the aristocrats would get the jitters and shakes as the revenue river began to evaporate.

And someone would probably hire someone to hire someone to give her the full Khashoggi.

So instead she’s off to Davos.

Where they will nod their heads and say yes yes Greta you’re right, we should do something.

While the planet burns.




See the piece here:

We also take note that a few months ago senior investment lords made the public point that a failure to change investment strategies would lead to catastrophe.

But then there were people who said similar things in 1914.

And so on.

And so on.

And so on.



15 comments on “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Greta, Greta, Greta.

  1. There is always the question of why people do what they do in the face of open secrets that are so overwhelming, devastating, and fearful. It relates to how people know and don’t know things simultaneously, which demonstrates the splintered nature of humanity.

    Ultimately, it comes down to what is the Jaynesian collective cognitive imperative, what we must do because it is what we are compelled to do through the force of the archaic authorization still rumbling in the collective psyche. We aren’t rational autonomous actors having debates and following democratic process of decision-making. Not even the supposed rulers of the world really in control. They too are puppets to internalized voices of authorization pulling their strings.

    That system of authority itself holds power. And will continue to do so until something obliterates it. The hold it has is not military power or vast piles of wealth. It’s not even about propaganda in the conventional sense. Nothing stops billions of people from rising up in a collective act of self-defense, nothing other than the imperative that rules their minds with demiurgic force. It’s mind control, but no one is really at the wheel.

    Our global paralysis amidst extinction-threatening crisis demonstrates how much we truly are automatons. This system of post-bicameral authority has been lumbering on for millennia now. Something like this won’t end any easier than did the bicameral societies with the catastrophic mass collapse of Bronze Age civilization.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. rauldukeblog says:

      The classic being people asking how and why the Germans could have gone for fascism – when in truth the question is bogus.

      Dissonance and the semi-detached state dominate people.

      It seems likely we’re headed for a collapse similar to the Bronze Age.

      The whole “Greta” thing is both funny and so depressing.

      Zero discussion of how the sausage was made (i.e., no discussion of clicks) and no one saying ok but what’s the plan? And of course no criticism allowed bcs then you’re castigated as a right wing goon, etc.

      Beyond all of that you’re right – there’s a kind of ghost in the machine quality to it all.

      I find it hard to believe that the more intelligent of the pols are unaware of the systemic and structural issues. They know oil INC has to end but they wont say it.

      Yes Bernie and Warren talk around it but I don’t believe they don’t know what that really means.

      But even among the smartest there is something hollow – just not quite there or here as the case may be.

      Of course we only ever see them through screens like shadow puppets.

      Beyond that – yes we’re looking at robots in a sense.

      The mindless attachment to tech even though everyone “knows” what’s involved.

      The useless bourgeois styling of the “resistance.”

      Essentially an atom bomb went off in Australia and basically no one gives a shit.

      Their talking about a billion animals having been wiped out and yet – business as usual.

      It should have prompted an international conference, unified condemnation of the current Aussi gov, and then action – but of course even if HRC was in instead of Trump I don’t believe she would be publically calling for the energy companies to be quarantined.

      Depressing as hell.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. What exactly is the collective cognitive imperative in our society? I was wondering about that. There is obviously is something that is dominating the public mind.
        But it’s easier to think what that means in a specific group, such as a church or a cult of personality.


      2. What I was thinking about are the specifics of what is going on. From a Jaynesian understanding, what is this power over the human mind. It really is amazing.

        There is that constant drum beat in modern society that, to be good and sane, to be citizens in good standing worthy of being taken seriously, we must be rational and reasonable, moderate and centrist, we must always vote for the lesser evil no matter how evil it gets, and we must trust the paternalistic politicians and bureaucrats, technocrats and corporatocrats who through their noblesse oblige and charity, their brilliance and wisdom will take care of the world’s problems that we lesser beings can’t comprehend.

        Besides, no matter how bad it gets, this is the best of all possible worlds and human progress, despite a few bumps, is inevitable. We just need to centralize wealth and power even further to deal with the crises, from EAT-Lancet to the War on Terror, and restore order. It’s such a powerful message about what it means to be civilized and, without it, there is a fearful fantasy that any challenge to it is a threat that will destroy everything. Just get in line and know your place. The adults are in charge and will take care of everything.

        Greta Thunberg obviously is no threat, though. She has been given the stamp of approval with widespread corporate media reporting, not to mention a TED Talk. And behind her she has the authorization of many powerful organizations and institutions at which she has given speeches, besides the UN twice: European Parliament, World Economic Forum, US Congress, and much else. She has already been co-opted and has allowed this to happen. The price of this fame is to be neutered as a possible source of change.

        Once you come to this insight, it’s hard to look at people the same. I watch news media and it isn’t limited to something as straightforward as the propaganda model that Chomsky talks about. It’s not only that the media masters are gatekeepers and actors. If you really pay attention to them speak, you realize that they also lack awareness. They are playing out scripts that they don’t understand and don’t see. These aren’t masters of the universe. More powerful voices are speaking through them. Nothing they say is original or unique to them. They are proxies or puppets. They are empty husks.

        The show that is being put on is not only for the sake of the viewing audience on the other side of the screen. The show is an entire lived reality that these people are trapped within. It’s not that they’re intentionally lying to us most of the time because they probably believe most of the lies they tell us, even if in dissociated fashion some other part of them also knows the truth. That dissociation is total and so allows a genuine sincerity. They are committed to the roles that have come to possess them. And in such an absolute state of psychic splintering, there is no way to tell up from down.

        This is the new normal.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. rauldukeblog says:

        Why you subversive Beatnik godless Bolshie!;-)

        Yes, to all of that.

        Thunberg and the media and the pols, etc.

        It’s really a bizarre spectacle.

        It’s all but impossible to get people to think and to engage in the most basic effort of thinking.

        I often find people reacting with disbelief at a comment and their disbelief is centered on an assertion that the comment is extravagant in its impossibility – and then one points out that the source is readily available and not arcane but a click away – say a dictionary or a recognized work of historiography, etc.

        And while the “left” insists this is the hallmark of the right, I find it’s equally spread out.

        There is a group-non-think going on that is extraordinary.

        Of course there are multiple sources – media, “education” – but all of those in turn have a source which I suspect is the defective or maladaptive consciousness.

        I had an idea earlier about a new post on the idea that Bicameral consciousness hasn’t vanished but has been transformed into internalized dissonance.

        In this state the “individual” reverts to an automaton state but the previously external voc is now internalized but has the same effect.

        The example has to do with an encounter with a sociopath that I’ll explain in detail when I write up the post.

        But part of what I’m thinking (roughly) is that concepts like “personality disorder” (i.e., “sociopath”) are the evolution of Bicameralism.

        God didn’t vanish per se, pr per Jaynes so much as it was brought inside the mind.

        Of course outside of religion we don’t speak that way anymore and psychology having been colonized by the government and big pharm speaks of chemical imbalances etc.

        We are inside a closed system.

        The gatekeepers are mostly but not exclusively media.

        They decide who is a voc/authority and they define the format and they are militantly antagonistic towards anything that disrupts their power inclouding alternative pov and of course any examination of their methodology.

        And certainly anything beyond Chomsky’s limited critiques is not recognized.

        “Greta” is a perfect example – a tool and a diversion that allows the “woke” to claim absolution in place of action.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. We’re definitely on the same page. Jaynsian consciousness as introspective mindspace is not really something separate from the bicameral mind. It’s the same thing operating in a slight variant, which is what one would expect as not enough time has passed for major genetic changes. It remains as the same basic neurology and human nature.

        In some ways, modern humans might have less awareness. All those psychic disconnections create a crippled mentality that hobbles along in spasms of pain and distress. The theater of voices, in the bicameral mind, operated out in the open. But now, though repressed, they still go on speaking. We hear a thought, it alters our mood or directs our action, and another voice tells a narrative about how that is what we wanted to do or whatever.

        This actually takes immense effort and it’s tiresome. That relates to Jaynes’ observation that schizophrenics, in lacking strong egoic boundaries, have immense energy and stamina. This led Jaynes’ to speculate that, without a rigid egoic structure draining psychic and physical reserves, bicameral humans were able to do so much more that to us seem like impossible feats, such as a rather small population building perfectly aligned massive pyramids with no equipment, vehicles, roads, bridges, etc.

        In the post I’m writing, I’m going to connect this back to addictive substances, from drugs and diet. I’m going back to Johann Hari’s insight that the addict is the ultimate individual. My own theory is that addictive drugs, both uppers and downers, are how egoic consciousness manages the voices, through selectively silencing and repressing voices to create the appearance of a single coherent voice. This is difficult to maintain and, as society has become more complex, we’ve increasingly become dependent on our addictions to maintain the psycho-social order.

        This comes at a great cost. Personality disorders would be one of the many consequences. Gods, spirits, ancestors, etc didn’t vanish. They still speak to us, whether or not we acknowledge them as such. Put a modern person under enough stress and they quickly fall back on voice-hearing (John Geiger’s Third Man Factor). I’d also relate this to the weird phenomenon of the Fortean as explored by John Keel and Jacques Vallee, the bicameral mind irrupting in modern guise.

        It’s the uncanniness of the return of the repressed. Within consciousness, this can only be understood as insanity and irrationality. Those who fail to keep up the appearances and pretenses of egoic consciousness are taken care of. Those who can’t contain the voices are themselves contained by society in various ways. If standard addictive drugs don’t work, we have more heavy duty anti-psychotics to shut down the voices. But isn’t that interesting that we need to take so many substances, legal and illegal, prescribed and bought, just to hold it together day to day.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. rauldukeblog says:

        Freud in one of his more reactionary moments said about Joyce’s Ulysses that the difference between Joyce and a schizophrenic was that the schizophrenic would jump off a cliff to the jagged rocks and Joyce would slip and fall.

        Ulysses of course is in one reading a perfect illustration of your point – the voices.

        The drugs as you say are used for control and the drugs are part of a vast apparatus designed to control.

        Control of the discussion about control as well as the day to day aspects of control.

        Out of that is the fabrication of the narrative that defines this in binary terms – crazy or sane.

        Years ago Billy Joy gave copies of the Unabomber Manifesto to friends but without them knowing who wrote it.

        Everyone of them (all very bright well read people) said the same thing – the author did not write well but the points were all legitimate.

        Joy wrote a lengthy article/essay about it taking up an entire issue of Wired magazine.

        One of the things Kosinski said was that left academics are all dangerous moral relativists.

        Strip the name of the author and it’s identical to the rhetoric of a J. Peterson etc.

        Of course Kosinski is crazy but how different is he from any number of other people?

        The responses are telling as well. It’s the accusation of claiming he’s not crazy but the point is – he is and so are the people who use the same language to justify dropping bombs, etc.

        Of course we’re back to “Socrates” but we can go further – Gilgamesh’s best friend was a “wild man” who had to be tamed and brought into the city.

        But was Gilgamesh any less crazy?

        Then were into Foucault and the idea that the assertion of sanity is more about the assertion of power than an objective condition.

        Manson was crazy but Nixon Inc. killed millions.

        Call it Helter Skelter you go to prison for the rest of your life.

        Call it foreign policy they build you a library with your name on it.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Here is something to think about. I came across a video about the pre-Christian religion of Anglo-Saxons. It’s info that most Americans have some familiarity with. But our discussion here was on my mind as I watched it.

    The basic religion was a world alive with other beings. Likely it was originally animistic and became bicameral. One part maybe gives a hint to bicameralism. There were stories of beings that would do work for humans in exchange for gifts. What if this was work that humans did in altered states of possession? Maybe that is one of the ways bicameralism operated. Different kinds of activities would require specific mindsets built on specific traditions of mnemonics, knowledge, methods, etc.

    This is not that implausible. Jaynes brings up examples of this kind of non-conscious behavior in modern humans. All the time, humans do things without remembering how they did it, such as mindlessly and habitually driving from one place to another. Driving hypnosis is also related to Fortean experiences, the reason why many have alien encounters while in a car. But most of the time we don’t even notice as consciousness entirely shuts down, coming back on line later on without missing a step. Maybe consciousness is much more superficial and fleeting than we realize, constantly going in and out, and yet seeming like a smooth continuing process.

    How much of what we do in life is still to this day done in a bicameral state? If so, we wouldn’t even notice. We would just have blank spots and missing time. But our consciousness easily could patch over with its narratizing function and so edit out the oddities, as if nothing was amiss. Consciousness is maybe like a shirt with gaping holes from moths and crickets chewing on it. We constantly sew and patch up the holes trying to hold the shirt together as it is in a constant state of falling apart. It doesn’t occur to us why we feel this chill all the time, what is it that is forever chewing away at the fabric of our egoic individuality.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Anglo-Saxon religion might’ve operated similar to Australian Aboriginal religion.

      I’ve talked about that before, in terms of Lynne Kelly’s research on mnemonic systems. One of the telling details was that it had been observed that when singing a Songline into manifestation those involved would show signs of personality change.

      They became possessed by the spirit of the Songline they were invoklng. Each Songline was a full contained worldview and mindset in which specific knowledge was contained and through which was made accessible.

      Bicameral voices aren’t merely something heard. They are obeyed. That is because they represent and express behavioral patterns that serve some purpose for the individual and for the culture.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. rauldukeblog says:

        Have I mentioned the book Songlines by Bruce Chatwin? add it to your ever expanding list.

        Also your comment reminds me of something in The White goddess by robert Graves – he had the idea that the Druids used/saw trees as letters perhaps entire phrases (a mythic idea that shows up in The Lord of the Rings with the Ents).

        I’m not sure I grasp the distinction between heard and obeyed.

        I’m not sure I don’t.

        Must ponder.


      2. Yeah, you’ve mentioned Chatwin. And I have a copy of his book. But I’ve only skimmed it a bit so far.

        Graves view of trees as a language, that sounds a bit like a mnemonic system as discussed by Lynne Kelly. My suspicion, though, is mnemonic systems operated as voices that were invoked and could possess.

        That is why to hear is to obey, that is to be hailed.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. rauldukeblog says:

        I think you’re right about the voices.

        Logical based on the whole Jaynesian concept.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. rauldukeblog says:

      This is probably a brilliant insight.

      I think you’re on to something crucial.

      There’s probably a lot of history that is a blank slate because of the bicameral shift from aware to following the exvoc.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I was pointing to the opposite of a distinction between heard and obeyed. But in common understanding, the words mean something different. That is because, within egoic consciousness, it is assumed that we are identical with the voices we hear in our head and so therefore it’s a choice we are making as free autonomous agents. According to Jaynes, this overlooks the complex human reality going on in how voices operate. See the following:

    Darwin’s Pharmacy
    by Richard M. Doyle

    The philosopher Louis Althusser used the language of “interpellation” to describe the function of ideology and its purchase on an individual subject to it, and he treats interpellation as precisely such a “calling out.” Rather than a vague overall system involving the repression of content or the production of illusion, ideology for Althusser functions through its ability to become an “interior” rhetorical force that is the very stuff of identity, at least any identity subject to being “hailed” by any authority it finds itself response-able to. I turn to that code commons Wikipedia for Althusser’s most memorable treatment of this concept:

    “Memorably, Althusser illustrates this with the concept of “hailing” or “interpellation.” He uses the example of an individual walking in a street: upon hearing a policeman shout “Hey you there!”, the individual responds by turning round and in this simple movement of his body she is transformed into a subject. The person being hailed recognizes himself as the subject of the hail, and knows to respond.”14

    This sense of “hailing” and unconscious “turning” is appropriate to the experience of ecodelic interconnection I am calling “the transhuman interpellation.” Shifting back and forth between the nonhuman perspectives of the macro and the micro, one is hailed by the tiniest of details or largest of overarching structures as reminders of the way we are always already linked to the “evolutionary heritage that bonds all living things genetically and behaviorally to the biosphere” (Roszak et al., 14). And when we find, again and again, that such an interpellation by a “teacher” or other plant entity (à la the logos) is associated not only with eloquence but also with healing,15 we perhaps aren’t surprised by a close-up view of the etymology of “healing.” The Oxford English Dictionary traces it from the Teutonic “heilen,” which links it to “helig” or “holy.” And the alluvial flow of etymology connects “hailing” and “healing” in something more than a pun:

    “A Com. Teut. vb.: OE. hlan = OFris. hêla, OS. hêlian (MDu. hêlen, heilen, Du. heelen, LG. helen), OHG. heilan (Ger. heilen), ON. heil (Sw. hela, Da. hele), Goth. hailjan, deriv. of hail-s, OTeut. *hailo-z, OS. Hál “16

    Hailed by the whole, one can become healed through ecodelic practice precisely because the subject turns back on who they thought they were, becoming aware of the existence of a whole, a system in which everything “really is” connected—the noösphere. Such a vision can be discouraging and even frightening to the phantasmically self-birthed ego, who feels not guilt but a horror of exocentricity. It appears impossible to many of us that anything hierarchically distinct, and larger and more complex than Homo sapiens—such as Gaia—could exist, and so we often cry out as one in the wilderness, in amazement and repetition.

    Originally found in below post:

    Liked by 1 person

    1. rauldukeblog says:

      Fascinating! Hence the phrase “The king called and I answered” which (again) appears in TLotR but is a common experience as you point out – call and response.

      The catechism and other associated practices come to mind.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: