Geyserism No. 20 – What is a Geyserism?

February 10, 2017 by Dr. Geyser


A Geyserism is defined relative to its content.


Some Geyserisms are matters of policy.

For instance, Geyserism No. 10 states that “a commander-in-chief who deliberately undermines or ignores the facts of a situation… will be relieved of his command.” Though this Geyserism is a policy statement, it does not include specific instructions on how to relieve the Potus Chief of his command.


One might say that policy is the first step towards legitimacy, but no one is questioning the legitimacy of Doctor Geyser.


“Policy is sufficient for the accomplishment of any action.” This, too, is a policy statement of Doctor Geyser, but in this case it is found within a Geyserism which it does not define.

“I intend to publish all policy statements within separate Geyserisms for the sake of clarity.” This is not a policy statement, nor is it a Geyserism, but rather the expression of an intention handing more power to the reader than is necessary for the task of reading.

“Any statement of intention is a sign of weakness, fatigue, etcetera, and will not be taken seriously.” A policy statement, and an excellent one at that. If I intend to do something, I see no reason to declare this intention.


For similar reasons, I no longer make to-do lists. To say that I no longer intend to make them would be evidence of weakness, which to those who are of my type is considerably worse than madness. Better to eat grass for a season, and then return, then to pretend that one is not what one is, which is metaphysically equivalent to believing that one is what one is not.

Philosophers like to do this, but I am not a philosopher.


Again, if I had to list off all the things which I am or happen to be, I would almost prefer madness, or at any rate, a protracted rumination. There is no greater form of madness than that modern form wherein the will of the executive is compromised by the absence of a proper secretary, spouse, or other confidante. The whole purpose of going to college is to make the future leaders of the world so irritated at having to be the secretaries and errand boys of old professors that they are willing to graduate with or without honors and accolades. Had I known this, I would have never gone to medical school, and Doctor Geyser would never have been born.

Thankfully, however, I was mute and dumb in college.


Doctor Lecter: Jack Crawford is helping your career isn’t he? Apparently he likes you and you like him too.

Clarice Starling: I never thought about it.

Doctor Lecter: Do you think that Jack Crawford wants you sexually? True, he is much older but do you think he visualizes scenarios, exchanges, fucking you?

Clarice Starling: That doesn’t interest me Doctor and frankly, it’s, it’s the sort of thing that Miggs would say.

Doctor Lecter: Not anymore.


Some Geyserisms take a stand on the issues, as one stands a hammer upon a nail, or a boot upon the head of one who is drowning. For instance, Geyserisms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16 and 17 deal with factual discourse, including the violation of American sovereignty which fact and alternative fact implies. A division in factual discourse of this type means that we no longer need to prove whether a particular Potus Chief has violated the economic sovereignty of the United States (by his or her acceptance of a bribe to seek office offered by a foreign power, for instance), to hold him or her accountable for these actions. All that one needs to do is advance the claim. In doing so, however, there is always the risk that the People will think that Doctor Geyser is sovereign of the United States, much the same as the Potus Chief thinks he represents the People simply because he won an election. Worse than this, however, would be if Doctor Geyser started to believe in an autonomous sense that he was sovereign, or at any rate, that he was more sovereign than those whom he represents. It is for this reason that I have thought to elevate Doctor Geyser to the level of a sovereign god – not a divinity by any means, but rather a synthesis of an ideal which I happened to discover among the geysers and claypots one finds in Yellowstone National Park. Properly, Doctor Geyser was born, like Athena, from the head of one who would most like to be Father to the gods, as Caesar was Father to the Romans. Before that can occur, however, a great deal remains to be conquered, and who am I to claim that only I have a right to conquer it? In any case, do not mistake me for some one else, do not confuse Doctor Geyser with one of his many priests, or I with them, or them with me or us. I am not the opponent of the Potus Chief, nor of Putin for that matter. Neither are we. Neither are they. Neither is he.


For how could I or we or they oppose those who have no means of rising to my or our or their level? And what benefit is there to attacking my sovereign priests or their sovereign gods? Do you suppose that Doctor Geyser has any meaning apart from their sovereignty or his sovereignty? Do you suppose that by suppressing a god, one might claim divinity? Or sovereignty? Do you suppose that gods are divine? Do you suppose that all gods are sovereign? Wherefore? Did the dictionary tell you this? Is the dictionary your god? Is the dictionary divine? Is the dictionary sovereign? I think not.


And why obsess over a name? The priests of Doctor Geyser are sovereign because they speak as Doctor Geyser speaks, and because Doctor Geyser speaks of what he wills, and vice versa. Suppose that one takes away the virtual image of a replica of a statue of the King whom Yahweh loved most, either in whole or in part, as the People of Saint Augustine, Florida, thought to do.

Do you suppose that this will tend to make the priests of Doctor Geyser more or less sovereign? Or do you believe that only states are sovereign, after the French? For members of my Republican audience, that is what the hedge around Doctor Geyser would seem to imply. Yet one finds the same instinct towards decapitation in Guyton and Hall’s textbook on medical physiology, where the automaticity of the body is merely a cover for placing the patient in a maximum state of docility, in accordance with the ideals of the nobility, both ancient and modern.


The mass has all too often been reduced to an asset, an alibi, an encumberance, a thing. Yet in America, the People form a line. This impresses me a great deal.

For the American People do not engage in the sort of violence which the Potus Chief has accused them and us and the media of doing. The recent outburst of violence at U.C. Berkeley was an act of terrorism paid for by the Potus Chief himself, and not the spontaneous anarchy which the Potus Chief has claimed.

A Potus Chief who engages in acts of terror is himself terrorist.


Other Geyserisms are existential, as in Geyserism No. 19 — Button Up, 2XXX, wherein I am speaking as an elevator. I wrote this while sitting in a closet in Gainesville, Florida, and then spent the next 4 years trying to figure out what it meant.

Now I march. I beat time rather than counting the hours. And this, too, impresses me.


There are also more certain, more serious, more terse Geyserisms that deal with matters of sovereign discourse, such as Geyserism No. 1. Whereas policy statements are a matter of political discourse, legal precedent is a matter for jurists, which is why Geyserism No. 1 is included within the domain of sovereign discourse.


“And so on.” Wherever you see this expression, it means something like, “Do the most obvious thing.” In which case, it is imperative that one take those actions which one is most likely to do in a given context. It is a form of liberty much neglected by those who speak so loudly of their freedoms that one wonders if they have any thing better to do, or say. Recent laws targeting protesters reflect this sentiment, while doing nothing to ameliorate the helplessness upon which every protest is grounded.


And so on.

%d bloggers like this: