The Jerks (Imperfectionists) of the Mainstream



We poke fun at our hardheaded, McCarthyistic, interventionist friends uhh "foes", namely, the "jerks" (with an aim to convert the few jerk readers who might come here, into punks)


The jerk isa central personality type who, though indeed perhaps trivial by himself, attains deep significance if acting in a herd.


As Prometheus said, “right or wrong, all things in life, controlled and manipulated by perception.”

Now there are two types of perception -- humans construct memories in one of two different ways. One of these two ways is associated with the fool or jerk, but it's not so easy to dive immediately into the neuroscience behind it.

Thoth: “Knowledge is regarded by the fool as ignorance, and that which is profitable, is to him hurtful.”

When Sebastian Brant wrote the Ship of Fools in 1494 – people, ignorant of how money works, may have thought that the Age of the Jerks will soon be over, due to the rise of printing. But as the religious struggles that followed revealed, the jerks were quicker to exploit printing! If literature is seen as the chief weapon of the jerk, it is evident why, across mankind, folly has not reduced in the 5 centuries since Brant. To the contrary, the Old Ship, gorging on finance capital, has rapidly grown in size. It is now clear that this Problem is not as easy to solve as some had believed.

Inviting rising numbers of jerks into its decks, the Ship of Fools has threatened to destroy the very act of thinking itself. And the punks have spoken of sinking this Ship -- if the jerks may thereby learn how to swim!

 The Ship of Fools is a force majeure, yet as it is huge, ugly, and always in the background, most of us fail to see it.

Its jerks, due to their large numbers, adaptability and variety, dominate artificial reality; more so than anything else. In the name of peace, the jerk wages war; in the name of love, he wastes your time. He offers help only to rob you blind.

He legislates that you cannot combat his error by civilized means, and that it is politically incorrect to mock it; when criticised, he pretends the victim.

What seems to us error, is, to the jerk, a way of life. Now such views might not flatter the vanity of every "undiagnosed retard" out there (I'm not saying that you are one), even if he has the "appropriate degree", or is in hold of "high office".

Yet even those who feel offended must read on – their negative reactions won’t last long. They will soon find out how good a logical style of thinking (Gnosticism) is. Though indeed even the wise can learn a lot from this website -- the jerk, too, would rapidly become wise if he tries to understand us (It is the characteristic of decent nonfiction). We hope he wisens up! See, we long for company. If we punks seem scathing despite our painstaking selection of words – it is not that we are haughty; it's merely a bitter pill. The jerk's angry riposte is not as convenient as it seems; we alone can rescue the jerks' overheating brains. We used to say, “let’s not blame one or the other person; let’s instead focus on solving the problem.” But this approach turned out to be illogical; as some people, who often could be called "syllogicians", that is, the jerks -- were themselves a central, causal part of (all) the problems (To them we said:




The ignorance and apathy of the jerks, who run off the mill that is the "educational system", prevents logical resolution of issues such as the money problem. They seemingly form the majority at least in urban areas. Over the last few millenniums, their Ship of Fools has haphazardly "conquered" the sea despite the quality of our U-Boats... This Ship's astronomical growth comes at the expense of thinking mankind, which alarmingly dwindles towards extinction.

On the positive side of things, this era, due to the information Age, may be an “inflexion period,” as it is easier now to reverse the backward “progress” of man than before. Even a few years earlier, things were quite horrible. Our British comrade Sid Vicious was even killed in cold blood (though he didn't mean to mock the Queen of England, he only meant to mock her endogement).

See also the dilemma of comrade Camus, who, due to the difficulty of logic in the pre-information age period, darkly observed that the Absurd had prevailed over mankind. And to a large extent he was right, one shudders to think of the folly which the fools of the High industrial age were capable of; truly it is said that the information age comes as a saviour, but let's not lose sight of what it is saving us from.

And see Gesell, who tried to cure the superstitions of the "rich" in the period between WW 1 and 2, a period during which the Ship of fools dreamed up new killing techniques. Gesell was punished… Keynes: “In April 1919 Gesell joined the short-lived Soviet cabinet of Bavaria as their Minister of Finance, and was subsequently tried by court-martial.” Keynes, a classic sophist from the analytic tradition, mercilessly attacked Gesell 6 years after his death in 1930, calling him a “prophet.” Luckily for Gessell, he did not live to see the punishment of Germany, as she dared try apply his theory of scrip money.

Just after WWII, the era in which Truman by his antics lionized the fool, Esslin wrote: “The Theatre of the Absurd is the reflection of what seems to be the attitude most genuinely representative of our own times. The hallmark of this attitude is its sense that the unshakable, basic assumptions of former ages have been swept away, that they have been “tested” and “found wanting,” that they have been discredited as cheap, somewhat childish illusions.” The associated movement “expresses the sense of the senselessness of the human condition, and the inadequacy of the rational approach, by the abandonment of rational devices and discursive thought.” The movement identifies absurdity, but instead of attacking it, succumbs to it: “Logical construction gives way to irrational and illogical speech and to its ultimate conclusion, silence.” Great, then, is the impact of the jerks on the political front.

And of the newspapers, as Pinthus had said: “In a mutual lowering of standards the papers adapted themselves to the public and the public to the papers, so that every day, humanity, under the influence of enslaved minds, instead of being forced to think was forced to forget how to think.” Modern Media is worse. Yet we the punks are optimistic. To be sure, even now, pseudo-meaning is more widespread than meaning, but at least meaning is relatively possible, due to the leakages of information and the balancings of Informational Potential Differences; at least a Logical World can be conceived of.

 To be sure, all our efforts for reform have failed in the past. But now, at last, at least we know why.

After great efforts by many thinkers, the jerk (a politically correct term for "fool") is now finally understood (Though note that one cannot ordinarily see the term "jerk" as a noun -- it is a pseudo-noun (for it is not conclusively descriptive of any given man), and its usage in literature is contingent on the defeat of one side of a man, by the other side of the same man.

For you see, mentally, each man has two sides to his self, as seen in the table below.


The first aspect (or spirit/component) of man

The second aspect of man

Corresponds to Mill’s harsh but explicable idea of “Pig, having only the apelike faculty of imitation”


The first aspect corresponds to Gesell’s “man of action;”

the second, to his idea of “man of theory.” “Theory is contrasted to practice, or doing, as theory involves no doing apart from itself.”

Corresponds to that remarkable concept of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, namely, the “man of quantity”

The second corresponds to their idea of “man of quality.”

In a relatively literary sense, the first is the dandy aspect of personality, concerned about superficialities

while the second is the Promethean aspect of personality, concerned about reality.

Again, as Chomsky says, “You must be one of 2 types. Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines that all are saying

or you say something true, and it sounds like it is from Neptune.”


The latter is, in fact, the essence of human nature – if we see “human” as that meant by the zoologists who demarcated “man” as “homo sapiens”


 Each man is composed of both components. During one’s youth, each spirit tries to overthrow the other; if one doesn’t do anything to help the fragile, latter spirit – if, specifically, he seeks refuge in the decadence of society rather than in his own mind – then, as Mill said, the first spirit prevails in him, he becomes though variably a syllogician (which is, on account of the variability, called a pseudo-noun). Men, or at least adults, must develop their second side, lest they become the ageing adolescents ridiculed by Camus (that's just the start of one's troubles; soon, his mind falls apart).

Our chief thesis is that this first nature, though problematic if used for critical decision-making, over-represents mankind because of the wrong type of education; that is why the Ship is such a terrible problem, as the thinkers are outnumbered, and they must become punks to defend themselves. Our second thesis is that the greatest evil about Capitalism is how it assists the first spirit, or “neural personality”, to overthrow the second spirit, the higher self of man.

The Ship of fools “cares” more about its own beliefs than reality. Its inversions of truth are unacceptable to reality; unacceptable to us, unacceptable to nature, and unacceptable to the self-proclaimed jerks as well, since they are part of nature.

Now, “it is politically incorrect,” it is argued, “to call the fool, a fool.” Indeed though nearly all men are fools in comparison to the perfection of the purebred men of old, men of renown – the useful need to provisionally demarcate one as a jerk – arises if he stubbornly insists on damaging the logical order, and, by involving himself in a likeminded herd, resists our efforts to flee or save him. Whatever the threat posed by their mobs, they must be induced into thinking; for the jerk, though the foulest, is also the most pitiable son of man, particularly given how simple his cure is; after all, as G.K. Chesterton -- who though a philosopher from the continental school was ironically British -- had said:

"all humans can be criminals if tempted; or, heroes, if inspired".


If avoidance of confrontation is cowardice, it is worse to make the jerk feel wiser than he is, even if he bares his fangs. Make him understand wisdom – if that involves calling him a jerk as a provocation – well, we’ve chosen our words carefully.

We pity the jerk, thinking that his folly ruins only his life. Yet how erroneous that view is! The jerks dominate, in an economy made for and by them, by destroying the lives of thinkers. While the punk assumes the other’s civility, the jerk takes advantage.

The wise man, due to his love for logic, patience, and inability to condescend, is harmed; thinkers have increasingly been dying to the jerks ever since that noble idea which held that all men are brothers; but others were designed to reject this saying, and exploit our trust; so a formal demarcation may be warranted in case of the ablest of the so-called jerks.


In metaphysics, the art of discerning the nature of hidden objects by making reference to related objects -- it is relatively hard to infer interrelations between complex objects; it is most difficult to discern a system of objects. In other words, reality is complex – reality is nonlinear.

Yet, linear is all the data we sense at a time. This is the trap into which falls the jerk. Men must spend time reading or thinking logical stuff (being in nature, for example), leaving aside doing, for a while. Difficult concepts can only be explained by winding logic that initially (for the unripe mind) is hard to follow; easy “concepts” are often half-truths and lies.

Unfortunately, for most, the only time that they’re nonlinearly thinking ("contemplating patterns of interrelations between inter-related asocial objects and systems") – is when they’re listening to music! Is it a surprise then that most urban people end up as jerks incapable of nonlinear thinking, and unable to tell objective logic from "subjectively logical" syllogisms?


The jerk makes such excuses: “who can think so much? Rather save time by not thinking about complex things – I will think,” he says, “only about that which is immediately “profitable” to me.”

He feels that he is qualitatively thinking (the advanced, Norepic associative process) rather than simplistically rearranging data (using the Dopaminic associative process -- which is a quantitative type of "thinking" that is, some argue, not a type of thinking at all).

He never “wastes time” discovering the world's exotic and beautiful general truths, by knowing which alone can one find the smallest exotic local truths. To only be satisfied with “a feel of” one’s surroundings – is nihilism – it is the greatest intellectual crime, a betrayal of one's humanness. Most jerks we meet see the concept of “fool” illogically, thinking of this scientific term as “just an insult, applicable to all except me; as I must believe in myself, lest I falter” – we show him how he falters not due to lack of belief in himself, but due to far too excessive a belief in his ability to find the truth.


It is an error to say that the primary cause of "idiocracy" is genetic – the primary cause is usury, whose rise has, by encouraging the rise of jerks, created more jerks than poor nature, and her good work, the genes of men, ever could.

The extent to which one is a "jerk" -- is approximately proportional to the number of times he speaks of, or worse, carries out his actions on the basis of, data involving specific people (instead of objects), or of “objects” as defined by other men or mobs (or extrapolations put together from such “definitions); for most of the times, "borrowed wisdom" can't be trusted. People "play" others for profit in this "Game theory"-based world, and seed misconceptions for "profit".

The punk prefers deanthropomorphized knowledge about whatever objects or processes are involved in significant causal, humanity-centric realities. One must spend, or invest time in thinking of relations between objects, rather than merely peoples’ descriptions of objects (or peoples’ descriptions of “relations between objects” – which are even worse).


The jerk has the opposite functionalities. If the mentality of the punk is called "problem-solving", that of the jerk can be called "solution-fetching". For example, if a number of jerks share a delusion, a belief that an opportunistically-found victim of theirs seems to deny – it is, in that case, "natural" for them to "perceive" the act of persecuting him – as a “just,” or a “virtuous” thing to do. Hegemony, that most ancient and apelike of all mischiefs, is natural to the jerk, who is thus seen as a homo panzer. Many were (and are) the behavioral curiosities among the jerks. For example, historically, many cases were seen wherein a large tribe of jerks (jerks lived in large tribes), passing through the jungle, needing much food due to their great numbers, hungry due to their incompetence with logic-demanding acts like hunting, would hegemonically decide to murder one among themselves for purpose of a meal!

(Such are the psychological details which Adam Smith's so-called "masterpiece" should have contained!)

Such things the jerk did, reflected instinct (often swarm “intelligence” type instinct), not choice – they had no control. The chilling biological mechanism of the instinct – the ability to do things, without ever understanding the logic behind them – characterizes the jerk. He is almost “an animal in the body of a man” – an animal which had, among its many instincts, also one that made him see the nobler man as "animal"; to see him as a prop, as a means to ends; and to see himself as the true man, a “wise actor in the game of life,” that he “played by instincts.” The jerks, blinded by futile sandstorms of their own making, were not lucky enough to know or seek Gnosis, that ancient art of qualitative education.

They understood not wisdom; even if they may have identified the word, uttering it often for “profit,” they had no such instinct which told them that calm wisdom could be perhaps better than quantitative activity based on false beliefs.


Somewhere in time, the jerk was lost in a lust for the “profit that can be found” in the situation of heightened activity despite confusion, generally... and specifically, war – just like the wildebeest, which, being poorer than the fragile proto-monkey, took part in the act of running from lion to such an extent as to overlook the rather ennobling activity of climbing a tree, which, if it had done, may have granted it the benefit of evolving into a monkey, so having more insight in life.

The co-optation of his life by a set of instincts, called RQ – was the great tragedy of the jerk. Most important among the RQ type talents was what many have called the syllogical talent, the Dopaminic talent of verbal associative thinking.

Though "enjoying" direct battle, the short-lived, overly RQ-based jerks specialized in indirect, continuous social warfare, played by the rules of Game theory; lent steam by capitalism, the jerks were hostile in “peacetime” itself. It is their “evolutionarily success,” the fact that they form the majority in many modern societies, which makes us stand up respectfully and take notice of the jerk -- it is what makes us extend our hand of friendship (true friendship), to go all the way to understand him scientifically, to work towards increasing the happiness and well-being of the jerk; to help him bloom as a full-fledged human, an individual independent of the herd; to help him become a happy, wise Gnostic; to subduethe first spirit which is dominant in him, to make some room for the second spirit; to exorcise him!


And no, we do not mean this:


The religion of the jerk is called "imperfectionism".


How the witch doctor sought legitimacy by slandering his prey (and setting up the scene to suggest that, as she died a witch, she probably was guilty anyway)

-- or How the Protestants sought legitimacy by bashing the catholic order

-- the imperfectionist seeks legitimacy by painting us, the pro-Gnosis people aka perfectionists, with the label "narcissist".


Imperfectionism, the name for a typical dogma or rather practice of the sophists -- isn't about reconciling with and acccepting one's lack of perfection, which is indeed a necessary trait of character... imperfectionism is totally different. The gnostic's sense of his own imperfection is such that he knows that he is far from perfect; I can imagine that i could have been as perfect as humanly possible in a utopia, but definitely not in this mad, twisted world. That knowledge compels the perfectionist aka Gnostic upon the only route to relative good or perfection, which is precisely the meaning of perfectionism.


Though the imperfectionist is different. He is imperfect whenever possible, though always takes care of the superficials (like, the dandy who tweaks his hair) so as to pretend perfect in front of the ignorant (who, though ignorant, still are politically important). But he'll never  try to improve his personality, to identify and purge such personality defects of his that are subtly or indirectly offensive; he never tries to be a man of substance or to have a meaningful life, never even starts upon the route to logical perfection. The cost he pays is depression and dementia. That is the difference between Gnostics and Imperfectionists; Gnostics always progress towards the state of perfection, actively removing offensive bugs in their personality.


To be sure, the imperfectionist is perfect as far as appearances go.

That is not true for Gnostics who "waste time" ironing out even the subtle or indirect bugs in our personality. I mean, look, sometimes you might say, i'm a funny guy, and, you know what... agreed!

But don't pretend as if you are perfect and kill me, alright?!!!


And if caught playing the fool, the imperfectionist says that, if he "REALLY" wanted, he could have wisened up here or there; that his foolery is the exception rather than the rule.


Though the truth is, imperfectionists are more generally comfortable with the idea of "secretly" being fools...


The dogma of imperfectionism says: imperfetion is justified by how others have a low depth of discernment, so they cannot discern it, so that ït is ok. Forever going on appearance, rather than substance, the imperfectionist...


But don't the imperfectionists see that it is substance which truly counts, and that people do discern... even if the imperfectionists don't discern that well, due to their hatred for and distance from the concept of Gnosis?


If I say, as does Beck: "I'm a loser baby" -- that's OK, it is  true that I am not perfect... though I still am a perfectionist!

But the problem is, the imperfectionists will lay claim to nobility, try to usurp the rights of being represented by that song by Beck, for example

You define nobility, and the imperfectionists will lay claim to that nobility, because the imperfectionist is a sophist, a master of superficially "good" fiction!


That is the problem with the verbal realm.

That is why words will be discredited if imperfectionists continue abusing them... and, eventually, when faced by angry non-verbal people like Boko Haram, they will beg for we, the thinkers, to come forth and give some articulable objective logic, to justify a semi-verbal order


Perfectionists, weighing across the broad angle and leaving no degree unanalysed, are obsessed with, and make a great deal about the smallest of their imperfections*, though imperfectionists make a great deal about the limited angle from which they appear perfect to the untrained eye, insisting that they are to be normatively considered “ overall good”, and effectively implying that they are "the epitomes of perfection within the socio-economic hierarchy"!!!


His "position in the socio-economic hierarchy"... that is the "meaning", for the imperfectionist, of this term called "perfection", which has, says he, nothing to do with personality.

As they say, "Drink thou this crate of beer, it will help thou understand what I'm saying"


They come together for "dumbing down" the world...

As for duping the ignorant, upon whom the imperfectionists depend for "progress"... that never really helps. In the information age, those tricks are doubly outdated.

So why not accept Gnosis, and attack one's imperfections?