Friday, July 3, 2015

The Useless Gene: The Great Revisions

Legend Fades to Myth

Did Yahweh really exist? Yeshua? Napoleon?

Everything we know about them is based on worse-than-secondary sources. We've never met Napoleon. Have we ever met someone whom we deeply and personally know and trust, who has herself or himself met Napoleon? No. What about someone whom we deeply and personally know and trust, who has met someone whom she or he deeply and personally knows and trusts, who herself or himself had met someone trustworthy who had known someone who knew Napoleon? No. We don't even have hearsay evidence of Napoleon--we only have hear-hear-hear-hear-hearsay evidence.

And it gets worse every day. Like seven degrees of Kevin Bacon, every death moves us slightly farther away from whatever "Napoleon" was supposed to be. Legend fades to myth, as they say.

Everything we know about Jesus is based on the transsecondary sources of modern historians, who choose to exalt their own work at the expense of older work. We have no idea what literacy rates were at 10 C.E., because there are no comprehensive studies. All we have is the suppositions of our own century's Wise Men.

All the "evidence" we have of Napoleon's existence has been filtered through by centuries of self-serving imperial or royalist historians in various parts of Europe, many of whom may have just passed through brutal warfare against people who may have claimed to be associated with said historical figure, and who cannot therefore be trusted, anymore than Napoleon's hypothetical friends or enemies among the French nobility and bourgeois.

The evidence we have of Jesus is nearly as unreliable, as current forms of the Torah are purportedly several thousand years old, and passed through the hands of many different movements that claimed the mantle of Judaism, including Hebrew-speaking Semitic African tribes, Caucasian Rabbinical Talmudism, Gnostics and Arians, and finally, Roman Emperors. In the process, some of our secondary sources tell us, Imperial Rome destroyed countless primary sources, and propagated its own money-making version of the Gospels, which may or may not have anything to do with someone named Yeshua who may or may not have existed.

So we should be able to completely understand anyone's hesitancy at believing the Bible. But we should also be able to completely understand anyone's hesitancy at religiously devoting oneself to an unfounded faith in the documents supposedly possessed by the self-serving nobilities of various 18th century Ottoman, Persian, and European courts. The Vatican Boy-Rape Association has made trillions of dollars off their own gospels, but so too have BNP Paribas and the Bank of England made even more money off their own gospels.

Facing Our Faith

I, too, hold this same faith that you do. I was raised under the Church of Napoleon, and even though I never went that often, and barely go now, I believe, despite legions of rational reasons not to, that someone named "Napoleon" actually existed, and that all the things I see around me now were shaped, in some way, by Napoleon's influence. After all, it's 2015 now, and Napoleon was supposedly born in 1769, which is, like, less than 300 years ago. Whereas Jesus was supposedly born 2,015 years ago, which is a lot longer, meaning you just can't trust stuff that old. And don't even get me started on Yahweh, who was supposedly born 6,000 years ago, or whatever. You simply can't trust those ignorant subhumans. At some point in time...maybe in 1789, maybe in 1861, maybe in 1965, maybe in some point in time, things became correct and reliable. At that point, we had finally settled the question about the overarching themes of our development, and determined which things actually happened and which things did not happen.

But even though my faith is strong, sometimes, I commit thoughtcrime. I'm a little nervous to confess it, but sometimes I wonder if I might not actually be the first generation in the world to properly understand human history and my own society's place in it. For example, what if Yahweh never spoke to Moses through that burning bush? What if Jesus never turned water into wine? What if Napoleon never humbled the two lesser emperors at Austerlitz?

I confessed to one priest, and he laughed at me. He told me that the entire world had been shaped by the Emperor of France. There were countless historical artifacts, documents, and works of literature and art, all depicting Napoleon and Napoleon's feats. Wise men the world over had been discussing the meaning of Napoleon for hundreds of years, and everyone properly educated agrees that he existed. If I wanted to, the priest said, I could even go to France, and touch sacred artifacts which had been preserved from the era of the Emperor Himself. I could read firsthand accounts written by the great emperor's followers. I would destroy my career and my life if I seriously tried to question this story. I might be committed.

I confessed to another priest, and he sighed at me. He told me that the entire world had been shaped by the Son of God. There were countless historical artifacts, documents, and works of literature and art, all depicting Jesus and Jesus' feats. Wise men the world over had been discussing the meaning of Jesus for hundreds of years, and everyone properly educated agrees that Jesus existed. If I wanted to, the priest said, I could even go to the holy land, and touch sacred artifacts which had been preserved from the era of the great one Himself. I could read firsthand accounts written by the man's followers. I would destroy my career and my life if I seriously tried to question this story. I might be committed.

Much later, I confessed to a different priest, and he smiled and took my hand. He told me that Napoleon was just a metaphor representing the hopes and fears of people at the time. He said that it was a wonderful story, in some parts, and a terrible story, in others. He said that there were many conflicts in old Europe at the time, and it was only natural for people to personify their understanding of these conflicts, and assign motives to the small set of actors in whom they wanted to believe. The supernatural powers Napoleon possessed, he reminded me, and his charismatic and unrealistic escapes and reconquests, were surely false, and not meant to be taken literally. If I wished to join those who actually believed a physical Napoleon existed, I was certainly welcome to during my personal time, but I should avoid mentioning it in professional circles.

Intemporal Doubts

The great rewrites of history have left their mark upon all of us, like forest fires tearing through the tree rings of our minds. We know something about when these deceptions were created, but we have no way of verifying what, exactly, was destroyed each time. We can guess what was destroyed, based upon the narratives that sprang out of nowhere in each case--but no matter how good our guesses, we have lost priceless tales of the past. It affects us so strongly that even to think about the historical rewrites forces us to draw upon our senses of self, the recollection of which brings into play the fabricated narratives upon which we've founded our most basic understandings of who we are and where we came from.

Warning signs of historical retconning are, prior to simple steadily-operable computer networks (like "the internet"), relatively easy to pick out. They often involve (1) discernible plagiarism, wherein the creative disaffinity of negative minds gives them difficulty in coming up with entirely new stories; (2) missing pages, wherein attempts to destroy earlier records are incomplete, due to the still-existing reliance on handheld artifacts or writings; and, (3) mass murder, in order to prevent the contemporaneous regeneration of older histories by those who still possess direct sensory records (memories) of experiencing (or hearing about from sources they considered trustworthy) the outdated past (sic!).

Transferring people's reliance from human relationships and memories, to powerful authorities, to the printed word, and on to the endlessly malleable computer network, makes many of the former processes outdated. Now, for example, history can be revised much more easily: a simple adjustment to the "data in the cloud," combined with media control over widespread information dissemination, can ensure that memories vanish in a generation or two, and that non-official data (even handwritten letters, high quality video, or stories from Grandpa) will be treated as kooky and unreliable, without the need for genocide.

Coming up with new stories is easier in the presence of primitive computer networks, too. Free ideas just "pop up" everywhere, provided by host populations of their own volition, without as much necessity for grand councils and direct interaction with potentially loose-tongued artists. And discernible plagiarism no longer then serves a problem either, as everything already is plagiarism, so it doesn't stand out as much. This is why irony dies and any originality is called a liar; alright is crowned a word, medals go to cowards, murderers are celebrated as peacemakers, and fourth trimester abortions aren't any more strange than anything else.

We are not, though, left unequipped, no matter how many data networks are adjusted. The light behind all things expresses itself in fractals that can be read from anywhere--even inside the corrupted clouds of tomorrow's slavelords. For now, consider the three warning signs of retconning, as they apply to your own faith: discernible plagiarism, missing pages, and mass murder. Mass murder is the most difficult one, because they're almost always doing it, so it is "spikes" we must look for when watching the graph.

The Jenomic

Around the general vicinity of 1300 B.C.E., we see signs of Jenomic impact, and shortly thereafter, weird stuff begins to happen. Centuries of human stories get plagiarized and gathered together by a genocidal population of genetically-elite Chosen, who have figured out a way to make their mark on history: by making up history itself. Gilgamesh is plagiarized to Noah, Hammurabi's Code (c. 1750 B.C.E.) is plagiarized to Mosaic Law, and dozens if not hundreds of other folk tales belonging to all humanity are condensed into a self-glorifying murder manifesto that derives authority from a brutal desert god.

(For a very mild, gentle, moderately-researched take on the Torah in particular, and the elements it directly plagiarized, see James Kugel's The Bible As It Was.)

The Torah has some great things about it, though they're all stolen. It stole many old human notions--of creation, survival, good and evil, the development and complexification of life, the idea of cyclical agriculture and debt redemption, and many others--and packaged them in with baby-killing, slavery, and other Old Testament crap. Much as early twentieth century patriarchal superheroes are now suddenly early twenty-first century matriarchal superheroes who support free trade and immigration and transsexual rights, the Torah's plot elements were completely ripped off from older stuff, then cobbled together around a caste-justifying murder god. The shift in rationalization was a jarring one, leaving the Torah's tender notions of complementary sexuality and debt forgiveness seeming completely out of place next to cities filled with slaughtered children.

And yet, like people lining up for movie sequels with the same "characters" revamped into a new century's cultural mores, there's just something so powerful about that original story that they're clinging to, that they can't stop themselves from believing it all makes sense; that it all has an explicable continuity.

The genuine, good-hearted rationalizations that some practicing Jews and many Christians now attempt are a result of their deep connection to real human history conflicting with the need to advocate for the horribly mangled text they're left holding in the 21st century. The vile cleverness of plagiarizing old history when making up new history is that people, wanting their real history, find themselves defending the revised history because it contains the only traces of the past they have left. It's sad, and tragic, to see that happening. Sure, it's embarrassing, but it's also actually sad. Trying to explain to them that they can tell the Torah is perverted due to the direct ripoff of Gilgamesh and ad-hoc Yahweh rationalization is difficult, but it's no more difficult than it is trying to explain to members of other religions that Napoleon is equally suspect.

The Constantinian

So I had an argument with someone who claims to be an atheist, and it ended up with me mentioning the Council of Nicaea, and the ways that older human records--whether "historical" or "religious"--were destroyed and revised, such that the thing that is now called the Bible is essentially what some fourth century imperial Romans permitted to survive a sectarian purge. And yeah, we know that the Arians and Gnostics etc. were killed, and sacred writings and statues cleansed/destroyed, and older texts "translated" and "preserved" by a cabal of greedy weirdos who had no qualms about executing God only knows how many people.

Less than 2K years after the murderous racist "Chosen ones" stole all the human stories about the creation and growth of Terra that they could get their grubby paws on, and edited them into the Torah, a different sect of murderous racist Chosen ones--who may or may not have been intimately genetically related to the producers of the 1300 B.C.E. summer blockbuster Torah--decided that, to ensure the accurate retelling of history, it was time to destroy and edit and rewrite as much of the Gospels as they could get their hands on. And this affected what had come to be called the Torah, too. Books were removed and destroyed and altered, books were written, statues were destroyed, statues were sculpted, millions were killed (not all at once, and not all ascribed to religious revisionism by the killers), "translations" were updated, and wise and powerful moneychangers proclaimed that we now had our story straight.

After having a glance at L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith--and their multi-billion-dollar industries, and millions of earnest worldwide believers--it should be no mystery, to the world's non-Christians and non-Islamists, just what Constantine and his imperial thugs were doing. They were making up a brand new religion for cash and power, solidifying doctrine only loosely based upon some of the interpretations they selectively borrowed from earlier stories that they discovered but didn't really believe in.

If you are Christian, that's a difficult thing to contemplate. You have to believe that God protected the proper books of the Gospel/Torah, because that was important, and yet simultaneously believe that He permitted Joseph Smith to come up with the Book of Mormon. That leaves you selectively interpreting when God will and won't intervene to prevent the corruption of His text...and considering how many millions of LDS there are out there calling themselves "Christian," and how Constantine murdered his own child, there's no way to reconcile that. It's time to reconsider why you should believe one set of terrible liars--Constantine and his thugs--and not another--Smith and Young. And of course, if God safeguarded the Bible from interference, there's no way to explain Muhammad. Christians need to learn to see Constantine as a predecessor to Muhammad and Smith, for Muhammad rewrote God for the North African market, just as Constantine rewrote God for the European market, and Smith for the American.

If you're not Christian, that's probably really easy to take. But where it will get difficult for you--perhaps more difficult, even, than for the Christian who has to contemplate finding the Jesus that Constantine didn't want her to know--is when you are asked to take the step of questioning your faith in Charlemagne.

The Carolingian

In the general vicinity of 900~1000 A.D., we see another of the great adjustments of the proper, realistic, scientific, holy thing that people are supposed to believe. The Jenomic Chosen who operated in the Middle East and Greece had always written secular histories as well as religious, and when Constantine built the Basilica over Saint Peter's tomb (c. 326 C.E.), he was building a physical representation of the new mutant historiography that he'd created. The landlocked, private financial island that became "the Vatican"--the central base of European moneychanging and warmaking--was symbolic of both secular and religious history, combined into one. That wasn't unusual at the time, but for some 2015 Terrans, it can seem strange to have "both" religious and secular history considered to be roughly the same thing.

The Bible that Constantine manufactured, though, was not created "just" to be a spiritual text. It was the definitive history of the world and its people. It was the curriculum guide for all nations and all pupils. It chose rulers, held wars, and perhaps most importantly, served as the linchpin of the narrative that would justify the private financial island of the Vatican for the next several thousand years. That swollen, pestilent stronghold of the pharisees, filled with mountains of gold, icky forms of child sacrifice that don't always result in death, and worldwide media ties, would serve as the model for the next two big tumors to befoul the face of the Earth: the City of London and the District of Columbia, both sacred financial zones nestled inside imperial bastions, fostering the perpetuation of Chosen bloodlines, mountains of gold, and icky forms of child sacrifice that don't always result in death.

The Carolingian cartel made this expansion possible. This dynasty began the process of secularizing Europe, creating more determined parallel histories meant to operate alongside the religious one. Peoples were exterminated, documents destroyed or "translated," grand new court historians anointed, and the entire story of Europe's history--Greece, Rome, barbarians, etc.--was set down in stone so as to guide future people in better obedience. The ritual of the Pope crowning Charlemagne symbolized the partnership between private financial/war/rape zone and public nation, and over that time period, Carolingian lackeys busied themselves re-Constantizing Europe. Suddenly, Europe began to have greatly increased interest in "secular" histories, such as movements of identifiable ethnic groups, delineation of royal lines, an imaginary separation between Vatican moneychangers and the phonily-antagonistic houses that pretended to fight over control of Europe and the Middle East.

The Bible was still there, but the day-by-day minutiae of serfs, freeholders, nobles, and kings, was now properly feudalized. An illusive hierarchy had been imposed, wherein complex systems of obligation and duty, and an erratic chain of command, kept transaction costs high and people too confused to know whom to blame.

(The then-equivalent of rioters, as a result, got nowhere near real elites, and spent their time killing one another over social slights or intra-system competition. Just in case that sounds familiar to anyone.)

Fights over Europe weren't necessarily "pretend," of course, anymore than the fights they hold now. But have you ever noticed how very safe Switzerland, Vatican, and Columbia have been kept, throughout all the nonsense of those ages? And the one nation that tried to blitz the City of London--not to be confused with London; in the event you don't already know, the City of London is, like Columbia and Vatican and Switzerland, a private banking fiefdom sheltered within an imperial bastion, devoid of outsider rule--was punished by being handed over to Stalin and NATO, respectively.


What is there left to believe in? Do you know someone who fought in World War II? Have you viewed one of those propaganda cartoons FDR put out to rile people up against the filthy Japs and Krauts? Maybe so. That must mean World War II happened, right? But then, have you met anyone who met Napoleon? Okay, okay, I'm too faithful to deny Napoleon. But what about Charlemagne? Born over a thousand years before Napoleon, a frickin' it acceptable, yet, to ask how much we trust the later Carolingian spawn, squabbling over the spoils, to have accurately represented exactly where this guy came from, how and where he had his children, and what he did? Can anyone who has interacted with actual humans in a tense power struggle look themselves in the mirror and say, "I'm sure Charlemagne was reported to me pretty accurately"?

The crux of this issue--this impossible quest that can only rationally end in uncertainty--is that, no matter which pieces of sixth-hand evidence are false and which true, it doesn't matter. Adonai may have been a beautiful god(s), but Yahweh was certainly a terrible and evil one. Jesus may have been a god incarnate, or just a really nice guy who had a vivid dream about Adonai, but Constantine was certainly a terrible and evil man. As described. The moral judgment, the lesson, the opportunity for self-development and better service: all of this can be effected irrespective of the truth of the story. We grow more by reacting to people who physically threaten us, than by reacting to descriptions of the Napoleonic Wars; we build our characters about the same when we consider "the Napoleon who appears in my history book" and "the way the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles handled that one fight."

Whenever I go somewhere, I learn a little about the Napoleons, or the Moseses, or the whoevers, and the important things aren't in the details of how the name was spelled or what time, exactly, the person was supposed to have done the wondrous and/or horrid act. The important things lie in the ability to face each new situation, and to develop that analytical ability. To "sight read," as it were--to more dynamically respond to newer or more complex realities. Becoming convinced that any given epoch's story might be false--admitting to yourself that it's quite plausible some people could've come up with a useful narrative, and that you're not omniscient, so such a narrative could've actually fooled you (of all people!)--prepares one for dealing with situations where one's own memories and sense of self seem false.

Which they do. Memories observed in larger chunks (rather than linearly through time), even your "own," are way beyond "dissociative" until you've become able to experience them in an open/archival way, rather than an inert/trusting way (not to demean "trusting;" that's a cheap translation). But we'll stop with the scifi crap there. We'll continue this later when we discuss the mechanistic nature of free will, the genetic mapping of human history, and how attempts to "prove" history by genetic anthropologists will make people even more certain about things they'll be getting even more wrong--e.g., the uselessness of gene-tracking in understanding human movements and historical developments.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Complicated Exchange Systems subsequent to 3D Printing/Energy

In 3D Printing, Jenome, and Our Bright Future, we discussed the ways that humans will use synthetic restrictions on the exercise of power--such as intellectual property regimes--to prevent Terran technology bringing peace and plenty to Terra. We did so by considering a thought experiment, which posed and then answered the question, "If someone lived on a planet where the reorganization of matter was everyday technology, how could the planet's societies be regulated so as to perpetuate want and conflict?"

Drawing upon that hypothetical--the hypothetical of "fooders" being legally prevented from generating their own power, or from producing food without the payment of rents to a parasite/creditor class--we can make some predictions about Earth 2015, which faces a situation where technological development (still going, despite a massive worldwide campaign of organizing marketplaces designed to cripple it) will eventually require parasites to reorganize the details of society in order to perpetuate pain, caste, and credit.

The fooder example noted how widespread food security was cleverly prevented by using fearmongering tactics--specifically, safety issues pertaining to the unlicensed generation of power, which ensured the stability of a finance system bolstering the perpetual rents of a parasite class. In short, the ability to produce endless bounty can be made worthless by making up legal and financial systems that disallow the production of endless bounty. We've seen this on Earth since stories about the planet's "Chosen owners" were made up in order to justify the entitlement of perpetual rents to perpetual owners. The philosophy has proven quite resilient, resulting a few thousand years later in every single atom of the planet being deemed under the imaginary jurisdiction of one or more Rentier collectives, e.g., subject to dark enchantments known as "ownership." Concepts of Chosen ownership have morphed extensively since their exception, embracing first merely the right to control land, mating, and animals, and now extending to the right to determine which pieces of electronic data may be transmitted in which ways across which microscopic subdivisions of space. Ludicrous, yes, but no more ludicrous than the lack of a requirement to pay global per capita dividends to Terran citizens for the extraction of the planet's combustible oozings.

How will these techniques be further developed to control the use of power, in order to prevent people from independently generating power with which they can adjust particles so as to produce ("3D print" or whatever dumbass term they come up with at the time) the stuff they need? Well, let's make a few predictions:

Crisis. Rentiers are always warning about some new horror; some new falling of the sky. Oh no, the darkies have taken the holy lands; oh no, the Normans want your women; oh no, Saddam is planning to kamikaze-nuke the Topeka Public library. So whatever method the Rentiers use to control independent worldwide power generation, it'll be predicated on some kind of crisis. The world is going to end, they'll say, unless we give the Rentiers the power to stop us from generating power.

Management. The Rentiers can always save us from whatever the crisis is--we just need to give them more power, and believe in their legitimacy as they prevent us from doing whatever it is will bring about the end of the world. The Rentiers should advertise a giant crisis of some kind--building it up over decades, or centuries, if necessary--and take a lot of money to study the crisis before discovering how to fix it by restricting our ability to use power.

Sacrifice. Resolving the crisis will involve a lot of sacrifice on our part, as it always must. The Rentiers will sacrifice too--as I like to say, "one fewer BMW in the 12 car garage." Although realistically, they won't even have to cut back on the BMW. What is important about this sacrifice, though, is that it will involve permitting the Rentiers to intrude into our private lives in some way that will prevent us generating our own power freely, with which we might, in theory, 3D print stuff that could make us less dependent on the Rentiers' network of power and/or stuff.

Power specifically. Rentiers manage by, at some point in the crisis resolution, going directly after what they were only playing about to begin with. Like witch trials or patriot acts, eventually the game really gets going. At some point, Rentiers will announce that they know the specifics of how to save us from Crisis, and that these specifics will involve controlling the use of power. Power is always important, but previously, it required large-scale, highly-visible infrastructure to generate and store. That kind of thing could be easily controlled by the nations that Rentiers had already developed to control other things. When power generation becomes smaller and more independent, it will suddenly become absolutely imperative for Rentiers to regulate it in order to Save The World.

At that point, everything will change. The specter of people generating and using power without large-scale, highly-visible infrastructure is as mortally threatening to Rentiers as un-trackable barter economies or independent currencies. Power generation--which would have been previously championed by every aspect of Rentier society--will be increasingly presented as a frightening, dangerous thing, from which we must be protected.

Exchange systems. A complicated exchange system will be necessary to administer the sacrifices everyone will need to make in order to Save The World from Crisis. Rentiers enjoy weighing, measuring, and calculating, because they can't produce anything of value by themselves--they can only dissect, and occasionally modify, what others have created. Independent of that enjoyment, they know that highly elaborate exchange systems are their salvation. By developing an arcane morass of regulations governing how their controls over power can be measured, tabulated, traded, graded, etc., they will build so much uncertainty into the system that they can produce millions of salary-drawing jobs necessary to understand and safeguard the system. They can create enough interpretive confusion and plausible disagreement to allow themselves to not be impaired by the rules that restrict others. This will give them effective control over the markets created by their exchange system.

So, if this theory holds, we should notice the following correlations:

As "3D printing"-type technology, and power generation technology, become more viable and more independent of large-scale industry, governments should become increasingly alarmed about some longstanding crisis. Because the crisis will be make-believe, whatever it is, its history will be littered with dire predictions that never came true. But Rentier governments will disregard this and make up even more dire warnings, insisting that the sky will fall unless they are given power to control licensing standards and power generation.

Controlling only one population is not enough, because people can (still) occasionally move to new places. So governments will need to come together in a global sense in order to ensure that independent power-generators cannot leave their territory, set up shop somewhere else, and produce enough milk and honey to feed the world. Governments will need some kind of gigantic power-specific exchange system--an incredibly complicated one that generates millions of make-work jobs paid for at public expense--which will regulate power generation and power transfer, and which will establish a trend of preventing the free exchange of information, so that people can't just produce their own cars, houses, heaters, food, etc., without paying constant rents to the magical owner/regulators of architectural coding, recipe coding, etc.

And throughout it all, any arguments in favor of "freedom" or whatnot will be met with the Crisis, namely, this is necessary to Save The World from Crisis, therefore you must use Our Brand of Certified Safe Power or you are the enemy of humanity and will be destroyed if you resist.

Monday, June 29, 2015

6 Reasons Not to Live in a Van

By: V. Eyre White.

Today marks my 572nd day living in a van with my partner and our forcibly sterilized child substitute. In January 2013, we left a nameless uber zip code in New England to run our website development company out of our 1987 VW Vanagon. Our life over the past year and a half has consisted of 80 square feet of living space, 30,000+ miles, 32 states, and 1,433 hours of logged website development work. You may ask, why would anyone choose to trade the comfort of a house for the unknown of the open road? Here are what I believe to be the top 6 reasons to live in a van.

1. Affordability

The cost of living in a van is dependent on variables such as having a comfortable house to "trade" for the open road, having wealthy relatives to come back to when you've decided you want to live in a comfortable house again, and sufficient liquid assets and lines of credit to drive across the country without worrying at all about food, clothing, or medical needs. However, living in a van means you first have to buy a van. To prove your poor-cred, it's best to buy an older one.

2. Feasibility

According to lots of really important studies, the number of wealthy people with an established network of deep-pocketed clients who telecommute to "work" has increased 80% since 2005. That number looks even more impressive if you include people who have been taken in by "work from home" and "generate income through click leads" pyramid scheme posters, found stapled to telephone poles in the bad part of town, permitting statisticians to include 3.1 million dirt poor independent contractors--who perform, for $1/hour without employee status or benefits, work like stuffing envelopes, answering telephones, or operating several "chat help" windows at once--in the same group as 0.2 million nice, hip, upper middle class white people who sweetly sell one another marketing ideas at a premium price. This means that the technology of today has made it possible, for 3.3 million people, to work from anywhere, conjuring up images of 3.3 million entrepreneurs with great jobs, long term financial security, and lots of quality of life.

3. Personal growth

Living in a van cultivates new perspectives, such as how to more effectively produce sentences that not only evidence zero cognitive thought, but ones that actually produce a net loss in cognitive ability when read, literally making you dumber as soon as you've been so unfortunate as to see them. For example, "Throughout history, mankind has wondered about the ages." Or, "Doing something makes you think." It takes people who live in a van by choice, rather than by necessity, to appreciate such penultimate banalities for the gems they truly are. While sleeping in the woods and Walmart parking lots, to not sleeping, unexpected breakdowns, and severe weather, knowing that I was being celebrated as a pioneer and could go home at any time and live off my inheritance, I was gifted a greater sense of inner peace. Sadly, the families living in their cars near me did not always seem to appreciate this peace. They probably missed their playstations too much, the shallow bastards.

4. Freedom

Van life affords the freedom of location and time, when you don't have to worry about having a mailing address to get a job or cash checks or not be thrown in jail. Essentially, a van is a big toy apartment on wheels and can be parked almost anywhere. Wherever your heart desires, you can most likely be. Given that van life is relatively inexpensive, we can work even less than we were before, and thus have more time to do activities that we find intrinsically rewarding, unlike those baboonish masses who are always struggling to recover from the stress of potential eviction or imprisonment by staring at the TV. This is freedom, or at least it feels like it. I'm not really sure what could be more free.

5. Inspiration

People and nature inspire us beyond imagination on the road with compassion, ideas, innovation and natural beauty. For some reason, all this inspiration doesn't seem to reach the mindless drones around us, who so often seem to be in a hurry to get to work or get to the store or get home. If they just gave it all up to live in a van, and stopped in every mid-sized town to withdraw enough cash for the next few weeks, they'd learn to see just how beautiful this world really can be.

6. Environmental

Let’s be real, there’s not a lot of living space in a van. 80 square feet to be exact. Between us and our surgically sterilized, rightless-child Penny, we each get 26.7 square feet to claim our own. We consume less, simply because of limited storage space, but we talk about it more, simply because of unlimited opportunities for self exploitation and web access. Purchases such as clothing, accessories, and home furnishings are rare to nonexistent until we give this up and nest in for our 50s and beyond. Less consumption means less wasted resources (sic!) and ultimately less pollution ending up on the land we walk on, ocean that provides for us, and air we breathe. Although van life isn’t perfect (fuel consumption!), it is a step in the right direction. So long as, while we're living in our van, the rest of the world keeps chugging right along to provide us with the massive infrastructure needed to make food and fuel and medical care available wherever we choose to drive, and to keep us online and on the phone as we go, we're just about the greenest motorists you can imagine.

About V. Eyre White.

It gets dark outside at night. Life is a journey. Touching a hot stove will burn your hand. One thing leads to another, ups & downs abound, & defining moments shape the trip. Sentences are made of words, people need air & water to survive, & observations can be made whenever. My journey was defined after college, and after my 3 year marketing career. I told my mom that was long enough to have a career, my uncle made some calls, and I was suddenly getting paid to act in film, commercials and theater. Then I stopped even that "job" and took another long vacation to Central America, where I discovered simplicity, adventure and my desire to live outside of my comfort zone. So here I am... traveling America living and working out of my 1987 VW Vanagon, and sharing my journey with you for clicks and for profit. Learn more about life on the road at Expanded Consciousness.

Friday, June 26, 2015

3D Printing, Jenome, and Our Bright Future

(Another great post © the Full Information Security Project!)

"3D printing" is a terrible name, but it markets well. Putting it that way helps emotionally stunted Scientists take a painfully-slow step toward something approximating innovation, by adapting prior technology they understand--"printing"--rather than forcing them to think independently about matter reorganization applications.

With regards 3D printing, how will things stay the same even as they change? Presume that, in a hundred years, people have the ability to "print" (build/create) a turkey sandwich out of "nothing" (spacetime), or to do the same with a house, a car, a month's supply of antibiotics, et cetera. Doesn't that sound like paradise? Doesn't that sound like Our Problems, Finally Solved®? Finally, independent individuals (sic) can print the things they need to live using remarkably cheap printing technology. And even better--once Terran scientists bypass certain hurdles, 3D "printers" will be able to print other 3D printers, including fully charged ones, meaning that one handheld "printer" (matter reorganizer, whatever it later gets properly called) could print the self-fitting components necessary to construct a printer that could print spaceships. Or, more practically, a stock of one hundred backup printers and one thousand backup batteries, to ensure an endless supply of clean food, water, medicine, cloned body transplants, hourly memory backups, air purifiers, et cetera. Eternal life/salvation in a box, as the case may be. Everything is covered, there are no more zero sum games, no more work, no more pressure, no more resource shortages, and absolutely none of the things that the symptom "economics" typically fosters.

In theory, this would allow someone to go live in a tiny cave (or an open field, whatever), by her/himself, and be actually independent. Everyone's needs would be met, excepting perhaps weird social ones that the more emotionally sturdy of us could, in theory, avoid if we wanted to avoid the pain of having to deal with They Who Must Not Be Named and their minions.

How will things stay the same even as they change, though? Well, let me tell you two stories. The first story is about a place you may have been once, and the second story is about a place I may have been once.

Terra and Jenome

Imagine a place even more wonderful and fantastical than one where everyone had their own 3D printer able to print both its own batteries and other battery-printing-capable 3D printers. Imagine a lush planet covered in abundant resources, whose warm core and magnetic field constantly processed and regenerated massive quantities of energy, with an expected lifetime of at least millions of years. Imagine that self-aware humans came to exist on this planet.

Now, imagine that you're an evil bastard who wants to prevent all these resources from being used. You hate Terra because you hated someone like her once, and you lost. How might you go about stopping this blatant infinity of happy possibilities from being enjoyed? Easy. You come up with two things, both variants on the same theme:

1) Castes.

2) Property.

When Jenome hits a planet, one of the first thing it does is dazzle the locals with verifiable tricks, then uses those tricks to rationalize an "elite," thereby segregating any given chunk of life from itself. The goal is to make life suck; to bolster the argument, "Existence is pain." Isolation is achieved progressively, and the first step is to establish any kind of differentiated group. So there are almost always "Chosen" beings at this stage--instantly sacred, yet carrying a terrible burden along with their furtive, worried pride.

Notions of "property" (above and beyond property being what someone is using at that very moment, or using habitually) come into play at about the same time. The strategy here is to ensure that, like people-level resources, all types of resources are no longer available. Instead, they're artificially restricted, through a make-believe scheme of power differentials that decrees when, where, who, how, and why different sub-groups may or may not exploit the resources of the home that grew them.

The results, as far as Terra goes, are relatively obvious: however many thousands of years of caste and property divisions have rather successfully kept the planet in a state where it's considered rational to have both feasting and famine, empty houses and homeless, and inheritance paying more than innovation or labor. Great Terran philosophers have written extensively, over thousands of years, about how the hyperabundance of available resources is, in fact, a crushing constraint which proves the vile nature of the planet (and sometimes, by default, of existence itself), and requires therefore the brutal domination of a chosen few to better perpetuate the crushing constraint. If it's not something you've lived inside at least once, it seems too absurd to believe, whereas, while inside it, it often seems obviously true.

Fooder Upgrades

Now imagine a different place, where particle adjustment technology is commonplace, and has been commonplace for a while. So long that it's boring; it's taken for granted; it's less stunning than electricity, and no one except boring historians really knows or cares who "invented" any given part of it. Anyway, I'm there, right? And everyone in theory has access to this technology that can make anything ("anything" in the sense of consumer product, food, drugs, air, water, clothing, etc.).

Given these constraints, how do elites keep control of the society that results? Rather easily, actually. It wasn't all that different from here. Notions of intellectual property were used to limit the ways in which a person or group could use technology.

Example: just about everyone had a "fooder," which was a particle adjustment device (a "household" product, you might say now) that was set to make only food. So you would think that no one would ever starve or go hungry. Not so. Each fooder needed power, and it was illegal to have a fooder (or other particle adjustment device) that produced power (e.g., charged batteries, fuel cells, whatever). Why was it illegal? Well, because at various points throughout this planet's history, people were alleged to have used particle adjusters to construct weapons--generally, bomb components. Also, people who had bought low quality design stats, or incorrectly programmed their PAs, or had a corrupted device, could cause an explosion if they tried to produce power.

So the government (which in this case was more of an openly acknowledged union of for-profit firms, without any non-firm concepts of "nationality" or the like) did its public duty by regulating what one could make with one's PA. It was illegal to buy or sell a PA that had the capability of producing power, and it was illegal to modify a PA so that it could produce power (kind of like how you can buy an AR-15 on Terra, but not modify it to work fully-automatic, or you can buy a pistol but not a silencer, etc.).

Unless, of course, you had a license. Certain organizations, sanctioned by the ICL (Intercorporate League), were allowed to produce and/or generate power, therefore everyone had to pay them to access the power necessary to run a fooder. The results were tragically predictable: lots and lots of people starved, even if they were living in an apartment that held, like, four or five working fooders, just because they couldn't pay their power bills. And as a result of this wonderful ICL caution, maybe eighty explosion casualties were (statistically) prevented--and that's even assuming that 100% of the licensing agencies' statistics about unskilled PA-power production were correct.

The fooders themselves were a joke, too. They could produce food, but almost all recipes were licensed. You would buy a fooder, and it would come stock with somewhere around thirty or forty "basic" recipes (kind of like "public domain" works of art, but much reduced). This is a Terran approximation, but here's about what a standard fooder would produce, right out of the box:

Bowl of water, bowl of juice, bowl of milk, turkey sandwich with mayo, turkey sandwich with mustard, oatmeal, mixed green salad, gray meat patty, red meat patty, white meat patty, PBJ, bowl of corn, bowl of peas...

Basic stuff. Which was just fine, as long as you had the power. But of course, anyone who could afford the power bills wanted more. Say you wanted to turn on your fooder (which was about the size of a microwave), put in your plate, press the button, and have a turkey sandwich with bacon. You could buy a license for one such sandwich, pay the 25 cents extra (or whatever), press the button, and there would be your sandwich, just like the standard kind, without bacon. Or you could buy, say, five licenses for a dollar, enjoy one turkey sandwich with bacon, and then have four charges left.

What if you wanted to have a turkey sandwich with bacon as many times as you liked, without having to worry about the licensing costs each time (and just have to pay as much as it would cost anyway to produce a normal turkey sandwich from then on, since the matter reorganization quantities involved were so similar)? Well, that's where it got a little more complicated. In order to buy a lifetime license to use any particular protected recipe, costs got way higher, because, in theory, you could then become a neighborhood restaurateur, and sell people hundreds of turkey sandwiches with bacon from your personal fooder, thereby bypassing the need for them to buy their own "with bacon" licenses. So the costs were really big. If you wanted to permanently own the recipe "turkey sandwich with bacon," you could pay anywhere between $500-1,000 for the lifetime license. And that was only on basic recipes. Say you wanted to order a fancy plate with something like a nice duck with cherries, puff pastry with a fermented fruit glaze, etc., you'd pay twenty bucks. If you wanted the license for it, though, so that you could eat it every day for only the cost of the power, then that might set you back fifteen grand. The quality of one's fooder was a big component of one's social standing, because if you could casually order up something fancy without confirming a license charge, it looked as comparatively "cool" as, say, accepting your Bentley keys from an Earth valet.

Some jurisdictions got around the restaurateur problem by putting limiters on the fooders, limiting how many uses of one recipe it could make in a day, or how many calories it could output in a day, and so forth. And then, of course, because of the way licenses worked, it got to be like rent-controlled apartments in New York City--whenever some food aficionado died, there was a big rush to see what licenses were on that person's fooder, and to hide the death from the ICL for as long as possible, so that everyone could get as many special licensed meals out of that fooder before it got reverted back to the standard menu. Some people would spend their entire lives building up "libraries" of hundreds of non-standard recipes, and then when they'd have you over, it would be a pain in the ass trying to talk to them, because they'd be encouraging you to try some exotic thing, and telling you about how they'd looked it up and sampled it--kind of like people with vinyl collections.

What if you were really clever--a skilled programmer, say--and you wanted to program your own fooder to make recipes of your own choosing? Say, you knew how to program the particle organization sequence for "bacon" and you wanted to program your own PA script for a turkey sandwich with bacon so that you could generate that meal for the power cost alone, without having to license the company's version of the recipe? There was a lot of gamesmanship there. Power providers would modulate their power specifically to work with only licensed recipes, so "hackers" would have to play this little game of making their independent recipes match the way the licensed ones were. Which was, of course, even more illegal than just trying to subvert the power modulation regime.

(Actual "cooks" or "chefs" could buy licenses for raw ingredients from their fooders, then cook recipes by hand outside of their fooders, and there was this really funny and cute friction between "hands on chefs" and "programmer chefs" about which kinds of food/recipes were real, who was outdated, who was traditional and genuine, etc.)

Back to the Power

Anyway, back to the power. IP restrictions controlled a lot more than food. Everyone had the right to own a fooder, and fooders were so cheap and commonplace that you could find them in an alley, and they'd often work (and might even have one or two non-standard recipes stored on them). But it wasn't a big deal, because you needed power to actually get food out of it. As to other PAs, those required licenses. A licensed carpenter, say, could own a certain kind, and a licensed construction expert could own a bigger one. Because government was openly corporate rather than openly nationalist, obtaining a license usually meant holding a certain level of employment. To a Terran, that will sound like some kind of big business hell, but there were so many "rights" inherent in being a born shareholder ("citizen") that it wasn't much different from here. Anyway, jobs came with responsibilities and oversight, so no one was any more able to "go off the grid" with "stolen" technology than they were on Earth 2015.

So there we all were: on a planet covered by abundant resources, with the capability of making anything and everything, including perpetual cycles of stored power and replacement parts, all based on technology developed by the conscious inhabitants of that planet hundreds of years ago. And still, it was just like here. Some people went hungry, and some people threw out a lot of food (or reorganized it into something else). Some people were fabulously rich, and some people were staggeringly poor (or just dead). Some people lived a really long time by using large PAs programmed with organic coding that could generate new bodies (and that could backup memories by the second to safeguard against accidental death) for them, while other people died over a couple dollars' difference in the licensing fees for a new pill, artery, or organ.

It really wasn't that different. I'd like to be able to say something like, "The toys were more glittery," but actually, the whole thing was probably dirtier in appearance overall. Would you believe that, part of the legal rationale for protecting IP interests in fooder recipes based on traditional local meals (developed centuries ago by no one knows who) was similar to the Terran pharmaceutical argument, that those recipes had to be protected by license in order to profit-motivate innovative programmer-chefs to further develop the available cultural cuisine?

The point is, it's possible to mess up anything, no matter how seemingly easy or abundant. The idea that someone could hold the equivalent of ownership on the design information for a sandwich or a replacement heart is, at its essence, no different than the idea that someone can own land.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Quirking Evolution: Dead People & Prostate Massage

Dead Love and Interstellar Spoilers

In Interstellar, Matthew McConaughey's character confronts the question of why he would still love someone who is now dead. "Where's the evolutionary utility in that?"

Easy. You can still love people who have died because it lends reassurance to the fragile illusionary self's image of non-conclusion, which is to say it helps you fantasize that, because you love someone in spite of their expiration, you yourself might not have to expire (despite your having actually expired).

There are a lot of reasons Christopher Nolan probably dredged that one up. After enabling the recent Batman remake trio, Nolan found himself to be an utterly unoriginal parasite-being, praised and rewarded solely for polishing someone else's building. This caused some tension with his avowedly Objectivist operating system, particularly as he watched various other comic book remakes, which weren't even as good as his, make comparable money and earn comparable, then superior, praise. This was quite unfair, because Nolan did a really good job with his franchise, avoiding the tragic neo-neoteny of all the other American-comic-book movies yet known to human history. The confusedly adolescent franchise results for X-Men and Spiderman; the shamefully juvenile Avengers and Daredevil; the timid, bloodless Spawn; and the endlessly vomitous, sexless-marriage-regression of Superman: none of this was Nolan's bat-related legacy, for he did a really good job conveying his message.

The legacy his (derivative) work left behind, though, was not to prove ultimately satisfying. His Batman reboot offered an excellent presentation, but its heart--its theme--was just more banal trickle-down. Across three movies, all he ended up saying was, "The rich are really great," which he believes in, but which isn't really very satisfying to his emotions as he draws nearer to the grave. Certainly, molders of public opinion have a job to do, and that remains their prime imperative. And yet, to feel good about themselves and their lives' work--to suggest that their chosen version of the Golden Rule is leading to a better world for all--they feel the need to display some sense of warm-heartedness here and there, sort of like how Monsanto executives are motivated to end world hunger, stem-cell researchers to save lives, and Chevron to improve the environment, quarterly reports be damned.

Ergo Interstellar--a hundred-million-dollar combination of Voices of a Distant Star and Atlas Shrugged. In its philosophical scope, Interstellar was ironically less original than Nolan's Batman reboot, and like all Hollywood's five-finger-discounts of Japanese work, from Matrix to Hunger Games, it was an empty plastic bottle compared to a living person in terms of the enduring meaning and human quality it retained during the transcription process. Still, massive graphics budgets, green-screening, heavy doses of Ayn Rand, and the obligatory Last Samurai/Avatar/Dancing With Wolves-style white cowboy fantasies differentiate it visually enough that most people don't know or care about essence-sourcing.

(All that said, Nolan was probably trying his genuine best to do something meaningful with his career as an intelligence agent selling repackaged Rand to yet another generation of western corporate-entertainment-guzzlers. And in that, he came up with his line about loving someone dead. Sadly, he so inverted his time-traveling nonsense that any hopeful message potentially delivered by his dead-love suggestion ended up being solved by the end, in the form of a, "Time is a closed system" argument. Which, if you've knowingly been on a Jenomic planet before, you already recognize, and which, if you haven't, represents a finite/hopeless argument. But even so, I think Nolan was trying, in his way, to express something kind, inasmuch as he could force out of the bars of his hyper-materialist prison.)

Questioning The Old Ways: Pre-emptive, Ongoing Conflict Resolution

Savvy cultural narrators ensure that eventual challenges to their narratives occur in predictable ways. Just as Labour was a safe, predictable channel through which to divert slowly-dawning resentment toward Tories--and just as genetic denialism was a safe, predictable channel through which to divert slowly-dawning resentment toward genetic predeterminism--skilled narrators will script social revolts tens or even hundreds of years in advance, where necessary to ensure smoother continuity of rule. Social resentment is thus managed like a dam manages a river, whereby individuals or groups seeking a "way around" can be expertly guided into the obviously-available, obviously-contradictory path. It's not quite "reverse psychology," but when desperate people are looking for a way out of a situation they view as hopeless, and they see a movement already in place expressly denouncing the situation that troubles them, they're easily gathered into the new narrative.

Cleverly, the resistance of the obviously-wrong can pay dividends years later, when, dejected by the failure of their new path, the audience can be led to see the old obviously-wrong as the voice of truth, its former obviously-wrongness not a fundamental flaw, but rather an error caused by concession to the new narrative, which--it now turns out--was flawed after all. So perhaps the old way was better, considering it worked for so very long, until it got corrupted by the new way near the end of its lifetime.

More specifically, consider the U.K.'s Labour and Tory parties. Later in the twentieth century, Tory is confrontational with the Irish, openly racist in attacking various NATO targets, and abjectly cruel to its domestic hosts. The people, desiring some kind of decency, look for a way out in Labour. Labour makes a corporate reconciliation with the Irish, attacks NATO targets in humanitarian ways, and is patronizingly cruel to its domestic hosts, but--and this is a very important but--it apologizes while doing so, wringing its hands and blaming Tory and wishing it could do more.

A few decades forward, Labour's humanitarian interventions have driven Africans and Muslims to desperation to escape war-zones, concurrently placing a heavier tax burden on Labour's existing hosts for the creation of those war-zones. The Africans and Muslims flee the war-zones, and in their desperation, are channeled into the U.K. itself, where they are used as scabs to drive down wages and drive up costs of living for Labour's earlier hosts. Labour makes it a crime to criticize the scabs, encourages the scabs to rape and kill the strikers through lack of prosecution, and after several years, people start thinking, "Golly, maybe Tory was right after all."

And so they do just what they're supposed to do--they start turning to more idiot nationalist parties, who are the same people who created (or who are inheriting) the original scheme of constant problems that caused them to think Labour was a good idea. This is happening now (Earth 2015) all across Europe, mirroring the party games elites play in the United States: faux differences and necessary compromises ensure the ongoing administration of the same people who've been in power since before the Gilded Age, as hosts sway back and forth between non-self-respecting concepts of fairness, and non-other-respecting concepts of toughness. The middle class grows too threatening, so elites, masquerading as Republicans, turn foreign nations into war-zones over "drugs" or ephemeral political concepts; then, masquerading as Democrats, they establish "free trade" to give the refugees a way out, and scabs are brought in to crush the middle class. Before long, upset at all the un-reimbursed money and murders and rapes, stupid nationalisms build back up, and people look to differently-labeled elite products for crass posturing and the creation of more war-zones.

(Vis-à-vis America's latest show, the above doesn't mean Hillary won't win; this is a game of decades and centuries. Reagan started destroying Central America in earnest in the 1980s, Bush went heavier into drugs, Clinton followed up with NAFTA, and now more than thirty years after Reagan, the nationalist backlash is still gathering strength. They could easily have another several Democratic terms planned before they adjust their tactics. Then again, they could also be moving somewhere neutral to weather a hegemon switch.)

This rediscovered nationalism can then look back to its earlier opposition to Tories, Republicans, or whatever the bogeyman of the day was, and conclude, "They had it right all along. Look at all these problems we're facing; the Tories would've saved us." Of course the Tories wouldn't have, because the Tories are also Labour, and Labour, when the need arises, can easily become Golden Dawn, as Americans will rediscover whenever their elites finally front a "third party" meant to win an election and prove for the first time ever that the system has definitely changed this time (like electing someone whose family purchased some African genes to send to Columbia and Harvard, which definitely proves that things have changed).

Evolutionary Values

We looked over the political examples above because of their simplicity. Presented with the succession of cash-bloated vampires filling western political offices, it's relatively easy to discern that they're all really the same. This very pattern occurs in larger, less-personified ways, though. Elites use people (warriors, nobles, politicians), organizations (companies, parties, nations, coalitions), and documents (constitutions, manifestos, treaties) as ways of proving that things are always changing for the better; that control over the world's resources is constantly shifting in response to natural forces based on the inherent reasoning power and preferences of the Earth's people. More subtly, they design ontological structures, spread across centuries, meant to converge, collect, and guide underlying philosophical understandings--both individual and group--in the same way.

(Observation of elite strategies in this regard is one of the embarrassing counters to the critical theory that elites are merely stupid, greedy, or short-sighted. The plans that they lay out--not only for the succession of thrones and the careful recurrence of managed revolutions, but for the metastasis of philosophies across centuries--show that they are aware of the value of inter-lifetime planning. Since they're neither selfless nor kind, they're clearly not operating under the assumptions of "one life, one chance" to which they wish most others to adhere. Remember: Dick Cheney could've retired in 2000, and spent the next nine years massively wealthy and getting oil massages from 18-year-old Swedish girls, instead of becoming generally loathed by the majority of the world's population while being formally subordinate to George W. Bush. Instead, he chose public service. Is he: A. a good person at heart, just misguided? or B. seeing things from a different perspective than the TV wants you to believe? It's B: he's willing to spend his remaining years receiving less pleasure in order to serve some grand trend of wrongness that will persist beyond the limits of his own mortality)

Building up the theory of mercantilist evolution was an effective way to rejustify elite control. Longstanding arguments over the divine order of the world--God chooses rulers and ruled, therefore things are essentially okay--were facing another set of predictable challenges, so encouragement was given for the drawing of new conclusions. Darwin's arguments were neither new nor striking in a civilization which had engaged in purposeful stock breeding and cash-crop agriculture for hundreds of years. Indeed, the idea that Origin of Species was a breathtaking and completely new discovery challenges the intellect in ways comparable to the idea that medieval travelers--who saw caravans and ships disappear slowly and gradually over the curved horizon--actually thought the world was flat. Darwin observed a nice data set, but it was his elite promoters, and the social order they were trying to rationalize, who turned a little Christian scientist into someone who has his very own bumper stickers.

In Earth 2015, the "meritocratic world" theory continues to lose luster. The exceedingly slow human consciousness grows more and more aware of the rigged nature of the game (whether rigged by paleoconservatives or bleeding hearts, depending on your preference in bogeymen), and eventually, the elites' pet theory of randomized mutations and an Objectivist universe will need to be cleverly adapted, so as to channel popular resentment into an equally trite narrative that can maintain elites for another few centuries. (Ashke-) Nazi intellectual stormtrooper Mencius Moldbug has accomplished a lot in this regard, by galvanizing early internet blog culture into a support network of millions who prepare for brutal nationalism, ethnic cleansing, female propertization, and the restoration of monarchy. In the middle of the cycle, it seems insane to find yet another Nazi slave-ship financier trying to bring back the triangle trade, chattel marriage, and unabashed colonialism, but from a larger perspective, that's exactly what you'd expect, isn't it? That the Nazis would, of course, act like Nazis again. What's a few centuries between friends?

Confronted with a sufficient number of years of political-correctness, enough justified anger can build up among the various northern European populations to trick them right back into (open) submission to the Crown, without it seeming insane to them. From inside PC culture, the hypocritical wrongs build up powerfully enough to make a new generation think that, perhaps, kings weren't so very bad after all. Fire to frying pan to fire, to frying pan: never restful, but always grateful to be moved.

The Divine Right of Kings--which was always, really, the Divine Right of Genomes--transitioned to mercantilist evolution, which was a more honest expression of the Divine Right of Genomes. Instead of the God of Abram choosing the King, the God of Natural Selection chooses the CEO; instead of the God of Abram choosing between slaves and owners, the God of Natural Selection chooses between creditors and debtors. And that worked out great for a long time, and still is. Eventually, we'll be shifted to a different form of the Divine Right of Genomes, and it is during the early parts of that transition that we'll see bad arguments against mercantilist evolution floated.

"Random evolution" will not be wholly eliminated from the elite arsenal once the narrative changes, any more than "property rights" was after the beheading of the king. The former phrase will, instead, form a component part of an even more complex faith meant to justify the same essential power relations. During the transitionary period, though, we'll see poorly-scripted challenges--purposefully so--used against the old narrative as a form of controlled pressure release.

And that's where Christopher Nolan went, probably inadvertently, with his movie. He only meant to have a better-sounding theme; he ended up anticipating the overlords' challenges. We'll use his losing argument as a jumping-off point for a description of other losing arguments that will be purposefully levied at mercantilist evolution to lend an appearance of blowback, release some pressure, and ultimately affirm the underlying nature of material predeterminism advanced by Aristocrats and Scientists for the past few thousand years.

More simply put: elites throw bad arguments at their ideas, in order to make their ideas appear stronger when the bad arguments are defeated. E.g., Americans grow concerned about police state methodology, so elites suddenly inspire (more) riots and (more) black-on-black murder waves based on Mike Brown and Freddie Gray, which makes American police departments look good by comparison.

Having the Arguments Ahead of Time

What we'll do here is consider some of these suppositions, then counter them with survivalist arguments that explain why the seemingly "non-helpful" mutations could, actually, jive with randomized mutations and natural selection. The importance of the exercise will remind us not to rely wholly (or even at all) on thought experiments in challenging the narcissistic, king of the jungle origin-narrative of modern Scientists, but to focus on mathematics.

(Fossil evidence is also highly important right now, but if Terra's current worship of capitalistic evolution continues for another century or two, various Higgs-boson-style missing-link fossils (fossils whose existence will be proven by discovery of their lack of existence) will be "discovered" by Scientists, and real-world fabrications will then be developed and verified to establish the needed records. If capitalistic evolution loses favor, and neo-monarchists begin promoting a new style of elite creationism like that fostered by early Judeo-Christianity, then it will be the record of human history, rather than geological, which will be retconned. If you're born in a place where either has already happened, remember: mathematics, and the nature of beings just becoming aware of their conscious existence, are versally reliable. You can personally study the fractals pertaining to either situation, and surmise what's going on and what's been going on and will later go on, no matter how many museums they take you to.)

The Challenges

The challenges may be variously disgusting or sinful or otherwise wrong; they're not listed here out of advocacy, but to present necessary (and weak) challenges to mercantilist evolution which will be made in order to make random materialism seem functional.

Challenge 1 (Nolan's emotional supposition from Interstellar): It is possible for people to love dead people. This provides no evolutionary utility, because the dead can neither reproduce nor survive, nor assist you in your reproduction or survival.

Scientistic Response 1: Incorrect. Fantasizing about the dead reassures the living organism that death might not be absolute, and therefore serves as a counterbalance against stress chemicals which motivate the organism to survive. Fantasies about a connection to a fictional "afterlife" help stabilize the organism in the proper balance between an aversion to death--healthy--and too much aversion to death--unhealthy. Accordingly, organisms which so fantasize will be less likely to become nihilistic and more likely to survive and reproduce. Ergo loving the deceased--which is privately verifiable--does not disprove evolution by random mutation and natural selection.

Challenge 2: It is possible to love imaginary people (characters in a book, someone you met online who unfortunately turns out to be a fat dude, someone you dreamed about, etc.). This provides no evolutionary utility, because imaginary people can neither reproduce nor survive, nor assist you in your reproduction or survival.

Scientistic Response 2: Incorrect. Fantasizing about imaginary people prepares your mind for dealing with real ones, making you more likely to succeed with them, just like any other form of practice.

Challenge 3: Some people are attracted to prepubescent females. This provides no evolutionary utility, because prepubescent females cannot reproduce.

Scientistic Response 3: Laying claim to prepubescent females potentially increases genetic transmission via telegony, as well as strengthening the likelihood of "first shot" mating upon pubescence.

Challenge 4: Some people are attracted to prepubescent males. This provides no evolutionary utility, because prepubescent males cannot reproduce.

Scientistic Response 4: Sexualizing prepubescent males delays the onset of their puberty. Boys in Ancient Greece, for example, were written of as developing facial hair and deep voices in their early twenties, as contrasted to boys in Europe today, who more often achieve puberty in their early teens. It is, therefore, a viable competitive mating strategy, making it less likely that said abused males will be able to mate competitively in the near future (either with one's sons, if a female molester, or oneself, if a male molester).

Challenge 5: Some people are attracted to dead bodies. This provides no evolutionary utility, because dead bodies cannot reproduce.

Scientistic Response 5: Sexualizing dead bodies can be a masturbatory equivalent, preparing the body for more effective performance later. It can also be a result of a desire to dominate and control a submissive sexual partner, which has separate evolutionary utility. Furthermore, it could merely be the body's attempt to lust after the powerless but still fertile--such as an unconscious partner--and the body has evolved to desire such a circumstance without realizing that its application to the dead, like its response to porn, is worthless (except as "training").

The March

Today's capitalist evolution retroactively justifies monarchy and the divine right of kings, even though it pretends otherwise. For, amid the struggle of the fittest, who would have eventually risen to the top of the European thrones, and then colonized the world? The fittest, of course. That is one of the greatest of the many great ironies inherent in the enlightenments and revolutions of the ages that replaced kings with parliaments, and priests with scientists--that, in truth, the new philosophy was not replacing the old, but more efficiently justifying it. No real surprise, then, when neo-reactionaries draw upon capitalistic evolution to support their dizzying mix of individualist racial solidarity and libertarian monarchy--it was meant to be.

One can hypothesize any number of ridiculous responses to challenges to free will. Take the prostate, for example. How would randomized evolution, eliminating the better part of everything in pursuit of efficiency, provide for a highly-sensitive, cancer-susceptible nerve locus inside the male body, directly accessible only by anal penetration? Was it necessary to add independent orgasmic function to this locus because male-on-male anal penetration increases a species' reproductive success? Clearly ridiculous--as well add yet another orgasm node inside the chest cavity, because it encourages a species' early development of heart surgery, which furthers its survivability. Independent of leaps of Scientistic faith, there are ample proofs that these germ-riddled husks are not streamlined reproduction pods.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Beyond the Law of Contrasts: An Idealized Reality

We move beyond the Law of Contrasts when we have gained the intelligence to process versal codes more idealistically. Once we no longer require actual or perceived contrasts to process reality--hunger to make food taste good; awareness of others in misery to make our own leisure enjoyable; pain to help us define our pleasure--we can contribute more to the construction of reality through idealism.

"Idealism" is a distorted term here, because the less developed have associated it with "impossibility." But that's not the connotation which we're using right now. We're using "idealism" to refer to a way of conceptualizing versal coding in which our standalone routines are able to experience and transmit ideas and sensations without the presence of contrasting sensations to define them.

This is a pretty difficult thing to learn. Give it a try, though. Imagine that it is possible for all of the following conditions to be simultaneously true:

Condition 1: The United States is a historically racist nation, in the pejorative, enduringly harmful and abjectly unfair sense of the term "racism," and both domestically and internationally it murders people for profit without compunction.

Condition 2: A set of sub-Saharan-derived African Americans commits an extremely disproportionate number of violent crimes compared to their share of the American population, including the specifically racist targeting of perceived southeast Asians and perceived whites as sets, respectively, in ways wholly unrelated to income, education, or who may or may not have been poor/enslaved/mistreated at any given point in time, by comparison to all other genetic groupings on the planet Earth.

Condition 3: A large set of European Americans gains ostracism by passionately espousing Condition 2 and defiantly ignoring mountains of evidence of Condition 1.

Condition 4: A large set of Americans gains massive quantities of money, popularity, and political power by passionately espousing Condition 1 and ignoring mountains of evidence of Condition 2.

We can see the utility of being part of either of the latter sets--it's reassuring, to people at certain stages of development, to have a "side," and to feel vindicated in that side--and to genuinely, if partly, be vindicated, each time some new atrocity comes to pass--and we can see how the relative comfort of each side can encourage a lack of further development. Which isn't to mention the money and popularity to be gained, during various historical periods, by disregarding any unpopular set of evidence. These kinds of condition sets can be found in lots of other places, too, e.g. the Terra 2015 false conflation (the fabrication of a contrast for the purposes of the simple-minded) of personal sexuality and mandatory sexuality.

It's becoming more and more easy to help people stop denying Condition 1, as elites manage a transition away from bandwagon disapproval of it (which condition used to be as unspeakable as anti-PC things now, and still is in some places). The result, though--just like the transition between different kinds of atrocious sexual repression--is horrid.

The really testy, distorted one right now for many westerners is going to be crime data derived from sub-Saharan African people. It can be highly difficult to compare that data to the matching data of ex-slave, ex-dungeon, ex-racism-suffering untouchable, ex-war, ex-crushing poverty, Irish populations--just as it can be very, very difficult for so many westerners to conceive of western blacks who hurt other people without any grand world-historical justification. It's a scary subject to address, because it suggests a swing back to denying Condition 1--but it doesn't have to. There are decent answers to all of these make-believe conflicts, and a large part of discovering them is learning to operate without using contrasts to help balance your perspective. Learn to walk/bicycle yourself, without someone's hand.

What does it mean if sub-Saharan Africa is in disarray because of Africomm and also because of its native inhabitants? Are we so selfish that we can't manage to conceive of there being some truth and goodness in genetic diversity, if that goodness is measured using metrics that we have not traditionally defined as successful?

What if the arrogant conquistadores who can't live without murdering and stealing, and the lackadaisical mud-hut dwellers who never invented the wheel, both really are what they think of the other? What if we're all exactly as bad as we're accusing each other of being? Every one of us?

Thursday, June 18, 2015

13 Steps to Freedom

Step 1: Turn on computer.

Step 2: Open internet browser.

Step 3: Google "Allison Griffor"

Step 4: Review results.

Step 5: Analyze terminology employed by corporate media. Parse the eerie lack of adjectives. Contrast associated nationwide cultural and political attention.

Step 6: Analyze the motives of the rational actors who present news for profit.

Step 7: Draw very unpleasant conclusions.

Step 8: Open new internet browser.

Step 9: Google "9 killed in drone strike."

Step 10: Repeat Steps 4-8.

Step 11: Google "Laylah Petersen"

Step 12: Repeat Steps 4-7.

Step 13: Think, "This is what it feels like to be manipulated. I will stop listening to them and I will stop believing them."