Featured Post

Let’s Dump on Trump Some More-Hey It Rhymes!

Scapegoating On Trump Again A huge dump of information on Trump's doings in India. As if no one knew that all big real estate deals...

Popular Posts

Sunday, May 06, 2018

Let’s Dump on Trump Some More-Hey It Rhymes!

Scapegoating On Trump Again

A huge dump of information on Trump's doings in India.
As if no one knew that all big real estate deals involve unbridled corruption and payoffs. And as Foucault said, "Information is not knowledge and knowledge is not knowing." So the long lived zine continues on its path of least resistance, Trump bashing. It is pages long and detailed. And this is what pays the bills for journalists. And not just recently.

It seems few have read Ayn Rand's Fountainhead and fully understood her deconstruction of the media - newspapers. Raising the Banner to the level of mediocrity to dominate the minds of the mediocracy (that Ellsworth Toohey has programmed) that read it until they can be told and sold (what happens when reading Nietzsche) on anything you want.
Go on read it again until you get it

The title has an addition: Trump Inc. and the corruption of the American Presidency. Well well that's something NEW? When did it stop? Hearst said, "I don't report the news, I make the news." Isn't that plain enough. What is new about the corrupt media displacing on Trump for corruption?

Got me.

Inside this edition is the article Anti-Intelligence another bashing one on Trump.

Ironically, much of the danger Trump poses can be laid at the feet of Barack Obama. Assuming that past norms would be future norms, Obama created the most powerful surveillance state the world has ever seen.. Over eight years, he spent more than $100 billion on everything from eavesdropping satellites encircling the globe, to a million-square-foot building in the Utah desert for storing massive troves of intercepted data, to secret taps on the hundreds of thousands of miles of undersea cables that carry everything from tweets to Google searches to endless chatter. He also unleashed fleets of killer drones around the world, authorized the assassination of Americans without trial, and jailed more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined. (p.17)

Ya still didn't get Snowden didja honey?

While blaming Obama for not seeing consequences - Clintons on student debt,3 strikes, repeal of Glass-Steagall etc - I ask when did the last president ever see the consequences of his actions? I cant remember. Someone tell me please!

Whistleblowers are not whistleblowers. They are PARRHESIASTES and Foucault's genealogy on this term goes back to ancient times.

Obama punished more than all previous administrations combined. 
This indicates fear/hatred or maybe even terror/rage
There is no question that Putin started being agressed against when he gave Snowden asylum. A great humiliation for the Free World eh. An inversion from our giving asylum from the USSR Cold War. Two can play this game.

So now Trump is the evil one for being able to use the evil Obama unleashed on us and the world. Does that just make Obama a dummy? Or does it make Obama evil? I know what I think. Do you? (Ssssshhhhh. How about BOTH?)

Wait a minute. Suppose the consequences are different. The spy industry is institutionalized which means it will continue after a presidential administration is forgotten history. But the danger to wives, husbands, children family are still dangers. They will depend on the spy industry to protect them and "their loved ones" in all the years to come. But what happens if they confront the spy industry? Will they take exceptional precautions for you? 

Trump has his own security detail. He trusts them NOT.

The above paragraph is absolute VIOLENCE! And that is not worse than anything Trump has even imagined so far? Gimme a break! and it is embedded in an article (SO WE PROBABLY WONT NOTICE) with tons more information that is not knowledge  - and knowledge is not knowing.

And we are supposed to respect journalists, even from a well thought of zine like The New Republic? A zine that has accumulated respect for decades, over a hundred years isn't it now? Even good journalists are unable to openly tell the truth and they haven't been ever.

Can we please be reminded of Chomsky's 
Manufacturing of Consent
Why a Journalist can NEVER tell us the Truth
All the truthtellers have been manufactured out of their jobs.
You know. They disrupt the discourse, have their own opinions, disagree, argue with the editors and they are weeded out sooner or later and censored before they can do any damage.

Hopefully the resistance that Trump has spawned will make them braver but I haven't seen much evidence of that yet. 

Have you?

Wednesday, May 02, 2018

Stefan Simchowitz Read Through Nassim Nicholas Taleb's SKIN IN THE GAME

Stefan Simchowitz
Stefan entered the art world as an EVENT. As a BLACK SWAN as Nassim Taleb might say.
I dont upload books from Amazon anymore if at all possible. Sorry it is not so good an image as Amazon's
Stefan seems to not fully understand his extraordinary position in the art world at this time as he is simply following himself. So far no one is following him but that is just a temporary lag.

I have written my reading of him through Continental Philosophers, particularly Baudrillard and Walter Benjamin. To me he has moved the "selling" of art far away from his idea of collecting. To summarize again he buys directly from the artist he prefers, holds the pieces in his own collection, and uses his ability to make the artist visible and collectible to others. No gallery, no stable, no trotting them around for PR so they can stay in their studios and WORK!

On reading a blog post from one of my favorites Nassim Nicholas Taleb from his latest book:

Now we have the sound bite for Stefan. 
What Stefan has done is HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME! !!!
This is clear. Correct? Stefan has put his money where his eyes have chosen. 
He will profit from his choice. Or not. 
The artist will profit more also. Or not.
So far Stefan is doing very well.
We can say he has a very good eye.

And when you read the Nassim Taleb link on Skin in the Game you will see why Stefan is changing the art collecting world. And Stefan will see why also.

just told him why!

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Henry James:The Turn of the Screw Reading

Barnes and Noble

Oscar Wilde: It is a most wonderful, lurid, poisonous little tale
This is a 1984 Edition and the Introduction is so outdated even for the time it was written. Foucault died in 1984 and Anthony Curtis seems never to have heard any literary criticism newer than Edmund Wilson and Freudian Interpretation of hysteria. He is also woefully lacking in any feminist reading of this great novel. But many reviews on a google search reveal that time has caught up at last for this story.

James himself tosses off this story as "just a ghost story" kind of frivolous story. My reading of The Turn of the Screw reads the ghosts as MASKS concealing the REAL of childhood sexual abuse in the upper classes of England.

Turn of the Screw first published in serial form in 1898 (Collier's) is followed in 1906 by Freud and Breuer's Studies in Hysteria. (also in pdf) This seems to be where Anthony Curtis stopped thinking.

All of us who took an English Literature course in high school or college were assigned the reading of this long short story or novella. As a ghost story and a scary one. As James says in his preface his way was to engage the imagination of the reader to imagine the horror instead of literally writing all the gory details. He does, however,  make sure we read the horror as sexual, if we are awake while reading it. Peter Lang says the same in his masterpiece film M with Peter Lorre.

M (1931) If you have never seen it here it is.

Our Twenty-First Century perception gives us a vastly different reading than all those years ago. We who have been online to know the atrocities of sex slavery, kidnapping of young children, breeding of female sex slaves to raise children used to nothing else as future commodities is to just about collapse our imagination into dirt. The REAL is so much worse than we could ever have known that we shut down. It also seems obvious to my perception that this sort of sexual abuse was a prevalent practice among the governesses and servants in wealthy aristocratic estates. James is I believe saying this by MASKING the REAL as a ghost story.

The master interviews the prospective governess in London and he is a charming man. She is taken with him but I would not say excessively, but she is curious. He instructs her to NEVER contact him about anything in the country estate which she will preside over, nor the children, nor any gossip. NOTHING! She finds this strange, has doubts but decides to accept the position when it is offered.

The governess is read by earlier critics as an hysterical woman, a virgin, young, inexperienced and smitten with a passion for this master.

She is obviously in some level of denial but can share her fears with the head housekeeper Mrs. Grose, and can ask questions when she hallucinates a man on the roof, describing the former valet  (now dead)  - Peter Quint a play on Ibsen's Peer Gynt?-  to the master so precisely as an actor, with red hair, and not a gentleman, the woman names him. The governess repeats that he is not a gentleman  (unlike the master) oh no, but very handsome, a horror, clever and deep, and from that we intuit that he is a sexual predator that certain refined ladylike women instantly recognize and stay away from.

With our 21st Century eyes we have the master, who now lives in his townhouse in London, leaving his handsome valet in the country (not turned out to fend for himself). So can we say that he breaks the relationship either before the children come as a result of being orphaned, or after? At any rate he wishes nothing to do with his former valet. He himself is unmarried, leads a social life he does not want interfered with, so can we assume his relationship with his valet was homoerotic (many recent reviews do) and now over? It feels that way to me. James is seen as a homoerotic and some have even said had pedophiliac tendencies if he did not act on them. He is acutely aware of children's amazing capacities of perception and secret observations, thoughts and feelings. Not unlike Lewis Carroll and his Alice In Wonderland published in 1865. Surely James knew this book. Today both of them along with Darter would be rotting in prison.

The governess has shivery sensations, awaking at night, and she cannot shake them. The children are perfect. Enchanting, intelligent, imaginative, precocious, beautiful, entertaining and she cannot wish for more in either of them. (We will encounter the same defense mechanisms in Walter Sickert after undergoing THREE VIVISECTIONS (the last in 1865 in London) ON HIS GENITALS without ANESTHESIA, to turn him into a REAL BOY or else KILL HIM!)

 The boy Miles is home on summer vacation, having been expelled from boarding school. BUT FOR WHAT? Is that so difficult for us to figure out now? It becomes very clear to our eyes long before the end of the story when he says to his governess, "I said things to those boys I liked. They said things to boys they liked." Well just guess what those things were and this headmaster's horror of boy sexuality and perhaps experimentation that cannot be tolerated.

When the governess is with the little girl Flora by the lake hallucinating the ex-governess - Miss Jessel - (also now mysteriously dead) the child turns her back on the water and the image and plays with a little toy wooden boat putting the mast in the hole where it belongs. Much is made of this Freudian action by Curtis and other reviewers.

Is she telling the governess what happened by the side of the lake?
Is she unconsciously just putting the mast in the hole?
Is she consciously/unconsciously playing?
Is she seductively inviting the governess to respond to her sexual overtures?

IDK. But these are only a few of the readings of this image of her actions. I am sure there are more.

The governess is considered as an hysterical woman in an unconscious state of passion for the master whom she has only seen twice. Here we note the masculine interpretation of the woman in psychological terms outlined by Freud in his Studies of Hysteria. Breuer will abruptly terminate treatment with Anna O when she tells him she is pregnant with his baby. At that moment it must occur to him that everything she has told him about nursing her father and his advances "may also be phantasy" because he knows she cannot be pregnant by him. Is this where Freud gets his interpretation of sexual abuse phantasy instead of the actual abuse for which feminists have raked him over the coals and for which he still burns?

The governess is an amazing psychologist - read Henry James here - as she begins to perceive that these enchanting children are PERFORMING ENCHANTING just for her. Then she wonders if they perceive that she knows they are performing? And she censors her behavior to hide the fact that she knows. And the plot deepens into horror. The governess begins to imagine the horror the children experienced at the hands of these two adults. Quint seeks the company of Miles which is reciprocated and the two spend many hours walking together and talking. Miss Jessell is with Flora a great deal alone. The governess now knows Miss Jessell became a fallen woman with Quint and is greatly disturbed by the intimacy of Quint and Miles and Miss Jessell and Flora. As a virgin and sexual innocent she can imagine the sexual initiation of the children but lacks our ability to visualize exactly how far it might have progressed. As Quint tires of Miss Jessell the children are brought into it to "spice it up?" And as we know from de Sade the perversity only increases as adaptation ensues.

Of course James is able to imagine sexual horror I would venture. But how far. But I think his story is deliberately MASKING what existed between governesses and servants with the wealthy classes. Freud's patients were often first exposed to sexuality very young by them. We have The Wolfman and Dora just to mention two of them.

So as James tosses this story off as a fluffy little ghost story just as Graham Greene tossed off some of his novels as "entertainments."

Was he telling us in the future what was going on and the INVISIBLE VIOLENCE of it?

M (1931)

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Schopenhauer on the Rights of Animals

Torture to get that lovely gait of a Tennessee Walking Horse
I argue that Schopenhauer’s description of (moral) rights to animals flows naturally from his distinctive analysis of the concept of a right. In contrast to those who regard rights as fundamental and then cast wrongdoing as a matter of violating rights, he takes wrong (Unrecht) to be the more fundamental notion and defines the concept of a right (Recht) in its terms. He then offers an account of wrongdoing which makes it plausible to suppose that at least many animals can be wronged and thus, by extension, have rights. The result, I argue, is a perspective on the nature of moral rights in general, and the idea of animal rights in particular, that constitutes an important and plausible alternative to the more familiar views advanced by philosophers in recent decades - Puryear LINK here.

Puryear has a prose style that is elegant, simple and so readable you won't be able to stop. He has zeroed in on Schopenhauer's impeccable thinking. Instead of advocating and arguing for the "rights of animals" he has tied rights to its negative WRONGDOING. We are used to thinking of our inalienable rights from our Constitution but it is so easy to spin them away as other "rights" have been spun -  not to mention the destruction of Planet Earth.

To take a concept such as RIGHTS and invert it, turn it on its head is a thought game Einstein often played. So this is what Schopenhauer does with The Rights of Animals.

He ties it to WRONGDOING. If an animal can be wronged, then that is what gives rights. 

Again. IF I can wrong you, that means you have rights. 

And Schopenhauer goes on to indelibly imprint it on your thinking that animals can be wronged and that ensures that they have rights. Tied to this is The WILL. If the will can be stopped, perverted, thwarted, that is a violation of rights. It is WRONGDOING. 

The next question to come up is, Do animals have will? And Puryear carefully details Schopenhauer's thinking. The conclusion is inescapable unless you are determined to be indifferent and dense about this subject. As Foucault might say that the plight of animals has become problematized in the western world.

How great an extension is it to ask about WRONGDOING to rivers, streams, salmon, mountains, et al. 

In the Ancient World rivers, oceans were anthropomorphically perceived as belonging to the world of a particular God. Poseidon/Neptune ruled the waves, Apollo the Sun, Diana the Moon, and each was angered if her world was disturbed or changed in any way not initiated by herself. 

The jump to perceiving rivers, et all, as capable of being WRONGED (poisoned, damned, made dead, etc) is a concept that feels perfectly true to many of us.

as anyone who knows a river intimately - or a stream - can testify to.
Thwarting the WILL of the river, stream is WRONGDOING!

This is inline with Schopenhauer's thinking from animals.

Can we extend it?

The Colorado River is now in court. WRONGDOING to The Colorado River is being presented in court. But on what foundation are its rights being protected, defended, its ruination continuing, etc. IF Schopenhauer's reasoning is not cemented into the court case Deep Green Resistance is bringing, then we may not win the verdict we want.

By the way Schopenhauer adds that these animal rights are independent of legal rights and do not depend on them.

I would demand a jury trial for The Colorado River which I think with inspired testimony could win, set a precedent, and begin a reversal of corporate and government compliance in the destruction of the Planet.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Reading Donald Trump Through Marshall McLuhan: Part 3 BANNING

Trump Signing An Executive Order-One of Many
Recently Trump signed an executive order repealing the ban Obama made on waste dumping into rivers, streams, etc.

Trump is subverting many other environmental BANS.

What is a BAN? 

It is a law that makes dumping - in this case - illegal. What does illegal entail? Only that it is a VIOLATION and a violation comes equipped with a FINE. Now if a corporation dumps into a river and a $200,000 or $300,000 or $1,000,000,000 fine gets slapped on them - IF THEY ARE CAUGHT AND PROSECUTED - their lawyers on retainer will take it to court, get multi continuances, drag it out as long as possible to forestall paying this fine for this violation. 

Meanwhile back at the ranch it would take say $6,000,000,000 to deal with the waste without dumping. So by dumping they save $6,000,000,000 and prolong the violation payment and perhaps even get it waived.


Obama banned waste dumping in rivers. He was cheered and loved for taking an environmental stand with integrity. Banning is CONTENT. What is the MESSAGE here of the Presidential MEDIUM? 
So Obama used banning as PR and as a way to collect HIDDEN TAXES.

Not so shabby eh.


Anything that is BANNED can be UNBANNED. 
A child's game of building a HOUSE OF CARDS.Build it up so another child can knock it down. 
Build it up knock it down.

This goes on through the decades as now LBJ's Great Society is being dismantled piece by piece and FDR's New Deal also.

But hey. Look at all the good PR Obama got by BANNING DUMPING!
Look at all the BAD PR Trump is getting by unbanning dumping. Sorry, unbanning appeals to a large segment of his constituency, while banning appealed to a large segment of Obama's constituency. Different strokes for different folks.

All that I said above is CONTENT. As McLuhan says, "CONTENT" is irrelevant. 
Obama's Ban had no teeth in it. It was never meant to have anything but gummy gums. 

It was a SPECTACLE concealing the REAL of EMPTINESS.

Were you fooled?
Are you still fooled?

My question is this: 
Is Trump using these executive orders as TEACHING MOMENTS to educate us on the futility of demanding bans on what we don't like? Is he using unbanning as a way of telling us that federal agencies are scamming us. IF they collect $$$$ from violations then their bottom line looks good eh. These federal agencies exist to collect hidden taxes.

So the MESSAGE is what?

Monday, April 16, 2018

Reading Trump Through Marshall McLuhan:The MEDIUM is the MESSAGE



Meanwhile back at the ranch online all discussion concerns CONTENT.
Especially his LIES

Trump LIES at least 6 times every day some stat person said. On Monday he says X and on Tuesday he contradicts X and on Wednesday he contradicts what he said on Tuesday and so on and so on as Vonnegut always said.

Trump lies excessively. He lies worse and worser. He is the worsest liar of all.

This is Nietzsche. You want to get rid of something? You do it WORSE and WORSER!

The focus on CONTENT allows distraction to rule. 

Is this something new? Nope. 

The Trump Administration is a MEDIUM. 

So what is the MESSAGE in Trump's public display of LIES?
The Message is INVISIBLE. 

My reading is that Trump's lies are in your face. 
Trump's LIES are SLAPS in your face. 
They are meant to HIT you in the face. 
They are DIRECT, obviously lies, often disgusting, and relentless.

What is the truth in the lies?The message in the bombardment of lies? The excessiveness of Trump's lies? Are Trump's lies to be perceived as truth or as lies? 

That is the question.

We have always been lied to. From George Washington's I cannot tell a lie I did chop down the cherry tree to this cascade of lies from Trump.

What is the message? Is it still invisible to you?

All of them lie all the time. They always lie and they always did lie. 

Then there are lies that are wearing the MASK of TRUTH.

Is Trump lying directly or is he lying his lies with the MASK of TRUTH covering them?
5 Critical Essays in This Edition That Are Superb-Miller's especially

This is a profound question. Joseph Conrad poses it in 1899 in his Heart of Darkness. Conrad had said, "he wants his readers to THINK!"

Marlowe goes to see Kurtz's Intended at the end of the novel. She is deeply in mourning. 

He tells her Kurtz's last words which she is desperate to hear. 

Does he tell her the awful truth: "THE HORROR! THE HORROR!"
 He does not.

"His last words were.....your name."
"I knew it! I knew it," she says.

Marlowe gives her the lie MASKED by TRUTH. 

The question asked by Trump to the world is:

Do you want the direct lie or do you want the lie MASKED by TRUTH? Do you want the truth? Or do you want the truth wearing the MASK of lie?

So which do you want?
You can avoid choosing by a focus on CONTENT.

CHOMSKY  thinking would read this as surface structure of meaning and deep structure of meaning. The surface content and the INTENT. What is Trump's INTENT?

Is he trying to teach us or distract us?

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

A Reading of Derrick Jensen's ENDGAME Through Dostoevsky, Conrad and Cormac McCarthy

Derrick Jensen takes on civilization in this Volume 2. Almost 160 years after Dostoevsky first saw it coming. It is very late in the game now.

This edition contains many of his best short novels
This edition is translated with an introduction by David Magarshack and it is wonderful. From NOTES I am quoting:

...that to be too acutely conscious is a disease (p. 111)

...whatever happened, happened in accordance with the normal and fundamental laws of intensified consciousness and by a sort of inertia which is a direct consequence of those laws.....(p. 113)

He is stupid__I am not disputing that. But perhaps the normal man should be stupid. How are you to know? (p. 115)

...And what, pray, does civilization soften in us? All civilization does is to develop in man the many-sidedness of his sensations, and nothing, absolutely nothing more. And through the development of his many-sidedness man, for all we know, may reach the stage when he will find pleasure in bloodshed. This has already happened to him. Have you noticed that the most subtle shedders of blood have almost invariably been most civilized men, compared with whom all the Attilas and Stenka Razins were just innocent babes, and if they are not so outstanding as Attila or Stenka Razin it is because we meet them so often, because they are too ordinary, and because we have got used to them. At any rate, civilization has made man, if not more bloodthirsty, then certainly more hideously and more contemptibly bloodthirsty. In the past he looked on bloodshed as an act of justice and exterminated those he thought necessary to exterminate with a clear conscience; but now we consider bloodshed an abomination and we engage in this abomination more than ever. Which is worse? You'd better decide for yourselves. (p. 128)

He continues to deconstruct science as the cure and details how science will measure desires and limit risk for ready-made solutions. We are experiencing the assembly line manufacturing of desire for us.  All Dostoevsky said has come to pass. 

It is industrial society  that Dostoevsky condemns. And in 1862 abroad for the first time he goes to London and comes face to face for the first time with the industrial society which he regarded as the triumph of Baal. The thing that struck him most was the contrast between the colossal facade of riches, luxury,  and general prosperity of the few and the abject poverty of the many and their coolie-like acquiescence in their fate. In the face of such enormous riches, such immense pride of the spirit of domination, and such triumphant perfection of the creations of the spirit, Dostoevsky wrote in the April, 1863 issue of Vremya, in which he described his impressions of his first visit abroad, the starving soul is humbled and driven to submission, seeking salvation in gin and dissipation and beginning to believe that this is the way things ought to be. Facts oppress the spirit, and if scepticism is born, it is a gloomy, accursed sort of scepticism which seeks salvation in religious fanaticism. (xix)

There follows a description of London to break your heart.

In 1890 Conrad sets sail for The Congo which results in his masterpiece The Heart of Darkness.

1989 St. Martin's Press edition

 And again we have his horrifying novel of Marlowe telling of Kurtz who is a human accumulation of  European civilization. In this edition are five literary reviews of this classic work. Karl - also Conrad's biographer and a psychoanalyst - has written a devastating account of the coming apocalypse which is deconstructed by J. Hillis Miller in a different essay. The accumulation of IVORY to be shipped back to Britain and exported globally for artistic artifacts is chilling to anyone who reads through Foucault on default. We see graphically the intersection of the CUT into capitalism, mercantilism, of DETERRITORIALIZED CAPITALISM that is our state of world economic power today. It is not likely Conrad knew where in the jungle Kurtz was exploring to acquire such massive piles of ivory, more than all the other colonial traders together, operating under the MASK of being there for the purpose of bringing the savages to a civilized social existence. We know though. As Kurtz goes alone in his solitary journeys into the deep darkness of unexplored wild jungle to make contact with other tribes of natives, he is certainly shown the cemeteries of the elephants who make a pilgrimage to their burial grounds as a regular memorial to fondle the bones of their ancestors. How easy to gather up incredible amounts of what Kurtz labels reclaimed ivory in such volume as to amaze those back home in Britain. This is why the journey to him must be made, to import all this loot back home. And it comes at a terrible cost to the natives who have been conquered by the technological demonstration of such weapons as they have never imagined the existence of. Kurtz's dying words are the horror, the horror!  as he at last sees this horror brought into the world. This greed is far beyond the desire for the forbidden fruit in Eden. The destruction of a continent, the enslavement of its people, all for artifacts to be carved from the ivory over the dead bodies of elephants. And now these elephants plundered for the last 160 years are going extinct. 

This is Dostoevsky's vision of the future he sees. We are living it now, the Congo worse than it ever was, the world exploited and depleted.

Dostoevsky saw the unimaginable riches of the earth that could and would be exploited for world industrialization. 

Dostoevsky was a liberal before he stood waiting in front of the firing squad only to be part of a "joke." He was deported to Siberia to labor in a prison. The initial beginning of The Gulags.

When he served his time and returned to Russia he was no longer a liberal thinker. 

As ZIZEK has told us:
Liberal thinking contains the poison pill of its own destruction.

Liberalism teaches us to tolerate the intolerable.

Obama and Clinton were intolerable and INVISIBLE.

This is what made Trump more acceptable to ZIZEK and to me.
I do like the MESSAGE of the MEDIUM of the Trump administration. Eyes have been opened and are being opened every day as he is so outrageous that ultimately he offends and enrages everyone last one of us. 

It is a pleasure. 

The Holocaust of North American Natives Beginning in 1849
BLOOD MERIDIAN is Cormac McCarthy's homage to Heart of Darkness. Its theme, its hidden apocalypse, and its characters. Conrad felt maybe he had symbolized Kurtz too much. McCarthy says no no a thousand times no and makes Judge Holden so excessive, so symbolic, so incredible, that Kurtz begins to seem rather normal.
The American has overreached the British monster.
Blood Meridian begins in 1849 when the American Government seeking to extend its reach to California now that gold has been discovered. The Gold Rush is to begin but it must have a clear  journey from east to west without Native Americans to impede it. The US government is paying $100 per single scalp to clean them out. It will be a 30,000,000 Holocaust, far beyond anything Hitler imagined or did to the Jews. It has been enfolded into amnesia in American history. At the end of it there remained 300,000 Native Americans herded onto reservations. Let's think of them as sanctuaries which is where many wild animals are now being transported to before all can go extinct. The ARK has been broken up into fragments scattered all over the world. Gone is the web of elephant ancestor memories, a Native American culture rich and different from the industrialized white man, and is just the stepping stone for a life of circumscribed imprisonment until the land is wanted for the exploitation of its riches. People will be dispossessed as will the wild animals.McCarthy ends his novel in 1862 and we see a depraved barbarian society of the west rivaling that of Dostoevsky's London in the same year. 
More horror. 

Anyone who disputes Jensen's call for the end of civilization needs to rethink their premises about any goodness to be preserved in this ongoing atrocity and horror of apocalypse. 

One is reminded of Isaiah and Jeremiah warning the Israelites to not defy the Assyrians at this time.

And while Rome burns we fiddle around.