Hating Together is the New Love

The older I get, the more convinced I am that a great deal of apparent evil is the product of social movements which lionize unified hatred and call it "love." The cult-like rationale, which is categorically fascist in nature, is that if unity is an effective change agent, members of the fascist cult are empowered and therefore morally in the clear, no matter what values, ethical codes, methods, or emotional forces bring them together. The fascists share a hive mind which is indeed a powerful force, whereas their opponents are rendered ineffective by individualistic values and ethical qualms.

Of course, the changes are generally for the worse, but "Whatever gets the job done" is a highly effective mantra in a society where the wheels of government have ground to a halt. Rampant political corruption and calculated right-wing obstructionism are meant to entice the general populace into revolting against the best ideals of government in a unified show of hateful mob mentality. Once everything breaks down into dysfunction and chaos, the proto-fascist demagogues waiting in the wings emerge victorious. Finally, when human rights are no more, they proclaim "Well, at least something changed. Look, we all did something... together! That's real love, and to hell with anyone not on our team, because we have power and they don't. See? The good guys are the ones who get things done. Losers don't deserve this amazing love we share." It's Social Darwinism codified as a national religion, which is exactly the dystopian nightmare that America is becoming.

When basic ethics take a backseat to power-worship, spiritual sickness festers. Case in point: late-1930s Germans were united behind a passionate love of country, and and they got a LOT of things done. Bioterrorism, empire-building, torture, mass incarceration, genocide... but they were definitely things, and they definitely got them done, together. Call it "love," Nazis; that doesn't make it good. Thus does state power subsume notions of true personal agency and democracy which once empowered citizens to effect change for the good of ALL. The only anodyne to this cultural cancer are democratic models of government which encourage free will and adhere to human rights principles. Bottom fuckin' line, no excuses.

‪#‎nevertrump‬

OWS Photo Stays

I won't be posting any new photos of myself for a while. It's not the trans thing; no shame there. The problem is that the mystery affliction which has been attacking my body's connective tissues for the past couple decades has now decided to move my jawbone a quarter-inch to the right, so my face is no longer symmetrical, and it shows. The plates of my skull have also shifted, so that my head now resembles a slightly rotten cantaloupe. 

Anyhoo, good thing I got rid of the crew cut; I used to have a great head for it, but since I've been mutated, I'm not sure it would look quite as cool these days. Still undiagnosed. Tentative diagnoses to date: degenerative disc disease, cervical and/or thoracic spine; Ehlers-Danlos, probably type 3 or possibly 5a-5b; Fibromyalgia; Osteoarthritis, spine/joints; cervical stenosis at discs C1-2, C2-3, C3-4, C4-5, and C6-6. Yep, C5-6 hasn't been complaining this week. Anyway, mystery medical conditions: not recommended. #gottalovescience

dot dot dot... that one stays, but for a more up-to-date version I refer you to My Facebook page.

Muhahahaha

Bernie Bros, BernieBots, Mountains and Molehills: A Call for Unity

To all the Hillary Clinton supporters who’ve been wondering why we Berniecrats are having trouble getting on board with a preemptive "unite behind our candidate" campaign, I’d like to offer a few candid thoughts and observations that I hope will help y’all refine this party unity message before you completely screw the pooch.

[1] Those calling for everyone to "rally Behind Hillary" have done so prematurely—in many cases for months, or even since Sanders first threw his hat in the ring. There seems to be a widespread bias among Hillary Clinton supporters that she is patently superior to Bernie, much more electable, and pretty much destined to win the Democratic nomination. This condescending stance is insulting to both Berniecrats and our candidate, who we are proud to say has continually defied the cynical expectations of both the Democratic and Republican political establishments, not to mention every news outlet that has been calling the primary for Clinton since day one. It also smacks of deep arrogance, and/or underhanded psych-out tactics, to constantly insist that there is no way our candidate will ever win against the Clinton juggernaut.

[2] I'm getting quite fed-up with non-female Sanders supporters like myself called "Bernie Bros" in response to comments which are critical of Hillary Clinton but which do not harp on her age, appearance, or other typically sexist digs. For those of you using this as a disingenuous and underhanded tactic that is gender-exclusive (women are never called Bernie Bros for the exact same critiques), shame on you; you're shooting yourselves in the foot by further alienating a huge number of those you claim to want on your team if Hillary gets the nomination. For others, there really does seem to be an element of male-bashing fervor, even if they tell themselves that they aren't stereotyping men as voting for Bernie simply because they are men.

I didn't call white Hillary supporters "Crackers for Clinton" when she was running against Obama in 2008, nor do I call women who now support her "Hillary Hoes" to imply that they’re only voting on the basis of which candidate has lady parts. Besides being in poor taste, these kinds of made-to-order slurs draw racists or sexists to the campaign in question. Personally, I'd like to keep Team Bernie as bigotry-free as possible. If Bernie was anything but a white man, no one would be trying to pull this shit, but a lot of vocal Hillary supporters are giving it a safe place couched in the security of attacking the dominant demographic. Unless you have a really good reason to think that someone is "just sexist" and that's why they like Bernie better, please do the math on what sort of people are drawn to this kind of rhetoric. If you think about it and then keep using the phrase because you think it is "effective," you're as much of an opportunistic bridge-burner as Donald Trump.

Bottom line, folks: "Bernie Bros" is an insidious campaign slogan whose main purpose is to characterize men, from Sanders to his supporters, as knee-jerk sexists who are opposing a woman on principle... as opposed to, say, people trying to make an informed decision who actually might listen to you if you stopped writing them off them for a second. In most cases I respect Clinton supporters’ point of view and the sincerity of their belief in her (whether or not the person in question has a vagina). Plus, to be fair, I want them to rally behind Bernie if he wins the nomination just like they hope that people like me will back Hillary in a race against Trump.

In light of this mutual goal of unity, it seems counterintuitive to denigrate people on the opposing side of the primary to the point that they come to regard the other team as “The Enemy” instead of just just “opponents for now,” in what’s mostly a respectful national conversation which delves into some very complex issues. Whatever the Bro-Bashers’ rationale may be—actual prejudice, a ham-handed campaign tactic, or the cheap thrill of putting someone down—they need to stop these broad-brush attacks. Men comprise about half the people, and they vote, so if a guy makes a sexist comment about Hillary, you’ll get a lot further in the long game with saying “That’s sexist.” You might be surprised at how many Bros back you up.

[3] I've had it up to here [gestures in the air emphatically] with people who call me a "Berniebot" or try to tell me that I simply "hate" Hillary after I'd just taken great pains to explain many of the key differences between her campaign platform and political record and Bernie's. I don't hate her, really; I FEAR her! I find many aspects of Clinton's record absolutely terrifying in their implications, from her voting for the Patriot Act and Iraq War, to her tacit backing of the Honduras coup, to her vacationing with her good friend Henry Kissinger, to her allegiance to the most nefarious big-business interests, to her ludicrous $225k minimum speaking fee. We Berniecrats view these as legitimate and pressing concerns, and to have them constantly dismissed out of hand suggests some major hypocrisy. Pigeonholing members of the opposing campaign in order to trivialize their perspective helps no one.

[4] Along the same lines, it doesn't warm my heart to have someone tell me that my grievances with Hillary Clinton are just a case of someone making a mountain out of a molehill, that she is "not that different" from Sanders, or that we should all trust that President Clinton would be far better for the world than President Trump in matters such as foreign policy, where she is effectively a Neoconservative in the league of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. It's a big world, and we're not the only country in it. #foreignlivesmatter.

As I have said many times in the past, I'm pretty sure that Clinton would be far more progressive than Trump on issues like social programs, LGBT rights, equal pay, and nearly all domestic policies except those involving anti-Constitutional infringements like mass surveillance. (See? We really DO think!). There are stark differences between the two Democrats, but I often find that when I point them out to Hillary Clinton supporters, they refuse to acknowledge anything I've just said and fall back on the hackneyed talking points "She'll get things done" (FYI: which "things" is actually kinda important) or "She's more electable than Bernie" (Nearly every poll for months has said the exact opposite).

In other words, I don’t respect the opinion of anyone who accuses me of being an unthinking robot just because I think that Bernie would be a decent enough, FDR-values Progressive president, and Clinton a terrible Neocon Overlord. My views and strategies have changed a whole lot over the course of this primary campaign, as I learn new information and seek to get over my own misconceptions and hangups so that I can make the most objective and informed decision in November. Based on most of the interactions I've had with Hillary supporters, I assume that this is also true for most of you... that said, y'all need to call each other out a LOT more on this kind of crap, the same way I call people out for juvenile name-calling tactics like "Shillary."

In the spirit of full disclosure, I've gotta admit that I agree with the scathing critique which is encapsulated in this "$hillary" taunt: based on an extensive reading of her record from the Civil Rights era to the present day, Hillary Clinton strikes me as a textbook crony capitalist with the speaking fees and campaign contributions to prove it.  This contrasts sharply with Sanders on many points, as seen in his revolutionarily ( #immortaltechnique ) populist primary campaign. Bernie is highly critical of pay-to-play politics, an approach which has allowed him to achieve an astounding underdog electoral comeback.  Think about it: Bernie Sanders is campaigning as a Democrat, against the favored candidate of most of the Democratic Party establishment.  He's playing poker against someone dealing off a stacked deck, and with all the aces up her sleeve... and all on a populist wave of donations from poor and middle class people which average about $25 to $30 per person. None of this, however, makes me want to feed the trolls who support the same candidate that I do.

Bottom line, folks: if you truly want to convince Bernie Progressives to follow Chomsky's advice and just "..Hold their nose and vote for Hillary" in November (should she win the Democratic nomination), then please do your part to reign in the trolls who are fucking over your campaign. Most of you really seem to be trying to do the right thing, but the assholish comments I keep encountering on social media are the farthest thing from a unity message, and only feed into the general sense of resentment and alienation that many of us feel toward the Democratic establishment in general, and Clinton supporters in particular. Please, please, don’t be part of the problem. It only serves Trump, and opens the door to a false equivalency that will taint your entire ticket.

There is no "Fascism Lite."

Coming soon: from the plutocrats who brought you Foreign Invasion Lite (Bases everywhere! Borderless drone wars!), Human Trafficking Lite (Thailand tours!), Money Laundering Lite (Switzerland! Caymans!), Sex Slavery Lite (Celeb nude video hacks!), and Racially-Based Summary Executions Lite, we’re proud to bring you Fascism Lite! 

Sarcasm aside, there is a growing force of real-life Fascism sweeping across the Earth.  In textbook-definition terms, this means that powerful governments are merging with distinctly amoral corporate entities and then working together to take over the world.  In the process, they demolish all legal precedents, presumably kicking it off with the Geneva Conventions and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and follow up by killing the environment. Oh, and they use virulent hatred of "The Other" to mobilize the minions.

Anyone who follows pro-torture, pro-war, pro-prejudice, anti-environment leaders expecting that utopia is just around the corner has probably been brainwashed by the likes of Donald Trump. What proto-fascist demagogues such as Trump, Bachmann, Hannity and Cruz so colorfully illustrate is that opportunistic hatemongers have no real plan but to unite people against enemies, and that this blind obsession with hatred will come to no good end. The inescapable outcome of obeying terracidal sadists is a dystopian mix of societal regression and ecological degradation. 

I normally direct these ranty missives toward the upper echelons of power, but I’d like to address the cheerleaders on the far Right for a moment.  You know who you are: the ones who equate Abu Ghraib with a "fraternity prank" because 'Papa Bear' O'Reilly gave you moral permission, or describe a largely innocent population of Muslim prisoners as "Animals" in order to justify their humiliating, categorically inhuman treatment at Guantanamo Bay.  Every casual slur, every little act of cruelty, every time you just keep your head down and try not to think about the moral implications, you bring yourselves closer to the edge. The problem is that they didn’t tell you where the race to the edge leads.  If civilization’s gearshift stays stuck between “Imperial Fascism” and “Human Rights with Sovereign Borders” much longer, we'll face one of two options, neither of which most of you would like:

In Plan A, the forces of Justice win, be it through revolution or rapid structural reform, and try to sort everything out in a way that’s fair to everyone. This quickly proves to involve a massive pile of litigation, because the Good Guys, given free reign, have unearthed decades worth of files and witness testimony detailing nefarious cover-ups from coups to germ warfare experiments... you know, the kind of stuff the Far Right always pretends not to notice if they think it helps their team. Everything is fair game: assassinations, biowarfare, unconstitutional invasions of privacy, you name it.  Hooray for the Good Guys!  The problem is, most of the Bad Guys get away clean.  By and large, those you might call "Middle Management" in the Conspiracy are the ones to take the fall: the spokespeople, technicians, messengers, and NSA contractors who didn’t go the Snowden route.  Names like Kissinger, Cheney, Gonzalez, Von Braun, Dow, GE, Bechtel, and Monsanto would no doubt arise in the course of investigations, but it’s hard to beat a billion-dollar legal team.

Plan B is a living nightmare in which the Fascists have finally won.  This would involve an undeclared empire comprised of the United States, England, France, and possibly (but not necessarily) Germany—an alliance which opposes human rights on principle, instead imposing a lawless, pay-to-play form of government across much of the developed world.  No more rights or protections, but those who play the game can ensure that their children are insulated from most of the fallout, in some cases literally.  You see, in ForProfitLand, there is no more Hippocratic Oath, and no pesky government watchdogs such as the EPA to protect the general public from nuclear meltdowns and toxic spills.  Like a bulldozer leaking oil and belching smog, the fascist juggernaut would spread to the ends of the earth appropriating whole cultures overnight, and assuming tacit ownership of assimilated citizens' bodies through the right of Toxic Trespass. Slavery Lite, anyone?

Plan C—amnesty for almost everyone—is slipping away. It stands to reason that there are only a few people out there who actually came up with the brilliant idea to bring back bioterrorism, torture, and treating people as property, since most human beings find these acts revolting. The true architects of atrocity should be only the ones to take the fall... and the good news is, there aren't many of them.

Posting nude videos of someone online without their permission isn't "Sex Slavery Lite;" there's nothing innocent or light-hearted about sexually using people against their will. Police forces killing unarmed people of color in the streets, trusting that the Blue Line will protect them, isn't Apartheid Lite; it's a murderous gestapo that hearkens back to Hitler's Final Solution. Letting thousands of children in Flint, Michigan suffer permanent brain damage from months of lead poisoning isn't EPA Lite; its a horrible act of state bioterrorism which has gone unpunished, from the Governor on down. A U.S. Predator Drone incursion into a sovereign nation which results in the mass killing of a wedding party, or a hospital full of sick people, isn't "War Lite;" any unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation is an unequivocal act of war, and attacking an enemy through civilian proxies is a war crime.

The problem isn't that there are no laws; there are plenty. They just aren't being enforced. What most plagues the world is the problem of privilege. The phonetic roots of the word privilege reveal its true meaning: Prive (private)+Lege (legal); in other words, private law, or the ability to buy your way out of accountability for any crime. Speaking only for myself, I think it's safe to say that this literal definition of privilege accounts for over half of what's wrong with the world these days. If the modern League of Nations concept actually made any sense, had any abiding principles, then no one would have the state-sanctioned right to tithe their way out of culpability for gross atrocities such as arming pre-ISIS terrorist cells in Syria or raining depleted uranium upon Fallujah. Sad to say, this is not how "justice" seems to work in the 21st Century. "Less justice, more privilege" is the Law of the Land now. Oh, also "Resistance is Futile."

Fascism Lite: “Because the only reason they hanged all those poor souls at Nuremberg is that Hitler never mobilized the moderates.”

_______________________
Afterthought: I try not to judge those who keep their head down for their own safety or that of their loved ones.  That's not selling out: these days, sometimes it's just survival.

Skepticism Vs. Faith: Give it a Fuckin' Rest, Already

Have you ever been in a situation when a bunch of people with very different world views were actually getting along in some social media venue or other, and then someone totally commandeered the discussion into a debate of "Is religion totally right, or am I?!!!" All of a sudden all your friends lose focus and so do you, until everyone is sparring with a troll.  This is more than a case of GroupThink vs. individuality: it's a case of people who are trying to learn from each other cooperatively, respecting difference, versus those who assume that theirs is the only valid opinion (trust me, I've been there).

...And thus does a perfectly awesome potential meeting of the minds in the comment on a Facebook post become a train-wreck where half the people bail for lack of Drama Attention Span, and the other half try to spar with the unwitting troll until most have given up and moved on to saner pastures.  This is a case of "the loudest person in the room gets the spotlight," not a problem of people who have religious faith or a lack thereof. The problem, in short, is zealots (including anti-theist zealots) who obnoxiously disregard basic logical and emotional considerations in their approach to cosmological disagreements.

It's perfectly normal to assume that you're right about a lot of stuff; let's face it, that's how we sleep at night and get through the day with our sanity more or less intact. Some people, however, take it upon themselves to prove to anyone who will listen that their own cosmological perspective is the supreme truth. This applies to everything from whether there is a Heaven to whether Creationism is the most factually accurate accounting of how everything got here. I mean, really: everyone with half a brain knows that you either [1] Accept carbon dating and dinosaur fossils or [2] Choose to have faith in the Scriptural assertion that when God created the world several millennia ago, He went to elaborate lengths in order to mess with our heads *ahem* test our faith in Him. It's not that complex... it's not even a debate, just fodder for people talking loudly at each other over social media (a more likely candidate for "Proof that God is testing us" in my opinion, but I digress).

Let's be realistic here: like most matters of faith vs. skepticism, if someone is really convinced one way or the other as to the Earth's approximate age, the chances of your changing their mind are slim to none. Why even try, when there are probably a lot of things you could teach one another without strife, and ultimately, alienation? Yet some just can't let it go... even long after the person' they're talking at has tuned out. These are tired, obvious arguments that leave a bad taste in the mouth of anyone with a sense of nuance, which is why a minority of extremely zealous people are the only ones actively debating them any more.

Along with browbeating, the other hallmark of a zealot is the presumption of knowing Supreme Truths. They claim to know, either through God or Science, the absolute truth on a wide range of cosmological matters, even the total ineffables. An atheist zealot insists "There is no God" or "People who believe in God are stupid" rather than asserting "I'm trying to be as objective as possible. Barring proof, I cannot believe in God" or "I can see what draws some people to religion, but it's not for me, for these reasons."

Far more obnoxious than zealots' smug dismissiveness, however, is their relentless reiteration of the same "sermons," as if the entire world is their personal mock-debate group. You'd think that people with all the answers would see that beating someone over the head isn't always the most effective way to get an idea across. Then again, maybe some do see it, in which case I must pose the question: "If your real agenda isn't to convince people, why go to all that trouble to explain yourself over and over?"

Zealots constantly alienate others by talking AT people rather than with them, because they have no humility whatsoever about their own fallibility. Whether they're preaching devout faith or "devout skepticism," once zealots start pontificating, they cease to consider the possibility that others might possess insights which they themselves lack. It's a sad corner to paint yourself into... and the saddest part is that die-hard zealots "win" argument after argument in their own minds, without heed to the collateral losses. 99.9% of the world may not acknowledge these daily victories, but that's just the price of martyrdom.

(Still) Fighting the Nazis at Age 40

I just turned 40 this past week. Not for the first time, my birthday gave me pause to reflect on the direction the world is heading, and to wonder how I might be able to help. From all this soul searching has come a burning realization: I want nothing more than to fight the Nazis. Not the old-school kind, but a resurgence of Nazi ideology in America, which threatens to destroy human civilization and plunge us into a new Dark Age. As a goal it's nothing new, but I have renewed and bolstered my commitment... so watch out, world.

 

For many years now, I have been putting the word out that there is a growing force of malevolence infesting humanity's collective unconscious like an aggressive virus. This disease has one overriding objective: to upend moral codes in every nation and culture until there are no more ironclad laws or notions of good and evil anywhere on Earth. From waging peace to overcoming prejudice, everything that we have associated with the idea of "goodness" is, in some circles, being re-envisioned as a weakness. The sales pitch is that while ethical codes like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were once the mortar and glue holding civilization together, we can no longer afford to be so naive. 

 

Some have called me an alarmist over the past two decades when I have declared that America would soon emerge as a fascist Fourth Reich that puts Hitler to shame. I see it more as an “informed opinion,” because I have been right so far. My predictions from the late 1990s were that America would fall victim to the following sociopolitical "plagues:"

 

[1] A steady erosion of civil liberties, especially privacy; 

 

[2] A return to relativistic arguments over torture; 

 

[3] Citizenship stripped of blanket legal protections (habeas corpus, "innocent until proven guilty," etc.); 

 

[4] An increasingly militarized domestic police force, which discourages dissent by brutalizing peaceful protesters and performs regular summary executions of non-Caucasian people; 

 

[5] In foreign policy, an imperialistic rejection of national borders; 

 

[6] A slow merger of state and corporate power that leads the deregulation of financial markets while transforming citizens into lab rats for Monsanto mad scientists; and 

 

[7] The rise of a bigoted New Right whose members proudly foment hatred and oppression for certain social groups... all tied together with: 

 

[8] Constant nationalistic fear-mongering and saber-rattling, a symphony of dog whistles meant to hypnotize us into accepting xenophobia as a positive force that can bring people together in a spirit of camaraderie ("Hating Together is the New Love." Gosh, nothing Orwellian about that). 

 

So yeah, some scoffed, called me paranoid, mentioned tinfoil hats, said America is a light unto the world and could never sink so low (they said I was mad!!!!)... and then along came Candidate Trump. How does that crow taste, doubters? 

 

Whatever twisted vision our erstwhile Overlords are pushing on the world, evidence suggests that their victory would lead to humanity's descent into a nightmarish dystopia. Those who pull the strings (purse-strings, mostly) have been actively fighting for LESS peace, love, and freedom wherever they have influence. They insist that the best thing for humanity is to get rid of the human rights standards which reflect the best in all of us, a ludicrous notion that only makes sense to the tragically brainwashed. They have, in short, chosen to be willfully evil. I know that thwarting evil overlords who are trying to take over the world is so 20th century, but call me old-fashioned. Plus, it's kind of epic. Like, literally. ;)

 

So in conclusion, from 40 on out, my top priority will be to thwart the torturers, warmongers, and other cells in this highly aggressive, civilization-killing virus. There is a lot to recommend modern-day civilization, most of all its steady evolution from war, bigotry and oppression toward cooperation, universal compassion, and freedom and justice for *all.* I'm not going to stand by while some people who totally reject the notion of ethical standards turn back the clock on all the major wins of the modern day. I encourage everyone with a heart to join me in defending the bedrock of human civilization against those who seek to destroy it.

Neo-Bokononist creation myth (as told by Lucius Ringwald)

1:1.  Well, it all started when this thing called the Primordial Tao, which isn't so much a thing as All the things at once, went from being an immaculate singularity into a multitudinous mess, all of which followed from a single innocent thought: “Damn, I'm bored.”  All-knowingness and all-beingness had its perks, but somehow it just didn't seem to cut the mustard.*

1:2.  And thus did Tao give birth to "I," to wonder if the Primordial Oneness reeeealy knew all the possible things to think, be, do, and feel (for what knows all cannot wonder).  But the Tao found that I could not change, and so the Tao gave birth to Time... for to self-reflect is a process of becoming, and without Time there is no becoming—only being.

1:3. And the Tao, as I, wondered if its own making meant that the Tao was no longer a true Oneness, and it realized that it didn't know the answer to its own question, and this was the First Unknowing.  It occurred to I that maybe it could find the answer by trying more than one way of looking at things, and so I talked to I for the first time.

1:4: Before long, I got into an argument with itself about some trivial detail as to what the Primordial Tao really means, and then there were two, and the two were called They.  And one argued that all apparent separation is simply Tao, perfect, all-encompassing, while the other argued that there is the Primordial Tao and then there's the regular old Tao, and yes, there is a difference.  And They did bicker so. Thus did They cease to remember that they were also (or possibly still) the Ultimate Oneness, because now there was Otherness to deal with, and the All has no Other, so they figured that They must be something else now.

1:5 There was a certain thrill to this feeling of Otherness, like They were breaking the rules for the first time.  They were rebels; “Who needs Oneness anyway?  What did Oneness ever do for me?”  Plus it was seriously creeping them out to think that deep down, They might actually be a lot more than they currently thought. And thus was anti-mystical xenophobia invented.  And woe unto them, for They knew not just how much of a Pandora’s Box that one would turn out to be. If They had anticipated all the witch burning and such, They might have just offered up some disingenuous but sheepish apologies for all the silly arguing, and gone back to being Oneness right then and there.

1:6. And so the Tao did create a giant Red Balloon in which They could carry on arguing (because it had a sneaking suspicion that it shouldn't be possible to experience Allness and Someness at the same time, yet there it was, and there They were), and its name was Cosmos.  I and I renamed themselves Me and You, and the Tao retreated to the Void, watching its increasingly amnesiac misadventures inside the Balloon as through a one-way mirror.

1:7. And Me and You, trapped in eddies of Unknowing, forgot more and more of what it meant to be One, and they felt important, and told themselves stories about what was, sometimes even when things were plainly the opposite.  And Me and You did carry on arguing all the way to the end of the Great Cycle, when They reunited as Tao in what was basically the biggest cosmic orgasm ever (and, arguably, also the most epic make-up sex).

1:8. And the scattered reflections of the Tao did remember their oneness, and the Cosmos did pop like a balloon that magically leaves no trace of latex in the air.**  And the Tao rested for a spell, basking in what seemed an eternal paradise of Primordial Oneness.

∞:1. And the Primordial Tao surprised itself by growing bored again (because boredom implies a subject/object relationship, which doesn't quite jibe with the whole Oneness thing).  And so Tao reflected on all the tiny dreams it had had in the Balloon, and All delighted in many fond reminiscences.  And reflecting led to musing, and it did occur to the Tao that pi should have been a more sensible number given its importance in geometry. And then another part of the Tao piped up that to do that, you'd have to sacrifice all sorts of cool things.  And the first part disagreed, and then there were two again.

∞:2. And the Tao did recommence to argue with itself, this time in earnest.  Me said that pi being three was totally worth losing the Fibonacci spiral and some of the better fractals, and you retorted that such a fundamental tweak to the cosmic BIOS code would require sacrificing at least two colors and one of the better notes of music.  And Me yelled "We'll make new ones!" and You became furious, and You stormed off to the furthest reaches of the newly birthed Yellow Balloon to found a decidedly conservative dimension.  And the other made a Balloon of purest blue, in which to explore all the most wacky ways to design a Cosmos. Each made a world and then sank into it, now all forgetting of the Oneness from whence They had been reborn.

∞:∞. Rinse and repeat... ad infinitum.

– In memory of Terry Pratchett​ and Kurt Vonnegut​

________
*That is to say, there was only a retroactively extrapolated post-singularity potentiality of mustard, so there was nothing to cut, per se; but if there had been a capacity for mustard at the time (or lack thereof), then knowing all the ways of being at once just wouldn’t have been cutting it.  In any event, have you tried to cut mustard?  That’s kind of what it was like, ergo the need for time in which to cut, and finite potentiality in which for there to be mustard.  Actually, the metaphor works more than I originally anticipated. I realize that I'm carrying on a bit, but honestly, who reads the footnotes on the first run?

**Except now, of course, there wasn't air.  I mean, not in the strictest sense.  Hell, there wasn’t now. There was just All, timeless, er, again... but of course not really again, again per se, because there was no time again, which is just one of those things one shouldn't think on overmuch, lest ye be smitten with a thumping headache.