Monday, February 20, 2017

Buy These Shoes

I chanced to be in a mechanic's waiting room recently, and noticed that Yael Kushner's (née Ivanka Trump) clothing line is getting advertising similar to the style that benefited Kushner's father during the campaign to make him president. In short, negative advertising, a new paradigm in media behavior whereby deliberately-unlikable entities demean something in order to make that something more popular. We discussed this a bit in Manufacturing Consent, noting:
Consent is not manufactured any longer by the media advocating for a policy, but by the media advocating against that policy, knowing how much people hate and mistrust the media itself. Ergo the massive negative publicity for Trump--in which most actor-politicians as well as actor-journalists participated--was, contra 1980s-Chomsky, positive publicity, while the positive publicity for Clinton was, in truth, negative. Showing deep concern for Hillary's health problems, and zooming in on her horrible hectoring rants, was, of course, negative coverage, just like it was positive coverage for Trump to portray your very own hosts sneering at the idea of showing concern over attacks on Trump's rally attendees.
Consider a commercial where an orderly housewife, in black and white, stares into the camera and talks about how much she loves using her new vacuum cleaner to tidy the house; then, ripping off her clothes and shaking loose her hair, she strides out of the room to a thumping beat while her robotic vacuum, now in color, cleans the house. The character of the woman (a character who enjoys performing a physical act to keep her environment clean, rather than performing a mental act to increase her employing corporation's profits) is a subject of ridicule, but even deeper, so is the style of the commercial itself, which plays off of the old ways commercials operated (actors pretending to be honest while discussing a product) as a subject of mockery, thereby making the new way they operate (new actors mocking old actors, also known as actors pretending to be pretending to be honest) more effective on a population that is more numb to honesty. A mass learned behavior in the vicinity of Terra 2017 is that honesty is inherently dishonest, ergo mocking honesty means someone is more trustworthy, sic erat scriptum. When the television personality speaks pleadingly about the fine and pragmatic qualities of another Clinton presidency, the television personality is actually making the case for a Trump presidency, just as the hilariously ignorant grayscale wife describing the pleasure she takes in vacuuming is making the case for not vacuuming.

Trump, like the grayscale actress, may or may not understand the blessings his virtual enemies bestow upon him, but it is irrelevant, as is a potential public shaming of any of the already-failing, technologically obtuse business models. Television, in its way, has become muzak, in the sense that it is expected to be on in traditional form--with recycled content, integrated infomercials, and less- and less-important character actors--as part of the background noise of your physician's or financial adviser's lobby, playing near the dentist's reclining chair, in a bypasser's car's headrests, et cetera, with its appeal dwindling corresponding to the somewhat arbitrary nature of generational consumer-groups. Town criers, telegrams at the railroad's office, and rattling Chaplin reels have all done their turn as being old-fashioned enough to incentivize the purchase of a comparably newer product; in their unending death throes, however, they never cease to be useful.

Ergo the product placement of Kushner's clothing line: however many years it took until a majority of high-fashion younger consumers stopped going to physical stores and instead buying their crap on the internet, the line was crossed, and, like the growing irrelevance of the non-Superbowl commercial to a less patient younger market, having failing physical retailers loudly, and seemingly stupidly, ban Ivanka's product, gives her an invisible hand-up from the faux-punitive marketplace. The deep government, here, has tendrils not so very deep. Not only the mention of her degenerate empties, bringing them to the attention of millions who, despite Daddy's degenerate empty shows, but the punishment of a newly minority "businesswoman" because of her father's actions, is unappealing even by "leftist" standards. Considering the media's loudly-lamented woes about white women voting for Trump, the spotlighting of his offspring's brand receiving punishment from crumbling physical retailers is extra dubious.

At times like these, I like to imagine the next form the cycle might take. A whitespace (grayspace, neurospace, iBrain/myBrain, whatever) ad mocking the internet, owned by the heirs apparent to, and funded by the cash-hordes of, internet-derivative partners. There are plenty of things to "improve" about the internet, but which hindsight absences will seem funniest? More importantly, which will better motivate purchases, whether of trinkets ideatic or physical?

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Power against Money

In Framing 1 and Framing 2, and Wealth and Power 1 and Wealth and Power 2, we discussed the false conflation, primarily, of income and wealth. The State, Church, School, Charity series covered these concepts further, explaining, in conjunction with the Tax Theft series, the ways in which modern banking systems frame the issue of power in terms of illusory wealth. Equal time could be devoted to the concept of voting as power, democracy as power, employment as power, or internet access as power, in the sense of the impotent nature of any of these vis-à-vis actual power, e.g., the ability of the Bank, or better put (or, more science-fictionally put solely for purposes of illustration, if you prefer), Jenome, to alter the world.

The schemata of voting is easy to understand: voting is showy but worthless, in the sense that a vote, or a million votes, is diluted by the total available pool of votes, which is controlled by more factors than can be listed here, among them the pedagogical zeitgeists of available voters; the pedagogically-concomitant potency of direct and subtle cultural messaging; the supposedly innubile weight of party tradition and geographical sectioning; the secret polling and inevitability-molding, and open financial encouraging to participate in certain ways; and, of course, the counting of the votes. Controlling any one of these facets of democracy, or many of the other related ones not here listed, makes and has made democracy, and the proverbial vote, a farce.

Less vulnerable to common understanding, but still relatively simple, is the nature of financial markets. Recursively permissive civic nationalism, occasionally expressed as rahowa and occasionally as milquetoast environmentalism, again and again brings financial ecology to question, but the underlying financial structures remain too complex for broad understanding. The general sense of "I'm being screwed" persists in the face of what are actually simple mathematics; nonetheless, distractions can be made to abound, and a combination of bred and nurtured pragmatism and intragenerationally-focused future time orientation prevents resistance even among groups able to contemplate the precise nature of the maze.

Taxes are a quixotically evil addition to these other schemata, patently unfair at any given time, yet capable, by their nature, of evolving to malevolently conform to any given financial regime. The current inherent absurdities in the U.S. have been amply covered in the prior series, but their most noxious current and future culmination as yet is found in the authorized charity. Like the rest of the thievery discussed previously, the soul-crushing lying and cosmic burglary of charity has been amply referenced; suffice it to say again that buying a starving child a sandwich is not deductible, whereas buying an HDTV for the lobby of a nonprofit veterinary office is.

Protege Partners' bet with Warren Buffett, referenced here, provides an excellent specimen of one of the internal functions of our financial system that is less easily understood than votes, taxes, and media access: corporate control. If you don't care to follow the links, or already know but need a refresher, it's the one where Buffett, perhaps the loftiest centripetal asshole available to 21st century Terran lore--because, unlike "Bill Gates," Buffett does not even feel a need to lie about having made something--bet the hedge fund managers that an index fund would outperform a hedge fund over ten years. Although Buffett is dramatically winning the bet, Berkshire Hathaway "itself" (as though it deserves an itself) has failed to outperform the same S&P 500 metric which is beating Protege Partners (several hundred other air quotes have been removed liberally from this entire post, in keeping with the local parlance).

The bet itself illuminates many of the issues we've examined earlier, particularly media, money, and taxation. A lot, lot, lot of people know about the bet. Why? Because with a jobless recovery and a housing bubble and several expensive wars, the financial press, and even (sic) the normal press, was more concerned with celebritized success than any theoretical function of a democratic press. To be fair, "the financial press" really has nothing to discuss except celebrity; well before the bet was made, chimpanzees had out-picked experts in the market, and index funds had consistently been beating actively managed ones. Before index funds formally existed, available data showed that index funds always would have won such bets, except that hindsight can give financial liars leeway to claim they would have invested in only the handful of things that achieved ___________.

By publicizing the bet, the media has driven advertising, and capital, to the respective players, which is to say, the respective players have constructed a giant advertising maneuver in the manner of reality television, whereby their "We are investors" message is disseminated as sensation, rather than just junk mail. Whether you buy the Coke or the Pepsi, the house will win, which is the nature of stock markets that index funds partially reveal.

Regarding taxation, note where the winnings from the "bet" will go: to pre-selected charities. The million dollars "lost," then, will be fully deductible, and not merely as advertising for an investment strategy, but as advertising for the pure-hearted and giving nature of the bulging ticks. Cast against a ~40% federal rate and a varying state rate (smidgens of which ordinary income will be paid by Buffett and/or Protege Partners, compared to their so-called capital gains and other so-called income), the $500K deduction makes the advertising investment an even sweeter deal for the loser.

The money funneled to a pre-selected charity will, similarly, benefit both winner and loser. If you're not sure how, read Part 6 of the State, Church, School, Charity series. There is no losing in this bet, even if everyone pays and even if the non-deductibility of the proceeds gains deliberately released publicity. (When you fill out your taxes this year, remember that you are contributing extra to make up for Buffett and/or the Protege Partners' state and federal charitable deductions.)

An even more puzzling issue, to many, is the nature of the victory. Aside from the publicity and deductions, and the ability to buy a closer relationship with Warren Buffett--more valuable, perhaps, than the latter two benefits, although the specifics of how are being concealed--why would Protege Partners make such a theoretically foolish bet? Of course they know that their emotional salesmanship, which reams the occasional un-connected investor into paying higher fees, will produce lower returns than chimpanzees pressing random buttons, even the chimpanzees at Standard and Poor's. Some level of their jobs involves convincing a set of morons to buy hedge funds; weren't they worried that another centennial public exposure of their business model might have negative consequences for them, or at least for their junior partners who might still be around once it was time to pay the bet?

Why do managed funds really exist, is the question? There is a marketing aspect, and a weak-consumer-needing-reassurance aspect, but for the imaginarily-rich people themselves, why do they pay for hedge funds?

Aggregated Idiocy and Social Need. Managed funds offer connected traders a way to be paid extremely high fees for managing institutional investments, which decisions are made based on a more significant type of power, namely, positions in deep corporate and deep government. Much money gets poured into managed funds in order that it may be fleeced. The harried ad-men, the offices, the secretaries, the books, the articles, the seminars: these redundant and/or unnecessary costs are necessary to manifest the impression of presence, and to cover the lack of actual presence, that must necessarily occur in surreal societies. But-for the existence of worthless mediators, there would be no stock market, ergo no index funds.

Index funds are, of course, managed funds in their own way, with greater and/or subsidiary levels of individual or institution promoting them. DJ's and S&P's, and the interrelationships between the NYSE and the SEC, create a set of designations similar to the ways in which news becomes news by being formally addressed by the news. The outsider-stochastic qualities of "the market" depend on an illusion of randomness bolstered by the downfall of inherent meaning, akin to capitalistic forms of economy or evolution. The bet in this case supported the business of both Buffett and Protege Partners (the latter entifying themselves so the inevitable loss wouldn't cotton to the continuing partners, if any) by displaying real blood (the deductible million) in a fixed match (the seemingly-stupid bet).

More telling, better illuminated by Buffett's own inability to defeat the index with Berkshire Hathaway, is the issue of why any of these dunces at all are trying to invest. From a distance, Buffett appears to be either the realist's pragmatic market hero, in contrast to Protege, when in fact he's running his own bitterly expensive managed fund and, like Protege, failing to beat a simple index. Since he and Protege both knew it would turn out that way at the beginning, why is Buffett losing a larger bet with the open market when he could have dumped everything into Vanguard and earned more?

The power that comes from publicly-traded stock is, like the power that comes from dollars or historical fact, dependent upon relative worth and deception. All large investments were once hedge funds; the colonial endeavors that began once Jenome had taken Europe were not open to what would now be called "average investors," for everyone was not encouraged or authorized to become a partial owner in a joint-stock company funding a ship to the Indies. The resulting payoff of these funds was not in the dividends officially distributed to investors, or even the capital gains finagled to them in a tax-advantaged transaction, but in the latent and mostly invisible rewards attributed to the public, e.g., ownership over legal structures, ergo human and land development, and tax farms, in the New World, and the amplification of abilities to refine productive biomasses through citizenships and war. Even as a dunce-front, Ferdinand's payoff for Columbus was not "herbs and spices," however lucrative the ultimate numbers would have worked out to be, but in vesting (sic) his genetic legacy with some degree of control over Central America and western South America. (Similarly, Trump's numerical wealth pales in comparison to the genetic investments he has made. Any given building, brand, or currency-denominated asset is, relative to his insider grandchildren, nothing.)

Specifically-managed funds, such as "hedge funds" or "Berkshire Hathaway," differ from all permitted funds, such as "index funds," in the sense that permitted funds represent mass authorization to raise money by lending investors an appearance of ownership, while specifically-managed funds exist to facilitate truer approaches to power. Not power that most can access--otherwise, they are, like all non-majority shares of businesses, a potentially beneficial tithing process with numbing characteristics, or, conversely, an anaesthetic with potentially beneficial characteristics. The failure of specifically-managed funds to outperform all permitted funds, combined with the seemingly puzzling persistence of specifically-managed funds, is, like a political party, one of many indications of the purposeful powerlessness of citizen-options. In the case of Berkshire Hathaway and Protege Partners, why make less money in a specifically predictive fund than make far more money in a purportedly random one? To whit, because of the power of controlling shares.

Buffett is something of an Oprah, a Harry Potter, a Paris Hilton, or a Donald Trump: an iconic infotainment persona existing to establish the permissibly believable. His public mockery of the managed fund encourages people to view company owners as productive in some fashion--because he keeps Berkshire Hathaway even though it would be more profitable not to--while the same act of mockery encourages people to believe in the randomness of the stock market, ergo why are so many rich insiders failing to beat it? Why indeed. Controlling shares in corporations, as exercised by fund managers--both "index" and "hedge"--create substantial formal, and invisible, wealth, and, more importantly, create substantial power. Like the seeming selflessness of states, churches, schools, and charities, the unseen power exercised through publicly-responsible or wealth-averse organizations far exceeds the trumpeted public wealth which outsiders perceive as controlling the world.

Posit Company, Inc., a major international firm, which has its board primarily selected by a small number of investing funds, other corporations which own it directly or indirectly, and various other lingering ghosts/legal fictions: public and private foundations, trusts, and governments. Those entities, through the control of 50.01% of Company, Inc.'s shares, exercise 100% of its power. $50.01 million of power becomes $100.00 million of power, and so forth: power to choose officer appointment and compensation, public image, donations, locations of expenditures, et cetera. If an investment produces a public 20% return and a private 150% return over, say, eight years, it is far superior to an investment that produces only a public 60% return over eight years.

Consider: Bill invests $10 million in an index fund with a fee of 0.05%, while Jacob's advisers charge him 2% to invest $10 million on his behalf in the Elite Premium Fund. Eight years later, Bill's investment is worth $16 million, while Jacob's is worth $12.4 million. Bill laughs at how unpredictable the market is, and at how foolish Jacob is for not understanding economics. During that eight year period, however, Jacob's investment (which Jacob wouldn't fully comprehend until he reached his mid-fifties, if ever) altered the course of several international businesses and governments, beginning projects in regions where some of Jacob's cousins lived, and employing seven of them for $400K yearly consulting jobs. Jacob's parents' own closely-held business employed preferred government hirees in clumsily pretending to landscape a park and associated roadway and parking lot in a nearby metropolitan area, burning through $4 million in county funds. Jacob's fund managers work with other fund managers whom they know very well, who work with many of Jacob's parents' friends' funds, together arranging the preprinting of chairperson nomination sheets and appointing directors to various corporate boards from among Jacob's parents' friends' friends, with total salaries of $60 million. The associated funds, with capitalization in said corporations of a little over 50%, bear $35 million of these unnecessary administrative costs, while the remaining blind shareholders pay $25 million. The $35 million is reinvested in similar funds, ensuring a secure future for Jacob's children, while during their tenure, the administrators exercise control over the economic lives of millions of Jacob's social competitors, including the children of Bill and his friends. Some lucky Bills will be publicly rewarded, and made into financial celebrities, as figureheads of success.

For the remainder, though--the more realistic one hundred Bills who invested $100K each in "the market"--their 60% gain, while far superior to what they would have gained by becoming net-losing junior suckers in the Elite Premium Fund, will represent a less forceful robbery than they might have otherwise experienced, had they stored cash, saved at the bank, or started a small business which attempted to compete against national chains. Those who believe that they, or Buffett, have discovered some exploit, and marvel at the stupidity of such wealthy people who buy expensive funds, are only part right: certain wealthy but subsidiary investors are indeed being fleeced by liars who predict worse than monkeys, but their aspirations to become part of true power, by controlling via hedge funds, are as pitifully unrealistic as Bill's belief that he's playing a fair game where patience and deliberation win in the long run.

The Bill who saves his way to a trigger amount--say, a dozen million--is, if his geno plans properly, able to become the family that owns a couple car dealerships in town, junior donor to the local political machine, and grantor of state-representative status to a child or two, with potential intermarriage into a powerful regional line and, eventually, service as a mid-level philanthropist or ambassadorial post. The ultimate reward to hard saving is one's grand- or great-grandchildren entering the level of intergenerational higher-tier lapdog appointeeship. The benefits are nothing to be dismissed, but by then the creatures receiving them are televised images.

The so-called political benefits of corporate control are more difficult to price than mere sinecures. If Bush II's bubbling of the housing market causes a depression, Bush II later bounces back, numerically speaking, but because of the relative value of money, his gain is far greater than investments show. The relative gain--the increased power wealth can exert over increasingly desperate people--is profound, but the invisible gain--the unspoken layer of relationships, favors, crushed competitors, and darker plans--can only be surmised in (Terran) retrospect.

When we see the soulless scions cavalierly losing imaginary money, we're reminded of how the game is rigged. The latter phrase is most often used in reference to the rich getting richer, while in fact, the opposite is the case: richness is, itself, as nobility once was, a layer of deception between subjects and rulers. The general inability to conceive of complex, genetic, reciprocal, inter-generational relationships and obligations, proves even a subsidiarily complex system--namely, of illusory finance--to be as empty as a movie or a vote. This world is, in truth, a material meritocracy, wherein those groups best able to conceive of, and consistently employ, such complex relationships, are able to dominate less capable groups through the lifelong unspoken doublethink of instinctive participation in such ventures. And in that way, it is fair.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Latinx is Offensive

The term "Latinx" is offensive for several reasons:

1) Indios: people of pure Siberian-American blood, whose descendants did not mate with Europeans, should not be called anything "latin"-related, as it implies they are part European. It's kind of like Mormons baptizing dead homosexuals.

2) Mestizos: people of part Siberian-derived blood whose descendants did mate with Europeans did not necessarily mate with Europeans from countries with a thorough grounding in "Latin." While Latin did spread through conquest, and did influence many of the languages in occupied areas, many of the subject peoples never spoke Latin.

3) Northern North America: Siberian-derived peoples who were at one point conquered by the English are not part of "Latin" America in the sense of being part of a Spanish empire, and should not be slurred with an epithet mistakenly meant to target those from South or Central America.

4) Sexual Identity: people with presumed roots in South or Central America who transition should not be insulted by the use of a mathematical variable, e.g. "x," standing in for the identity they have worked so hard to cultivate. Using an "X" would imply that a so-called "Latino" or "Latina" was indistinguishable from others of all sexes and gender identities belonging to that person's group, and that their choice or effort to transition to identification with any established sex is voided merely because another person wants to avoid adding a few words.

5) Implied European Supremacy: using a blanket term derived from a European language to identify the descendants of the European colonial sphere, rather than forcing the development of a pre-Spanish-arrival South American/Siberian-American language term, implies that the people who might be called "Latinx" have no interest in reclaiming the lexicons of their ancestors, and/or that those languages are not sizable or descriptive enough to be used in conversing about or recording events that happened from 1492 forward.

Saturday, February 11, 2017

In His Image: Immibortion Policy, Part 2

A common misconception about evil is that evil seeks the destruction or enslavement of goodness. Not so. It does, when witnessed, seek these things, but as a means, not an end. The primary goal is not to eliminate the resisting, nor to enslave the free, but to successfully destroy all things, including (and perhaps most importantly) the self. To end all beginnings is the hope--rather, the un-hope--of evil.

Lying to people, stealing from people, cheating people, killing people, tricking people out of resources, tricking people into unwittingly debasing themselves by directly or vicariously committing heinous acts: all these things are important tasks for evil, but only inasmuch as they lead toward the end goal of assimilation and suicide. While it is sensible for the concept "the United States" to have a border wall, just as it is fair vis-à-vis Mexico and all other countries for the United States to do so, Zionism takes a palpable delight in seeing itself increasingly duplicated. The second round of Europeoid settlements adopted a chosen/manifest destiny, began blending the peoples of Europe, hypocritically help-destroyed various residual peoples (whether or not they deserved/understood it), enslaved random Negroids, adopted a futile rentier economy, and now, after internally diasporizing itself, is ready to resettle an imaginary holy land behind its own fences, as though the problem in particular is indios outside rather than indios inside.

The television version of opposition to a border wall is spectacularly ignorant and hypocritical on purpose, but it's only as idiotic, wrong, and hypocritical as Trump's and Trump's supporters' conflation of civic nationalism, blank-slatism, American-dreamism, and borderism. Indios and ("Muslim") Semites produce dangerous reactions in proximity to the Europeoid, but without full-on geneticism, the wall is a lie. The Founders would support the wall under current conditions, but they'd also support the unabashed enslavement and/or cleansing of the non-Europeoid stock even now swarming American cities. Without the elimination of welfare and easygoing policing, the indios will genetically triumph, so making the northern ones feel more special than the southern ones via actual immigration enforcement is either a distracting lollipop to the white morons, or a simpleton's error. And not a hyperbolic simpleton, but the kind who is at deadly levels of stupid. And with the elimination of welfare (e.g. letting two indio kids starve per average family, permitting child abandonment without funding state orphanages, and only handling the trash-pickup part of it) and easygoing policing (e.g., the kind where you shoot as eagerly as you would if it were a white yuppie pushing your cuffs away and getting in your face with aggressive speech), disparate impact becomes massive, with the police and sanitation working in crews to guard those shipping torn victims out for incineration. The phony blue veneer relies on some kind of ongoing subsidization; without that, it's literally Israel: a pretentious master race congratulating itself for allowing underlings to die at a slightly slower pace than open conquest.

Far more effective for its stated goals, far cheaper, far more honest, and far more modern and realistic, is actually defending the United States in a non-medieval way. Instead of the prehistorical or feudal "big wall," have the Army defend the border. When the first few hundred retreating indios report that they were the only one of their group to survive strafing by Sonoran Warthogs, the re-attempt rate drops significantly lower than it would have if the indios reported that their grappling hooks slipped off the top of the wall, or that they had to retreat and find higher ladders. In context, "a big wall" is incredibly, even obviously, stupid taxpayer-fleecing. Pork-barrel politics of the highest level--how about we tax outgoing Mexican transfers and keep the money to better ourselves, instead of commissioning the carving of ten million sacred terra cotta redcoats along the border?

The rope as a consequence of entry without permission would be a temptingly cheap alternative, once the fun of the first few Apache strikes had worn off. Even better, though, from a practical as well as humane standpoint, would be turning invaders into net gains. Try this: invade once, and spend three years in a labor camp. Rotating nationwide shifts of guarded road cleanup. Hey, it's already happening--"Inmates working, don't stop." Only this time, without the right to sue the prison warden or receive medical care. Second attempt, ten years. Third attempt, the rope, or Mexico can buy you back by paying for 1/2 a new A-10. Under such conditions, illegal immigration would not become a game of entry via alternate routes, which costs Americans money while being satisfying (because a wall makes stupid people feel more secure), but becomes great free live-fire military training, eliminates a ridiculously unnecessary police agency that shouldn't have taken away the Army's work in the first place (BP instead of Army was obviously a setup for civilizing a future invasion), and turns a profit. Very few, if any, illegals, and those who do come pay with their sweat for the small percentage that eludes detection. That is what serious "immigration enforcement" would look like.

The expensive, inefficient, wimpy, hiding-kitten style of a pre-aeronautics "wall" is a symbolic waste meant to legitimize the more significant phases of the invasion. As discussed in Part 1, a wall symbolizes the justness of Hart-Celler by reaffirming everything between 1965 and 2017; Trump is the spiritual successor to Ted Kennedy, selling his platform on as many lies and misdirections as Kennedy used to ease Hart-Celler. Hasn't everyone tried to sound smart already by saying "Fourth-generation warfare"? A wall in 2017 (or in 1930) is an artifact meant to be used against the dunces who believe their special-boots show that they're serious. AH-64s running hot show you're serious. Labor camps show you're serious. A wall shows you're a fucking moron. Every other door-to-door salesman will get the memo. (And so will every hundred thousand newly-legitimized welfare-indios and east Indian scabs already inside the wall.)

Some people claim that evil forces have always been attempting to destroy or enslave good and/or free people. Not so. Most people are already enslaved. The central banks in every powerful and middling country in the world are on the same page, and anyone who labors, and certainly anyone who produces anything of value, pays hefty tithes to various levels of these banks. There are regular wars between semi-free peoples, endless new kinds of sickness, and frequent false rebellions that create the illusion of an ongoing resistance to the Bank. Although the Bank has never actually been defeated, but has grown consistently over the past twenty centuries, until it controls the seas, the airs, and everywhere with a modern military, the permitted revolutions always make it appear that something other than the Bank is progressing.

Yet despite this utter mastery, society is still spurred through a succession of normative shifts. Consider, e.g., the grand and dire need for European nations to "establish empires" and "colonize," contrasted with the similarly grand and dire need for "decolonization." We could have already been exterminated before, too, in many different ways. Yet we're being allowed to live, like a captive in a cell--tormented, but never quite finished off. This is because evil's goal is to destroy everything, even itself, and this is accomplished by making everything evil--making everything like itself. Vis-à-vis Israel (part of Jenome's current local nomenclature), this means the goal is for other nations to become like Israel. We're not supposed to die yet, because simply dying is the winter of the life cycle, and other things would/will live as a result of our deaths. There are grander forces at work here than even causing the whole planet to nuke itself--which would allow Terra to regenerate life over the next few years. For sustainable evil, everything must become Jenomic, until it all desires the everdeath that it can only give itself.

For the planet to become dead, we have to become Jenomic ourselves. Sustained inbreeding; neuroses both of individual cess, and of collective persecution and grandeur; adherence to a materialistic destiny of "pragmatic," which is to say, "evil," success: these are the goals. And indeed, these have all characterized the new version of Israeli-style "white nationalism" coaxed recently into thriving. We could have long ago been lured into merely killing each other; Arab youths could long ago have been provided with deadlier weapons than planes, and released in civilization-ending junctures in large and coordinated numbers; and yet, it was not done. Evil, like any good gene in the capitalist evolutionary model, "wins" by reproducing itself. The Genesis-god's nervous command to propagate its image across all other beings was desired in order that everyone on Terra will one day be a pragmatic materialist, morally compromised to emptiness, prepared to take the next steps against themselves.


What many quizzically miss about analyses pertaining to the hypocrisy of the internet is not that their own distasteful employment of the internet to accomplish some end is, in itself, an evil or hypocritical act. It is not. Using the internet in order to tell people, "The internet is inadequate," or "The internet is a poor substitution for human contact," or any other similarly unoriginal banality, does not make one a hypocrite. One may rightly consider oneself conceding; pragmatic; bound by material or technological limitations; et cetera.

Those who employ the internet to warn us about the inadequacies or degeneracies of the internet are, of course--and, of necessity, if you define "necessity" as the only potential way to reach an audience--using the internet. Facebooking about traditional lifestyles, retweeting tweets about irrational mass movements, blaring simplistic memes mocking real-world costuming, blogging or otherwise internetally commenting about any of the above: these acts are themselves what they critique. Those who use the venue to criticize the venue may see themselves as heroes, rather like stepping through a mud puddle to save someone. That is not what they miss--the unpleasantness of the mud puddle is a genuine unpleasantness, a genuine brokenness, and yet, a genuine necessity, given the reach and power of the tar pit, and the fact that most of us are trapped therein.

The angry confusion here stems from the inability of the arrogant commentator to appreciate that the people they're targeting believe that they themselves are using the internet in the same way. To many of them--perhaps most, perhaps all--it is a muck through which they wade to accomplish an end that would be more likable in the alternate. Internet fora are, themselves, terrible, but only as terrible as we make them. Even designed to facilitate terribleness, it is our choices, and not the tools of written or network language, which make the internet so unpleasant. Ergo it is appropriate to note our shared hypocrisy in hectoring one another as to both the moralism and the utilitarianism thereof, if we decry media-users within said media.

Like professional sports, the internet could be a pleasant expression of mundanity. Posit a society of internally-sound individuals, largely rational and immune to the fabricated need, rather than the circumstantial choice between one or the other otherwise-necessary product, aspects of marketing. In such a place could exist a quite reasonable set of small businesses involving some level of skill-based leagues where a minuscule subset of the population pursued excellence in an organized physical pursuit for remuneration, with said remuneration and associated popularity roughly comparable to that on 2017 Terra associated with community theater (albeit without the aggressive donatory pursuits and the heinous use of public resources funded by taxation-at-gunpoint, e.g., an unrealistic, idealistic community theater). A healthy society could have, in short, an NFL without any of the NFL's badness, and then the idea of a person choosing to watch other people play sports would not, in and of itself, be such a bad, tainted thing. So too the internet, where a group of acquaintances might use a verbally-limiting format like Twitter to exchange abbreviated schedules, jesting poetry ciphers, or suchlike, or a sub-webpage offshoot like Facebook to share familial or social information. Those things, absent any of the broken-soul-based desires to virtually peacock or self-affirm, and the concomitant advertising-based-response, both ideological and merely acquisitory, would not produce such lamentable states of being. The technology itself is no more damning than cuneiform or the printing press. Similarly, the ruination of the potential of cheap food or mass product does not mean the factory system itself is evil and/or broken. We are and have been, instead, the beneficiaries of technologies for which we were not prepared--largely due to the combination of colonialism and production, both internal and external, in which technological progress became inextricably linked to mass mental regress, when it ought to have been correlated otherwise.

All our actions and achievements are now tragic, and have been for a long time. This is, again, not due to the mechanics of said achievements, e.g., "factories ruined craftsmanship," but our own recursive tragicity. Our use of the internet to augment our stupidity is not the fault of the internet. So, too, is the propensity of many of our internet overlords to magnify and feed upon that stupidity not the cause, but the result, of our own ongoing sickness. It is tempting to exempt some given portrayal of Terra as the anti-process rather than the process. Tempting, yet erroneous. Every abrasively disgusting comments section is, in its own way, an expression of the same behavior as this itself.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Varying Death Cults & Plant-based Moralities

Where is the proof that other animals, let alone other humans, possess sentience, and that their behavior patterns and/or EEG results are not wholly instinctual patterns/responses? Different types of people have different types of neurons and slightly different brain structures, and certainly “animal” species differ in that way from humans and from one another. Why do trees', or plants’, slower form of consciousness, or non-neuron-based existence, or whatever you’d call it, make them unworthy of the self-determined life, while animals’ comparatively faster perceptions, or “more like us” brain structures, make them more worthy?

Should we slaughter a cornfield to spare a bovine? Eliminate an acre of soy to preserve a redwood? What makes one better than the other?

I know and understand said difference, and in another way, I "know" why soy is different from redwoods and preschoolers, too--the way we all do, in the sense that we've accepted a perceptual normative from the perspective of our biological and cultural wishful self-immanence: exactly the type of behavior we're supposed to put behind us as potential correct-believers.

Any belief system based upon killing one type of structure, and not another, is, unless derived wholly from openly selfish reasons--taste; admittedly-subjective feelings; or, material health rationales, whether incorrect or correct--necessarily a religion, and a clumsy one, in the sense that it claims or undertakes to provide the sole definitive existential answers. Although occasionally more vitriolic and arrogant, and occasionally more giving and modest, plant-based or solely-plant consumption systems with the tiniest scrap of morality are making profound judgments about the weight and value of self, other, part, and whole; about soul, creation, and meaning. A willful epistemological blindness characterizes such viewpoints, for unlike the prominent token modern religions, the morality of any given plant-slaying belief system--say, "veganism"--does not offer itself as an advocate for neuronic superiority, but rather, presumes that we've already accepted the faith of neuronic superiority--or perceived-sentient superiority, vertebrate superiority, or locomotive superiority--and makes its case from there. Personificationist deists, at least, tend to vest their offerings, requests, and/or demands in the presumed power and omnipresence of one or more deities, offering an origin narrative which, if true, might justify such offerings, requests, and/or demands. The "neurons make me special" crowd, by contrast, takes it for granted that you already agree with them.

"Don't eat meat because it's wrong to kill animals" is a value judgment more decisive and random than "Men shall not lie with men." In either case, "Because it offends an all-powerful entity" is a justification which itself requires a normative framework, but the latter prohibition against male homosexuality admittedly rationalizes itself through subscription to the unproven and/or unprovable. The intellectual superiority of one who acknowledges one's supra-intellectual, willfully non-investigative claims, versus one who deceives oneself about being a rationalist, is profound; ergo, we see many dumb Christians being, in truth, more intelligent and honest than many a progressive opinionist. Those who make the "wrong to kill animals" argument without citing a supernatural force, and a concurrent belief in the unobservability or falsifiability of said force or the reasons why we are its subjects, experience an unpleasant dissonance at the thought of justifying their morality. Plant-denialists may argue that killing free-range all-natural chickens for consumption is always wrong, while killing factory-farmed lentils for consumption is always right, a distinction that requires a massive expenditure of faith. The save "everyone agrees that suffering is wrong" is ineffective, even if everyone did feel that way, for a bovine which exerts little-to-no effort, sleeps whenever it wants and stuffs itself with food whenever it wants--or, conversely, dwells in an organic grass range with its loving family and friends--and is then killed painlessly with no forewarning--still does not satisfy plant-denialists. They find, upon approach, that they must and do have other reasons, specifically latent Judeo-Christian traditions regarding the importance Yahweh/Christ vests in the soul, for their beliefs. For acknowledged WASPs and other Christians, this is a comforting overlap, whereas for pseudo-militant queer vegan online activists, it threatens to raise troubling thoughts from the cellar of the mind.

Today's belief systems, of whatever form, would be well-advised to develop more thorough origin stories, namely, ones injected with structural justifications for desired behavior. Fostering nihilism among the people is all poor and bad, but sustained philosophies of any kind--black lives matter; fat acceptance; polyamorous transsexual adoptions; anything which is expressly not nihilism--require more. The staying power of the Torah and its successors has been the composite panelboarding of Nun, Atum, Osiris et. al. into the varying originative or justificatory narratives explaining why it was consistently important to care about, e.g., getting up in the morning and/or genital placement. The Big Bang Entropy and Big Bang Cold Death doomsday cults work well at dissembling things, but, without an essentially Judeo-Christian mythos from which to draw, will perform badly at guiding behavior over the long term. Next century's people, farther removed from the residual cultural value of the soul, and its correspondingly sentient capacity for free will, will care less about animal rights, sexual consent, or space exploration, absent a non-nihilistic, even if stupid, normative inside which to rationalize reasons.

Given the Bank's interest in some degree of perpetuation, we should see over the next century or two the fiat creationist Big Bang be more coherently reindoctrinated into the Torah--not as a mere re-expression of Genesis, but more modern, sparkling, and rewritten. In short, a Reformation is in order: some manner of faux resistance to the soulless age, which reaffirms itself by clarifying its updated acceptance of the tradition humans think is their tradition (e.g., Genesis/Big Bang, followed by Cold Death/Rapture), but discarding some token non-structural elements to make us think, like a good election or revolution, that things are fundamentally different. What will be the new religion? What barely glimpsed godform will justify correct behavior before death?

Totally Mainstream

I gave Ross Doubt That a link to my most recent Potter series so he could update his social commentary without having to search for some newer cultural trend.

Seriously though, it was more the Times' idea than this one's, since they promoted the original trend so hard before this one even knew the books existed. I'm presenting this not because Doubt That was aware of my existence or drivel, but because the NYT has been so massively involved since the very beginning in pushing Potter in every way possible, including insulting it as a means to drive more attention in Potter's direction. Once, it published the carefully selected worries of Christian parents about how Potter was "too imaginative" for children; now, it's positioning Potter as anti-Trump in order to simultaneously make Trump more popular with some people, and Potter more popular with others (neither side's position would be changed, but more Pepsi/Coke/product would be sold overall). Doubt That's article is not strictly news about how "liberals" are resorting to purportedly-juvenile metaphor content, but rather a pointed allusion to the cultural prevalence of one of the Times' partner-projects. His use of large imagery from the Potter series in his related articles makes his point, though not the point he's theoretically (and that he himself quite probably believes he's) making.

Ironically, this one is doing the same thing. I cited him, and even used a picture, to make a point. Not only have I caused more attention to be directed at Potter, I've done the same for one of Potter's little lackeys, Doubt That. Which makes this one his little lackey.

This ultimately speaks to the recursive nature of power. "Liberals" use "Potter" as a reference for Trump not necessarily because they're stupid, but because it's all they have, just like the internet (or some sub-derivation thereof) is all I have by which to whine about it (since my boss at Domino's says not to insult Hermione any more or he'll cut my hours). Using the medium to try to tell someone the medium is a fake: already broken. We're here, so we're all guilty, so we can take comfort in one another's failings. Yet the availability of that comfort is, like the proverbial SSRI, why we're so calm. Perhaps Strauss was right; perhaps we need pretty lies to avoid instant madness in the face of the cosmic emptiness.

Or, conversely, perhaps there is a way out, and we're just disgusting hypocrites for not taking it.