Category Archives: Humour

Nazi blogosphere vs Facts (DJ Cain and MC Encyclopedia of World Fascism remix)

Yo back up now and give a brother room
The fuse is lit and Im about to go boom
Mercy mercy mercy me
My life is a cage but on stage Im free

I’ve asked this question before: Suppose the natives in some Western European countries actually start to seriously resisting the organized destruction of their countries, halt mass immigration and reverse Multiculturalism. How will American authorities and media react to this?

Frankly, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they turn out to be actively hostile to native Europeans. That was the case with Clinton and with Bush, who after all supported the continued Islamization of Europe through Turkish membership of the European Union. It will be even worse with Obama, an anti-white Marxist.

As we know, a “Nazi” these days is not one of the many Muslims and their Leftist cheerleaders who shout “Death to Jews! in the streets of Europe; it’s any white person who doesn’t lie down and die on command. If we don’t lie down and die, we must be Nazis. We are after all Europeans.

Gates of Vienna

Fascists in Europe have seen this more recent immigration as a threat to the cultural homogeneity and national traditions of their countries. They have often exploited increases in the numbers of Muslims to claim that they are defending Christianity against Islam. Opposition to immigration has been one of the common threads within various fascist movements, and it is arguable that it plays the same role for such movements today as anti-Semitism did for inter-war Nazism and its imitators.

The Encyclopedia of World Fascism, page 367

JERUSALEM — Even as Barack Obama becomes the 44th president of the United States, anti-Israel professor Rashid Khalidi, whose ties to Obama stirred controversy during the campaign, has stated he could currently communicate with the incoming commander in chief, WND has learned.

Amid concern within the pro-Israel Jewish community, Obama repeatedly had denied he was influenced by Khalidi.

In an interview with the radical Democracy Now! news network last week, Khalidi expressed hope Obama would alter U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, talking to “all sides” of the Israeli-Palestinian arena. He also criticized Israel for killing civilians in the Gaza Strip the past few weeks and for leading what he termed a “propaganda campaign” to de-legitimize the Hamas terrorist organization.

World Net Daily

In practice, the term cosmopolitan was applied by interwar fascists chiefly to Marxists, Freemasons, and Jews. In Nazi thinking, Marxism and Freemasonry were themselves part of an international Jewish conspiracy, so that “cosmopolitan” often meant “Jewish.”

The Encyclopedia of World Fascism, page 188

Continue reading Nazi blogosphere vs Facts (DJ Cain and MC Encyclopedia of World Fascism remix)

TV Tropes

This is absolutely my favourite site of the moment.  For real.  I have spent hours, with which I could have done a lot better things, reading it and laughing quite often at the descriptions within.

To quote from the main page:

Tropes are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members’ minds and expectations. On the whole, tropes are not clichés. The word clichéd means “stereotyped and trite”. In other words, dull and uninteresting. We are not looking for dull and uninteresting entries. We are here to recognize tropes and play with them, not to make fun of them.

The wiki is called “TV Tropes” because that is where we started. Over the course of a few years, our scope has crept out to include other media. Tropes transcend television. They exist in life, as we will be quick to tell you. Since a lot of art, especially the popular arts, does its best to reflect life, tropes are likely to show up everywhere. We want ’em all.

As someone who enjoys writing myself, a site like this is incredibly useful.  But even for the casual reader or watcher of television, its a really great site and I cannot recommend it enough.  If you want to visit, please follow the link.

A glossary of terms relating to Discordianism

DISCORDIANISM: Like Wicca, it started off as a religion for pot-smoking hippie bums who wanted to pass off their bullshit as a philosophical statement. The key difference was it was full of jokes plagiarized from the Marx brothers. Somewhere along the line, like many obscure things that deserved to stay obscure, it got co-opted by sweaty, anime-downloading computer nerds and has become some stupid inside joke on message boards full of assholes, giving it as much meaning and significance as All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

THE CHURCH OF THE SUBGENIUS: Discordians who get bored of saying “Fnord” and “Hail Eris” and wanted to make up new nonsense phrases and pretend like saying them while giggling was a constructive act of activism.

THE PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA: Between “My First ABCs” and “The Essential Guide to Star Wars Ships” in terms of literary importance

THE BOOK OF THE SUBGENIUS: Like the Principia Discordia, only 100 pages longer, and it costs 20 bucks instead of being able to find it on Google.

THE ILLUMINATUS TRILOGY: A plagiarism of Joyce’s work filled with nerdy pop culture references and pretentious rantng.

SCHR?ñDINGER’S CAT: A plagiarism of Vonnegut’s work filled with nerdy pop culture references and pretentious ranting.

ROBERT ANTON WILSON: A man who has accumulated a small fortune selling plagiarisms of Joyce and Vonnegut filled with nerdy pop culture references with pretentious ranting.

MALACLYPSE THE YOUNGER: Some “wacky” nom de plume of a man who probably wrote The Principia Discordia in a stained tie-dye T-shirt on a bongwater-stained couch while listening to a highly worn LP of Freak Out!, The White Album, or The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Wasn’t smart enough to copyright his work so probably died alone and penniless on a gutter while clenching a Coke bottle pipe filled with schwag, while his buddy Robert Anton Wilson eats steak for dinner in his dining room.

KERRY THORNLEY/LORD OMAR/A BILLION OTHER STUPID PSEUDONYMS: Wrote ten crazy Xeroxed rants about Libertarianism and thought his friends were agents of the Illuminati, now posthumously considered a genius.

STEVE JACKSON: The poster boy for the official point of transformation of the vast majority (ie: 40) of Discordians changing from hippie slackers to D&D nerds who wish they could have been alive to be hippie slackers like their parents.

FNORD: A word invented to be used in the boring, pointless signatures, “hilarious” spam, and half-hearted graffiti of Discordians. Might have been a slightly funny inside joke between RAW, Thornley, and Malaclypse, but the Internet beat it into the ground like it does everything

23: The fact that that number can sometimes be seen somewhere is proof of an elaborate evil conspiracy/magical cosmic force that protects and strengthens all Discordians

THE BAVARIAN ILLUMINATI: The 19th century version of the Discordians. IE: They had great ideas but we’re too lazy and fuckwitted and unorganized to get anything done so instead they just made a bunch of bullshit. So obviously the Discordian society idolizes them.

THE POEE: 12 members strong.

THE DISCORDIAN SOCIETY: 18 members strong.

WWW.PRINCIPIADISCORDIA.COM: An expensive domain name that somebody pays for solely to host a 60-page book that can be found for a yardsale at 25 cents, or in it’s entirity on the first 13 pages of a Google search. In other word, a nerd who felt the obligation to make a site that wasn’t about what bands they like or how similar to Hitler Bush is.

ERISIANS: Discordians who insist on being called something else to be difficult

ERIS/DISCORDIA: There is a disagreement among Discordians and Erisians as to her nature. Discordians think she’s a cartoon character with magic powers who help them out and who they fantasize to while masturbating, (that is, when they’re too lazy to open up their porn folder or turn to the Dryad page of the D&D Monster Manual) Erisians think the same thing although they sprinkle it with some Taoist metaphysical stuff.

OPERATION MINDFUCK: A way to make the world a better place that apparently involves trolling conservative communities, writing notes on bathroom walls, making up little pieces of paper that say “LOL U R TEH POPE” and being too afraid to hand them out to people, and contemplating all of these brilliant ideas on a message board and being too lazy to do any of them.

JAKE: Like a mindfuck except more childish, if that’s possible

WWW.POEE.CO.UK: A website with a professional-looking appearance and informative content. This makes it’s owner Syntapgjax, a Fake Discordian, since obviously the definition of “Discordian” is “someone who can’t get their shit together”

FAKE DISCORDIAN: A term thrown around a lot for practitioners of a religion that embraces ontological freedom and equality. It’s actually a redundant term.

“WE DISCORDIANS MUST STICK APART”: An excuse for not having your shit together

CHAOS MAGIC: If Wicca is people who need an authority figure to give their minds permission to use magic adopting books form Barnes and Noble as such, than Chaos Magic is the same, only with Google and Alice in Wonderland.

ZENARCHY: A term used by Discordians who have to pretend they’re too enlightened to use terms like “Anarchist” to describe their political belief, so they use a term that sounds deep but is actually an unfunny portmanteau, like “Zenarchist” so they can pretend they’re too cool for politics.

THE LAW OF FIVES: An important lesson in epistemological relativism becomes an inside joke among people who make stupid polls on the Internet to waste their lives away

COPYRITE/KOPYRIGHT/KOPYRITE/COPYLEFT/KOPYLEFT: A term that’s obviously Discordian because of the lame pun. Spawned Wikipedia, which is what sexless nerds use as an authoritative source of knowledge, in the same way imperialist intellectual elitists used the Britannica.

DISCORDIAN SAINT: Someone who the government hasn’t forced to take their meds yet

THE PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA.COM FORUMS: Where you can read jokers bickering like the cast of MASH towards the end of the show and pretending that they’re better than 95 percent of DeadJournal users somehow. Also full of long, drawn out, pointless rants that just reiterate the same uninsightful points. Discordians are nerds who don’t have enough sex.

Bird and Fortune bring the damage

<object width=”425″ height=”344″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/hXBcmqwTV9s&hl=en&fs=1″></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/hXBcmqwTV9s&hl=en&fs=1″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”425″ height=”344″></embed></object>

Why Discordia is more relevant in 2008 – Discussion

Ripped this discussion, built on Cram’s earlier post and musings, from the forum.  Enjoy.

LMNO:  Because so far, nothing else seems to be working.  Because Discordia is about models, not absolutes.

Baron von Hoopla:  Bingo.

Cramulus: [to LMNO] that’s a great angle.  Could you expand on that a bit?

GA:  I don’t know about more relevant, because I wasn’t around 50 years ago.  It seems to me that the Cold War was in pretty dire need of some lightheartedness, even more than our current War on Terror.

It just seems relevant to me because I personally had (have?) a problem with taking things far to seriously.  And because many of the people around me have concepts like ‘mandatory’ and ‘forbidden’ and apply them to things that are really optional.

I makes me sad when people tell me that things like religion are to important to joke about, or old propaganda posters too offensive.  It bothers me when I get suspended from school or hauled before Loss Prevention for reasons like “I know that this is just a misunderstanding, but we must follow procedure.”  It hurts when I look around my infosphere and see nothing but advertisements, especially when those ads are meant to make people feel bad about themselves.

The world is ruled by an endless morass of strictures and convention, and no one wants to take responsibility for them.  People are perfectly content to let the train follow its own momentum down the tracks, even though they don’t like where it is or where it is going, because this is Policy, it’s what Everyone (the everyone in “everyone knows that…”) has Decided.  Rules and traditions might be annoying, but it’s Not In Our Power to do anything about them.

LMNO:  In today’s so-called “Information Age”, most of us are constantly bombarded with stuff.  Perhaps not with ideas, so much as pure input.  While for the most part this input is pretty much bias-neutral, an increasing amount of it is being supplied by people who have an angle.  What’s more, to get through to the growing population of Jaded Couch-Dwelling Fuckheads, there has been a new approach of making the stuff more-or-less self referential, as in, “we know you know we’re trying to manipulate you.  See how cool that makes us?”

So, what do you do when you are flooded by 50,000 points of view?  The old way was to have Rules and Tradition and Procedure and Black and White. To take that stuff and cram it into a narrow worldview, distorting what little information you actually notice.  Which only serves to hold you back, slow you down, and shut you up.

Our way, the Discordian way, is to make Temporary Models, make new Game Rules, to grab hold of the stuff and ride it out, making connections as you see them.  You do your best not to have your views manipulated by stuff, and you do your best not to manipulate stuff to fit your views.  Which serves to keep you on the Edge of What’s Going On.

At least, that’s the general idea.

Continue reading Why Discordia is more relevant in 2008 – Discussion

Colbert’s DNA to resurrect humanity in case of disaster

I couldn’t make up a story this good if I tried.

CBS:

Should this world ever cease to exist, Stephen Colbert will live on.

The comedian’s DNA will be digitized and sent to the International Space Station, Comedy Central was to announce Monday. In October, video game designer Richard Garriott will travel to the station and deposit Colbert’s genes for an “Immortality Drive.”

“I am thrilled to have my DNA shot into space, as this brings me one step closer to my lifelong dream of being the baby at the end of 2001,” Colbert said in a statement, referring to the 1968 landmark science fiction film “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

Garriott, one of few private citizens to travel into space, is collecting material for a time capsule of human DNA, a history of humanity’s greatest achievements and personal messages.

The host of “The Colbert Report” will essentially be preserved so that aliens can clone him.

“In the unlikely event that Earth and humanity are destroyed, mankind can be resurrected with Stephen Colbert’s DNA,” Garriott said in a statement. “Is there a better person for us to turn to for this high-level responsibility?”

Among the other luminaries whose digitized genetic material will be sent into space are Olympic Gold Medalist Scott Johnson, “American Gladiator” Champion and wrestling star Matt Morgan and television writer Melvyn Sherer, whose credits include “Married With Children” and “Laverne and Shirley.”

Official 2008 Debate Drinking Rules

 

If any of these phrases come up in the Presidential debates, take the amount of shots you are required according to the list.

POW/Prisoner of War – 1 shot
“Experience” – 1 shot
9/11 – 1 shot
Any story about eating a moose – 1 shot
Hockey mom – 1 shot
Change we can believe in, any recognizably derivative phrase – 1 shot
Liberal elite – 1 shot
Liberal media – 1 shot
Imply your opponent is a Muslim – 1 shot
Washington Elite – 1 shot
Yes We Can! – 1 shot for each full chant
Commander in Chief of Alaska – 1 shot
Bridge to Nowhere – 2 shots
Bill Ayers – 2 shots
Community organizer – 2 shots
Manchurian Candidate – 2 shots
How many houses – 2 shots

Downs Syndrome Baby – 3 shots
The Keating Five – 3 shots
Ambien – 3 shots

Trolls on the internet, oh my!

I suppose I better mention it, since people will be wondering why I didn’t if I don’t.

Yes, I have read the New York Times article on internet trolling. And firstly, is it just me, or is really fucking embarassing when you have someone writing an article when:

a) they really don’t have a clue what they are talking about, and
b) the topic is removed entirely from its natural environment and dissected in the sterile lab of the mainstream media?

Its not just me, I hope.

So anyway, yes, I was alerted to this article by a compatriot troll, Ten Ton Mantis. And now I have finally read through it. The above quibbles above, I’d just like to make some minor points:

  • Trolls existed before /b/. The first paragraph implies otherwise.
  • /b/ is not the be all and end all of trolling. In fact, in the last couple of years, it has been downright embarassing.
  • At least you mentioned Usenet. Thank fucking god. However, the naive-noob tactic was just one of many used back in the day, and really only an entry level tactic. alt.syntax.tactical, for example, favour the longer term, infiltration and sockpuppet approach.
  • Lulz is not how trolls “keep score”. Its an abstract concept, and a massively overused word, when considered against actual instances of lulz. It can be excuse, justification or result, as well.
  • The troll got it dead on. Article over, amirite?
  • Um…Anonymous and the trolls were one and the same, at least originally. I understand there was a something of a split between the /i/nsurgents and moralfags, but lets be honest, for the most part, its the same people who took part in both.
  • The fact that anonymous communications allow for people to be more sociopathic is not new nor interesting. Learn2sociology, plz.
  • Jason Fortuny is a fun guy, but he doesn’t speak for me.
  • You probably got suckered by one troll or another in the course of your research. Live with it son.
  • Not all trolls are emotional fuckups. Some of the most extreme ones probably are, but I wouldn’t generalize, or imply in the way you did.
  • Sometimes trolls are social hackers, its true. And literal ones as well. Anyway, the point is, sometimes they illustrate things people tend to overlook, either in their social interactions online, how they present themselves, the amount of information they give out. Something like that. Better to get burned for it by a jerk with an inappropriate sense of humour than by the next Ted Bundy. Its not always a perfect justification, and sometimes a line should be drawn, yes, but thats a very grey area and another debate.
  • Don’t take it all so seriously is pretty much the message I try to relate as well. Sometimes the internet is useful for important stuff, but 99% of it is going to leave a very poor and shallow cultural legacy. I like to think I am doing my bit for people who think “OMFG MY MOM WONT BUY ME A FURSUIT FOR MY BIRTHDAY” or having their “artwork” criticized is a crime against humanity. Twits with no perspective and big mouths are far too numerous.
  • Weev was trolling you dude. He does have a point though, about certain bloggers. Those few suckup artists who the media like to go crawling to in order to pretend that they are keeping up with the new internet culture and soliciting feedback from voices that would normally be excluded. Like Iain Dale for example. Real fucking excluded, isn’t he? Lets try a single mother blogger who is working while trying to raise her three kids. Oh, thats right, people like that don’t have time to blog. And even when some people in some part of the world where dangerous and interesting things are happening (such as Iraq) people would rather get their views from the likes of Charles fucking Johnson than someone who actually lives there. Because, God forbid, they may contradict the media narrative.
  • I like this Kate chick. She has style. Kate, if you’re reading…well, you know how to get in touch, I’m sure.
  • Hatred? I wouldn’t go that far…of course, I would expect a MSM hack from somewhere like the NYT to give that line. But I wouldn’t try to look too deeply into a troll’s motivation. Mine, for example, the above aside, comes from my trickster and showy personality. I like to be the centre of the attention, and yet at the same time, display certain ambiguity. There are also certain people I like to upset, and if you’ve read this blog for any length of time, you can probably guess what type they are.
  • I would say trolls are the internet. The interesting parts at least. Just as pirates where the ones who innovated much of our modern world, economy and culture (where would commercial radio be without pirate stations? What about the US government, who stole patented technologies throughout the 18th century?) trolls push the boundaries and in doing so create new online realities. The internet may not be so much the Wild West as a number of armed enclaves among a sea of anarchy. Sure, if you stick to places like Myspace or Facebook or your politically chosen network of blogs you’ll be mostly safe…aside from the occasional raider. But in other areas, the only things that exist, from your identity upwards, are those you choose to invent. That anarchy, while terrifying to some, is also a lab for inventing, tampering with and altering all number of social events and processes.
  • Those state legislators are idiots. You can’t police the net, at least not in the way you hope to. Hell, people cant even stop copyright infringement, and “Spartacus actions” among legally threatened bloggers are frequent. Try it with people who know how to conceal their identity and enjoy games where the roles and characters are not as substansial as they may appear, and you’re entering a policing nightmare.
  • Precisely. The law is not your hug-box. I am not responsible for your hurt feelings. I’m sure you could do something more productive with money spent on trying to police jerks on the net, such as nearly catching Bin Laden and then letting him go in order to justify the invasion of Iraq Iran.
  • Fortuny is right. OpenID and similar schemes for multiple site IDs are doomed to failure because so long as you can get more than one account, you are back where you started. So you either charge for everything, and create a gated community (urgh), or you don’t take everything so seriously. Pretty simple, really.
  • Fortuny’s morals are not everyones. Again, there are different motivations.
  • What a delightfully hopeful note to end your article on. It still doesnt change the 99% of the net which is different, however.

I think that is all I really have to say. I probably shouldn’t have had a couple of beers while writing this either, but oh well, too late to worry about that now.

Humour is a weapon….so you better learn how to use it!

“The human race has only one really effective weapon and that is laughter.”
– Mark Twain

“Wit is a dangerous weapon, even to the possessor, if he knows not how to use it discreetly”
– Michael de Montaigne

Both Montaigne and Twain were, of course, entirely right in their assessments.  Especially Montaigne, that genteel and erudite man of letters, whose scholarly essays were always filled with amusing and witty anecdotes, usually at his own expense.

But the fact remains, humour is a weapon.  In fact, its the best weapon there is.  How powerful is a potential Adolph Hitler if all his voters are laughing at him?  Bigots and fundamentalists of all stripes have a decidedly dim view of humour for this reason.  It’s not a product of force, but of the intellect.  It doesn’t reduce cities to rubble or execute heretics, but at the same time it can be used to kill a man stone dead, in the eyes of those whose respect and fear he needs the most.

Even the traditionalist militarists and corporatists are suspicious of humour.  Its not something that can be used for inflating an R&D budget, nor acquired and stockpiled at great cost.  Equally, its subversive tendencies chafe against the regimentation and hierarchical nature of corporate life.

The thing is, with all weapons, you have to know how to use it right.  Just like in a knife fight, where an inexperienced idiot with a blade is a greater danger to themselves than an unarmed expert, you have to know how to use humour properly, or else you’ll end up hoisted on your own petard, as it were.

Because of this, a sort of rumour, or perhaps a scurrilous lie, has been spread about humour.  Apparently, its an inborn trait, like blonde hair, or height, or wanting to be a corporate liar.  Some sort of genetic fluke which makes some people funny and others not.  And if you are one, then you can never be the other, try as you might.

It is, of course, complete and utter bullshit.  No doubt some people have more of a natural flair for humour – perhaps an ease with large audiences, a natural disposition to be the centre of attention, an excellent command of the English language.  But humour, like any other skill and especially writing style, can be cultivated and developed, up until the point it can be forged into a weapon, a perfect design to smash enemies and leave them looking like fools.

Unfortunately, this means we’re going to have to do some incredibly unfunny analysis of humour and how it actually works.  If that bothers you, then I suggest you look away…now.

Right, now we’re rid of them.  I suppose I should start from the beginning.  What is the point of humour?  Psychologists have actually found that humour, while an innate trait among most humans, also serves some interesting sociological purposes as well.

Usually, these are divided down into six reasons:

we laugh out of instinct
we laugh out of incongruity
we laugh out of ambivalence
we laugh for release
we laugh when we solve a puzzle
we laugh when we regress

Additionally, two meta-reasons are often added to this analysis:  we laugh out of surprise, or because we feel superior.

Surprise is obvious and easy.  Its also one of the most universal reasons for laughing.  Embarrassment and trickery are core to this idea.  Obviously, you have to maintain the level of surprise for this type of humour to work.  Easily guessed wordplay might be witty, but lacking that factor, it is not especially funny.

Surprise is, in essence, the cardinal rule of comedy.  It should have some role in almost everything funny you do.  Without it, comedy ceases to be.  Its a curve ball that throws the audience off balance.

Superiority, of course, is one that should actually interest us too.  All good humour has an element of both tragedy and cruelty to it, to be really effective.  What adds to that effectiveness is the feeling that those who are not the target of the joke, or who guessed at or appreciated the joke, are superior to those who are not.

This may sound, in theory, elitist, but it need not be.  In fact, comedy of this sort is often the great equalizer, documenting and mocking the failings of the great and powerful, of people who want to put you in your place.  Comedy of this sort is the true razor blade of rhetoric, its use is to cut the other person down to size.  Its transgressive nature questions assumptions and cherished beliefs.  As social criticism, it is especially effective because humour goes beyond restrictions and social norms.  Humour can also be used to maintain the status quo, to ridicule out-groups…but that sort of humour is boring and stale.

Instinctively, we laugh as a verbal substitute for an attack.  The laugh of the triumphant is the one that says “I am better than you.”  It is a way of venting hostility when physical assault is not practical.

Incongruity makes us laugh because something is internally inconsistent, it is paired or matched in odd ways.  When we realize why, or how, we laugh.  Often this is related to the idea of superiority, though the original appearance of the incongruous may be surprising as well.  The two combined are especially effective.

Ambivalence is similar to incongruity, but instead of the clash or conflict of irreconcilable ideas or perceptions, ambivalence is the simultaneous presence of mixes signals.  Once decoded, the language expresses both of these feelings, usually love and hate, at the same time.  It is an attempt to maintain dignity, to cover up our foolish errors, and is especially useful in self-deprecating humour.

Release is a pretty obvious one.  We laugh to release tension, to remove ourselves from uncomfortable or dangerous situations, to air truths that may be otherwise hard to face.  This release is especially useful if it can be experienced as a group event – and the element of surprise must be removed.  The audience must know what lies behind the door, or what happens next to the over-curious cat.  That is where the rule of surprise no longer applies.

After we’ve been roughed up, its nice to see someone else take a few lumps.  The idea is that if we are laughing at them, then they cannot laugh at us.  This humour can spark a revolutionary sentiment, or quash it, giving safe release to emotions that may be better used getting people to work at something else.  Consider its use carefully.

Puzzles are also elements of surprise.  Its a matter of configuration, the set up.  You have to frame a problem or a riddle in a certain manner, then propose a valid, if surprising, answer to it.  We take delight in the surprise, and comfort in the superiority of knowledge.

In terms of regression, Freud argued that comedy was as important as sleep.  It allowed for more primitive urges and desires to be expressed in acceptable social ways.  Especially for infantile, sexual or aggressive behaviour.  A playful mood, adopted as relaxation, is the most common form of this sort of humour (consider the comic strip – often the most common form of humour regardless of nationality or culture).  This also includes a desire for social approval however.  Regressive humour is rarely continued without a form of social acceptance, especially from authority figures.  It is therefore a tool to be used when you and your audience share a target in common, someone whom you both dislike and feel needs to be made an object of ridicule.

In short, humour is a manifestation of what society really believes, but dares not say.  It pierces beneath the bullshit and spin to get at the Really Real (Perceived) Truth of the matter.  Because sometimes we cannot deal with tragedy directly, we rely on humour to ease our way to acceptance.

Sick humour, in and of itself, is rarely effective, except perhaps as an opening gambit, a ploy to attract attention.  Beyond that, it can actually have a negative effect on audiences.

So, that’s the why of humour, the idea as to why we need it.  Now we move onto the nuts and bolts, the how of humour.  These are the necessary ingredients for any comedic routine.  Without them, the humour may taste somewhat off or wrong, and in worst case scenarios, ruin the entire joke.

The six principle ingredients are:

Target
Hostility
Realism
Exaggeration
Emotion
Surprise

The target is the most important aspect of this.  A successful target must fit the persona and style you are using, as well as the interests of the audience.  Therefore, pick your battles carefully, and with this uppermost in your mind.  Just remember, you have to reaffirm some the prejudices of your audience, and be very unfair to whoever your target is.  Oh well, such is life.  There is no room for balance or explanation in a joke, you have to be as ruthless as a General.  See the weakness, and exploit it for all its worth.  Deny the goodness of your target.

If you cannot pick a person, then pick an experience with universal appeal.  But I prefer the well known person route, since we are talking of humour as a weapon here.  Also, remember that if you do pick an experience, do not make it too broad.  It has to be specific in what it entails.  Driving is not funny, women who manage to multi-task every single fucking thing in the world while driving, however, can be.

Hostility is next.  Comedy is cruel.  In our case, necessarily so, because we deal with cruel people in a cruel world.  This hostility is a powerful antidote to the hostility many of us feel to those we are surrounded by in our every day lives – it is a release, because we all have an element of hostility towards something.

Authority is a natural target the world over for comics.  Remember it, cherish it, use it.  People all around the world hate their leaders, their systems, the powers they have to labour under.  This humour is nihilistic – no one is too powerful or too pure to be beyond reproach.  Just remember lots of people have sympathy for the underdog, so direct that hostility upwards.

Next to authority, money and business are also perfect targets.  Aside from that, angst, the painful knowledge of the ugly reality, is another one.  Merchandising human suffering is the fuel which angst runs on.

Realism.  Like all good propaganda and disinformation, comedy contains a kernel of truth hidden within it.  Comedy is essentially telling the truth via lying, the use of juxtaposition, surprise and the bending of language to give life to an unexpressable reality.

Most of the facts of humour should be logical and obvious, but hidden via convention and expression so that we don’t quite apprehend them correctly.  A major deviation from reality wont prevent humour, however it will likely not be as funny as a joke based on reality is.

Exaggeration.  Ah, poetic licence.  Humour is what allows people to suspend disbelief, and this should be used to its full advantage.  Absurdity, hyperbole and outright lying are all acceptable because, as the exaggeration signals to us: hey, its only a joke.  Often the foil to the realism of the joke, the two are held up and follow from each other to create the incongruity that results in laughter.

Emotion.  Hostility alone is not enough emotion.  There has to be an element of anticipation within the audience, the joke has to be built up.  In effect, you create tension, then you release it.  The audience is wound up, then down.  You must, in effect, adopt a persona which can bring about this effect within an audience.  Almost always, the best way to do this is with a character that shows a sort of boundless, almost infectious energy.  You also have to know how to use language.  Where to stop, where to start, where to pause – there must be a rhythm to your delivery.

Stand-up in particular is more a funny man doing material than a man doing funny material.  To a degree, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The man who is delivering the material is funny, therefore his material must be funny too.  This identity/rhetorical sleight of hand is not always true, but it is worth remembering and considering.  Delivery is key, and cannot be understated.

Surprise.  Of course, this was mentioned in the previous chapter, but merits a mention here as well.  Charlie Chaplin defined surprise in terms of a film scene in which the villain is chasing the heroine down the street.  On the sidewalk is a banana peel. The camera cuts swiftly back and forth from the banana peel to the approaching villain.  At the last second, the heavy sees the banana peel and jumps over it—and then falls into an open manhole.

The surprise cannot be telegraphed.  No matter what.  It must be genuine, or else it loses its impact.  You have to master the poker face, keep the audience in suspense for just long enough to pull the rug out from under them.

OK, this is getting far too long already, and I cannot possibly hope to include every single possible hint about comedy.  But keep these ideas in mind, play around with them, practice, and encourage creativity within humour!  And as you get better…put it to a use!