10.18.18: The Two Oswalds And The End Of The Internet


“There is nothing in a caterpillar that tells you it’s going to be a butterfly.”
–Buckminster Fuller


I’m occupying my mind at the moment with the Post-Information Age theory: that Future Shock author Alvin Toffler’s “Third Wave” is coming to an end. This article from The Hill of all places, about how technology with a screen on it (such as the smartphone) will be dying out in the next 10 years, really sort of “solidified” things for me on this front—the implication is that we will stop typing words, because we can merely talk to an Alexa- or Siri-type AI.

But it’s going to be much more than that, I think; because I think we are going to see the “end” of the Internet as we currently know it. And I think this is already happening.


Most folks will operate in their own ideological walled gardens, using blockchains and private social networks to keep the “rabble” out. So a Twitter situation where “everybody” is sort of dipping in the pool and having their say…I don’t think that’s going to happen much longer. People may still use Twitter, but it will be broken up into many subsets of closed-off communities who may complain about the other side…but rarely actually communicate with them directly.

This sort of situation where you can get “everything goes”-type info, the Internet as infinite Alexandrian Library…that’s going away too. I think there are going to be things that will be “swept” right off of the search engines and kept off the big platforms—”for our own good,” because they’ll just keep pointing to the clusterfuck we found ourselves in 2018 and will say: “SEE???”


I think the idea of an open-source online “encyclopedia” like Wikipedia, edited by the public…that’s going away too. A movement away from collaborative directories and crowdsourced information, and back solidly to “approved” sources. At the same time, because these approved sources will all be digital and on the cloud, it can seamlessly “change” at whim.

Typing shit…that’s going away. Everything will be spoken into the AI interface.

Everything will be sorted by the AI to keep you safe in your walled garden.

The biggest symbols of his new age: the Wall and the Speaker.

Hipsters in 2025


1101641002_400Lee Harvey Oswald was born on this day in 1939. He is one of the great archetypal figures in world history: representing, depending on who you talk to, either lone-nut assassins or hapless patsies.

The theoretical JFK assassin seems to especially lend himself to theories concerning “doubles”—doppelgängers. Perhaps it’s because he looked so ordinary, almost goofy—so unlike one’s perception of who an assassin of the President might be. (It must be remembered that Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was a popular actor of the time; as if Ryan Gosling shot the president. )d 2

But perhaps that indistinct, “man on the street” type makes the best assassin…which is where we get an offshoot of the Oswald’s Double theory in which a shadowy organization (take your pick) was running an “Oswald Factory”—a veritable Willy Wonka factory that produced nothing but multiples of the man for espionage and various malfeasances.

Oswald is one of these topics that continues to fascinate me, especially the various “double” theories:

a) that Discordianism co-creator Kerry Thornley—who actually knew Lee in the Marines—was an Oswald “doppelgänger” of one stripe or another.

Kerry and Lee

b) the Harvey and Lee theory, in which they were two separate people of completely different temperaments who were raised near each other as kids; “tracked” throughout their lives for the purpose of assassinating the president (or some other general malfeasance).

Harvey and Lee

As for what I personally think happened with Oswald? Well, that would be a separate post.

Certainly, he got in way over his head; certainly.


Today is also the birthday of late actor Klaus Kinski, whom I like to hear lose his shit in German (because it is, in turns, relaxing and amusing to me). So much could be said, and yet there is so little time; so I will merely show you a video clip of him angrily tossing a monkey:


My only caveat with killing off Roseanne Conner is…well, I have two of them, actually.


First, regardless of all the dumb shit Roseanne Barr said, there is a sort of “memory hole” type aspect to this entire situation. That she needed not only to be fired from the show, but then completely “killed off.” Whereas I think they should have just put the entire show to bed. Insisting on continuing the show just feels like a “political statement”…is it an effective one?

Second…Roseanne Barr/Conner is sort of a “hypersigil”…the ABC TV show had featured a woman who was both fictional and supposed to be the “actual” Roseanne. They share the same name, it’s the same persona (more or less) as her stand-up act…so when you make a decision to kill her off, it’s not like axing Valerie Harper off of Valerie’s Family (remember that show?). Valerie Harper’s show wasn’t so reliant on her personality and essence as Roseanne.


Moreover, here you have a woman who is in exactly that demographic of people who tend to get opioid deaths (over-40 female, history of trauma, celebrity)…whose hypersigil, Roseanne Conner, has just been killed off due to an opioid death.

Esoterically, that’s SUPER-creepy.

I mean…WTF is going to happen if she really does end up dead from an opioid death???

Nooooobody thinks of the esoteric/creepypasta implications…


Anyway, I do feel Roseanne Barr caused a lot of these problems herself, I’ve found her rhetoric over the years to be an increasing turn-off, and I avoided her reboot like the plague. So please don’t send me down the memory hole and kill me off my own show in some creepily plausible way as retribution for my own opinions. (though let’s face it—that’s probably going to be another key feature of the Post-Information Age)


I think that’s it for now. Have a good Thursday.