Thursday, March 5, 2015

Party Divisions

There are plenty of better things to say about Netanyahu's little speech, but here's a take from the game of houses:

Why did Boner invite Netanyahu to speak without getting permission from Obama, and why did Netanyahu accept without Obama's permission when, in theory, he should act like imperial aid isn't guaranteed? My money's on the idea that the elites are planning to shift primary memetic support for Israel from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. The Democratic Party has always been racist, so in that sense, it jives well with Israel. But with the damn internet, all of these people are getting the vague sense that genocide is bad. As it becomes less and less plausible to claim bipartisan support for the Nazis, elites will need to create another false dichotomy inside their party system. And since Republicans are now more likely to be the open kind of dumb, racist, and violent, Israel and the Republican Party make a natural fit.

Pelosi accepted the alley-oop from Boner, exhibiting a brief lapse of total confidence in Netanyahu (by claiming the murderer had made her cry because he disrespected America, somehow), which would've been unthinkable for a prominent California Jewish Democrat in the twentieth century. It really looks like the parties are working together to massage growing public "sentiment" against Israel into a re-justification of the split between the two wings of the property party.

Think I'm crazy? Well, back in the 1980s, did you ever have an argument with a Democrat who felt that it was an utterly sacrosanct principle of law that the defendant never had to prove his innocence? And that the State always, always, every single time, had to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, or there could never, never, not even a single time, be a conviction? Well, they were saying that because they were viewing it in the context of 1980s African American assault convictions. Put a 2015 Democrat to the same question regarding "date rape," and they don't care at all about the presumption of innocence anymore.

So could it be with Israel. America's self-identified atheist Jewish persons are beginning to distance themselves ideologically from Israel now that the internet is causing a few people to realize that it's Indian Wars v. 2.0. In order to protect the colonial process from change, in twenty years, we could see the Democratic Party openly claiming to oppose Israel, and blaming its ongoing support for Israel as a consequence of Republican "stonewalling," or some other such bullshit, just like we now see the Democratic Party banning certain abortifacients, and blaming it on "religious sentiment," or see the Republican Party procuring millions of dollars for public education-related purposes, and blaming it on the Democrats.

Really, won't it be wild? It'll be just like a reverse of the switch they pulled for the "Civil Rights Movement," where suddenly the Democrats are now the racist bugbear, and the Republicans are claiming to be the party of progressive open-mindedness for supporting the Nazi minority. In sixty or seventy years, Fox News will be filled with pseudo-fascist Democrats instead of pseudo-fascist Republicans, and Republicans will be representing America's underdog Arab immigrant population, and even electing the occasional Muslim Governor or Representative.

Window dressing aside, they're going to do the same ol' same ol'; that much is certain. But it sure will feel weird if you're still around when they're pretending to hotly debate Israel between the parties. It'd be almost as surreal as watching the Democrats fight for the right to mandate corporate subsidies to insurance companies while the Republicans are fighting against such corporate subsidies. Totally out of this world!

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Homosexual Tyranny and Moby Dick

This one recently re-read Moby Dick again. Like so many of the other western marketing classics with which we are barraged--Plato; Shakespeare; Rowling--the miasmatic output of Melville's pseudo-creative economics treatise is painfully flawed in both structure, expression, and theme. What conjoins the work so strongly to twentieth and twenty-first century Earth history, though, is the way in which Melville's book honestly expresses the longstanding relationship between misogyny, Anglo-supremacist racism, racketeer economies, and homosexuality. No, not a typographical error--this one didn't mean homoaversion or homophobia, but homosexuality.

As when we previously discussed the highly, repressedly homonormative aspects of western civilization, remember that, in discussing the true homonormativity behind said civilization, the aim is not to discredit homosexual longings and/or behavior in some way. Rather, what we're exploring is the ways in which certain varieties of homosexual culture have been inextricably linked, for thousands of years, to all sorts of other things that you know are bad--such as, to say the least, abject imperial murder. And racism, and sexism, and any other ism you don't like. The great deceit of some of these homosexual cultural aspects during the twentieth century has been to link themselves with repression, after so many centuries of being the repressors behind the very ills they now claim to join the fight against.

I know that it sounds spooky, in a way. You're not supposed to suggest that certain people may have acted in concert, because people are never supposed to act in concert without first disclosing the full story to the proper media authorities. And at the mere suggestion of homosexuality being in some way linked to anything bad, we're suddenly shivering at the thought that we might be Westboro fundies, counter-reactionary Frank Fitts-types or someone else with a demonstrably keen interest in guy-on-guy. Still, it's something that needs to be considered, and Moby Dick is a great/terrible place to start. (Incidentally, this would be a good place for that old Voltaire-misattributed Kevin Strom quote [found on this page; do a search for "Kevin Strom" and it'll jump you to the right quote], but I don't want to use it, because Strom is exactly the kind of asshole from which this essay needs to be able to distinguish itself.)

So don't be afraid. Think about it. As before in Homonormative, be willing to perceive a vast difference between "people who feel certain sexual desires" and "patriarchal, flamboyant, tyrannical political activists." There's a lot to learn, there, even if you come away from this still thinking that Ahab's pursuit was some kind of grand expression of wisdom.

Summary Dick

If you haven't endured the pain recently, or at all, here's what happens in Moby Dick. Spoiler (snicker) warning.

1) A lifelong bachelor, Ishmael, introduces himself excessively to the reader in the first person. Ishmael is an occasional sailor and an occasional rural schoolmaster of young boys. He has recently decided he has to go sailing again.

2) Ishmael travels to a port and looks for a place to wait for a ship. He skulks through the shadows of the port, peeping in windows, and rejects two local inns for seeming "too nice." When he reaches a third, he discovers that the large male proprietor is out of rooms, but can allow Ishmael to sleep in the same bed as another man looking for sailing work. Ishmael agonizes over the decision in the inn's common room for a while, but decides not to go ask about prices or availability at any of the other inns he saw previously, or to continue looking for a different one.

3) Ishmael spends all evening trembling with anticipation of the arrival of the man who will share his bed. He worries about what he should wear under the covers, and how he should arrange himself. When the man finally shows up, Ishmael is excited to notice that his bed companion is a big, dark man of "savage" descent. For long minutes, Ishmael peeks at the man undressing and takes detailed note of the man's exotic, savage features; the man's scars, muscles, taut body, and obvious man-eating/cannibalistic background.

4) The next morning, Ishmael wakes up, Brokeback Mountain-style, with the big, brawny savage's arm thrown across him. Ishmael is too shuddery and nervous to move the arm, so he waits until his bedmate wakes up to greet him. He and his bedmate cuddle for a long time, enjoying the warmth and comfort of the bed. Ishmael learns that the man's name is Queequeg, and that Queequeg, like Ishmael, wants to go on a whaling voyage. What a perfect coincidence! Queequeg (who is big and muscular, in contrast to tender, weak Ishmael) declares that he will be Ishmael's protector. They go to breakfast together, and Ishmael takes secret pleasure in the fact that the innkeeper and all the inn's other guests take notice of how close he and Queequeg have become in only one night.

5) Ishmael and Queequeg locate a whaling ship and sign up. Queequeg is the strong, silent type, and his somewhat-abrasive personality risks social trouble with the ship's domineering officers, but Ishmael is able to smooth things over, and get him and Queequeg hired as sailors, even though Ishmael is very nervous about the whole thing.

6) For a few days, Ish & Quee wait in port for the ship to be ready. Ish describes how they eat every meal together, explore the town together, get provisioned for the journey together, and get to know each other lots better. Ish & Quee talk about their religions--how Ish is theoretically a follower of the man stretched on the cross, and how Quee is the worshiper of a carved idol in the shape of a small, kneeling boy.

7) The very first female character (the only one in the entire book) makes her entrance: a shrewish, unpleasant old woman who tries to get the sailors to be moral and biblical. Ish feels that no one likes her, and is glad when she's gone. She is mentioned only briefly. Up until this point, the entire world has been male, and after this point, it will continue to be wholly male until the end.

8) Ish & Quee set off on their sea voyage. Ish spends days terrified of and fascinated by the concept of the ship's captain. Said captain, Captain Ahab, broods in his cabin, so obsessed with a big white whale that he has no time for home or hearth. Or profit. Ish takes brief note of three of the ship's intimidating officers, then spends several paragraphs describing Queequeg again, who was chosen as one of the ship's brawny harpooners. Ish also lasciviously describes in detail the lush, muscular bodies of the ship's other two harpooners--a big black savage who wears sparing clothing, and has a very dominating look about him, and a big Indian savage, who is similarly attired (but Tashtego, the latter, is not so sexy and muscular as Daggoo, the former). Ish takes private satisfaction in how his Queequeg (early on, Ish adopted the possessive for his bedmate) is far more rugged, savage, and beautiful a godless cannibal subservient than are the other two.

9) Melville makes a brief introduction of Ahab. Ahab marches onto the scene, states aloud his fatal flaw, and Melville breaks the fourth wall (which he's already done throughout anyway) to tell the reader about how Ahab's quest for the white whale is maddening and will lead to ruin.

10) Melville takes godawful amounts of time to giddily describe, in nonfiction style, the process of whaling. Melville discusses how noble are western European and Anglo-American men for taking up the modern heroic pursuit of slaughtering whales for profit, and details how handsome and glorious the whales are, and how rugged and masculine the whaling men are, when they leave shore life behind for 3-5 year stretches to share bunks on long sea voyages to the whaling lanes. He mentions the rugged ports where whaling ships sometimes stop to stock up on provisions, where situations are "too tough" for women and children. But just dandy for whaling men.

11) Through Ishmael, Melville briefly describes the slaying of a couple of whales, focusing mostly on how damned sexy and muscular the three muscular, savage harpooners are (did I mention that two were Indians, and one was black? And that they were muscular, strong, and physically superior to the rest of the crew?).

12) Melville describes, in exorbitantly painful detail, his theories about whales and whale hunters. Whales are noble, manly, beautiful beasts, for scores of pages; once or twice, he may indirectly mention that they travel in "pods." Melville discusses the long, grand tradition of manly classical men, like Plato and Apollo (sic) and Shakespeare, who dedicate themselves so lavishly to their beautiful and manly pursuits. Any doubt about the text's homoeroticism, which still might linger in the mind of the most biased prude or most adamant homosexual, is dispelled through chapters 94 and 95, during descriptions of the whale harvesting process, wherein men pack together in the workshop to thrust their arms and heads into puddles of cetaceous oil-products ("sperm"), turning giddy and delirious with the thrillful sensations of stroking one another's bodies while immersed in the thick, intoxicating payload.

("Sperm" as he uses it doesn't mean semen, but the numerous viscous substances gathered from the whale's corpse for sale. The way Melville writes these scenes, they're the equivalent of a 7-minute carwash commercial where six giggling cheerleaders end up soaking each other in soapy water, get in slap fights, then fall onto the hood of their convertible to kiss and grope.)

While scorning most whales, and dismissing them as "too small" and not worth the effort (those are the boring ones, which once or twice in the entire text may swim in pods), Melville lavishes so much praise on big, masculine, solitary sperm whales that you wouldn't believe how much he does it unless you've actually read the book a half dozen times. It's that insane. Have you ever listened to a two hour Superbowl pregame show? Imagine if those guys talked nonstop, without commercials, for an entire year. Only that would begin to approach an equivalent to how excited Melville is about sperm whales and the men who love pursuing them together.

13) The crew of the Pequod finally locates the damn white whale, chases it down, and all hands but Ish are lost when Moby Dick wrecks the ship.

Thus it is that a really crappy 2-cent children's horror comic of five pages' length is turned into a classic of western literature, through the infusion of hundreds of pages of biology-professor-wannabe, and hundreds more of the most intense homosexual repression you'll find outside of Vatican City.

On the Utter Worthlessness of Women

In the course of the defence, the witty Erskine went on to illustrate his position, by alluding to a recent crim. con. case, wherein a gentleman, after in vain trying to bridle his wife's viciousness, had at last abandoned her upon the seas of life; but in the course of years, repenting of that step, he instituted an action to recover possession of her. Erskine was on the other side; and he then supported i by saying, that though the gentleman had originally harpooned the lady, and had once had her fast, and only by reason of the great stress of her plunging viciousness, had at last abandoned her; yet abandon her he did, so that she became a loose-fish; and therefore when a subsequent gentleman re-harpooned her, the lady then became that subsequent gentleman's property, along with whatever harpoon might have been found sticking in her...Now in the present case Eskine contended that the examples of the whale and the lady were reciprocally illustrative of each other.
-Melville

This is the cultural trend that has been called "patriarchy." The very thing that feminists and homosexuals seem united on now is, in fact, the earlier face of culturally-dominant homosexuality that has shaped western his-tory. It makes perfect sense that a culture of self-absorbed, exclusively-masculinist men would be the most patriarchal on the planet, and Melville, through Ishmael's voyage--through the Ish/Quee and Ahab/Moby relationships, and the fierce pairing off and competition between white undersailors and African/Indian harpooner-studs--has shown us exactly that. Neither women, nor of course children, have any importance to Melville. All he cares about is men: how men look; how men sleep; how men eat and drink and laugh together; how men form deep bonds; how attractive and emblematic the male Greek gods were, particularly when they took the shape of whales and/or slew whales...

The western cultural trend of men dominating politics, media, and entertainment may be in part due to aggregate biological differences in the sexes' abilities or interests, but this historical pattern we're examining owes a great deal, too, to the fact that many of these men, these foundations of western civilization, were simply so strongly homosexually acculturated that they didn't care at all about women. They didn't want to talk to women, they didn't want to listen to women, they didn't want to read women's stories or read about women in their own stories, they didn't want to see women--all they wanted was to hang out with the boys, and occasionally, give their chattel-wives a duty-fuck to produce offspring to maintain male civilization.

Consider the Indo-European language bases of the great imperial dialects: Greek, Roman, French, and English. The long western trend of lacking meaningful gender-neutral pronouns is explained by reference to classical homosexual supremacism. When Melville talks about whales, for example, the whales are always he. Sailors are he, fish are he, oceans are he--everything is "he." Using the male gender-specific pronoun as the standard form in western writing occurs due to a homosexually cultured interest in men and men only. The homosexual patriarchs of western culture casually ignored women for so many thousands of years because of a true lack of concern for them, except as vessels by which to create offspring. There was no need to employ female pronouns in their instructive writing, because for these men, their fantasies--and realities--were of a male-only world.

(Contrast that behavior to the current political idiocies of making up gender-neutral pronouns in a sniveling attempt to rewrite history by making things less precise and less human, rather than the proper course of simply using female pronouns as often as male ones. The implied denial of any sexual identity on the part of the actor, even a mistaken one, is worse yet than the old patriarchs' desire to have only one meaningful sexual identity. That's because 1 < 2 and 2 > 1.)

That's why the semesters in schools, or the dissemination of knowledge (or the sperm whale), play such exclusionarily centralized roles in classical, western language--because they were propagated by an intensely homosexual culture that had zero genuine interest in women. Brilliantly, this exclusionary homoerotic culture has now placed the blame for such policies on heterosexuals--the very men who, for millennia, were ignored and marginalized because they dared show genuine, lasting interest in women, rather than sailing ships or having another round with the boys.

Blaming the Heteros for the Homos' Actions

It's sacrosanct, now, this weird, novel relationship that we imagine exists between "homosexual rights" and "women's rights." When you think about it, all of those scions of the patriarchy, creating a male-focused world in which women were either invisible, or marginal players, were really homosexuals. Melville's grand classic is as bad an example of writing as anything you can come up with. It's predictable in plot, offering not even foreshadowing, but internally spoiling itself through the author breaking the fourth wall all the time and promising you as an absolute authority that Ahab's quest will come to a bad end. It's predictable in theme, since Melville serves as his own literary critic, analyzing his characters and setting from a distance at the same time as he tells the story, and telling you how you're supposed to react to it, and how you're supposed to feel about what will be its ultimate message.

It's simplistic and dumb, easily understandable, which is why it's so easy to be considered a classic--like Hamlet or Harry Potter, it screams its message at you in all-caps boldface, over and over, until no one can possibly go near the book without being aware that "focusing too much on vengeance is like, uhh, bad." Naturally, it lacks any of the subtlety of quality literature: how much vengeance is too much? What is it, exactly, about vengeance, which causes it to form, or which causes certain people to be so susceptible? Etc. Melville has nothing to say on all of that; his banal fable is fully spent a couple of paragraphs after Ahab has first warned the crew to be on the lookout for the white whale.

Even were you interested in the work as homoerotic literature, it's terrible. Once Melville has gotten his rocks off in the initial port scenes, Ish and Quee's relationship drops almost entirely off the radar. Neither character develops, conversation and intimacy are at zero degrees Kelvin, and it's clear that the author was unable to convey the passage of inter-character relationships while also juggling plot. (He can't handle setting, either, but that's okay, since he described the ship at the beginning. And this one does take note of how Quee's savage foresight in having a floating coffin built does leave Ish with something to float away on at the end--because of course, that's the one thing that survive's Dick's wrath--but it's so abjectly written that it ends up being nothing more than coincidence. Melville's yearning does not meaning make.)

Granted, some people still haven't figured out how to apply the "white whale obsession" to their own lives, but their failure doesn't make Melville brilliant by contrast. Or, if it does, Melville is still less brilliant than Barney the Dinosaur, for all the complexity of of the message he strains to convey. You can describe Moby Dick to a child in a single sentence, and they'll have gained the full benefit of it. The shortest of Aesop's fables takes more mental acuity to understand. The only real purpose to read Moby Dick is either (1) to say you've actually read it, or (2) to study the historical flaws of phrenology and cetology as they were expressed by nineteenth century Americans.

Thackeray and Dickens can lay claim to strong female characters, in the former case, or, in the latter, at least the active understanding of women's existence and value in the world. To Melville, they're non-entities, as they are to his predecessors. Plato's entire philosophical world is a boy's club of party and play, debate and feast, drink and orgy, tutor the lads and drink up again.

Quoting homonormative:
The Batman franchise isn't alone in demonstrating strong old-style homoeroticism alongside old-style patriarchy. Most traditional American comics of the 20th century followed this trend. Action is focused on a man (or men) who wear tight suits and have incredibly muscular bodies; they have little to no time to see their token girlfriends because they're busy battling with other men. Women have very little role in the lives of the old heroes, except as: screaming damsels to be rescued by said incredible men in tight suits; secretaries answering the phone; or, occasionally, being the butt of sexist jokes. You'd almost think that the creators [and patrons] of these franchises were far, far more interested in men than they were in women.

Remember again: the aim here is not to criticize homosexuality. Rather, we're criticizing the predominant variety of homosexuality that built western culture, namely, the kind that didn't care about women or children. (Or, frankly, men--since it had to kill so many of them to find the one it really wanted.)

The Gayness of Western Culture

How many professors have objected upon hearing a student mutter, "This class is, like, so gay"? How little did they know how wrong they were to criticize those students, for western history is totally gay. No wonder, actually, that so much classical literature, history, and science comes across as weirdly wrong and boring to the average student.

What has early western literature been, but a series of boys-club adventures, utterly lacking in meaningful interaction between the sexes? The early Greek myths, before the Athenian Empire had replaced them, were wonderful things, filled with play and romance (naturally, homocentric schoolmasters banned the real Greek myths as "inappropriate" early on, focusing their curricula on tamer, more acceptable stories, such as ones about mass graves, inferior negro brains, and chattel marriage). Then suddenly, Plato's on the scene, and for hundreds and hundreds of years, western literature becomes a painfully dry series of men-only tomes of pontification and male-male-male adventure stories. People can't even digest them today without asking a bunch of chubby screenwriters to add sexy female warrioresses into the otherwise-homoerotic canon. The Romantics tried to inject some life into the stuff, and there are plenty of exceptions, but like Lucifer's big council in Pandemonium during Paradise Lost, most students can still sense the wrongness in the air when so much of the "great" tales is nothing but a bunch of strong men, alone together, talking about other strong men.

Worse, what has western history been, but a series of men forming male-only armed groups, leaving behind vaginas and offspring, and marching away for years to share tents with other men, stick spears into other men's bodies, negotiate with other men, and grow old and die with other men? From Alexander the Great to Chris Kyle, the homosexuals who fantasize about a rugged, manly life of manly pursuits in manly realms, and who then go to live out their fantasies putting things into other men's unwilling bodies, are fundamentally dangerous to humanity. The genocides these men leave in their wake--the billions of bodies, and thousands of civilizations, ruined by the killer-queers who would rather violate other men's bodies than be forced to stay home with a bunch of boring eww-cooties girls--are the legacy of our failure to understand different kinds of homosexuality.

To invoke Godwin, necessarily: The Hidden Hitler, which is rather impeccably documented. If you're willing to trust the words of a woman (Eva Braun) about her husband, then the mountains of other research can leave you a believer.

The braggadocio sexuality of these repressed homosexuals, coupled with their intense man-only interests, explains grandiose displays of "heterosexuality" and dramatic scenes of female objectification far more than does actual heterosexual inclinations from men toward women. In short, the homo-patriarchs were objectifying women so fiercely because they didn't understand what it was to actually want women. Women's emotional lives, for example, are unimportant to this homopatriarchal culture, but in an attempt to appear heterosexual, the homopatriarchs made sure to design objective, and incredibly stupid and expensive, "fashion" industries.

Therein lies the interesting switch-off: at some point during the twentieth century, homosexuality became universally, rather than selectively, linked to women's rights. The centuries of barefoot and pregnant, whalebone corsets, bound feet, anorexia and new frocks, men's clubs and boardrooms, can be blamed, most obviously and rationally, on men who have no inclination at all toward being interested in women. Yet, in a dazzling strategic move of War is Peace, the completely non-female culture of homopatriarchy has been linked to feminism (however non-coincidentally hypocritical and ironic it may or may not be).

Let's look at Melville again, this time on the homopatriarchs' (1) idealized disgust for women-as-people, their (2) drive to reproduce their own culture using wombs-as-property, and their (3) resulting hatred of integrated families and love for imperial warfare:
For like certain other omnivorous roving lovers that might be named, my Lord Whale has no taste for the nursery, however much for the bower; and so, being a great traveller (sic), he leaves his anonymous babies all over the world; every baby an exotic...as the ardor of youth declines; as years and dumps increase...as a general lassitude overtakes the sated Turk; then a love of ease and virtue supplants the love for maidens; our Ottoman enters upon the impotent, repentant, admonitory stage of life, forswears, disbands the harem, and grown to an exemplary, sulky old soul, goes about all alone among the meridians and parallels saying his prayers, and warning each young Leviathan from his amorous errors.

Two words: Dick Cheney. (Okay, four: Dick Cheney and Mary Cheney, since she's such a big fan of his.) Because after you've blown up Alderaan and duplicated yourself during your younger years, it's time to fuck up the planet for the rest of the species, count your coins, and start moralizing at young people.

The [male sperm whale] schools are...a mob of young collegians, they are full of fight, fun, and wickedness, tumbling round the world at such a reckless, rollicking rate, that no prudent underwriter would insure them any more than he would a riotous lad at Yale or Harvard. They soon relinquish this turbulence though, and when about three-fourths grown, break up, and separately go about in quest of settlements, that is, harems.
-Herman Melville

Why did George Washington cross the Delaware? Was it because he cared about the freedom of the British colonists to self-determine and to pay lower taxes? Taxes on necessary trade goods in particular? No--we know that from the Whiskey Rebellion.

And was it for his own selfish financial interests? No, because he was already a rich bastard who owned a lot of slaves and land, and could take it easy the rest of his years without risking having all his wealth stripped from him and his family, being flogged and tortured by the crown, and then getting executed as a traitor and war criminal.

Why, then, was old George so eager to leave [if you're feeling academic: "home and hearth"] [if you're feeling direct: "the vagina"] behind, and instead camp out in the woods with a bunch of uniformed dudes for several years, strategizing against a bunch of other uniformed dudes?

Easy: because he was a White Whale, like most of the homopatriarchs who've wanted to spend the past 5K years marching and inspecting nubile young male soldiers, instead of flirting or fucking in the "traditional" way. He was where he wanted to be--not dying of boredom at home with Martha, but out in the field, talking about life with his grizzled fellows while admiring the limber next generation as it threw itself violently together, only the strongest to emerge, after which their elders would line them up, inspect them, and decorate them with medals.

Plenty of the actual stupid, low-grade soldiers are heterosexual, but the military's structural pomp and circumstance--its manly fashion shows, its uniforms, its sex segregation of young men under the command of male overseers based upon seniority, and its supposed "women-chasing" status, is little more than cover for guys who actually want to be around other guys for years on end.

(Check more noxious racism from Melville: some non-white sailors whose ship the Pequod's crew sighted at sea, but not hailed or boarded, were surely, "a herd of remorseless wild pirates and inhuman atheistical devils..." Published just a decade before the American Civil War, incidentally.)

In the event you're a literature buff, and feel offended for entirely separate reasons--e.g., you don't care whether or not Melville was gay, but you feel it is inappropriate to compare his book on whaling to a philosophy for human lives and nations--then get ready to be disappointed, because as you surely already know, Melville draws the comparison himself, in an indefensible, non-ironic way:
What was America in 1492 but a Loose-Fish, in which Columbus struck the Spanish standard by way of wailing it for his royal master and mistress? What was Poland to the Czar? What Greece to the Turk? What India to England? What at last will Mexico be to the United States? All Loose-Fish.

Remember, literature buffs: "The White Man's Burden" was so striking because it was sarcastic. True classics of western history, like Melville's Moby Dick, are classics because they are not sarcastic. Melville's work actually meant all the things it said, including making the mightiest and most noble of all whales the white one. On purpose. Non-ironically.

The homopatariarchs' culture is built upon endless war, racism, the violation of childrens' bodies, and the propertization of women. The genuinely patriarchal aspects of western civilization are an entirely realistic, entirely different cultural form than the overblown patriarchy-fantasies engendered by western corporate feminism; whatever experiences you may have with the latter, be willing to recognize the true origins of the now-misappropriated term, whereby women actually were womb-slaves to the man-obsessed imperial manlovers of war and conquest. That kind of patriarchy actually existed, once, and even now, its shadow is deep enough to cast a pallor over the selfish frivolities of today's eerie activists.

Distinguishing Gayness

Learn to distinguish the kind of homosexual culture we're looking at here from other kinds. This is not the now-traditional homosexuality that is viewed as effeminate, mincing, lisping, or whatever; that's not how it worked throughout most of western history. This is the hidden, more prevalent homosexuality; the homosexuality of a different sort of desire. It is a homosexuality of infantilized, aggressive adults, where women are still gross and boring, full of cooties, and never wanting to play the right games, and where "responsibility" and "future" are still and always alien concepts. It's a mad refusal to be a grown-up: an inability to sit still and keep clean, an inability to be content or "bored," and it drives the homopatriarchs to always be looking for new friends, while shouldering aside old ones; always starting fights; always trying to prove themselves; always obsessed with bigger and cooler explosions...and yet, doing so always with the sense that there are real Adults in the world, watching them, expecting them to be adults. And so they marry, yet ignore and beat, women; they sire, yet ignore and beat, children; they promise to be taking care of everyone, then go start a fight that could engulf the world in flames; they hoot aggressive catcalls at women on the street, then spend nine months sharing bunks with their closest dudebro friends in a tiny submarine cabin; they cloister in chapels, rape little boys, and claim to be devoted to a God who believes in marriage and propagation. These are the men who kill thousands pursuing Helen of Troy, even though, once they have her, they leave her on a throne and head right back outside to a new campaign with the boys.

Transhuman Hells

The continuation of this dominant cultural form will lead directly to the transhuman hells of Earth's future. As these homosexual imperialists learn how to concoct their own imitation babies in test tubes instead of inside the wombs of propertized wife-wombs, they will have even less use for female-ness and femininity, or integrative, responsible heterosexuality and homosexuality, than they did before. Women will no longer be expected to serve as domestic breeding slaves, but as standardized busywork slaves. These are the same pervert tyrant-masters who murdered "heretical faggots" for "sodomy" during the Dark Ages, while spending the rest of the day boffing the choirboys, and grooming orphans to have their immature vaginas and anuses shredded by the local lords, behind the holy walls the serfs' taxes paid for. The continued cultural pre-eminence of this particular western homosexual subculture will prove no better for most homosexuals than it ever has.

Five thousand years of western history, now, has shown us the fruits of this homosexual tyranny. Bands of vicious military queers endlessly rove the globe, destroying settled populations of independents, families, and children, leveraging the increased muscle-mass and social coordination of homogeneous male Spartan self-lovers against the males who dared live their lives alone, or in support of females and young. The western homopatriarchs stole math, science, astronomy, architecture, and agriculture from the traditionally heterogeneous cultures of India and Arabia, then spent centuries celebrating selfish, materialist, martial homosexuals like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Dante, de Sade, Milton, Alexander, Napoleon, Lincoln, et cetera, ad nauseam.

The great boy-rape church-cults figured prominently throughout western history, of course, and what else can the endless crusades and manifest destinies be seen as, except yet more centuries of exhortions by horny old men that their young band up, trim their hair into pixie cuts, straighten their pretty matching uniforms, and leave behind their families and communities to go off and fuck/fight other men? If you're stupid enough to believe lines about "security" and "defense," this obviously won't resonate with you, but if you've figured that part out, it's an easy transition into understanding exactly why western military culture, like most western culture, has traced such a clear path from the intern-raping ancients in Athens and Rome, to the modern ones in the District of Columbia and Rome.

This subculture has hidden itself successfully inside heterosexuality for most of written human history. Even now, it is able to falsely link itself with both hetero- and homosexuality, as though the ancient Grecian virtues of the boy-raping, family-killing, warrior-thief empires have anything to do with what the rest of us think of as sexuality. Deny them those hiding places, if you would see them ever stopped.

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Heartless: Arthur Silber and the Left's Crippled Future

As he's spent most of the last two years doing, Arthur Silber is begging for donations again. Send them if you will; what better use for your time and money than giving Paypal and Visa each their transaction fees, in order to shift the Federal Reserve ledger slightly in Arthur's favor, permitting him to purchase life-extension drugs and canned ash/tuna blends for aging, reproductively-mutilated domestic zoo exhibits.

Silber is something of a Forrest Gump, though without the noble spirit of Groom's character. Gump, if you haven't read the actual book, is the kind-hearted American idiot who personifies the latter half of the twentieth century. He's raised by a single mother, he goes to school, he goes to war, he goes to space, he goes to capitalism--he's like Homer Simpson, but without any of the badness. In the choices, struggles, and outcome of Gump's life, we see the major formal topics of 1950s-1990s U.S. history spelled out. In the process, we feel a little bit bad for Forrest, because he really was an idiot. He went to Vietnam, played pro football, and wasted his life pursuing Jenna, because he actually was too dim to understand what he was doing. As for the rest of us, who did those things without Forrest's handicap, well--so the worse for our own morals. Forrest's fate is to grow old the eternal optimist, watch Jenna die of AIDS, watch all his home's traditions melt into plastic hell, and then conclude that it was random, simply because he's too stupid to do otherwise. He's the penultimate American, or at least, the American we wish we were. Unlike Forrest, we had the processing power to know that murdering a few million southeast Asian villagers was morally wrong. Gary Sinise may be a genuinely evil man hooting at his third screening of American Sniper, but the actual character Forrest Gump can claim, in his defense, the plausible stupidity of the misled.

Like Gump, Arthur Silber has had a chance to live out a certain set of American ideals. His path was not so star-studded, but it comes with the veneer of rational choice--a choice generally unavailable to Gump. In it, we can see a number of the terrible contradictions and failures inherent in a certain set of American philosophies, along with their sad terminus, and their subsumption by their presumed worst enemies.

Arthur's Path

From Arthur's board, which is regularly highly personal, and which has been avowedly public for years and years, we observe the following architecture:

1) Arthur was an unusual child who quarreled with his parents, and who grew up to hate them always;

2) Arthur self-identified as gay to his parents at an early age, and when they sent him to therapy, he underwent electroshock therapy as a treatment;

3) At maturity, Arthur cast off on his own to be a concert pianist and have a lotta lotta unprotected sex with as many male partners as he could;

4) Arthur failed to be a concert pianist, and attempted to be a professional art appreciator and a professional social critic, activities at which he also failed;

5) Arthur got very sick and very poor;

6) Arthur applied for government disability benefits and moved into a small apartment in a State with a high cost of living;

7) Arthur purchased two domestic animals, had them surgically altered, and keeps them thoroughly fed and medicated;

8) Arthur started a blog angrily critiquing American society.

Arthur's Problems

Arthur's angry critiques of American society, like many (many, many, many~) such critiques, are often accurate, even pointed. Like the plurality of the world's public given access to the internet, Silber recognizes that there are problems with the world, and he can correctly depict and analyse several of them, often connecting them into patterns. Yes, it's sad that Arthur is poor and sick, like many people, but instead of letting his cats go and making do on State assistance meant for a single person, Arthur not only feeds, but medicates his very aged cats, in a land where twenty percent of young children go hungry--and asks for others to tithe the financial system in order to abet him in such acts.

The quandary of withdrawal finds its place here: if we're so noble and good that we withdraw from society, how do we survive? Well, simply put, we die. Enough of that righteous withdrawal would indeed stop the elite parasites. Begging, though, does not accomplish that. And certainly not non-frugal begging (e.g., begging in order to house animals which could survive on their own, if you weren't using them as companionship fetishes).

When we "withdraw" from society by refusing to contribute but being willing to extract, we've become little different than the crony capitalists. Arthur's late-life withdrawal is built on the back of those in all stages of life who haven't withdrawn. Arthur is such a noble slave that he refuses to work in the mines--but he subsists on charity taken from those who have bitten their tongues and continued to toil under the whip.

I Hate You, Mommy

Many other children in the world, for example--even in America--were angry with their parents. Many were beaten, mutilated, or emotionally tormented at various states of their development. Many suffered their entire childhoods away, constantly bullied by a sick society that didn't like anything about them. Their sexuality, their looks, their choices, their socioeconomic status--whatever. Many were subjected to cruel medical treatment without the capacity to refuse, or to respond to it as an adult.

And yet, they fought to survive. Many children grew up in worlds like this, and were able to move beyond it. Some of them were able to forgive their peers, and find friendships there. Others were able to forgive their parents, and find misguided humanity there. In so doing--in fostering networks among even people who hurt them for the longest time--they gained at least a modicum of society where there had been none before.

Some of them even looked upon their lives as a precious gift, and wanted to pass it on to others. Others whom, incidentally, are now leaving their families at home and working their asses off to pay Arthur's monthly SSI checks, so that Arthur can use the internet and listen to opera and make sure his cats have the latest feline pills.

Is it ironic, I wonder? All of the queers who shut the fuck up and did what they were "supposed to" might now be enjoying the company of their parents, instead of being left penniless outcasts from the family. (The family might be a bunch of jerks, but so is the USG, so from whom are you willing to accept charity?) They might be sharing in an inheritance in their elder years, or living with children who are able to care for them in the twilight of their lives. How many of those people are out there, right now? People who had Arthur's artistic and/or homosexual tendencies, and/or who rebelled against their parents in youth, but who were able to become adults who put aside their own pleasures for the sake of not being a burden? For the sake of thanking their parents for giving them life, even an abused one, or in order to pass on the gift to others without the abuse; for the sake of being able to offer others shelter, instead of only to take it; for the sake of the past and the future: many people made these choices, and we will never hear about them, because they are understood by those who make the choices, rather than trumpeted in great detail by those who did not.

All of the fun Arthur had during his party years was denied to those people. Sure, they got beaten down and humiliated, too, but they also didn't get to cruise the Bay Area for fifteen years, swapping blowjobs. They were busy settling for something less than an ideal; they were busy thinking about lives to come after theirs; they were busy thinking about what they could do to make things better for others, instead of how to grab as many positive sensations as they could for themselves before the end. Silber's life is an intensely-concentrated doomsday fantasy, where you rush to have another margarita before the asteroid strikes.

This isn't being written exclusively for Arthur's benefit, or to critique him--he can and will do whatever the hell he wants. Rather, we're looking at his path for purposes of comparison to isolationist philosophies. Arthur chose to blaze the hypocritical, rather than the honest, trail--he rejected society while demanding to extract from it all he could. He fantasized over imperial opera, and the sellout scions of a certain subset of pop culture, while decrying all modern sellouts for their ties to big business (you kids get off my grass!). He slept around the corporate clubs and Hilton hostels of California, enjoying all the culture of being a middle-class young white gay runaway, until the credit ran out and it was time to consider living as others had been.

And all of a sudden, it was doubly unfair. All of the queers who'd bitten the bullet, gotten jobs, and made lives for themselves, were doing better than he was. They had places to go home to. They sighed and wondered what it would've been like to have more sex when they were younger. To hell with them, Silber says--now give me some pet cremation money, you conformist bastards!

No woodsman, he; no seasteader attempting to grow an organic garden using mulch he got from Iceland in exchange for golden trinkets. Silber prefers to dwell in the heart of the concrete jungle, hating it while begging it to care for him. More power to him--that's what we're all doing, too--but the black pit into which he's long since fallen is an instructive one.

More importantly, and far more instructive, is the unspoken suffering of all of those whom Silber tumbled across on his race to the bottom. Silber isn't a survivalist, but neither is he a revolutionary. The same with all of us hypocrites, but then, we're all slaving away at survival, here. Silber rejects everything we do to survive, calling it ignoble and wrong, yet he wants us to do it for him, so that he can enjoy the Empire's vile fruits. Timothy McVeigh can claim the mantle of an internally-consistent moral code, but not any of us left here.

I Refuse To Work For Big Money!

Surviving in this hell is a burden, to be sure. We can't hate Silber for hating it, or being broken on it. The problem with Silber lies in his veneration by much of the non-mainstream political community that has arisen in these early years of the network. By building up this crumbling wreck of a selfish hypocrite to be an icon of social criticism, the American "left" (or progressive-ness, or radical-ness, or anarchistic, or whatever you want to think of whatever "it" is) is building on as shoddy a foundation as Washington. This is how well-meaning narratives go bad: by idealizing people like Silber. Silber had a few good things to say, but really, he's mildly famous now only because he had a larger vocabulary, and a more pro-homosexual attitude, than other people willing to use the f-word about politicians at the time of his ascendance.

Silber takes Paypal. He's too honorable to put ads on his site, or to condescend to work for Walmart, but he'll take Paypal, funneling Visa funds from the Federal Reserve, and deposit it into his American financial account, to spend at corporate food & drug branches? Yes, that's the same Paypal that joined in on the war on Wikileaks, and the same JP Morgan Chase offshoot that's spent over a century financing imperial war, and the same Federal Reserve that--yada yada. And what do you think about the property management company that owns his apartment? The government agency that cuts him his monthly check?

What about the children of all the other 1970s faggots who kept their sexuality hidden from disapproving parents, worked hard for soul-crushing corporations, and raised their own children differently--maybe nurturing independent sexuality in people who, down Silber's bloodline, will never exist? Well, those kids, as they struggle to raise their own children, are now financing Silber's retirement after twenty years of cocktails and cocksucking. Not that twenty years of cocktails and cocksucking is bad, but there just seems to be something a little unfair about it, doesn't it?

It's all part of the system, baby. Who do you think you're fooling, asking me to carry your load? Of course, we need to distinguish between charity toward those who need it, and giving presents to those who want them. How many kittens in Kansas could live long and productive (snark) lives for what it costs Silber in pharmaceuticals to keep a couple diseased, geriatric cats straggling on for another few months? Considering that cats can survive outdoors on their own when they're not moved to hot climates, surgically sterilized, and stuffed inside a little apartment to please a desperately needy master, probably hundreds of them. You could also feed some human children, but forget that. Think about the kittens. For the price of keeping Silbers' aged eunuchs alive, you could prevent hundreds of other cats from being killed to free up shelter space, and allow them to have some time on this planet. It's rather eerie, vis-à-vis both cats and people, how loathe Silber is to consider the benefits of family over self.

Saturday, February 28, 2015

How often do they run these tests...

...just to measure exactly how dumb we are? Word-of-mouth is the most effective form of marketing, so lowering the barriers to mouth-opening is a natural next step. Already long accomplished, surely. So what comes next?

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Humanity, Empathy, and Non-Aggression

The latter satire of coverage of Stephen Hawking merits a little more attention, for the benefit of those who aren't able to understand it on their own. The crux of the original article was that Stephen Hawking was the celebrity guest selected by certain financial concerns who accompanied an American on a tour of London, and during said tour, he said that human aggression should be controlled. Issues of note:

I Is Scientist

I apologize for the implied insult to Paris Hilton, but Stephen Hawking is one of those people whom, like George Takei or Paris Hilton, is famous because he is famous. He's never done anything useful or contributed anything of value to society; he's never invented anything, solved any major or minor problems, or contributed any art to the human project. And that even insults George Takei, who despite his current worthlessness, was at least once in an imperialistic TV show for a few seasons, and Paris Hilton, who at least sort-of started a business or two and acted in a few mind-soylent movies. Hawking is a nothing as far as science is concerned. He's a "theoretical physicist," a modern make-believe degree that really means "Doctor of Philosophy in Science Marketing," whereby the practitioners do more creative writing than creative writers. They conduct no experiments, or stage dramatic performances designed to simulate experiments, where there are no results and no falsifiability. They speak endlessly to the public through corporate media fantasies about alternate worlds and multiverses, yet, unlike Newton, they no longer admit that they're storytellers.

This is hard to process for many people, because science has become so sensationalized. Try metaphorizing it to the case of physicians: there are those physicians who practice medicine, in the sense that they're regularly seeing patients firsthand, performing surgeries, spending hours in clinic and on-call, teaching medicine at the primary level by diagnosing patients in the company of students and residents, and actually interacting in a constant, nearly daily way with the human population on this planet. In contrast to those physicians, there are the celebrity physicians: physicians who design fad diets; who manage laboratories; who edit research grants and lobby local donors for hospital funds; who testify at trials as to standards of care; who write books about medicinal history and hospital administration best practices; who consult with media or government on hypothetical, multi-million-dollar disaster relief plans that prove themselves in situations like Katrina v. Louisiana. These are the worthless nothings of the profession, who exist as parasites, extracting society's money and respect by virtue of their association with the women and men in the trenches.

(Needless to say, those who pretend to be those who practice a profession often do even better in terms of financial recompense and social admiration. For a non-physician example, how many high school cheerleaders who like the characters on Big Bang Theory are also eager to make out with the president of their school's science club?)

Just like business or IT professors who've been teaching for twenty years, the latter group of physicians is out of date on the status of modern medicine. They operate in the realm of rhetoric alone, untested by practice, applying formulaic, archaic policy solutions to a chaos they no longer really understand. The American model of market operations--the Dilbert principle, if you will--has been flawed in this way for almost a century, now, where the most power is given to the people most ignorant about what is actually going on. Upper management is genuinely clueless when it comes to the actual problems that end-users face when using the product, which is why they spend millions of dollars hiring outside firms to take surveys of their customers. In a sense, they actually are that dim.

If nothing else, think of, oh, the medical establishment's response to AIDS during the 1980s. Whatever you may believe about AIDS, it took on the order of ten to fifteen years for the American government and medical establishment to react to it, and consolidate their official message. Hundreds, then thousands of actual practicing physicians across the country (and world), along with even more medical support staff, were having direct, firsthand experience with these things, reporting them in panic-epidemic mode to the Powers That Be, and even though it turned out to be a billion dollar wonderland of profit, it still took big pharm years to react to it. The stupidity and ignorance of even the greediest policymakers left them unprepared to deal with the on-the-ground realities of people they would've liked to have listened to years ago. In short, their disconnect overruled the profit motive to the tune of billions of dollars. That's how powerful that disconnect is.

Muse upon that a moment, then compare it to the way actual scientists--people doing hands-on, falsifiable laboratory work and observation--are completely disconnected from the celebrity "theoreticists" who pollute our global dialogue. Men like Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Pinker, who don't conduct experiments, invent new tools, or counsel people firsthand--these men are made the managing spokespeople of Science, Inc., while being thoroughly removed from anything icky, such as designing more and less viscous industrial solvents, growing healthier apples, or helping prisoners re-enter society (tasks respectively appropriate to the origins of their make-believe vocations). The old saying, "Those who can't do, teach," applies here: not because all teachers are can't-dos, but because the tendency of the lazy and/or incompetent to gravitate to the position of spokesperson, rather than doer, is timeless.

With ease, the modern westerner scorns the religious gurus who profit from "idiots who join cults." It's so easy for a modern, educated person to make fun of obvious religious cults, right? Those wacky cults, where the goalposts for Armageddon are always moved back, the failure of the prophet's predictions always explained away--and yet, the donations just keep coming in. What are those morons thinking, giving their respect to these obviously self-serving charismatic leaders? I mean, if the Great One were really so powerful, why is he allowing the I.R.S. to jail him for tax evasion?

Our most powerful cults operate completely in the open. We take it for granted that corporate media gives so much "science" talking space to hollow men who do no actual science, because a papered "degree" and a few wise sayings are all we really want to understand, anyway, to feel soothed.

What Human Shortcomings Would You Alter?

The sectional title above is the question Hawking's dunce asked him in front of reporters. She probably came up with it all on her own, without any assistance from the people who gave her the award, put her up in the hotel, or made her up for the TV cameras. (While we're at it, lone white gunmen killed Kennedy, X, and King, and Marlboro-funded research centers are interested in making people healthy, not moving product.)

Now, the right response to a question like that is, "I will do my best to be a better person. I will hope that others will be better, also." By giving an answer, Hawking presupposed his own merit to decide which traits were human shortcomings and which not. Remember, the question was not, "What would you like to see people do to change themselves?" but "What would you alter?" I.e., "If you were God." And of course, the "scientists" are more than ready to answer that one. In many ways, Raskolnikov's dilemma was a simple one, yet still too complicated for Dr. Hawking to grasp; so, too, Frankenstein's. The attempt to supplant the will of all to the will of a few is no surprise to find inside either a democracy or a military empire, let alone a combination of the two. In a constitutional monarchy, it proves quite easy to go a step further, and ask a single person to be God.

Serenity

Hawking's chilling, offhanded brutality bears an obvious relevance to the old Whedon show/movie Firefly/Serenity, wherein an evil empire uses calmative agents to suppress a potentially-rebellious population, and in so doing, kills most of the people while turning a small percentage hyper-violent (2 minute spoiler link here). This kind of meddling was already old news when the show/movie came out, as calmative anti-depressants became linked to suicide and murder.

For Hawking, we already know he would exercise the powers of God if he had them: he would decree who was "aggressive," who was not, and he would use drugs or genetic engineering to make people his version of "calm" if he could. In a derivation on Godwin, we must needs recognize that Dr. Hawking and Dr. Mengele are essentially the same person in different circumstances. Godwin is tiresome not because his law is irrelevant, but because it's too often directly relevant: the necessary seeds of yet another violent man too low-functioning to understand Shelley, even nearly two hundred years later. Another Mengele is wheeling around, right now, its hideous spirit wrapped into Hawking's demented, vaingloriously self-absorbed brain, fully supportive of the idea that it is good and humanitarian for the Crown's next invasion to chemically alter future generations in his desired image.

Again to cite to Ian Malcolm, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." That attempt at tyranny, whether rationalized as the divine right of kings or of majorities, is always a hallmark of system failure. Humans who "play God" by presupposing their own time period's understanding of rightness are one of the greatest dangers we face, here--it's dangerous not because it would kill us (because it will), but because it will hamper our ability to even know that we're here. Less aggression means less dynamic pursuits of knowledge, because the two are linked. For a worthless marketing spokesperson like Hawking, that doesn't matter, but for those people who might actually invent new products, Hawking's desired mandatory infant neurosurgeries or genetic re-coding would destroy a great part of human innovation in its wake. It will seem ironic to most who don't understand the trend of Earthly Power's take on science, but the non-scientist science-salesmen who propel this stuff are attempting to stifle innovation, rather than foster it.







Who says it's fantasy? D.U. is the gift that keeps on giving to the babies of the ancient world. If you're not up on that, the babies above aren't "merely" firsthand bombing victim, but babies born deformed by U.S./U.K. chemical weapons used on the Middle East as part of the latest manifest destiny to de-aggression-ize the goddamned darkies. That's what England does, you know? It travels the world murdering people to make them "less savage" and "less aggressive." Hawking couldn't better personify the modern expression of evil: a calm, quiet, respectable demon, who wants to change the brains of developing children to be shaped in his preferred image, rather than their own.

Look again at the third picture: the haunting, morbid, sadly beautiful permutation of the face and head, and how, in the womb, the baby was altered to grow so that its face ended up where its neck was supposed to be. This is Hawking's crusade against the children of the world. He is no different in morals or outlook than the German and American scientists who delighted in exposing American soldiers to atomic bomb radiation during WW2 testing, then incinerating their wives' mangled, irradiated offspring and calling it "miscarriage."

Token Hypocrisies and Improving Humans

And duh, yeah, it's hypocritical. If Hawking actually cared about aggression and violence, where's the logical place for him to start? Not at home--he'd first critique the U.S. government. Then the U.K., but most importantly, if he were a scientist, he'd do it by looking at actual observable examples of aggression. Instead of drooling at the telly, he'd do his own research, and determine quite easily that the greatest source of violence in the world was not a result of "aggression," but was committed instead by calm, reasonable, well-educated westerners. These peaceful, regretful, domesticated men and women are the ones who order the imprisonment and torture of millions; who demand that water treatment facilities and hospitals be bombed; who humanitarianly-intervene for the sake of empathy, and leave millions of bodies in their wake.

When Hawking says "aggression," it's one of those wonderfully clever racist code words. He doesn't give a goddamn if Tony Blair joins in airstrikes that kill a thousand people; but, he's concerned when some "angry darkies" shoot a magazine editor. He doesn't give a shit about the worldwide proliferation of chemical weapons and dirty bombs created by his colleagues, but he's deeply concerned that an Arab somewhere might become angry and throw a rock. If an Anglo military judge quietly signs an order remanding twenty men to have their fingers cut off one by one in a Turkish prison, don't think to disturb Stephen Hawking--but, if a swarthy immigrant chants a heated slogan at a jobs rally, stop the fucking presses, watch out, it's aggression!!! Break out the lobotomies and crack open the genetic code!

The unpleasant racist slurs need to be put into Hawking's mouth for an appropriately meaningful satire, lest his coded Anglosupremacism be missed. The British Empire's philosophers have spent century after century speaking, in proud but discreet ways, about how worthless and lowly certain subgroups were. They have been willing to cooperate with tame Africans, pay off corrupt sheiks, and do anything in the world you can imagine in order to continue their project of colonialism, genocide, and selfish inbreeding. The latter has resulted in not only the Hapsburg jaw, but other unfortunate variations on the less-blended genetic code of the islands. Whereas Africa, for example, has excelled at producing more fast-twitch muscle fibers, cancer-resistant skin, and musical talent, England has excelled at producing pasty lumps of genocide and self-satisfaction.

No surprise, then, that from the most inbred little island on the planet (and its highest-percentage-offshoot colonies), will come the greatest support for behavioral modification. The sibling- and cousin-marriage rituals of the noxious spawn that birthed the world's financial capital have produced the mangled horrors of today, who want only to pull others down to their level. Naturally, others tend to be unwilling, so it helps a little bit to spread the mangle around to diverse populations by irradiating Africa and Asia and the Americas, but rich, inclusive human breeding can overcome that. The next goal of the Moneychanger Empire, as Stephen put it, will be to alter children before they are born--to march the white man's burden, with malice aforethought, into the DNA of all tomorrow's children, and conform their character to England's version of empathy.

British Empathy



Saturday, February 21, 2015

'Walking Could Be Our Downfall'

'Walking Could Be Our Downfall': Survival of the master race depends on wheelchairs and inbred impotents, says Stephen Hawking

Professor Stephen Hawking believes the future of the master race depends on our abilities to explore space. During a tour of London's Science Museum, the 73-year-old said that when a handful of American soldiers landed on the moon, it gave all of us new perspectives of life on Earth, which we had been utterly unable to achieve before learning that U.S.A.F. personnel had worn special suits on the moon's surface.



He also said walking should be weeded out of the human race and replaced by full and partial paralysis to avoid a major nuclear war ending civilisation as we know it.

Professor Hawking (file photo shown) was speaking at London's Science Museum without exhibiting any cognizance of irony. He said feeding "a bunch of starving nigger theists" is "worthless and boring," and that resources from other continents should instead be used to build giant "space wheelchairs" vital to the future of "the [British] race and [all meaningful] civilization." What will mankind do "on this dump once the copper runs out?" the Professor asked an audience of fawning photographers, Thursday. And he also said walking should be replaced by full or partial paralysis, citing the fact that whenever he saw war footage on television, the soldiers were always walking. 'A major nuclear war would be the end of the Bank of International Settlements' ability to effectively control inter-country transfers,' he said, 'and then we'd be left to live like Africans, growing our own food and washing our own clothes.' The Professor said Anglos and their in-country staff should not have to live this way, and that all of mankind's resources must be directed toward preserving the humane and perfect civilization we now enjoy. Professor Hawking made the comments while escorting an American visitor around the museum as part of a 'Guest of Honour' prize.



Adaeze Uyanwah, 24, from Palmdale, California, won the tour after producing a blog and video describing a 'perfect day' in the financial capital. "They gave me money to ignore what happened," she said. "They told me that's the key to becoming an Anglo, is just, covering everything else up, and focusing only on myself."

She asked Professor Hawking what human shortcomings he would alter, and which virtues he would enhance if this was [sic] possible.

He replied: 'The human failing I would most like to correct is walking. It may have had survival advantage in caveman days, to get more food, territory or partner [sic] with whom to reproduce, but now it threatens to destroy the brilliant thinkers who maintain nuclear arsenals inside a competitive array of nation-states. Clearly the best solution to this problem is playing God at an even higher level.'

"The quality I would most like to magnify is empathy for wealthy inbred Anglos. It brings us together in a peaceful, loving state, allowing us to focus on what's important, like making sure ABMEC bulldozers are crushing enough nigger children to death in the Congo each year, so that we get even more of their iron and copper to make sharper-looking smartphones."



The professor added that Anglo space exploration was 'life insurance' for the master race and must continue. 'Considering what we're doing to this planet, we need to get the hell out of here soon, so we're not stuck living in the landfill with what remains of the savages,' he said.

'It hasn't solved any of our immediate problems on planet Earth, but it has given us new perspectives on them and caused us to look both outward, at the billions of hunks of genetic trash that still exist where we mine and drill, and inward, at self-absorbed white people terrified of losing their digital technology.

'I believe that the long term future of the master race must be space and that it represents an important life insurance for our future survival, as we need to colonise other planets to survive.'

Sunday, February 15, 2015

The Utility of Chattel Marriage & Gay Schools


Pleasantry as Censorship

What a lovely trap evil sets for the foolish! England recently blocked "humanist weddings," proving that, despite the affectations and slightly reduced volume of its celebrities, it really is just as dumb a place as Australia and the U.S. (As the sarcastic say at such moments, what a coincidence.)

After the gay marriage distraction, we must all now be familiar with how marriage is really chattel slavery, where men own women in order to ensure social order and genetic security. Except that now it's not, because people keep wanting to have "marriages" which mean something other than a property transaction between the males of one family and the males of another. So marriage morphed from slavery into love, or into financial security, or into convenience, or into "ability to put you on my health plan," or "a social affirmation of our relationship," etc. And everyone likes the excuse to sell things to idiots, so business has always been behind the idea of weddings and divorces.

Leveling the playing field would mean eliminating marriage from State involvement, and making it wholly a private affair. Naturally, no one listens to those who want that. But when gays, or any other group, begin(s) advocating for the right to have ten-thousand-dollar weddings with cakes and decorators and deejays and invitations and ballroom rentals, all of a sudden, it's a national issue. And it wins. Marriage continues to evolve, becoming a ritual based on social affirmation of a two-person relationship. Similarly, when people want to leave school curricula alone, they're cast as morons, while those who want to spend millions of dollars buying and disseminating "tolerance" software, posters, books, and assemblies find easy support from Big Money.

The trap that lies in wait for those who change the meanings of words is a dire one. Once, it was obvious that marriage was chattel slavery, and that school was youth prison, designed to prepare people for State subservience and job performance. In both institutions, beatings were expected and permitted, and the institution rested on a foundation of formal bigotry and rightlessness. As time goes by, people--often very well-meaning people--would see these institutions, and think, "Oh, we can make this better! Let's change 'school' to mean 'place of acceptance and learning,' and let's change 'marriage' to be about 'love.'"

This is the province of those such as Jane Austen, who lament that marriage has to be about having your father sell you to the most prominent man you can attract, and should instead be about having your father grant you discretion to choose one whom you love. Sure, that's an improvement, of sorts--but when the quest is completed, the children of the next generation will no longer have the ability to discriminate between chattel slavery and freedom. By changing the definition of marriage, rather than by coming up with a new term by which to describe "love-based life-bonding," the history of marriage is scrubbed from the collective consciousness.

It is possible to do historical research and discover that once, marriage meant something other than what it means now. Yet revelations of chattel marriage were such a shock to the generations who considered the "gay marriage debate" because they had, before then, forgotten what marriage really was. They'd been led to believe it was a love-based, somewhat child-based social ritual, involving government paperwork and changes in tax status, and the majority were genuinely shocked to discover that marriage was conceived of as rather the same as African-American slavery, rule of thumb included.

Regarding public schools, the horrible term "school," akin to marriage, was (used as a noun, in contrast to the "schooling" of elites, who tended to get one-on-one or small-group attention) developed as referring to a place where masses of children were extracted from their parents, beaten into place, and instructed in how to sever ties to their family and wed, instead, their employers, and the governments to whom those employers were wedded. Nearly no one remembers that or cares, now, because, like the definition of marriage, the definition of school has been subtly changed over the years, to mean, "Place where children are respected and cared for, and treated to free self-affirming learning."

Accordingly, the horrors of the past have been glossed over. The callous, selfish disregard that we and our predecessors have shown so many former generations of "wives" and "students," by transmogrifying the terminology denoting their beaten, enslaved positions into our own preferred versions of amicable interpersonality, are horrifying, both in scope and in scale. We have denied them their identity; we have turned a blind eye to their suffering, and co-opted their selves by replacing them with versions of history that suit our preferences, rather than their truths. Students who froze to death in impoverished country huts; students who were sodomized by roaming headmaster-perverts, then dropped into the bogs and marked as truants; wives who went to the noose for fleeing a pudgy, impotent nobleman in the arms of a dashing rogue. It is as discriminatory an act from which any politically-correct social justice warrior could have possibly recoiled. And we do it loudly, proudly, telling ourselves all the while that, by "improving the meaning" of a word, we're making things better for everyone.

Marriage, like school, should be made to stand for what it was conceived as: formal slavery. Let those who want marriage to be about love and children and man and woman, rather than property and children and man and woman, come up with their own word. Similarly, let those who want marriage to be about financial prudence and adult and adult, come up with their own word. In time, the better arrangements will reveal themselves: "marriage" would be shown to be wretched, and no one would choose it, while plenty of people would choose the "man/woman/child/love" arrangement, and plenty of others would choose the "social acceptance and man and man" version.

For the so-called conservatives who believe in "man/woman/child/love" arrangement, the sad news is that you are little different in expressing patterns of revisionism from the LGBTs who now want the State to sanction two-"mother" child adoptions. You can argue that your system is better, if you want, but it's just as improper to call your man/woman/love ritual "marriage" as it is for two dudes to call their own social affirmation "marriage." Lizzie and Mr. Darcy, in pursuing a love-based relationship, would have been nearly as radical as gays at the courthouse now, for they flung tradition on its back and argued instead for their right to choose based on loins and hearts, instead of class and coin.

(Actually, let's burst another bubble while we're at it, and remind everyone that Lizzie chose Mr. Darcy because of Pemberley, through which she found her more conservative version of "love." Jane Austen was actually countering the growing romantic-love-based argument of the time, by supplanting for it a more traditional "love"--e.g., the warm feeling a woman gets when she realizes the guy who wants her is, like, totally loaded. Nonetheless, the example stands: if you took the naive and wishful view of P&P, the metaphor suffices within such constraint.)

Those To Come

The Memory Hole concept serves here. When we change the definitions of words, even if what we're doing actually makes them "nicer" or "more inclusive," we cripple our ability to critique the older word. In the case of "marriage," by changing the term "marriage" to mean an all-inclusive social ritual based on love and acceptance (in theory), we define marriage, to later generations, as an inclusive social ritual about happiness and good feelings. It's theoretically possible for later generations to investigate history and learn the truth, but even the tiny percentage of them who do such a thing will encounter great difficulty presenting their findings to others--worse still, even those who do the research will be unable to shake their instinctive reaction to the term as positive, despite what they may learn about its history. A scholar who spent years growing up believing that "marriage" was about "two people who love each other having a celebration and being in love forever" will never be able to eliminate that incorrect definition from her/his linguistic palate, even if s/he later comes to understand that the new version of the word is really only perfume sprayed on shit.

Moreover, elite record-scrubbing makes it increasingly difficult to do such research in the first place. The future may hold times where not only the present and future definitions of words are censored, but also the past. All e-books and historical archives could be cleaned up, to make the history of the human ritual of marriage appear to be just as positive as we want the present to be. All censorship is a clear attempt to rewrite the present and the future, but less-often recognized is that successful censorship deletes, also, the past.

The weakness in all censorship lies in its inability to justify itself. The act of censoring removes the justification for censoring. What was so objectionable about marriage that it was changed, anyway? After not too long, few remember. A bit farther down the timeline, it's irrelevant trivia. Flat ultimatums backed up by police power can cause people to behave in conformity with the whims of censors, but like all formal acts of censorship, the necessity of blocking knowledge transfers causes people to question the truth of the censor's motives--and, therefore, sows the seeds of its own destruction, like so many intestinal blockages.

Any censor proves himself wrong through the act of censorship, except to the fools dim enough to be themselves afraid of discussion. And even those fools, in the privacy of their minds, may begin to question the reasons why the censor is so afraid. If the censor is afraid of discussion, s/he is necessarily powerless to win the discussion. It's an entirely predictable conclusion, which is why some censorship is undertaken: specifically to cast doubt on the obvious. That's why European elites so assiduously punish "Holocaust denial"--because the more cowardly a front they present as to the relevant historiography, the more they encourage their populations to question the concentration camps operated by all major powers during the Great War, in ultimate service to other such wars of extermination. By cultivating an eerie mystique of pigheaded non-comment, Holocaust censors encourage people to believe, in the privacy of their own minds, that the killings might not have taken place. All of the darker, poorer gypsies, communists, trade unionists, and swarthier Jews who did die in the camps are largely forgotten, and white nationalist anger is stoked to the point of readiness for a new race war--whose hammer will, yet again, fall most heavily on Romani, darker-skinned Jews, and the politically unwanted. In the meantime, of course, the whitest of peoples will manage to escape through their own racist nationalism, having consigned to the killing fields those who can't afford to shop countries and claim backgrounds. Indeed, the twentieth century's hypocritical wave of WW2-related censorship can be most accurately seen as guaranteeing a nationalistic backlash, and new world wars. Never let it be said the elites lack foresight.

The Failure of the Gay Commune

The censorship of language itself, through the derivation of "more inclusive" versions of words replacing less inclusive (i.e., genuine) versions, will backfire similarly on those who are now celebrating the mysterious suddenness with which elites have embraced their cause (note to white people: whenever the rich spend decades repressing you, then suddenly get on your side, be very &$%#@$ suspicious). Reinventing the term "marriage" will prevent future people like you from realizing from what it was you freed them. Moreover, it will make your version of marriage seem to be a censorship of the old one, causing future generations to assume that, because the definition was censored, there must've been profound meaning in actual marriage, or marriage-as-chattel-slavery.

Ergo when some kind of happy, inclusive LGBT commune of the future tries to teach its tubespawned young about the horrors of "marriage of old," their message will fail to reach those young people. Accustomed in their every social interaction to conceptualizing of the world, and of marriage, as about "happiness and love for two consenting adult partners," those later generations will be unable to fully process what chattel slavery really meant. The cries of thousands of honor-killed women will be unable to reach their ears. That's a profanity in its own right; more troublesome for the future of those ignorant people is that they will have lost the ability to use the word "marriage" to describe a dehumanizing property contract between men who wanted to transfer pussy for purposes of exclusive breeding.

A suitable example to the "evolution" of the term "marriage" might be to discuss what it would mean to, say, African-American slaves, were businesses of the future to "evolve" the term "slavery" to mean, "employment by consent of the laborer and the manager." Centuries later, slaves go to their cubicles and work, right? Now, does using the term "slave" in that way disrespect those who were actually slaves? Yes, just as revamping the meaning of "marriage" disrespects those who were actually wives. By the same token, changing the meaning of "slave" so that it encompasses "employee" makes it gradually more difficult, then eventually nigh-impossible, for future "slaves" (employees) to understand what "slavery" actually means. This disempowerment makes it more likely that actual slavery--the chattel ownership of a person--might return, just as the disempowerment of modern "spouses" makes it more likely that actual marriage might return someday.

If you were unable to grasp the chilling aspect of redefining "marriage" into a happy-happy kumbaya version of itself to include, say, gays, then considering it in the context of the word "slavery" may help you. Gays who advocate for changing the definition of "marriage" to include their own preferred relationships are destroying the very historical record that gives evidence of what they went through previously. Future gays, possessing only the Newspeak version of marriage, will be powerless to completely describe their history, just as future slave-slaves would be unable to explain what makes them different from employee-slaves, lacking the very terminology of communication--the word slave used correctly--by which they might accurately portray their experiences to other human beings.

Schools

We can see the same process occurring right now with regards western schools, especially ones in the U.S. During much of the twentieth century, schools were improved and modernized, yet they were still called "schools." As gay-marriage advocates now do with the term "marriage," educators and administrators continue calling schools "schools," even after corporal punishment had been prevented, and sexual and racial integration achieved, and teachers subjected to direct administrative oversight, and school boards established to monitor administrators, and internal gangs of violent youths controlled, to some extent, by security personnel.

With what result, these theoretically positive changes, occurring hand-in-hand with shifting the definition of "school" to include them? Well, the term "school" no longer evokes chills in families. Instead of representing child theft, indoctrination, molestation, and brutal beatings, "school" has been perverted into a benign term. School is now commonly thought of, and portrayed as, a happy, harmless place. And for many children, it no doubt is.

Yet in the U.S., we now see the desired end result of perverting the term: the cycle is allowed to perpetuate. Now that people have let down their guard about "schools," schools have been able to revert back to their old roles. Schools are increasingly built like prisons, with spiked outer walls, spartan grounds under the observation of security staff with headsets, metal detectors, lack of constitutional rights, a roving crew of guards (truant officers) who sweep the streets for potential revenue-generators, and the return of an in-school State presence with the unpunished power to grope and beat children at will. Not only educational administrators, but prison guards and police officers are brought into schools, where children are taught to revere State ideals, avoid questioning sacred subjects, memorize common trivia, and obey, obey, obey.

Where once, people could have warned each other about these things by lowering their voices, and saying, "He's been sent to school," that power is now absent, because "school" has lost its pejorative sense. A few decades of relatively benign indoctrination, fewer beatings, and more inclusiveness, has allowed "school" to become a trap that ensnared far more victims than it originally did.

So too with "employee" and "slave," where the act of being a paid laborer is now so normalized that people think of a "career" as "being in thrall to the whims of distant corporate managers, living from paycheck to paycheck without any direct recompense for the specific quality of my work output, but instead, remuneration for the time I put in." People who would've once balked at going to "school" or being an "employee" will now happily subject themselves to those fates, just as women who would've once shuddered at the thought of being "wives" are now delighted to "marry" their female partners. The manipulative power of censorship to scrub history clean--to steal from us the horrors we've suffered in ages past--should not be underestimated. Nor should it be assisted willingly by those it would entrap. If you have a new idea, do what people used to do, and give it a word.