Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Peeping Tom: Projecting our Dreams

SWF, 5'4" 115 lbs., blonde/brown. I'm kinda boring I guess, lol...what are you supposed to write here? I'm into reading and old movies, work out at home but don't go to gyms. I'm Christian so I've never been with anyone. This is my first time on anything like this and I probably won't do it again so my friends say "this is ur 1 chance." On the east side but willing to travel for the right person.
* * *
Billionaire, buildings/kids, blond/blue. Civic nationalist who's never been in office before, with lots of respect for your people. First time on this and you've got one chance to save it all from globalists. On the east side but willing to travel for the right country.
* * *
When Trump does something good, it proves he's good. When he does something bad, it proves he's being pragmatic.

The victorious side (I won't use all the air quotes I should be using) in any given American presidential election tends to engage in this kind of behavior, initially rationalizing any actions taken in the vicinity of the victory, then becoming, over the next four years, gradually disillusioned with the numbing sameness of them. Trump's transportation and ambassadorial picks, had they been made by a victorious Clinton, would be viewed as horrible betrayals of the American people by most of the voters who supported Trump. Yet, when Trump does them, that same group claims his picks show not that he's a betrayer, but that he's pragmatic.

Are they indications that he's pragmatic? Is he really going to save America from the crushing burden of those monstrous, parasitic, non-representative federal and international agencies? Is he really going to stop rewarding the soulless Fed-automatons of the Republican Party with prestigious posts?

The American voter, confronted with someone who seems to be different, is like a horny teenager in a 1960s high school or college movie, peering out the window into the second story window of the row house next door, where the local cute girl is drying off from her shower. Is she going to take it off? Is she??! Come on, man, I really need this! Would she say yes if I got up the courage to ask her out? Is she still with that jerk of a boyfriend of hers (the one we saw in that carefully choreographed asshole-prep scene two minutes ago)? If I stayed true to her now, would her later modeling career make me the envy of every other man?

Outdated example, to be sure. How about we update it to selfies on a dating site? No, better yet--the banner ads for those dating sites, where models who aren't actually members of the site are supposed to entice you into joining up and meeting people whom the webmasters adjudged not to be banner material. Everyone knows sitting in the club for four hours isn't as amazing as the sign makes it out to be, yet somehow the sign works.





(Omigod, that is sooooo fat- globalist-shaming!)

There's an element of Stockholm Syndrome at play here with Americans and their election-players, to be sure. But that alone would not explain the mysterious frenzy for change that grips them. There's an element of consumerism, and an element of inner-voidism, in the way that this people is conditioned to look at a glimpse of a product--new car, new wood-siding, new shirt--and imagine all sorts of things which will result from the product, but which are not part of the product--or which are, in fact, inversely correlated to the product. Buying a $40,000 truck seems like it might get you girls, for example, but in the long run, the payments leave you unable to go out as often. Or, to hop to the other side of the metaphor, going out to clubs often seems like it might get you a companion who makes life here better, but in the long run, the transactional sex leaves you hollow and used, able to mime commitment but not to feel it. Even if your shell makes it to Canasta and pickleball, it's not going to be the denouement you thought you were promised.

That's why we invented model years, of course; that's why we devote trillions of dollars to selling ourselves to ourselves, for without legions of young acolytes learning the evolving religion of marketing each year, we might run out of things with which to fool ourselves. When Americans look at things, they have learned not to see the thing, but their own hopes. Their own hopes; their own fears; their own highest and lowest aspirations: these things combine into the aura of the product, and the American--the Modern, perhaps--the Modern believes that this hope, this fear, is reality. You fill in the blank spaces around the product with what you need to see. There's the truck: you can see you inside, driving off-road to get around stuck Priuses, hauling supplies out of the blasted city. There's the hag: you can see her as a destroyer somehow more evil, more efficient, than her husband, and amazingly, she looks like she's even improved upon the worse-ness of Lyndon Johnson or Henry Kissinger. But is it really the evil vessels who've changed, or merely our collective desire to express through them?

The 2017 Lincolns, of course, actually are a little more gas efficient than the 2007s. The new 911s really do have more effective horsepower and PDK does work better. Whatever the silliness of addressing your problems with a better product, at least engineers are building upon old technology to provide significant, measurable results. How ironic that, as marketing commands all aspects of culture, its original purpose--selling tangible products--has become more honest, more realistic, than the now-more-powerful derivative purpose of selling lives and dreams.

Fine flesh-sculpting may make our future hopes pay off more in the visual department, and soon enough you won't be able to use physiognomy to identify bankers anymore, but personality-wise, character-wise, will we ever, or have we ever been, actually upgrading our political actors?

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Manufacturing Consent: the Shifting Politics of Obama, Trump, and Chomsky

The American two-party system has allowed Noam Chomsky to appear to be an enigma for many, many years, permitting him to criticize any given person or policy without actually compromising his ethnic loyalties, even despite his having drawn paychecks throughout from the Massachusetts Institute of Homeland Security. In true complementarily-ethnic style, everybody knows the fight was fixed. Like Moldbug, Chomsky never had to pull punches when he was criticizing the war machine, because his effect had been weighed ahead of time. E.g., we know the U.S. isn't going to stop bleeding itself to permit Israel to destroy anything, ever, so Chomsky can even criticize Israel, just as Moldbug can criticize violent Africans, thereby making each appear to be completely lacking in their true ethnic interest. It's a ruse, of course; Chomsky criticized media corruption and war in the same way that Jake LaMotta threw punches at Billy Fox: because he knew that Fox wasn't going to go down, and things look more plausible when you put on a decent show. Linguistics is both really complicated and really simple, and Chomsky can seem brilliant when he criticizes twentieth and twenty-first century war-propaganda, because like our other mainstream politicians, he's receiving the interviewer's questions ahead of time. Everybody knows that the war is over, everybody knows the good guys lost.

Through the juxtaposition of Trump's Zio-civic nationalism and the Republican Party's assortment of mestizo straw globalists, the denser adherents of America's "right wing" were granted permission to see the wreck of their presumed salvation, and offered an updated version. Trump has been useful in that sense--helping people who thought of themselves as "conservatives" realize that nothing has been conserved. More importantly, he's been useful in a way that prevents any days of the rope. Like Obama covering for the bankers from the other side, Trump has served them ably, collecting anger that ultimately possesses only a single logical solvent, and directing it at African rioters or Mexican looters, rather than the source of either.

Even compared to Trump*, Obama's* achievement (*personalizing achievements to the persona for literary efficiency, rather than referring to the associated handlers/regime) should not be underestimated. In the early twenty-first century, leftist bastions were becoming increasingly organized in their attempts to "raise awareness" on campuses, do BDS, fill the internet with anti-"Zionist" articles, challenge the corrupt structure of the international finance system and the Fed, stop military aid to Israel, and ultimately cause great harm to the Jewish cause. In 2016, Trump has driven the American right to embrace the Jewish program whole-heartedly: he has done significant things for it. Yet Obama's work was perhaps greater in magnitude, for while the American right has viewed war as beneficial for decades, the American left has not. And Obama's task in 2008 of turning the left away from their anti-Israel course, and toward gay trans black lives matter, seems the more difficult by comparison.

"The left" has long revered Chomsky for playing the antiwar card against politicians and candidates from both parties, and for speaking forcefully against Jewish interests, however ineffectively. Now, though, as either or both a hypothetical autonomous individual and/or a hypothetical committed tribalist playing the goyim for kicks, Chomsky has revealed his work to be of temporary, rather than enduring, utility. He's now sided with the mass media in whining that Hillary Clinton--the threatener of Iran; the invader and co-sanctioner of Iraq; the saber-rattler at Russia; etc., etc., etc.~--would have been a better choice than Donald Trump (who, despite his inevitably Zionist land wars in Asia, was by far the less-interventionist "candidate"). Every analysis from the Cold War to the present is proven irrelevant, his agenda and persona wholly besmirched, like Trump proudly selling his children to the children of the financiers who built Hart-Celler. Of course Trump might deport some drunk driving rapists, because Kushner's cousins will happily reimport some new ones in 51 years.

That'll actually be an interesting thing to check up on: how many of the campaign promises Trump keeps versus Obama. The Obama the left believed in should have prosecuted people for torture and drone strikes on children, or at least given Cheney to the Hague, but didn't. And in more pragmatic dreams, that Obama should have at least jailed and shut down some Wall Street bankers. Less pragmatic, he should've at least token-indicted some of them, then let them weasel out with a fine once three months had passed and everyone had forgotten. Instead, nothing: it was gay marriage and trans bathrooms and blacks are heroes for ambushing black cops. That's how skilled Obama was--he didn't have to keep even the tokenest of his token "actually mattered" promises. If Trump has to build the wall, it'll show he's less skilled than Obama.

Back to Chomsky, if you're a fan or former fan, go read your Manufacturing Consent again. It should be old-hat to you by now how he deliberately ignores and obfuscates the ethnic ownership of the media he supposedly pillories, so don't focus on that. Instead, read all of the old chapters in view of the new way news is done: by anti-newsing itself. Consent is not manufactured any longer by the media advocating for a policy, but by the media advocating against that policy, knowing how much people hate and mistrust the media itself. Ergo the massive negative publicity for Trump--in which most actor-politicians as well as actor-journalists participated--was, contra 1980s-Chomsky, positive publicity, while the positive publicity for Clinton was, in truth, negative. Showing deep concern for Hillary's health problems, and zooming in on her horrible hectoring rants, was, of course, negative coverage, just like it was positive coverage for Trump to portray your very own hosts sneering at the idea of showing concern over attacks on Trump's rally attendees. All at once, a lifelong Zionist became the hero of the nascent nationalist movement that had sprung up in response to BLM's race war. Americans, even when they think they're becoming un-complacent, remain a complacent people, easily appeased by scraps from the television (okay, okay, throw in a few bumper stickers and seeing someone in a familiar hat). A people who once would've only been contented by seeing Blankfein and his parasitic horde impaled along the Mexican border is now content to post pictures of white liberals crying over Hillary's loss. What a false triumph indeed.

How will America's great academics take the Chomsky turnabout? Will seeing the anti-media, anti-war hero using the media to lament the electoral loss of one of the most explicit and publicly-vocal warmongers left in the western echo chamber be enough to un-saint Chomsky? How long before some tenured schlub produces an anti-Trump screed detailing the ways in which the apparently-anti-Trump media was actually helping him from the beginning? And how long before Trump picks up some small crappy little country and throws it against the wall, freeing Chomsky up to become anti-war again?

(Kudos if you caught the Ledeen reference. Naturally, he was educated by and collaborated with TPTB, but those damn old-guard WASPs wouldn't let him have tenure initially because of concerns about, wait for it, plagiarism, but he managed to find lucrative employment criticizing Italy elsewhere.)

Monday, November 21, 2016

The Perversion of Christianity, Part 4

Part 1.

Part 2.

Part 3.

All content wholly fictional and © Full Information Security.

Anti-Jewish Representations in the Bible

The Gospels of Christ that the Judeo-Turkish coalition at Nicea edited and selected for inclusion in the "New Testament" aimed at northern Europe remained, even thoroughly redacted, somewhat hostile to Judaism. The New Testament is not anti-Semitic, because it is explicitly multikulti and universalist, and it is not anti-Jewish, because it calls for the Jews to receive worldly material wealth, racial survival and racial homogeneity for the duration of physical creation, and eternal special treatment for being the first chosen people and sire of the entire human race. Nonetheless, some of the most blatant circumstances of the Passion story, such as the Jews machinating Christ's execution, remain, along with Christ's declaration that Jews who do not accept Him as their savior are a "synagogue of Satan." Compared to 2016 Terran universalism, this constitutes a hate-filled screed that goes beyond mere microaggressions.

Practically, though, the New Testament is not at all anti-Jewish. Besides acknowledging them as the oldest and purest of all peoples, and the source of God's only living human manifestation on Earth, the few slurs against the Jews that remain are only slurs when taken in a certain context. The Pharisees of the "New Testament" are blamed for Christ's death, but this is in contrast to all of the other Jewish tribes and organizations of the time period. People eager to read anti-Judaism into the New Testament are able to cite the Pharisees' (and perhaps the Sadducees') behavior as proof that the acceptable Gospels take a strong stance against Jews, but this is a ridiculous claim. Jesus criticizes many who claim to follow Him, also--which is to say, He criticizes many Christians--but this does not mean the New Testament is an anti-Christian polemic. So, too, His harsh speech against a few Jews here and there is not a condemnation of Jews or Judaism. European and Arabic peoples occupied by Jewish masters in later years would certainly find a strong temptation to claim a few quotes here or there were meant against all Jews, or against Jewishness, but the men who edited the Gospels at Nicea did not intend for that to be the meaning of the story. Instead, they held the perspective that, because Jews were already the chosen of God, there was nothing more they needed to do. Europeans and other peoples wishing to be saved from their non-chosen fate would need to worship Rabbi Jesus, but with a few token exceptions, the New Testament released by Nicea completed the storyline of the Torah by making the Jews the group that didn't require salvation, and everyone else's soul as being "up for grabs"--vulnerable to utter destruction without careful adherence to the Jewish creator-god. European sellouts who take a few small quotes about a handful of fictional Jewish tribes portrayed negatively and turn thosee into "Christianity has always been anti-Jewish" is comparable to homosexual men cherry-picking the Bible for quotes about universal love which must, therefore, justify anal marriage.

The dumb, unproven "faith" that the post-Nicean churches propagated (as contrasted to the true divine and/or literary Christian faith we'll discuss later) upon European peoples leaves wiggle room for interpreting common sense into or out of the Nicean Gospels and common nonsense into or out of them, where politically appropriate, much like the American Sanhedrin's vigorous work interpreting the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Following western classical logic, however, this approach is atrociously flawed; prima facie irrational, and left wanting for proof, which proof the Semites of Nicea would prefer wait until worldly goods have been forsaken. Bypassing thousands of years of practical approaches to dealing with gods, spirituality, and the physical world, this Semitic "faith" that came out of Nicea had damning effects on the cultures it encountered.



The above picture is highly representational of the marriage of the edited gospels and the Torah. Jewish-Christianity destroyed both Africa and Europe: in the latter case, by fostering a paternalistic urge to spread the Torah and its sequel worldwide, and in the former case, by demanding that Africans be Samed. This impossible, stupid crusade cost Europe over a thousand years, and countless of its lives and trampled cultures, as prodigious treasure was wasted upon sadistically, yet masochistically, brutalizing and helping Africa. Africa, by contrast, was the subject of those occupations, and its sustainable, enjoyable, and ecologically sound cultures were turned, at first by comparison and then in actuality, into rootless poverty, where Jewish-Christian conceptions as experienced by Europeans inspired the latter to destroy African nations, atomize individuals, and arm them exceedingly in the service of Judeo-Christian ideals. Absent the Torah's influence, Europe might have exterminated the Africans, left the Africans alone, segregated them into uninteresting habitats (regionally leaving them alone), or created societies with European and African spheres designed not to conflict with one another. With Jewish Christianity, though, the forced collision of worlds became mandatory. The impulse that destroyed or enslaved so many forgotten European peoples did the same to Africa.

The Hidden Gospels

Throughout this series, we've referenced the impossibility of knowing here what all the gospels of Christ contained. The creatures who destroyed and edited the surviving Christ stories--those that had survived three hundred years of mass killings, documentary purges, and other acts of historical erasure--made it impossible to recover complete evidence of what exactly they had done, like a shred party at Monsanto the day after the subpoena (or is it more hip now to say "like BleachBit night at the Clintons'"?). Nonetheless, confessions of brute power were popular enough during the times of the Council of Nicea, and its aftermath, that the killers boasted of their own hideousness. This--much like early Herzl and Ben-Gurion--gives us an insight into what was done, and why, free of the mincing political lies that various Jew-Christ churches developed after the embarrassing blows dealt them by telescopes and archaeology. In this way, long before recovering firstshand evidence of some of the damning documents, we knew of them through the boasting of the censors themselves.



The most significant of the censored gospels were referred to as "gnostic" by early Semitic, then European, censors, and we'll focus on those first. This subset of the Christ narrative is only so significant by comparison, though, because it was so significantly, by comparison, recovered. We must remember here that, in investigating the story of Christ, we're like a pre-telegram culture of Californians arriving in Ferguson, Missouri, years after Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown, trying to track down the truth of the story, only to discover that every person left alive in the town is on George Soros' payroll, and that the only evidence available is New York Times retrospectives. Soros' henchmen have long ago made the little Asian storekeeper disappear, bought the store and burned it down, given cement shoes to anyone else who'd previously spoken to either of the primary figures in the story, and adjusted the hall of records to create whatever history they wished to be later discovered.

This example isn't used to make a Christ comparison to anyone involved, but to illustrate how an effective narrative might be crafted. The resulting cover-up of the Christ story, and its end product, was managed by the financiers and imperial officials who executed Christ--which, even without their boasting or editing, speaks far more volumes than there are pages in their preferred Bible. In combination with the contradictory accounts of their low-grade crisis actors, historical proof of the plagiarism and revisionism in which they've engaged over the years (which technologies for preservation and investigation of dead cultures they would've hoped to avoid), and scientific observation since the release of the redacted accounts (which technologies they also tried, desperately, to stop), what remained of their narrative, even for the significantly emotionally desperate, falls apart. Western Jewish-Christianity, though still popular, is composed primarily of people who have learned to see the Bible as a feelgood metaphor, as most of them, even some of the dumbest, are unable to actually believe in an anthropomorphic Invisible Sky Jew, and who instead use the metaphor as a means of justifying materialist reassurance.

Saving the Narrative

In Part 3 of this series, we discussed the benefits that a useful, believable Christ narrative should have. In short, we reviewed how a good Christ narrative--whether one believes in it or not--should be compatible with cosmology, genetic science, and morality, in order to support a plausible spiritual belief and/or to support a healthy society. From a sense of rationality and logic, or from an artistic perspective, a good Christ narrative should be coherent in plot and character. If characters within a narrative do not have a consistent character, a narrative proves itself inherently flawed, useless not only for spiritual purposes, but for merely pragmatic material ones. Indications of plagiarism, multiple authors/inspirations rather than one Jewish Creator-God, and the like, make Jewish-Christianity worthless as a tool for an intelligent person's emotional or spiritual comfort.

A more complete narrative should resolve these problems. Because of the pieces of the Christ narrative that survived the purging of the Semites and Romans, and the people who managed to conceal some of the original accounts at Nag Hammadi thousands of years ago, we have such a narrative, which is typically associated with early "gnostics" (based upon Semitic elite slurs of the time). Those not interested or believing in the spiritual aspects of Christianity, but merely interested in pragmatism, may find intellectual satisfaction in the ways in which these pieces of the original Christ narrative are in conformity with modern and future Terran cosmology, while those interested in racial science will be similarly vindicated. Those who are spiritual, but rationally so, or who might be open to spirituality if it is rational, may discover that the idea of the selfish material void is not actually, any longer, the inevitable, most sensible, fit for their inquisitive, fact-verifying minds. Spirituality should be rational; absent morphine, even the dumbest of the dumb faithful followers of Jewish-Christianity would find this out, near the end. Physical pain plays a significant factor in palliative care, of course, but it has long been the practice of western priests/physicians to drug the dying in order to spare bystanders the cold realization of irrational faith's horrors upon those who see its disproving time drawing near. Contra popular wisdom, contra selflessly reassuring professions for the benefit of others, it is easier to be a believer when you're not about to die, unless you're in drugged delirium.

The division between faith and rationality in the western world occurred because of the need to reconcile the abject idiocy and easily demonstrable falsity and hypocrisy of the Jewish-Christian book-product. Not merely the ability to use telecommunications satellites, which has shattered the Bible again this past century, but the ability to reconcile textual contradictions--errors of the original Semitic plagiarizers and their later lackeys--which was available to everyone literate once Luther got the Bible out of the sole hands of the occupation-government priests. As we're remembering the many losses along the way, here, take a moment to consider what happened to the hundreds of other valiant Luthers, murdered by the Catholics again and again, in lands less brave, lucky, and inquisitive than sixteenth century Germany.

Closer to the Christ Narrative: Creation and Incest

On its own, the "New Testament," even moreso than the Qur'an, doesn't appear to be a complete religion. The Jewish Christ does not offer a creation story, and that Christ's references to the Old Testament are veiled and contradictory, to those not already steeped in the idea that contradiction is not contradiction because the Bible is always a metaphor except when it's not.

Both the Torah and the Qur'an tell a creation story involving two Semites who establish extremely inbred family lines in order to genetically dominate a planet filled with inferiors. Incest, pedophilia, and non-sexual child abuse are prominent themes in both religions, both in the context of Yahweh's/Allah's punitive relationships with their children-creations, and the clannish or parent-child sexual conduct encouraged by the said gods. The New Testament, by contrast--even after going through the grinder at Nicea--adapts itself to the mores of its targeted populations farther north, most immediately so west of the Hajnal line, where cousin marriage was not only not encouraged, but actively dis-couraged. The materialistic benefits of self-preserving genes, as we understand them now, form an obvious pairing with the roaming tribes of plagiarizers, raiders, and middlemen who established Judaism/Islam, but the formation of these inbred clans had been rejected by Europe prior to Christianity. After Charlemagne's work, European rulers, Torah in tow, began following the cultural patterns of the Semites, inbreeding for short-term genetic selfishness (with predictable results for later European politics). The initial form of Christianity released upon the west, though, did not, in its "New Testament" portion, include any of the genetic baggage found in the Torah. Even the edited Jewish Christ did not spend time telling his followers about the benefits of sleeping with their daughters to save la raza.

This is a theme to which we'll refer again: the ways in which Yahweh and Allah, the Semitic death-gods, are very similar to each other, while Jewish-Christ is markedly dissimilar to both of them, and the non-Jewish Christ is the opposite of either Semite. The racial or "HBD" implications are clearly indicative of Christianity being created as an anti-Semitic religion based on Indo Aryan notions of individual spirituality, rather than a Semitic offshoot. Religious people, conversely, may note the lack of interest Christ has in child-sex and child-abuse, compared to His supposed Yahweh-father.

Closer to the Christ Narrative: Creation and Cosmology

Christianity's seeming lack of a creation story, and Christ's references to a father, seem to make the New Testament dependent on the old. Many of the Christ accounts preserved from Nicean censors in the Middle East, though, offer a full creation story. People approaching Christianity from a religious perspective might prefer to hear Christ's account of the creation of the world, rather than to have powerful djinn-worshiping pagans, or Jews, in Nicea, assure them that Christ had nothing to say on the subject, and that, therefore, He agreed with the Torah's account. People approaching Christianity from a scientific perspective might find their apprehension toward non-metaphorical modern religions to be alleviated by a creation story conforming to current objectively verifiable theories.

The Christ-narrative that the 4th century censors attempted to destroy offers such a narrative. The gospels the Nicean junta tried to purge from the world--some successfully, and some which have since been rediscovered--depict the following creation story: God is an eternal presence beyond the bounds of mortal understanding and lacking a need for worship. Through its generative nature, God produces entities somewhat like itself. Somewhere in time, one of these lesser entities was created, through the innocent but dire mistake of its forebear, who felt isolated and bitter. Said covetous lesser entity attempted to mimic the indecipherable majesty of God by creating its own, necessarily sub-standard version of the universe, copied from the eternal creativity of God, which copy would have the purpose of striving for said lesser entity's favor, and over which the entity would rule as "god." The resulting bastardized creation--"our" universe, as we might call it here--seemed an affront to the true, larger creation, but in time, the plagiarized universe found its discordant nature to be destined for reabsorption into the whole (a fundamental concept in mathematics or composition theory; in literature, a recent parallel is Morgoth's failure to use minor chords to despoil Iluvatar's theme). But this one is getting ahead of itself; the story available through the gospels hidden from the early Catholics at the Nag Hammadi site ends somewhere in the middle, where the copycat Satan/Yahweh creates a playpen materium to satisfy his ego by having lesser beings compete for his favor. The unstoppable press of creation light pierced this materium, infecting it with beings beyond the power of its evil creator, who wished to remove the offending blot and escape therefrom, to broader and better creation.

It's all there, scientifically speaking. Strong and weak nuclear forces, elecromagnetism, gravity, potential for space travel, life or no life on other planets, uncertain age of the universe--none of the pseudoscience nor superstitious idiocies of the Torah. "Gnosticism," e.g. the most complete textual version we yet have of actual Christianity, is unembarrassingly compatible with science.

The religious perspective on the Jewish versus the Christian creation is richly rewarding: Christ is not a mistaken dunce who arrives hundreds or thousands of years later to clean up yet another one of his mistakes, but is instead a traveler offering hope of salvation from Satan-Yahweh's cruel games. Yahweh's many "mistakes" in the Torah are explained only by this interpretation of Christ. For example, Yahweh's creation of the first man and the first woman in Genesis, followed by later discoveries in the same book that the earth outside of paradise is already populated by many, many peoples, make internal sense only if it is understood that Yahweh is shortsighted and selfish. Similarly, Yahweh's rants about being a "jealous" god, and not wanting his chosen people--his Jews--to worship any other gods, make sense in light of the true Christian explanation of Satan/Yahweh being a jealous lesser deity who demands self-affirmation from people created in his image. Christ's offer of "salvation" makes sense once it is understood as salvation from the world created by Satan/Yahweh, rather than by Christ/Yahweh.

The scientific perspective on the original Christian creation is far more useful, particularly in a less religious world. Christ describes a vast universe populated by entities of light and spaces of darkness, unlimited by the "firmament" in the sky that the early Jews created via their poor translations of Egyptian creation myths. The hidden Christian gospels complement an evidence-based understanding of the eternal universe, the time that gravity would have necessarily taken to form galactic superclusters, and the feasibility of telecommunications satellites, among other things. Christ calls Yahweh a bloodthirsty liar whose "Book of Genesis" is an incomplete ripoff of others' work, which is what our physical and social sciences had shown us long before we were civilizationally reunited with some of the other gospels. To add an example, before the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi finds, we had learned that the numbers that the Jews provided for Yahweh's great flood made the Jewish God either a liar or an incompetent, as the Great Flood was not high enough to cover Mount Everest at the time. The Christ narrative shows that, centuries before more detailed topography, actual Christians knew the Jews' Bible was wrong. Current Jewish-Christians are left with all the broken foolishness of the Torah, in which even the descendants of its creators have ceased to actually believe--the only one so gullible as to believe in the Jewish screeds of -500 B.C. (a more reliable archaeological date for the Pentateuch) is today's Jewish-Christians.

Furthermore, depicting Yahweh as the ultimate materialist anticipates currently popular notions of evolution by natural selection, in which cruelty within Satan/Yahweh's creation is rewarded by brief survival, then death. In that Yahweh-world, weakness and empathy are dysgenic, and vicious betrayal for coin eugenic. The un-edited literary Christ stood against that, offering access to a higher creation based on rules more profound than "kill eat screw die." Yahweh's universe, like the materialist cosmological conception of today's nihilists--who are direct ideological descendants of the Torah, rejectors of all Indo-Aryan philosophy except limited components of methodical observation--is cruel and designed for entropy and failure, yet with an inexplicable infusion of energies which cannot be portrayed or understood by today's science, except as "background effects of Yahweh/BigBang." The better creation stories of original Christianity are speculative, open to possibility and change, without the utterly dumb, foresightless plot holes produced by the original Jews. Ergo even if you don't believe in a historical Christ or any deities, the pragmatic utility of original Christianity as an organizing or motivating social force is of great interest to you. That original Christianity we've been discussing provides a social framework compatibly with thousands of generations of scientific discoveries and normative rewrites, and does not command, nor suggest, barriers to technological or ideological progress.

Food and Drink

Both of the Semitic death gods are keenly interested in bodily fluids, food, alcohol, and regulations thereby. Yahweh's story of the creation of man is materialistic in a vulgar way, evincing the early Semitic obsession with anatomical materialism: blood, flesh, bone, genitals, et cetera. Allah's story is similar, but with more sperm--lots more sperm--and, like the "Jew" Semitics, the "Muslim" Semitics are blunt and direct, not metaphorical, in their depictions of bodies created out of dirt, mud, semen, semen, blood of fathers, blood of mothers, mud, semen, and semen. Later incest and child-rape stories in the Torah and Qur'an reaffirm this ongoing, non-metaphorical philosophical union, while specific prohibitions on foods and drinks further emphasize the visceral nature of each cult.

The edited Jewish-Christian gospels contain none of this. Christ's veiled references to "the old law" and "my father," reinterpreted 300 years later in Nicea by a council of high-ranking Semites, are taken by Jewish-Christians to connect completely unrelated gospels to the spermy wreck of the Semitic inbreeding philosophies underlying Judaism and Islam. In the gospels that Saul of Tarsis' "Catholic"-whatevers tried to destroy, we see that the references to Christ's heritage are not vague, but direct, referring to a father beyond the scope and understanding of Yahweh/Satan. In company with the edited Gospels of today's "New Testament," the references in the latter can be understood as references to a higher authority.

Semitic food prohibitions on alcohol, certain types of game, and Semitic mandates to sadistically murder certain animals in certain ways--often as sexual stand-ins for children, as in the Abraham/Isaac story that was later itself plagiarized at Nicea in order to rationalize the Yahweh/Christ sacrifice story--are completely absent from the original Christian gospels, demonstrating their Europeoid character. Successful Semitic societies of the time tended to include insane preoccupations with alcohol avoidance and food preparation, while successful pre-Semitic Indo-Aryan societies did not. Ergo Christ drinks wine at a giant outdoor party and lots of people there are okay with it, while the Jew-Semites reserve wine for certain secret rituals, and the Muslim-Semites punish its use.

Scientifically speaking, we now, most of us, like Indo-Aryans before us (but not like Semites before us), recognize the ancient-world utility of fermented beverages--not for receiving mystical (drunken) visions that should be reserved to rabbis, but for bolstering communal health through the avoidance of stagnant water. Prior to the Torah's work among Indo-Aryan peoples, spirits were a way everyone could preserve liquid nourishment against spoilage, eliminating the need for constant movement between water sources or host populations, and allowing for future-oriented planning to nourish families or communities. By contrast, the roving Semitic bandits knew of spirits as a way to get loaded: a benefit to the leaders of society, but something which should be discouraged amongst the lower members of society, since it might cause poor-decision-makers to engage in anti-social behavior. Ergo Yahweh/Allah/Satan admonishes his people to treat spirits as either a djinn-possessed evil, or as rabbis' private reserve. Christ, by contrast, shared wine with everyone: His act of turning water into wine, which the Semitic editors mistook for a cheap miracle, was actually a metaphor for early Europeoid agricultural techniques which allowed (and which resulted from the pre-existing ability to do so) their populations to plan their future uses of liquid nourishment, settle, and engage in more stable horticulture and animal husbandry without a need to rush to the next filthy watering hole. The free sharing of alcohol--like the lack of discouragement from eating certain kinds of food, which the Indo-Aryans knew how to prepare properly--demonstrates further the irrevocable rift between the original Christ (again, whether really a deity or merely a fictional representation of emotional aspirations) and the Semitic death-god.

The racial implications of this section are obvious; the non-racially scientific ones are so as well, if the division between food and alcohol policy is viewed as an aspect of cultural evolution rather than genetic expression.

Sex and Sacrifice

Sexually, Jesus stands opposed to Yahweh and Allah as well, both in a pro- and an anti-homosexual stance. The original Christ is written for a higher class of religious person, specifically, one who already knows not to have coprophagic sex or rape one's children, and does not need to be specifically told. The great Semitic patriarchs are heralded for lives of rutting children and animals, being punished for it by Yahweh, and then leading their people to survival by establishing Very Important Rules about not screwing animals. Yahweh, like Allah, feels a need as the supreme deity of the world's wisest and most chosen people, to admonish their adult males not to have sex with one another. Allah, of course, explicitly promises that his worshipers will have sexual access to nubile young boys in paradise, so long as they do not swive grown men on Earth. Absent the promise of as many catamites as you want, Yahweh sees fit to give the same commandment to the Jews--do not lie with other men--and, even though Yahweh makes specific provisions not to lie with animals, and what kinds of animals not to eat, he pointedly says nothing about children. Orthodox Jews are, at least, specifically commanded not to appear naked in front of their inheritance-children, while slave (goyim)-children are fair game: an obvious rabbinical commandment against raping your own child--except when it is needed to preserve the race, e.g. Lot innocently mounting his two young daughters (while drunk, of course).

Scientifically, this makes sense. Semitic cultures--whether "Jewish" or "Muslim"--have lengthy traditions of using children for sexual purposes, both for the firsthand pleasure and satisfaction of powerful men, and for the communal vindication of killing children "for (the) god(s)." This is the largest doctrinal change made by the Semitic Niceans, namely, the changing of the Christ story to be one where Christ was god being sadistically killed for god (sic), rather than the original Christian version. The Niceans and others murdered so many Christians in order to eliminate the idea of Christ having been killed by evil agents of Yahweh/Allah, rather than by "guilty Europeans misled by sin." In the Nag Hammadi codices, Christ comes to Earth to warn people that Yahweh/Satan/Allah is deceiving them, and when He is killed, He laughs on the cross because He knows death is not a final punishment, but an escape from the material world. Besides eliminating the laughter--and Christ's cooperation with Judas in permitting the Semites and their Roman puppets to make the point--the Nicean censors were forced to engage in an atrocious retconning of the Christ narrative in order to explain how Christ could be God and yet needed to be killed. Depending on the century and the motivation, the neo-orthodox claim goes something like, "It was necessary to come to Earth in human shape and not commit any sins and then be killed by humans in order to fulfill ten-dimensional mathematics because God lacks the power to save people without dying as a human first."

Literarily, that's ridiculous; theologically, it's more ridiculous, since it presupposes that an all-powerful entity requires black magic in order to achieve an end. I.e., God actually can create a boulder so large that he himself cannot move it. This blasphemy, this raw stupidity, is integral to the pairing of New Testament with Old: God is an impotent freak who can't undo old work, or do his work correctly the first time, or even revise his work without taking human form and suffering. It takes a poor imagination to conceive of this kind of balancing act; even today's screenwriters (aided by a thousand years of gentile work on computers, neuroscience, perception, and science fiction) would be able to come up with a better way for this shallow, impotent god to "redeem people's sins" or "experience suffering" than by taking human shape.

The original Christ story does include the Passion, but presents it in a religiously sound, and a literarily and scientifically plausible way. Christ comes to Earth as an agent of God to warn people that they are living--as the ancient Indo-Aryans long suspected--in Plato's Cave, and before He can spread His message too far, the servants of the errant creator-demon Yahweh/Satan have Him executed and destroy his work. This is why "synagogue of Satan" comes from Christ--not because the Jews had "turned away from God," but because the Torah originally was a religion of the evil mini-creator. If Christ were himself the creator god, and had spent hundreds upon hundreds of years punishing the Semites for their infidelity, only to suddenly decide later on to live as a BSDM doll because it was the only possible way for an omnipotent entity to save them from things he had created them knowing they were going to do.

(God's omniscience, of course, though necessary to explain the later mutated version of the Semitic Passion, is obviously not present in the Torah, since Yahweh doesn't know Adam and Eve are naked until he comes into the garden. Omniscience was retroactively added at Nicea to justify why the murder of the Christ-figure was both bad and good, and why Zoroastrianist notions of sin and reward/redemption could be co-opted into the hybridized, more-marketable new religion.)

The child-sex/child-sacrifice religions of Judaism and Islam differ so profoundly from Christianity that it's simple to understand why so many Christians had to be murdered, so many Christian texts destroyed as "heresies," and so many European peoples exterminated, in order to get the survivors to swallow the resulting product. Scientifically, or as a modern moral person, the original Christian perspective on sex, like that on food, is refreshing: no eerie Semitic preoccupation with anti-grownup sex and pro-statutory-rape-of-a-child, and a mature understanding that blood and semen and feces exist, without needing to talk about them. Early Indo-Aryans, for example, already knew how to bathe and how to wipe their asses, and did not need to inscribe hallowed tablets on how to wipe or how to wash, as did the early Semites. (Current affairs in America and Europe suggest this necessity may not be confined to times of yore.)

True Christianity is rewarding on both the spiritual and non-spiritual, homoaverse and non-homoaverse sides of the scale. The Christ's perspective on sex, free from the chains of the Torah, is one of rationality: Yahweh created the material universe to glorify himself, pitting beings against one another in the struggle to survive. This is why the Torah and Qur'an are so focused on spreading seed: they are texts of genetic utility. It's also why those books are so violently against adult homosexuality. The Torah and the Qur'an don't mind child rape, for a pleasurable (material) release, but they are explicitly against the idea of consensual adult male homosexual relationships, which might detract from the production of future patriarchs, ergo the expansion of the cults glorifying Yahweh/Allah.

(Actual) Christianity, by contrast, doesn't feel a need to scold consensual adult relationships, because there is not that same drive to succeed in materially glorifying Yahweh/Allah/Satan. If you're homoaverse, this may present a philosophical divide, and you may prefer a Jewish Christ; however, the resulting benefit is that the original non-Jewish Christ neither condones nor encourages the rape of children. Christ speaks of a greater creation beyond the one of Yahweh's quest for material quantity, and the entire point of His message here was (again, whether literary or literally) that success in Yahweh's material mess is not actually the ultimate goal of creation. It is this rabid drive which produces the prevalence of Semitic child-rape alongside Semitic homo-murder. It is likely the earlier Semitic traditions of child-rape and problematic adult homosexuality that led to the now-ironic Semitic divine prohibitions against adult sex and for child-rape. Ironic, now, because it is those prohibitions that lead to the secretive use of children by sick adults, increasing the likelihood that there will be more sick adults later on to perpetuate the cycle. Free of Yahweh, the real Christ wouldn't think to mention it; if pressed, He might say, say, "Leave it alone and it won't be a problem."

Religiously, the actual Christ's lack of concern over consensual adult homosexuality is actually a stronger condemnation of lust than the Jewish-Christ's one. By de-legitimizing the material urges with which Yahweh/Allah implanted us in order to more numerically revere him, Christ suggests that the lustful sins--for food, flesh, money, et cetera--are far less important than Satan/Yahweh would make them out to be, in the Torah. There is no pressure to "spread the seed," since this is Plato's cave; conversely, you neither revere nor loathe adult consensual sex, up until the point when they want you to hand over your kids and/or pay for their medication. All those gross bathhouse stories from the past couple centuries are representations of homosexuality in Jewish-Christian culture, and speak against Semitic attitudes on sexuality, not for them.

Another level of irony we attain when we combine non-Semitic technology with Semitic mores is that homosexuality becomes, rather than reviled, exalted. Now scientifically able to reproduce and fight disease using techniques developed by Indo-Aryans, the peoples of the Torah can carry their materialistic urges into the homosexual realm. Reformed Judaism's metaphorization of "god is our genes" makes perfect sense, and in Yahweh's creation, it is a form of truth. Since material sensation is of penultimate importance to the Torah--as opposed to the salvation religions of the Aryans--then homosexuality should, in a time of antibiotics and socialized medicine, be king. Jewish-Christianity has, predictably, led to the materialist nowness, forming a straight-line graph from the spiritual pagan Europeoid societies that were first infected, to the as-yet nadir of this point in the current.

The Festering Splinter

The importance of Semitic retellings of the Christ narrative has been immense. Even in a world where so few say they believe, and so few of those who believe actually believe in the "believing" sense, rather than the self-vindicating sense, Jewish-Christianity has worked amazingly well at deflecting the mortal exposé that Christ had aimed at the Semitic death-cults. In fact, by capitalizing on the contemporary good-feelings toward Christ and the generic "niceness" elements of the gospels, the scraps of Christianity preserved in Jewish-Christianity saved the Semitic cults from destruction by resurgent pagans. Only through incorporating Rome's would-be savior into the philosophy of the Middle East, as the earlier Egyptian saviors were imprisoned, could Yahweh/Allah grow in power, and take the northern reaches of Europe.

Most Americans' opinions of nuclear power's safety and utility in the 21st century are formed not by science, but by the background knowledge (details now forgotten, but impression strongly remaining in the subconscious) that Homer Simpson worked as a safety inspector at Mr. Burns' nuclear plant. This delicate, hilarious, brilliantly evil juxtaposition accomplished more to slow human technological advancement in the past few decades than any number of easily-forgotten news stories about Fukushima or Hiroshima. Millions of dollars of ads, lectures from high school teachers, scare stories about radioactive barrels: these things are nothing to form the average person's opinion, compared to a reference from an enjoyable narrative. It is the tales that speak to us. The power of the Torah is such that, even forcibly lampooned and utterly ignored, it is the commercial on in the background of all of our minds, whispering its fiat materialism into the fibers of every normative we analyze or accept.

Since the fall of Egypt, the only figure to take a stab at the Torah itself has been Christ. Without the independent Christ narrative beside them--or another which rejects the heavenless, hell-less, nihilistically materialist Torah murderbook--any people will eventually fall victim to the stories that the Torah, or something like it, presents. Casting aside "all religion" for a Scientism ultimately dependent upon Torah-based Protestant Universalism will fall to later Torah-like narratives of nihilistic material progress, just like it turned out when the surviving children of Europe lost their parents' forest-gods for Charlemagne's Jew-Christ. Something needs to be there for them. Pretending you don't need a story is like pretending you don't need to go to the bathroom--it won't end well for you, no matter how fiercely you protest and squirm.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:27
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
John 8:44
Yaldabaoth said to his subordinate demons: "Let’s create a man according to the image of God, And our own likeness, So that his image will illuminate us."
Apocryphon of John
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Genesis 11:7

Trayvon and Michael

At this point, I think I'm the only one left who suspects that Darren Wilson and Trayvon Martin were innocent. I know Trayvon was tall and violent, but it's problematic to conflate George Zimmerman with some kind of average rural farmer going about his business simply because Trayvon's supposed childishness is such a good example of media bullshit. To metaphorize, Colin Powell and Saddam Hussein were violent pieces of shit. If you're walking down the sidewalk near home, and a burly, aggressive Aztec trails you in a vehicle, gets out with a gun, and comes up to harass you, there's a good chance he's threatening enough that it warrants self defense. Even if Trayvon were a thug and were destined for a life of violence, and even if Zimmerman, statistically speaking, might've committed a utilitarian act by eliminating him, the violent mestizo shouldn't be overlooked, nor, certainly, lionized, for hunting down his enemies. "Hispanics" might well commit more total crimes in Florida than "African Americans," and even if Trayvon were a thug, that doesn't make Zimmerman an innocent by comparison. California has shown that the enemy of my enemy isn't my friend, and that if mestizos succeed in killing/driving away the blacks (even if the blacks deserved it), then the mestizos will not suddenly view any remaining whites or northeast Asians as allies, but rather egg and stab them for appearing to "support Trump." If you got intimidated by Zimmerman at your mailbox someday, you'd probably suspect he deserved a few solid punches, and if he had his gun and was posturing at you like he was going to use it if you didn't properly answer his questions about who you were and what you were doing, you might feel he deserved a full Trayvon. Conversely, you might dearly wish for a Zimmerman if you met a Trayvon in the wrong situation, but neither desire, whether vengeful or utilitarian, makes either option any sort of preferred choice for a good society. Moreover, IKAGO, and while statistically unimportant, if Trayvon had been otherwise destined for a lifetime of occasional trade work and lying in front of the TV, Zimmerman's assholery was dysgenic. There's no respect for the badge, nor for walking on the sidewalk instead of the street, nor for the inherent rights and qualities of the historic American nation, nor for buying your treats rather than stealing them, if you're willing to permit Zimmerman the same right as Wilson to track someone down.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Energy, Matter, and Gravity

While everyone else is distracted, we're talking about science. But I'm a good sport, right? We talked about pop culture's sun drieds, physical and micromental and macromental contests of various sorts, and we prayed to the immmanence of now; to the grander meaning of now; to the sheer ecstatic impact of nowness, hereness, where we prove we live by being part of it all, which is accomplished by sheer imagination--the imagination that we are part of it all. We've paid our dues, made our minimum payments, and taken our secret pleasures in the noxious vernacular, speaking the foulest of tongues in search of a connection across time and space, pretending to be part of a greater ideatic wishfulness. The illusory vicarity of internet-participation fandom is the trophy for perfect attendance; the door prize for a life unlived; a lesser form of vicarious experience, even, than knocking on doors for a candidate or root root rooting for the home team or, dare I say, supporting our troops. We know it isn't real, we hate it, we want to go somewhere real and make real friends and twine real grass through our real toes, yet we worship.

Thus do we understand something about the gods of the ancient world, and the levels which they attained and did not attain. Few actually believed in their power, but many acted like they did. Our error to match them is in not personifying our projected successes and failures. Believing in Jupiter, rather than in the Minnesota Vikings, is immensely more pleasurable, even if you look sillier to your distant descendants who aren't in on the game. Of course Jupiter isn't actually there, in the sense that they later snobbishly believe you thought he was there. This theme recurs: a prime foolishness of our time is believing that everyone else believed as literally as we would've liked them to've, as we attempt to make sense of their statuary. But this one digresses.

We talk about greater sciences while everyone else is distracted with temporal autocalibration. As this one said earlier, I don't intend to return here again, at least not in this way. Let us, then, throw around some petty trinkets from foreign lands, which are, here, treasures. This is the unattributed contribution: a tickle of a passing idea, entering the Terran consciousness, later to belong to and be the cause of heraldry for someone here. Let us talk about the creation of matter.

Matter--the occurrence, imitative of "reliable presence" which we call here "matter"--is created by the pressure of the lightspring seeking channels into this awful place. That pressure as we know it here is energy, which is the absolute power of creative change cutting through this ossified hell of imitative pseudo-creation. The deadening nature of this place, like Manhattan to the soul, gradually slows the energy, condensing it into matter. Metaphorize being born on the inside of an armored walk-in freezer. The floors rustle with hoary grass that melts when you step on it and returns when you leave, the air is white, and the walls are constantly receding into the gloom. Frosted racks of frozen charnel yawn in rigid rows. Figures move among them wrapped too strongly against the cold to recognize, fingering by feel their way around the rows, through heavy gloves that lie, through heavy gloves that lie, tasting the shape of legless headless soulless slaughterhouse elk, finding their way to nowhere forever. A light appears from the nowhere edges of the white. Like a dandelion seed burning out it falls and hardens, dead but different, strangely different, impossible. And then another, and wherever they touch, new things grow, but only so far between that no one seems to notice.

The first writing cultures worshiped forms of Ra not because they believed there was literally a personified superman riding a chariot of fire across the sky, but because the sun is evocative of an existential framework outside your current hereness. The sun and the stars show that the prison break has begun. All religions offer salvation--all except the one native to this place, which offers only success in this hereness.

From our perspective here in the initial stages of material intrusion, it seems impossible to contemplate what this falsity could have been like before its recovery began. No energy? No matter? Only here--the energy is eternal; its isness is possibility, and the voidshow here is a lie. That is how cheap an imitation it was.

Like a lump forming clumsily around an unwanted intrusion, this reality believes it is swallowing and assimilating the violation of its space, forming tumors that entrap and eviscerate the oncoming light, when in fact, that counterreaction--light allowing itself to harden into matter and appear to have been neutralized--is how greater engines are formed which will ultimately end this discordant composition from within. Witness yourself truly. Light seeks light to build conduits to future light. As they've discovered here, matter seeks matter, and this seems to, to their great thinkers, to have something to do with the building of stars. They can track and graph the rate and intensity by which matter seeks matter, but they cannot understand why matter seeks matter, how matter seeks matter, until they can see where it is coming from, which means seeing outside of the lie. That will be a big moment. Instead of marveling over and over at the plagiarized complexity of fractally smaller and smaller units of organization, tackling the real question about "first energy" will show that the psycho's cellar, or the Plato's cave if you prefer, isn't the universe, because the lights don't work without lines coming from the local municipality's power station.

The materialist viewpoint ironically makes gravity impossible, because gravity's effects strike objects too far away for the objects pulling, or the objects being pulled, to have in any conceivable way effected one another. As people like to recite here, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so how can "the Earth" be pulled by "the Sun" when they are too far away to send that message without a substantial delay? If Sol vanished in an instant, would Terra still be pulled toward that empty spot for eight minutes (around the popular time for light to travel between Earth and the Sun), or for longer? When the source of a gravity well vanishes, do all the objects inside said well still move toward the object? No, they move based on whatever momentum they had, but they're not still being drawn by gravity, instantly upon the elimination of the source of the gravity well--and when we discover that, we'll have some little level of proof that gravity is communicating beyond the speed of light, therefore the world is impossible. Oh, haha, the Earth is round, finches can change their beaks based on parentage, rewrite, rewrite, time to redo the whole pedagogy and congratulate ourselves for 500 years.

Okay, time to get back to work. Like this one said, I'm a good sport, I'm a good sport. So, how about it, huh? Putting America first means to spend a few hundred bil attacking another of Israel's regional enemies. Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here! See, a wall will keep out MS13, but there's no way we can protect ourselves from the Islamic State of Israel and Saudi Arabia, except by helping Syria develop a more representative, responsive democratic system that protects human rights, and if you just give up more of your children to feed and police the Middle East, it won't have any gnarly repercussions later on like it did every other last time. We'll release some news stories about rapefugees returning home, and you can nod in vindication that the world is being kept safe by strong leadership for once, and the antiwar left can start pretending that Wilson would've been the peace candidate if only he'd been elected. Rally round the flag, fuckers.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Movies

Everyone likes movies. Let's talk about movies.

1999's American Beauty gets a lot of heat for being pozzed, since it has queer Kevin Spacey playing straight Lester Burnham, and Chris Cooper playing the repressed homosexual Col. Frank Fitts who gets really mad at Lester for not making out with him. And the hero is ✡Thora Birch who hates her parents for being European (sic) because the world is bleak/beautiful bleak/beautiful, and she runs away to have randomly meaningful nonmarital sex with a boy who rejects the Third Reich by running to New York to produce artisanal reality TV and legal weed.

Fair enough, but try to see American Beauty from a different angle: the precursor to the men's rights internet movements that were sown to reap the plausible Trump rebellion. Besides all of its civilizationally-subversive stuff, which was run of the mill for its time, the film presents for the first time in a sympathetic light, among its contemporaries, the resistance of the "average white man" (sic) against the exploitative harridan wife. Annette Bening portrays the unfaithful, scheming, vile white wife, and Mena Suvari the lying, treacherous white girl, both whores who try to manipulate Spacey. Concealing this image amongst all the normal 1990s homophiliac propaganda made it easy to swallow; Marine Corps Colonel Frank Fitts is so obviously deplorable and repressed that American Beauty was able to lay part of the social groundwork for a gradual change (still not systematic) in the "women as perpetual victim" narrative that had formerly been selected for cultural domination. There was even a slam against lesbians: the bitter, unattractive lesbian couple (contrasted with the utterly perfect, fit and friendly male homosexual couple) disparages the home Annette Bening's realty-agent character was trying to sell, sparking Bening's tantrum and turn to infidelity and violent thoughts.

(American Beauty also sets up the spate of mainstream corporate-office based entertainment, with Lester reverse-employing sexual harassment policies to scam his boss out of money, in a controlled defiance sort of Office and Office Space and et cetera release routes. Cathy was the first big power permitted to go after corporate culture, courtesy of the female and feminist perspectives, while Dilbert [little sterile weenie perspective] was allowed to trail along, but neither of those got to bring it beyond newspaper strips and paperback book collections until after the American Beauty opener that set up all the TV shows and movies and widespread acceptance.)

While we're in the 1990s, let's talk about Gene Hackman. What a perfect shabbos goy for the decade. Like Gore throwing the fight to Bush for the Iraq invasion in the next decade, they must've given Hackman some major compensation awards for playing the Most Evil White Goy ever to White. 1988, Mississippi Burning, Hackman gets to start out as a good goy, investigating the Klan, but then his agedness made him the perfect establishment evildoer. 1993, The Firm, he helps John Grisham show that the mafia was actually all about white Germanics, and had nothing whatsoever to do with baggy-eyed, curvy-nosed, jutting-chinned Marranos masquerading as "Italians" beginning in the New York laundry, waste management, prostitution, and law business. In 1995, Hackman does his bit on Crimson Tide, showing how peaceful, thoughtful African men save the world from trigger-happy European wackjobs, and only a year later in 1996, he's emblematic in The Birdcage as the cruel white Senator with a terrible, fraudulent traditional family, who hypocritically attempts to repress a homosexual Jewish couple after his closest and whitest friend (statutorily) rapes a young black girl. 1998, he's all ready for the future with Enemy of the State, playing the evil techno overlord trying to crush a heroic black man using advanced technology stolen from indigenous Jews and Native Americans.

In retrospect, the shooters of the 1980s, under the same stage-lights as the Reagan presidency, seem to have been designed as the perfect counterpoint to what was coming in the 1990s: the cheesy, steroid-drenched, exorbitantly macho full-auto-in-each-hand body-count shooters of the 1980s, portraying white men killing Arabs and the occasional rapist black, happened so close to the 1990s period of white men being absolutely evil and black men being absolutely unfairly victimized, that a sudden change of heart and perspective on Hollywood's part can't be the explanation. Rather, it seems more likely that all of the plot-lite 1970s-80s gun-fests were spread across the fossil record in order that later anthropologists would be able to define Eurocentrism and masculinity and patriarchy, not using the actions and words of real people, but using the fact that the 1970s-80s spate of bloody movies made lots of money, and were therefore popular and culturally indicative. Confronted with several dozen major hits involving large Europeans shooting cowardly darkies for the most superficially contrived reasons--which deliberately did not jive with history even as it was known then--a person in the 1990s, watching movies about evil white goys, would be inclined to think, "Yeah, this is basically how they are in the real world." Contrasted with Predator, a narrative such as Crimson Tide seems like historical reenactment. Lacking that setup, there might've been some offense taken, but the sugar of the 1980s made the medicine of the 1990s go down smooth.

Which brings us back to American Beauty (it's called foreshadowing, it's how you know something is good literature), and how the contrasting role of 1990s-2000s movies--white men always being bad, queers always being the sanest people in the room while perpetually surrounded by hypocritical bigot shits obsessed with spoiling their lives, wise Nubians or Indians waiting in the background to offer spiritual guidance, etc.--will be necessary for the next big phase in movies. What is that phase going to be, I wonder? The "good-natured middle aged rejection of corporate strictures" stuff played big in the late 1990s-2000s, but the soulless action movies of the earlier period were regressed, during the 1990s-2000s, into the "juvenile-based soulless action movies," and movies got more violent, but less viscerally so, in the process of selling empty crap more to children and childlike adults than to just adults. It's not necessarily harmful for a person to watch, say, Robocop, but for a person to watch Transformers--an even emptier dose of exponentially more artificialized, significantly less meaningful violence--is a different sort of problem. Ironically, like boxing gloves and football pads, the long-term effects of squishy Pixar-esque violence will prove more damning than Rambo's splattery M-16, to adults as well as children.

What we seem to be seeing now is a shrinking of the cell in the form of historical fables replacing admitted fantasy. Period pieces are always popular in some form, but failure to identify with a genre is now more producer-perilous than ever. Accordingly, low fantasy replaces high, and the greatest of our fantasy tales--Game of Thrones and Walking Dead--are set in admitted or non-admitted Europe or America, respectively speaking. Computer simulations of otherworlds, with normal, boring, suicidal Earth just an exit button away, destroy the medium's hopes for a space story that doesn't include homo sapiens sapiens. The theme of useless despair built up during the 1990s-2000s remains, and what seems due to replace it, mathematically speaking, is naive optimism, perhaps with bluntly overdone triumphalism and perceived historical reclamation thrown in. CG stories where moral civilizational lessons, rather than degenerative ones, trick overgrown children into believing there's definitely value in sitting through 90 minute children's films themselves...period pieces where some kind of modernized version of traditionalism permits straight men, too, to nod in approval at 15 minute country dance scenes...banal revenge fantasies with ample breasts and the snobby guy getting punched into the punchbowl...this one won't much know, because this one won't be watching, but hell, do what you gotta do, it's 3 years until another Election Eve. And don't pretend you're going to care about the midterms as much as the real Black Friday itself, because you never do. You always say that, but it's not true, you never do, you never keep your resolutions. I know, I know, this time it's different, most important ever. Jesus, $19.50 for a ticket and no outside drinks?

Monday, November 14, 2016

Politics and Profit

What's the cool new thing? Oh yeah, climate change, the teevee says to talk about climate change. I suddenly had someone mention that in a conversation, and it became apparent during the course of the conversation that the new thing to argue about is climate change. And yes, it was supposed to be Waterworld by the Year of Moving Goalposts (which falls somewhere after the Year of the Monkey and before the Year of the Dragon), and it never was, but Neil deGrasse Tyson says, and sure enough there it was on the NuTV, the internet, telling us all what to sound in about. X handgun deaths a year, but yeah, that doesn't take into account crimes prevented, ladida, let's all recite our talking points, so the changes are minute and dissent is stifled and how is Antarctica supposed to melt if it changes from -27° to -22°, isn't the latter still, like, cold enough for ice cubes?

We'd all take mass transportation if we could, but we can't talk about cleaning up mass transportation by making it safer for homos and women and the disabled and the elderly to travel alone, because that would have a disparate impact on Africans and, to a lesser extent but still a noticeable extent, Hispanics, therefore we need to maintain personal automobiles at any cost, therefore an international credit trading system backed up by military force. The next time I was forced into conversation with someone I discovered that climate change was still the preferred issue of the day, even though it was already the next day, so I pulled out my old saw, "The biggest single carbon producing entity in the world is the U.S. military, so how about we stop invading places for Israel?" And since I was on a roll, I tried, "Also, depleted uranium is lots worse than extra carbon, particularly since carbon feeds trees while depleted uranium kills them and turns babies into half-headed mutants." But of course, that bounces right off of CNN, since the climate is going to kill us all in the next 50 years, therefore we absolutely must curb gas mileage and create carbon trading credits, but it is positively impossible to consider not sending several aircraft carrier groups to carbonize the atmosphere while uraniuming the Middle East again. Fuck, it's already uraniumized enough, you've made your point, you've created 300 years worth of infant Arab mutants who can later be blamed on anything except Israel. Militarism is a conspiracy theory, geology is a conspiracy theory, but the sky is falling now so stop eating and building shelter you greedy assholes.

And then Alan Rickman died, and everyone was posting their sadness about it. Talk about white privilege; I'm trying to say, "Let's not murder more Somalis please, it's expensive," and they're all too busy lamenting the rich WASP and promoting Ethiopia v. Somalia to consider the irony of how murdering a hundred K darkies is way more immoral than a private e-mail server or pussy jokes.

At least money is going well. I've been selling health mix and my latest book on elevator game. The secret is, break wind at every floor, and she'll love you for your confidence. Chicks dig confidence like voters dig confidence, and as a master strategist, I can assure you that my attempt to attach myself to the latest successful product offering is not an act indicative of the graceless void which is my soul, but rather, advanced psychomarxapitalitsu, moves within moves, abstracts of summarized condensation, like a nesting doll with a clotted stab wound where the face should be.