“It Was the Nightingale, and Not the Lark”

Shakespeare would not utilize pornography to make his point (at least, not overtly); but he was writing in the late sixteenth century, not in 2007.  He may not have been aiming for 2050, either.

We all have our individual romantic or idealistic ideas of 5gw: For example, to get information that masturbation is our basic form of sex is hard, because who wants to admit they are masturbating?

<snip>

When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of manipulation are sown.

<snip>

Clever people know they can manipulate stereotyped 5gwers.
90% of 5gwers are stereotyped, so the clever people can do a lot of manipulation and there is a lot of money to be made. For example, Mexico was conquered more by manipulation of myth and archetype.

[“Wet Dreaming 5GW”, Warfare 2050.]

Breaking the habit of obsessive masturbation is made doubly hard when the masturbators believe they are having real sex; i.e., when they do not see the Fourth Wall.  Or any walls.  This isn’t really a question of not wanting one’s mirror to be shattered, or of desiring to avoid acknowledging the habit of obsessive masturbation, since that motivation is made irrelevant by the object of fantasy which is real to the masturbator.   Juliet’s hand is on Romeo’s penis.

Who manipulated Romeo; was it really Juliet, after all?  Was it Shakespeare?  Romeo and Juliet had the capacity for judgment; they eventually agreed that the birdsong was the lark and not the nightingale   Each attempted to convince the other that, ‘twas the nightingale that woke them, true; but both finally agreed ‘twas the lark; and their judgment about what they should do in light of this knowledge involved hiding their relationship further, dividing their companionship, and, ultimately, dying individually and alone. (Forget the Baz Luhrmann atrocity; Romeo actually dies, quite alone, before Juliet awakens; then she, also quite alone, dies.)  They had believed the lark’s message, utterly; and so the lark spoke true.  They never realized that the operative message had actually come from humans.

Hearing the birdsong and giving the lark a human voice is an instance of masturbation.  In this case, the voice is informed not only by hopes, but also by fears.  Romeo and Juliet acknowledge the message, the reality of their situation involves other real humans at some distance from this scene, and the two lovers are aware of those actors; but they accept their theory of those actors without question.  To avoid questioning their theory of those actors, they invented another cause — the lark — which merely supported the theory they already had.  We will never know what would have happened had they revealed their marriage to their families that morning.

Manipulate people’s minds to keep on their bellies and their genitals, and you can eventually enslave them.

The bigger the real-life problems, the greater the tendency for the discipline to retreat into a reassuring fantasy-land of abstract theory and technical manipulation. (MANIPULATION FROM LATIN MANUS: HAND )

<snip>

5GW and the Theory of Permanent Adolescence: It is the theory that the experiences undergone by boys at the great public schools, their glories and disappointments, are so intense as to dominate their lives and to arrest their development. From these it results that the greater part of the ruling class remains adolescent, school-minded, self-conscious, cowardly, sentimental …

[“5GW and the Theory of Permanent Adolescence”, Warfare 2050.]

Most literary critics agree:  Juliet was really in love, she had the abundant capacity for real love —

Juliet:

    My bounty is as boundless as the sea,
    My love as deep; the more I give to thee,
    The more I have, for both are infinite.

— whereas Romeo was just your typical boy wanting his penis stroked.  This is of course entirely in keeping with the archetype, young male, and the archetype, woman.  Queerly, the women in other cultures are often thought to be ‘unfairly’ judged as succubi — sometimes kept covered from head to foot in order to protect the young male from himself — presumably since these archetypes must never prove false for Western observers.  So the Western literary critics rest easy when they make their analysis of Romeo and of Juliet; it is a message others in the West can get off on.

Abstract theory and technical manipulation:  A good description of Romeo’s and Juliet’s game of “lark or nightingale?”   Their problem is profound and seems to have no solution.  Was their problem as great as they thought?  Or am I the only one who has ever wondered why Juliet never left with Romeo that morning?

Perhaps both she and Romeo were pawns or proxies of their parents, cousins, friends, and neighbors and feared the familiar, albeit often virtual, rod.

My initial reaction was the above; then, I thought, Hmmmm…Maybe someone’s 5GW is coming together.

[“Follow-up:  On the Barnettian 5GW”, D5GW.]

When a fantasy turns you on, you’re obligated to God and nature to start doing it - right away

5gwers abandon the search for Truth and settle for a good fantasy


If your 5gw fantasies were truly of interest to others, they would no longer be fantasies


5gw fantasies are more than substitutes for unpleasant reality; they are also dress rehearsals, plans. All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination

[“5GW is Coming Together”, Warfare 2050.]

Regardless of the perhaps-foolish masturbatory act of presenting definitive interpretations of the character of Juliet and the character of Romeo, especially given the variety of people of most cultures who have read it or seen it performed, one might postulate that Romeo and Juliet came together in more ways than one.  For instance, they came together in the crypt although each died quite individually and alone; even Shakespeare gave the stage direction, Falls on Romeo’s body, and dies.  Romeo’s orgasm that last night together, sometime before the lark began to sing, was not Juliet’s orgasm, even if they came together.  When they married, they came together before Friar Laurence; but he still saw two.

When Romeo and Juliet describe their individual loves, the night they first meet, they have quite distinct ideas about those loves.  The abstract and technical manipulations of their different speeches have also received much spermatic definition from Western literary critics, as already discussed.

The point is:  They can come together despite these differences.

The second point is:  They believe that they have actually become one; they believe they are connected; they believe their fantasy is one rather than two.  They believe each other (even when they see the other is ‘dead.’)

The third point is: When Juliet becomes one with Friar Laurence and Romeo becomes one with Balthasar, the great division prophesied by the lark [sic] takes its ultimate form, i.e., is fulfilled.

Romeo and Juliet had no dress rehearsal for their wedding.  They did not need to.  The entirety of their time together was a dress rehearsal — for their deaths. 

• In my 5GW fantasy, nobody ever loves me for my mind.
• If one is lucky, a solitary 5GW fantasy can totally transform one million realities.
• The poet is in command of his fantasy, while it is exactly the mark of the 5gwer that he is possessed by his fantasy.
• 5gwers nowadays like to be together not in the old-fashioned way of, say, mingling on the piazza of an Italian Renaissance city, but, instead, huddled together in Blorumstan and so on. It’s a new kind of togetherness which may seem totally alien, but it’s the togetherness of modern technology.

[“5GW Fantasy”, Warfare 2050.]

Though Romeo left the Verona piazza for his exile, the fantasy possessing him continued to operate.  Though Juliet schemed with her other One, using technical manipulation to appear dead to the world, and left the Verona piazza for the crypts, the fantasy possessing her continued to operate.  The fantasy won.

Fantasy is not weakened by distance.  Why?  Because it goes wherever you go.

Juliet will be loved by Romeo not for her fantasy — but for his.  And vice versa.

Therefore, to the extent that one million people will be loved for one single 5GW fantasy — i.e., for the roles they appear to fill, via the operation of that individual’s fantasy — they will be transformed.  They must be transformed, if said transformation is part of his fantasy.  If he is not fortune’s fool, the transformation will be successful.

But in order for this to happen, he must make their fortunes his fool.  I.e., he must make their fantasies his proxies:  the pawns he makes dance for other pawns to observe.  As Shakespeare did with Romeo and Juliet.

As Shakespeare did with us, who have seen the dance.

Coda and Reprise

    It is the lark that sings so out of tune,
    Straining harsh discords and unpleasing sharps.
    Some say the lark makes sweet division;
    This doth not so, for she divideth us: [J]

<snip>

    More light and light; more dark and dark our woes! [R]

The operation of this fantasy need not be viewed with a backward-looking gaze, nor with one eye attaching to tits while the other scavenges the murk within our own minds.

We fear greatly that politicization is well on its way to becoming ingrained in the next generation of analysts entering the profession. Too many times recently we have seen instructors attempting to insist on degrees of political correctness that would make a commissar blush, and to outright excise materials that conflict with their favoured line of thinking from student work. There is an increasing emphasis on process, and the fig leaf numerics, to hide what otherwise might be transparent biases under the pretense of rigour. And unfortunately, the Millennial generation is exceptionally receptive to being shaped into this mold, having spent a lifetime growing up under increasingly indoctrination oriented education systems which fail to instill critical thinking skills yet insist on ever more dogmatic judgments.

We have said before that the wrong lessons have been drawn from the intelligence lead-in prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and we are increasingly concerned by the number of academics that would rely on partially declassified materials (and damnable leaks) in an attempt to teach their own concept of intelligence “reform” to an eager audience which has nothing else against which to compare.

This is normalizing a degree of conformity in judgment, and excusing away the unacceptable behaviors of those who would break their sacred oaths. This is an institutionalization of a new culture, hitherto alien to the intelligence community, in which individuals claiming to “speak truth to power” place their own assessments, typically made in lockstep with the unexamined assumptions of an inherently political philosophy, above the requirements of professional tradecraft or even the needs of the mission. And when these individual perceive that their viewpoints do not carry the day – no matter what evidence may be assembled in favour of an alternative hypothesis (or against their preferred theory) – they choose to voice their displeasure to the press.

We view this with the gravest of concern, and heed well the related points made by Former Spook regarding the impact of such dysfunctional cultures in the origins of cascading failures. The warning signs are always apparent, and in hindsight may be castigated easily. It takes a far different effort, however, to change them before disaster befalls the unwary.

We see constantly in recent analytic debates the pressures to find false certainties, and a profound lack of respect for the “unknown unknowns” – at a time when the means of collection are ever more challenged, and the range of targets growing ever wider.

[“Politicization and the leak culture”, Kent’s Imperative.]

The light is frightening enough — perhaps with good reason if we are to believe Romeo and Juliet, perhaps not — to inspire a million nightingales for each lark. The sweet lullaby helps to preserve one’s fantasy, so that, sometimes, there is no dawn that we can see but only the pin-pricks of stars which anyone can connect however he likes. Mercutio knew this —

Mercutio:

Come, we burn daylight, ho!

Romeo:

Nay, that’s not so.

Mercutio:

I mean, sir, in delay
We waste our lights in vain, like lamps by day.
Take our good meaning, for our judgment sits
Five times in that ere once in our five wits.

<snip>

Mercutio:

True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain,
Begot of nothing but vain fantasy,
Which is as thin of substance as the air
And more inconstant than the wind, who wooes
Even now the frozen bosom of the north,
And, being anger’d, puffs away from thence,
Turning his face to the dew-dropping south.

Benvolio did not ‘get’ that message — “This wind, you talk of, blows us from ourselves; / Supper is done, and we shall come too late.”  Keep them on their bellies, indeed!  If kept from themselves, they would be kept from those dreams.  Romeo fails to understand the message as well and proceeds to display his failure:

Romeo:

    I fear, too early: for my mind misgives
    Some consequence yet hanging in the stars
    Shall bitterly begin his fearful date
    With this night’s revels and expire the term
    Of a despised life closed in my breast
    By some vile forfeit of untimely death.
    But He, that hath the steerage of my course,
    Direct my sail! On, lusty gentlemen.

See how the stars can be made into anything, even a scapegoat for one’s own genitals?   Shakespeare kills Mercutio, thus killing the sun, and a million stars will make Romeo fortune’s fool.

As a coda and reprise, I don’t mind gazing backward still, or seeing tits and penises and the virtual hands that continue to operate.  I think you’ll see the connection for yourself.