Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Where are the pedos hiding?

For thousands of years, history records the wealthy and powerful making sexual use of children, both for pleasure and as part of bonding rituals. Clerics, royals, and the mediators who help them operate different states and religions have long facilitated this purpose. Africa, Europe, and Asia have histories of child sex slavery going back thousands of years. So if that particular network of pizza places and orphanages in Washington, D.C. is innocent, fine. But if so, where are the pedos hiding? Or have they, like corrupt rulers and evil bankers, vanished entirely sometime during the past fifty years?

The disbelief that many people feel in the face of "Sandusky" or "Epstein" or "Catholics" or "Pizzagate" is not disbelief in those particular instances, anymore than the disbelief in the destruction of the World Trade Center or the purposeful media campaign to lie about the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq is actually a disbelief in the specifics of those occurrences. Rather, it is a willful disbelief in the idea that the present is in any way connected to the past; a refusal to acknowledge mortality, responsibility, or the heritability of genes and/or institutions. Some people could walk outside their flats right now and find Bill Clinton sweating nude inside a circle of cheering currency-traders, raping a two-year-old to death while the entire staff of the New York Times and the Washington Post filmed it, and geneticists and philosophers from Harvard and the College of the Ozarks, as well as Ken Watanabe and Chris Nolan, verified that it was actually happening, and although they might be willing to admit that Bill Clinton was "a bit of a horndog," they wouldn't believe that the event had been planned, condoned, or could be properly understood by outsiders, and they would think it was ridiculous to either ask or answer the question, "How did everyone know to show up out there at the same time?"

At various times, this one has contemplated whether or not the dominant religion of the age is Second Judaism (Christianity), Third Judaism (Islam), or Fourth Judaism (Atheism), or some universalist derivation and/or blend of all three. Nihilism of course suggests itself, but curiously enough, the certitude with which today's human approaches the question of coordinated behavior is so strong that nihilism is flattering. Rather, the dominant pattern of thought seems to be an advanced form of solipsism, wherein people believe that they exist, and that other people cannot possibly organize or exist in the same way because admitting that other people have imagination and agency would somehow devalue what they perceive as their own imagination and agency--e.g., "If a bunch of people could get together and plan how to rape children and not get caught, then maybe I'm not really so unique or clever for planning to use my 401(k) to take a few trips when I retire." Malfeasance, thus, has to be an accident: "The neoconservatives couldn't have possibly planned to lie to produce public support for a war, therefore, what they did must've been an opportunistic fit of anger."

There's certainly a component to this that is mere wishful thinking, e.g., "I don't want there to be people that evil and foresighted out there." We easily imagine serial killers, but not groups of them. And of course, there's an ethnic and entertainment-media component about whom we're permitted to imagine has imaginations and follow-through, and who doesn't. Yet, when all is said and done, where are the pedos hiding? What makes our institutions so sacrosanct that rapey viziers are suddenly excluded from the courts of brutal warlords, who are themselves excluded by well-meaning but occasionally-mistaken selfless humanitarians?

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Message Transition

Books were resisted at first: the Catholic/Jewish occupation of Europe attempted to monopolize human knowledge for centuries, locking it up in older languages and restricting its use to private networks of child molesting second-sons from noble houses (some of whom did, admittedly, record the occasional scientific discovery and/or copy classical texts for later use). Personal charisma, and the exploitation of traditions of rulership, were used to control normative messaging. This was the Dark Ages, in part caused by the retreat to castles to avoid Muslim pirates, in part caused by the need for the occupation government(s) to restrict the printed word after the invention of paper (then comparatively cheap compared to stone tablets, woven scrolls, or papyrus).

Yet, as we all know, the Dark Ages ended, and in short order, books became an acceptable vehicle for normative framing. The Reformation attempted to spread knowledge of how to read the Bible--ironically, this was done in the name of freedom, but the controllers of the Bible had planned for it to eventually be released, and a released Bible proved able to weather the storm of spiritual and technological advancement, and lay the groundwork for future profitable ventures. As literacy increased, it proved to be a useful weapon: widespread literacy became mandatory schooling, and books--once the bane of rulers who relied on physical ritual, physical force, and firsthand charisma--became a pedagogical tool to justify an even more sustainable rulership, e.g., one that no longer required flesh-encased rulers, but ideological rules.

And so books became the new standard. And things went on as before. In theory, the freedom of anyone to write, then print, and disseminate, a book, should have made these governments vulnerable, but in fact, control of publishing houses, communications standards, and public interest, made books a more powerful version of the control exercised previously. Trans-"national" ideas could be exploited through switching languages. Everything could go on as before. People were less likely to take up arms and (actually) fight over Marx or Aristotle than they were to fight over a physically embodied king or lord. Populations grew more complacent. The books taught normatives, people believed them, and then there was radio and television, which were handled like books had been. As before, everyone could theoretically use the airwaves to communicate, but banks quickly took control of those via governments, and the seemingly infinite freedom of radio and television transmission turned into an even more intrusive banking normative than before. The power of freedom became a power of greater oppression. Not only through army-enforced airwave standards, leaving programming in control of bankers and their governments, but through mockery of non-banking sources, were people able to embrace banks even more than before. The television, even more so than the book, could simultaneously be several types of the establishment as well as several conflicting types of resistance, and vicarious participation in it was living.

The internet now seems poised to shutter television and print similarly to how radio and television closed books, so to metaphorically say. Various intelligence-agency agents are clearly banking (sic) on this; the development of self-referencing public personas who mock television and newspapers as "outdated," thereby harvesting a trend building since the last technology switch but which had been completely barred by banking powers until All Of A Sudden Now (see e.g. Linking for the Future for the social aspects, and CIAdams for a more political take). News was always "fake," and the new news is equally fake, like Whole Foods (sic), astroturf political movements (sic), or popular internet commentators who spend inordinate amounts of time differentiating themselves from their ancestral television demagogues. Martin Luther, C. Wright Mills, and countless other unknowns (may they flow easy in the Spring) observed that sermons/televisions were insider lies, celebrity-reeking bankster crap; human history has been, in its every moment, stuffed full of people claiming that the message was lies and the medium corrupted; the message of escape was panned everywhere, though, until suddenly, at some point during 2016, the bank decided to co-opt all earlier resistances, and claim that TV was biased against savior Trump (the television personality), and people should start getting their news from independent internet sensations whose reach was predetermined by the same banks and deep state agencies that have spent the last century publishing nipple-slips, Rothkos, and Britain's Got Talents.

As in all earlier cycles, we're seeing the same indicia of the establishment of a new means of banking normatives: calls for nationalizing the medium, e.g., nationalizing Facebook or Twitter (which has already been completed indirectly in many parts of the world); exuberant demagogue-stoked fan support for disparaging the previous media as the cause of the sins engaged in by the fans themselves, e.g., mocking television's focus on empty crap while gobbling up empty crap on the internet (which is totally different); an older generation snootily refusing to admit that the old medium was full of crap, alongside a younger generation punkily refusing to admit that the new medium is full of the same crap. The "freedom" of the internet remains subject to the intellectual capacity of the masses to experience information in its own right, rather than to seek the reassurance of self-referencing demagogues and the groups they provide. Put ten agents with a budget into the field, drop references to them on the right sites, and voila, the internet itself is the new New Yorker, conformist and stupid, but adjusted for a new age and a new audience.

Sunday, January 8, 2017

The Utility of Sexual Assault

Everyone loves evolution so much right now, so let's talk about the utility of sexual assault. More and more people claim to be pro-evolution, pro-eugenic, et cetera, but they're shying away from the logical conclusions of those policies. Let's illuminate.

Man Raping Woman

Raping grown-up females is generally understood as an evolutionary advantage, even if an "unfair" one, assuming one adheres to a theory of evolution where the behavior developed before the easy availability of birth control, abortion, and/or social acceptance/encouragement of the latter two technologies. The simplest example is a man raping a woman without being caught: if he can do it, and if they're both fertile, then he might get a genetic gain at her expense: 50% (in theory) of his genes are passed on, while she and/or society at large has to bear 100% of the burden of raising the offspring. The woman gets a 50% gain, too, but not pursuant to her own selection preference (in theory), and while sacrificing 50% of the effort (because by choosing a partner who stayed with her, she would receive 50% of the necessary labor in turn, and could therefore double her genetic output by raising two of her own children for the same theoretical effort, instead of covering 100% of the bill for only the rapist's child).

Man Raping Man

The female one is the simplest. The "man rapes man" angle is less well understood, but still comparatively simple. Besides being indicia of dominance, which has its own evolutionary utility, man-rapes-man is likely to privately humiliate and potentially engayen (made-up word: en-gay-en) the victim, or in some other way make him less likely to reproduce, therefore producing a marginal benefit--but still a benefit--to the assailant, and/or the assailant's genetic group.

...but wouldn't simply killing the man, rather than raping him, produce the same benefit? No. Absent a victim-friendly culture (and, biologically speaking, even inside a victim-friendly culture), the rape victim is less likely (or not-at-all likely) to report the assault than the murder victim's body is to be discovered, but instead to start avoiding sexual contact, kill himself, become a pariah, and/or in some other way become a net genetic loss or drain to his own people. With the assault not reported, and not discoverable (because the embarrassed victim in an "honor" or "face" culture never wants anyone to find out), the attack by the rapist's genetic group is unknown, and the secret man-on-man rape can occur without interfering with the two groups' public relationship. Ergo the rapists' group gains at the expense of the majority-unknowing victims' group, whereas the murderer's group might be resisted by the majority-knowing victims' group (a string of dead men being far more difficult to conceal versus a string of privately shattered men). Indeed, it would be a historically successful evolutionary strategy for any ethnic group to develop a sub-population of bisexuals or homosexuals, cultivate disease among them, then employ them in raping outside men, thereby reducing the genetic diversity available to the enemy population's breeding stock, as well as spreading disease in relative secret.

Many modern institutions, perhaps in particular prisons, could be viewed as an expression of this model: a designated group is fostered and cultivated as a "rapist population," diseased and sexually aggressive, then used to instill shame and/or disease among designated victim groups. Biologically (if you like evolution more) and socially (if you like gender studies more), the rape of women is more likely to be noticed by a victim culture, due to pregnancy, attentiveness to female virginity, implacable male chauvinist self-vulnerability-denial, or what-have-you. Raping women, like killing men, is more likely to be perceived as an attack by the victim group, whereas raping men--while not as directly effective at spreading the aggressor group's genes--is a more effective group evolutionary strategy overall, because it reduces the blowback costs of overt assaults.

(Even more effective would be a primary aggressor group encouraging the killing/rape of a competing group by a different competing group--the "subordinate" or "contingent aggressors"--and then eventually allowing the assault to be discovered, causing the victim group to retaliate against the contingent aggressor group, and therefore destroy the murder weapon employed by the primary aggressor group. To make the cycle sustainable, victim/aggressor groups should be regularly switched; e.g., it should become globally permissible, every few generations or so, to stop punishing one group and begin punishing another. The former victim group will be groomed to become the new subordinate aggressor group, and the former subordinate aggressor group will become, again, the victim group--primed to later resume its role as subordinate aggressor, with seeming justification, against what it perceives as the cause of its harms. When the time for the switch draws near, scientists would be able to observe members of the primary aggressor group begin to speak vitriolically about the crimes of the subordinate aggressor group, and to encourage the victim group to recognize and defend itself from the depredations of those subordinate aggressors.)

Modern cultures' openness toward rape makes the secret-shame aspect of this strategy less viable, but the right cultural engineering can produce a situation where embracing shame itself produces the same effect, e.g., lowered rates of reproductive confidence, higher rates of reproductive refusal, and/or inability to reproduce--all without anything other than "random lust" being formally responsible for the damage to the victim. Individualized, situational, and otherwise non-genetically-motivated "medical issues," including lasting injuries and "psychological issues," can be deemed responsible for the resulting reduced reproduction rates, leaving less-intelligent population groups and/or group-members unable to see the move and countermove of the true genetic conflict that is occurring. In particular, because of a lack of both widespread creative intelligence and time machines, it is impossible for most people to conceive of the opportunity costs of a successful rape.

In American prisons (including "school" and "military" installations), damage to a rape victim's orifice(s) is generally left unspoken but presumed; left unspoken and largely unknown is how many male victims suffer permanent damage to the penis and/or testicles, rendering them impotent and/or infertile as a result of the assault. If male-on-male rape is more realistically understood as "forced sterilization," the notion that homosexuality is maladaptive is discredited. Homosexuality possesses vast evolutionary utility; in fact, because of the seeming incongruity between non-reproductive sex and the birth of infants, Terran scientists have been embarrassingly lax in exploring, or even conceiving of, this avenue of inquiry.

Still fairly easy. Let's take it down a notch.

Man Raping Girl

After discussing Man Raping Woman, this one should be easy. Raping girls within a genetic group may have an individual evolutionary benefit, either in the case of telegony, first-shot at pubescence, et cetera, and in the case of fertile victims, it would have all the genetic benefits of raping a woman. In the case of infertile victims, though--pedophilia--rape's evolutionary advantage in regards victim groups is, besides all of the obvious psychological and sociological factors (which have been massively discussed recently in regards the Islamization of Europe, so I won't re-cover it), a step toward destroying not only the victim group's girls' ability to successfully become impregnated or carry future pregnancies to term, but to scar them psychologically against healthy emotional relationships, sociocultural bonding, and/or motherhood.

Ironically, feminism in the West has helped an appreciation of the awful evolutionary benefits of this kind of rape to be generally understood, even if not always expressed in the context of evolutionary utility. Let's move on to lesser-known territory.

Man Raping Boy

Now that we've discussed the evolutionary utility of men raping other men, the comparatively increased genetic utility of a man raping a boy should be obvious. A younger victim is easier to shame, easier to damage both physically and mentally, and therefore, easier to exploit to achieve a genetic advantage. A genetic group which cultivates and protects a sub-population of homosexuals has the advantage of releasing those homosexuals on a potential competitors' young males, which can then be raped to prevent their becoming successful reproducers and/or providers for the enemy group. Regardless of culture, children are more easy to shame, and more easy to intimidate, making the development of child rape a highly successful tactic: while the adults of two competing groups can come to formal co-habitation arrangements, the rapists of one group can destroy the children of the second, and terrify the children into silence, without the adults in the victim group suspecting what is being done to their children. Boy victims can be traumatized against reproduction, have their reproductive capability destroyed physically or mentally, or can have their vulnerability exploited to duplicate their trauma within the victim society. If a rapist-cultivating group attacks a victim-group's children, and the victims become homosexual and grow up to prey on their own children, the rapist-cultivating group has achieved a twofold success: not only was one generation of reproductive ability directly affected, but additional generations as well. And those victims who become attackers, by being native to the victim group, fully funded their own (in truth, the competing group's) task, calorically and defensively.

Those who understand and control homosexuality, rather than those merely averse to it, have the advantage. The Torah/Talmud and the Qur'an/Hadith are extremely effective in this regard, as they doth protest too much about in-group and adult homosexual relationships, while encouraging child rape and adult rape as a reward for the chosen; the Gospels, by contrast, are naively averse to the topic, thus designed for victim groups who can be preyed upon by rabbis, vicars, and other Jenomic jihadists.

This theory accommodates both germ, genetic, and learned-behavior theories of homosexuality. If germ, then identifying and cultivating the homosexual sub-population provides an ethnic group with a useful weapon to employ against competitors (or their children), with the bonus of knowing that, once the germ has been spread, the infection would take root. The risk of that strategy is that the victim group, once it has cultivated its own homosexual sub-population, might employ it against the men or children of the original aggressor group. Easy to solve: integration for the victim group, segregation for the original aggressor group.

Learned-behavior theories of homosexuality work the same. If a genetic group can encourage a sub-population to learn homosexuality, then have that sub-population forcibly teach homosexuality to members of a targeted outsider-group, the victims will learn it and potentially spread it further among their own group.

Genetically speaking, if homosexuality were wholly genetic (or partly, or potentially-pre-dispositionally), then we now understand the value of having deciding- or trigger-genes for homosexuality: to provide a genetically similar group with a weapon to use against competitor populations. If not by rape, then by seduction, homosexuality genes could activate/trigger, increasing homosexual prevalence among the target group.

(If you prefer to see homosexuality as a personal spiritual choice and nothing else, you can still appreciate the most basic elements of those who might be so wicked as to use their sexuality as a weapon against the unconsenting: e.g., causing anal, penile, and testicular damage to victims, in order to prevent them from discovering their own selves. It's a spiritual assault as well as a genetic one.)

We're seeing here how homosexuality is an incredibly effective adapted trait. All existing analyses of homosexuality are naively Rousseauian, postulating homosexuality only on the level of individuals and hypothetically-pastorally isolated groups, and decreeing it, therefore, maladaptive, when in fact homosexuality is an essential adaptive behavior for surviving between-group competition on a planet that has more than one human population competing for resources. Considering history in this way gives us a view as to how homosexuality could have been used to quietly destroy large groups of genetic competitors, and how mimicry, crypsis, and/or comparative femininity could have been a major factor in evolutionary history. Consider, e.g., the interbreeding dissolution of the neanderthal.

Neanderthal v. Femboi

Posit year 2100. Sexbots and VR have been perfected, and for $200 (or $10? provided free by the United Earth Authority?), every man can purchase a completely interactive, AI sexbot (or fully immersive VR, your choice) with perfect looks, endless optional features, sweet and obedient (or feisty or dominatrix--I said "optional features," right?), et cetera. Effects on reproduction rates? Sure, there are vat-grown babies, but what if the sexbots are so cheap that going to work at the vat factory only takes unnecessary time away from your perfect lifetime companion-bot?

Assume, then, that a couple generations later, the predictable effects on the world's population have occurred. Aliens land, meet minimal resistance, and take over. They laugh at the remaining humans: "Haha, you fools! You were evolutionarily designed to prefer the sexbots' soft features and sweet-sixteen bodies, but didn't you realize, they weren't actual women? Hahahahahaha we win!"

(So that's why they were so cheap!)

But anyway, now posit a similar example, but thousands and thousands of years ago. Thick, strong, intelligent neanderthals are in control of Europe. The males have been genetically designed to mate with bipedal humanoids who are feminine, which they judge based upon smaller size, weaker, softer/rounder features, et cetera. Do you see the evolutionary mandate for the much-weaker humans? Human females have an obvious mandate, and one that, for Europeoid and Mongoloid populations, we know they followed. Human males, though, even the biggest and brawniest, are fiddling twinks compared to neanderthals; neanderthal bone and brain structures show that they had muscles strong enough that, if humans had them, flexing them fully would risk breaking the human skeleton, which is far too weak by comparison. Whatever steroid-laden person you think is strong and manly is a little pussy compared to a neanderthal or a gorilla.

What, in such a situation, can passed-over human males do to contribute to the great homo sapiens sapiens evolutionary project? Here we see homosexuality coming into play: neanderthal males would be mating with both neanderthal females and human females. To prevent the extinction of humans--their absorption into neanderthal lines, rather than vice versa--the neanderthal-only line needs to be destroyed, since it would always be the stronger, and would eventually out-survive the human-only line, as well as the human-neanderthal hybrid (which was to become later Europeoiods and Mongoloids). This can be accomplished by preventing neanderthal-only matches. Human-only and human-neanderthal females would be working on this as hard as they could, while human-only males would face a dwindling number of human-only females to choose as potential mates, and would see their own time ending.

In such a situation, homosexuality produces a positive genetic contribution to the human-line, permitting the disenfranchised human males' lines to continue. By using mimicry of neanderthal female features--e.g., by being smaller, rounder, softer, smoother, et cetera.--human males could break up neanderthal-neanderthal relationships, destroying the pure neanderthal lines, and permitting humans to absorb neanderthal genes, rather than the other way around. Like the sexbot-users in the earlier example, the neanderthal men would be being "tricked," in the sense that they wouldn't be reproducing. Yet, like the sexbot-users, all of the features of "genetic success lottery!" that they'd been programmed to seek out and impregnate would be present. Symmetrical humanoid, soft and pliant, vocalizing and signaling in familiar ways.

Male chimpanzees, far more removed from homo sapiens sapiens, have raped (human) female researchers, and the lengthy, terminal cross breeding of homo neanderthalensis is beyond current scientific dispute. The human crossdressing and transsexuality that endures today today, and the manic and showy way in which they are often pursued, can be best explained in light of these brutal evolutionary conflicts of the past, where every facet of sexuality had to be explored in order to achieve survival.

Friday, January 6, 2017

Life only matters

To say that life only matters because it is short is akin to saying that cake for dessert only matters because you had feces for breakfast. We've discussed the law of contrasts before in Torture, Murder, and Pain Prove You Exist and An Idealized Reality. Let us consider the comment again in light of the common Terran argument that only imperfection can make perfection possible. You may have experienced some of these philosophical poisons before. Contemplate:

"We can only recognize beauty because everything isn't beautiful. If everything were beautiful, we would have no standard by which to judge beauty; therefore, beauty would not exist."

"Life only has value because we are mortal. If we lived forever, nothing would matter."

"God has a plan. His reality only appears imperfect because the free will given to unrepentant sinners whom He knew would sin andn not repent makes the beauty of others' repentance more profound."

These all are, in essence, the "cake only tastes good if you know shit doesn't" argument. They are absurd, and absurdly wrong, however, their true strength lies in the subtle conflation of the moral extremes which they present as false opposites. If, for example, fresh chocolate cake could not taste good without the ability to compare the experience of eating it to the experience of eating feces--or, if you prefer, the experience of eating instant oatmeal--then eating feces is good, because it is the foundation upon which cake itself rests. Conversely, under the rubric of the positive mortality argument, massacring preschoolers is good, because it adds value to the lives of the survivors (or of the sheltered unaware set of hypothetical preschoolers) by vindicating the comparatively superior survivor experience. We see this play out in the news, where hypothetical contrasts (whether they physically occur as described or not is irrelevant) permit us to define our own experience as positive or negative, or to identify with a group, experience empathy, et cetera, therefore strengthening our existential quandary--not through anything we do or witness, but through sheer speculation.

The Jewish-Christian Satan makes this argument too, becoming thereby the hero of the false dichotomy between benevolent-creator and malevolent-creator incurred through the corruption of Gospel with Torah. Satan, by sinning and enticing others to sin, permits goodness itself to exist, in a way that God never can. The wretchedness of the Jewish-Christian hybrid religion--a product of planned obsolescence, designed not merely to fail, but to fail in embarrassing and deleterious ways--is most fundamentally expressed in the necessity of evil to define good in this broken world. Due to the flaws in the material world, materialism, and thereby the cursed creator himself, must win the long argument; the Overton Window of Torah-based Christianity means that goodness is a zero-sum game, ergo the edited Gospels' keen interest in the legalistic stipulations of sin- and forgiveness-based negotiation. The Jewish-Christian God has necessarily to be a cuckold and a Flanders, hyper-unrealistically flawed, in order to spend his time in the pillory making Satan's rebellion suitably heroic.

The Law of Contrasts is false, in its own way, and it is a comparatively elementary matter to demonstrate that falsity, as when an omniscient and omnipotent devil giving an infant terminal leukemia is of less concern than a father of three glancing through a dirty magazine. Yet despite its falsity, it is necessary for some--those not bright enough to move beyond it do need to eat a little shit before they can eat a little cake, and would not understand beauty without first witnessing the hideous. It is an intellectual privilege of sorts--a "let the baby have his bottle" moment--to not require the primal validation of opposites in order to experience anything, and it is correspondingly selfish and immature to not, in a rather libertarian fashion, permit others the occasional reverence for the simple tools they require in order to be able to understand that they exist, and to make sense of the sensations they experience using the only way they know how.

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

The Most Pitiful

Some malevolent vessel stuffed full of money decides to destroy something to make the world a little more dead, and so a project is formed.

The most pitiful?

Many machinistically artistic souls agree to whore themselves for money, and the project becomes a product, and thousands of people invest themselves in disseminating it. Its putrescence slides into a gallery, reeking of the stink of the freshly unearthed carcasses of rape victims both recent and generations departed, and its mere existence inspires tremors of excitement through a population of bloated gluttons eager for more. The gluttons take it upon themselves to stoke their own gluttony and encourage others to join them down the grumous path.

The most pitiful?

Averse to the stench, a band of glib rebels congratulates themselves for hating the product. They labor before it anyway, pay witness, and then retreat to share their tales of how horrible it was, and how superior they are for recognizing that horror. Atop a distant peak, leathern wings unfold and beings of pure malevolence cackle in the absence of pleasure as they are rewarded and augmented by their self-proclaimed worst enemies, furthering their ability to poison and ravage not only the gullible, but the hopeless non-resisting faux-resistance of those eager to proclaim resistance by the very act of critical surrender.

The most pitiful?

Some malevolent vessel stuffed full of money decides to destroy something to make the world a little more dead, and so a project is formed. Many machinistically artistic souls agree to whore themselves for money, and the project becomes a product, and thousands of people invest themselves in disseminating it. Its putrescence slides into a gallery, reeking of the stink of the freshly unearthed carcasses of rape victims both recent and generations departed, and its mere existence inspires tremors of excitement through a population of bloated gluttons eager for more. The gluttons take it upon themselves to stoke their own gluttony and encourage others to join them down the grumous path. Averse to the stench, a band of glib rebels congratulates themselves for hating the product. They labor before it anyway, pay witness, and then retreat to share their tales of how horrible it was, and how superior they are for recognizing that horror. Atop a distant peak, leathern wings unfold and beings of pure malevolence cackle in the absence of pleasure as they are rewarded and augmented by their self-proclaimed worst enemies, furthering their ability to poison and ravage not only the gullible, but the hopeless non-resisting faux-resistance of those eager to proclaim resistance by the very act of critical surrender...and then someone reads someone else's critique of Big Movie and goes on a blog to subsidiarily whine about how damn dumb it all is.

The most pitiful.

Indeed, buying tickets, receiving free tickets, or in any other way devoting a portion of your life to any given cultural abscess is about as heady an act of resistance as Trumping for 1488. Being that much more aware than the pitiful Gen-X cohort of desperate IV-fed Hollywood puppets, eager for another hit of Known Franchise no matter the inhumanable discontinuity, means that it's that much worse of you to participate. You're preaching to the choir when you complain: either to young people who will attach, and would have attached, themselves to different franchises anyway, or to older people becoming more selective in their entertainment, since growing up means choosing different soulless repetitive degenerate filth franchises, as though quirky takes on new technology or rereading old CIA cold war space travel novels is a rejection of the terminally declining failure of since whenever you were born.

What use the minority critic when it survives only on the majority wrong; when it is, ultimately, derived from it? So too me, the unwanted minority minority minority critic, who isn't yet in the fortified compound on the Snake River, but is still tragically, even willingly, aware of the things to critique. My sin is the greater for even noticing. This one's pointing out of the problems inherent in suckling Hollywood to have something to complain about is, when all the relevant insightfulness is taken into consideration, a definitively worse act than buying tickets and going to the theater, then detailing to everyone why I'm so brilliant for recognizing why it sucked. I've learned not to go to the theater, but I'm still metaphorically fapping to the verbal sub-porn of the internet critics, a poor substitution for a poor substitution of the real thing, and creating therefore an exponentially worse monster by mentioning it at all. Even if this one hadn't written this blog post, the sin was still there.

At what point is the act of noticing itself a contribution to the initial evil? If we all stopped going to their shows, we would accomplish something, yet without going, no one can analyze specifically what is wrong. Similarly, if we stopped reading the official reviews, it would be another strike against power; even more so, if we stopped reading the tertiary layer of socially-critical and critically-critical reviews, that too might starve, and those people might stop seeing movies to disparage them, and it would be an indirect strike against the total revenues.

Ergo this one sees how this one is part of that system, propping it up in my own tiny way. Anyone who witnesses, even solely in order to object, is complicit in the crime; indeed, knowing that the objectionable is there to be objected to, one who witnesses in order to object has committed the greater crime than one who witnesses innocently.

Another of reality's paradoxes, this. We are all necessarily sinners, because to attempt to do good, one must participate, even to the tiniest extent--but still to some extent--in evil, or one can never understand it or help others understand it. If I don't read some sad fool's complaints about the latest ugly distraction, how can I ever have hope of telling him that not going at all would have been better? And yet, if he doesn't experience it and try to share his experiences with those who don't see the problem, how can he hope to ultimately fix anything? Perhaps it is not our place to do right, but merely to try to do something; something which may, potentially, be right at some point, but which is, here, only a moronic wrong.

Sunday, January 1, 2017

By Context: the Evils of Antitime

Do things really make us think things? Maybe most of us are just too embarrassed to admit we've been thinking.


In some way, we were all assaulted by Cronus through agricultural necessity: sow, tend, reap, wait. We might throw vast amounts of wealth into an ironically hypocritical material expression of immaterialism, e.g., a pyramid, and we might live our beliefs directly, dividing and subdividing each day into chronocontextual buoys, permitting us to express thought with less fear of recrimination. If we feel impassioned, we can blame our thoughts on the local deity, the ikon, or that most perennial of modern holidays, Sunday, set aside for reflection.

Cultural compression makes for omnipresent holidays of even greater power than before. Replacing solar years or lunar cycles with various Roman calendars imposes increased timekeeping requirements on the cattle, more profound than the clock in the substitution of visual conformance for ideatic--requiring the mental recollection of days, and 0.25s in Februarys, rather than the sky's freebie recollection of Time As It Is, perfect annual Terran time. Like substituting cover charges at a bar for a chaperoned village dance, the Semitic-Roman calendars created the time crisis of the age of prisons. The mechanical clock does the same, but its importance is overestimated by chronologians, who blame the social disruptions caused by banking on the improved technology of timekeeping. A sane village already had its constant clock in the form of knowledge of the sun; the hellish stress of punching a timecard and making a vital deadline was brought by willful bankers, not objective technology. The holidays, the conformance, became legalistic, mandatory creatures, with a crippled orc spawning each Sunday and demanding weekly coin for its magesire.

If Yule is gang-raped into Christmas, and Solstice to Easter, there is seemingly no change, yet if Christmas is followed by its sleazy friends from the bus station, as it inevitably must be--Hanukkah and Kwanzaa--the former logos becomes a mystical triumvirate, and the collection becomes, like Jury Duty, a mandatory use of your mental space.

The constancy of holidays in the banking territories has achieved a mission creep oft lamented among storegoers, namely the intrusion of Misters Claus and Chronos into pilgrim territory, and, in turn, that of Mister Valentine and Reverend Doctor King, Jr., into the new year. The profusion of "important times" has reproduced itself not merely into days, but into months, with historical months, historical days, war days, ethnic months, and so forth, merging with the schedules of government and entertainment media to produce an endless succession of holidays. Harvest and All Souls have become, in much of the western world, a miasmatic blend of not only Colonel Candy, Pumpkin Puritan, and Indigenous Indian, but requisite historical and ethnic days and months, blended with television seasons, elections and other moments of civic virtue, NFL kickoffs, dorm weeks and rush weeks, et cetera. Content is localized and targeted, creating the semi-hilarious hells of buying advisories for mail-openers and internet-users, and the egregious corporate self-plumbing of businesspersons, but the regional and national reach of time is itself sufficient to make the point. This was old news decades and decades ago, but now, so many people have been celebritized for doing so very little that there's always a celebrity fiasco, preferably a death, to serve as a stand-in holiday when a day has otherwise managed, on its own, to be significant in merely two or three ways. The investments made by the bank in fluffing awareness of public personae generations ago have produced increasing levels of market awareness of products even less relevant than the irrelevance they held earlier. Culturo-memetically, it's always time to buy.

Mediating Thought

People developing along this path have become time-focused in a way similar to how they've fabricated their own nauseatic personae through which to interact with a world they see as only interested in nauseatic personae. We've discussed how people have begun responding to large-scale tragedies not as feeling humans, but as how they envision media personalities, e.g. typing "My heart goes out to all those affected by ______", and people now do that with holidays also. Acting like the actors they see on TV, typing like the actors they read on the internet, people express themselves as aspects of the greater media whole.

It happens with holidays, too. People provide each other good wishes for holidays using speech patterns bought from the media machine: anodyne "Wonderful wishes to everyone for a pleasant new year," like something you'd read off a national corporation's website. Savvier commentators may mention being at a local event, in the way that a prominent local realtor updates her or his website, but--like the replacement of a Harvest turkey with some vlogger's "seasonal snack platters," a forest clan's Yuletide with a universalist Christmas, or of store-purchased Christmas gifts with handmade--the amount of meaning in the act has gone down. Ritual has replaced reality. It has long been the case that a celebrity domestic violence or public nudity incident garners more attention than a street battle with two deaths in Philadelphia; it then became the case that this same inverse, robotic sensationalism is reproduced by ordinary people--people not being paid to generate banality, but who do it because they desperately need approval for doing it--who have learned that they get more support for being a media personality than they do for being themselves. People speak to their closest friends and family in the dialect of a corporate moderator.

Youth enters the equation here, too, in that the system has become so pervasive that even defiant youth have learned the subtle lesson that defiance doesn't sell--at least, defiance not covered by the media. Anecdotally, most of the vibrant youfs on my Facebook page have stopped swearing or expressing anger; instead, their "heart go out" to everyone on this "momentus occasion" of "this New year" (sic, sic, sic). And when some older celebrity dies, even one they've never heard of and would hideously mock if forced to sit through the person's product, they offer global condolences more saccharine than those of a preprinted birthday card you buy your grandkids at the drugstore. It is a combination of Jerry Falwell's and Steven Hirsch's dreams, where the young become docile, uncreative, and cyclically provocative all at once. The media has managed to wed respectably interviewing respectable porn-stars with getting otherwise "fuck all y'all" populations to type carefully composed messages of sympathy to people who survived that minor bridge collapse in Nebraska--if a celebrity didn't die within the past twelve hours.

Marking Time

What of we ourselves? The profusion of holidays--of important events, discretely chronological, and with a purely ideological relationship to the sun or the stars or the physical world--has convinced many of us to tie our own developments to the ideological timekeeping of the banking world. Forget about all of the simplistic, banal social critique offered above, and focus on yourself, and ask yourself whether your own moments of development or insight are inspired by any given chronological hallmark in the outer world, or if you merely feel the need to tie such developments to such hallmarks as a defense mechanism.

This merits mention because a longer-standing component of banker occupation has been our refusal to develop mentally without correlating said development to issues of (supposedly) larger significance. The terror of Chronos is longstanding. A horde of fools suddenly remembering someone's art, which they otherwise wouldn't have given a single thought to in twenty years, is only a more blatant expression of the ways in which we've all lost some of ourselves to antitime.

Imagine growing up in a time and place free from the holidays. There are holidays, and festivals, and dances and feasts, but without the idea of a cruel, transcendental calendar, you are free from the need to link yourself to any given mini-epoch. Death is a constant, but there are no celebrity deaths; they are all actually personal. And there are fewer of everything. Fewer feasts, fewer grand remembrances, fewer dead poobahs. The ones that come actually mean something; they stir the aether. And if you still feel that about some modernized event, then imagine a signal like that one, but without all the surrounding distortion.

Without all of those events to shield you, when you make a personal development, you have nothing to blame it on. Nothing to free yourself from the terrifying responsibility. If you suddenly figure something out--if you solve a problem, make a serious resolution, or realize your personality has crept up on you and changed itself at an indefinable point over the past whenever--it's all on you. You are free, terribly free, of the need or the desire to say, "Uhh, when I heard Brock Celeb died, it really made me think, I haven't seen Brock's Back II, in a while, and that was such a good movie, and, and my heart really goes out to the Celeb family..." Instead, you can think about it in a more pure way. You can just sit alone with your thoughts, and reflect, "You know, Brock's Back II was actually a pretty good movie. It affected me in a significant way, and if I hadn't seen Brock stand up to that dude in the beach house, I might've never developed the strain of thought that led me to raise my hand in that one meeting, and..." et cetera.

Without a dying celebrity or a bridge collapse, we're forced to mark time in different ways. Is our hair falling out? Has something been wrong with the crops for the past few harvests? Is that smoke from the south getting closer?

Thinking those thoughts, and ascribing them to yourself, is important. A great deal of what antitime expresses by inundating time with hypertime, and thereby weakening it, is distending time toward its weakening, so that when it dissolves, it can be compressed into a single moment of non-time, in which all things are known and forgotten, and time ceases. If you don't like this one's pseudoscience crap, try a more mundane, "The profusion of notable events helps us treat time itself as less important, causing us to deny our own agency in changing things throughout time." We have learned, throughout this process, that it is dangerous to claim ownership of our own mental development, ergo we like to claim that "something" made us think. We can name and cite that something, sort of like deadening our lives by writing them in the passive voice: "Valentine's Day made me realize I'm lonely," or "My birthday made me realize I'm getting older," or "When my brother died, I knew I had to make a change."

We blame the season for the reason, like we blame drugs or conditions for assholery. Something about the media we employ for communication has given us a cheap out from ourselves. We're corporations trying to externalize costs, dieters trying to rationalize binges, using religions or breakups or pride months to make it acceptable for us to adjust what we perceive as our perspectives on being here.

Do things really make us think things? Maybe most of us are just too embarrassed to admit we've been thinking.

Friday, December 30, 2016

In Defense of our Functionaries; Oprah; Trump; Stalin

In my very early childhood, I paid witness to one of Oprah's programs, and thought, "She's one of those nice ladies they have on TV." In my mid-early childhood, I ran across her again, and concluded, "Oh, she's the devil." Not with any drama did I draw the latter conclusion, but rather, in the childhood manner of simply accepting what is seen. For years that explanation satisfied me; I can still see how, if the Prince of Darkness actually existed, and actually wished to have a negative impact on the mortal plane during the late 20th/early 21st centuries, he would adopt the form of a disadvantaged overweight black female, become a powerful and wealthy media figure, and lead people into various idiocies, all the while congratulating himself on how he was defeating God by proving the futility and/or wrongness of creation itself.

I still largely stand by that assessment of Oprah, except that greater/lesser powers of discernment have caused me to see the devil acting not specifically through Oprah, but through Oprah®. Oprah is probably just some poor dummy they trained for the job, who, by a reasonable twist of fate, could be avidly watching her alternately-realitied replacement, believing in everything that was said, and getting ruined by it without understanding why or how. In that, I see a similarity between the Oprah/Oprah® relationship, and the respective relationships between, say, Trump and Trump®, Rowling and Rowling®, or Stalin and Stalin®. It's certainly sad and shameful what the person is participating in, but are the peculiarities of the puppet either necessary or contributory toward the syncretic result? Does the person actually understand what it is the persona is doing?

Like I can see an Oprah in a different multiverse watching WomanShow® (or whatever you wanna call it) and completely, totally, purely trusting in and believing it, I can see Trump in Best Buy trying to get people to upgrade from DVD to Blu Ray, or Rowling fingering herself to 50 Shades of Grey (actually, that scene may occur in this multi also, but for purposes of example, assume the first encounter occurs in the multi in which someone else was tapped for Harry Potter, and Rowling remained poor and unknown), or Private Stalin vomiting on his ranking sergeant in Kursk 1943 and being beaten and stripped of future vodka privileges.

What makes my own social function, if any, ultimately different from this world's Oprah®? Oprah couldn't have planned Oprah® herself, anymore than Trump could write Art of the Deal or sell anything bigger than a car without someone else's assistance. And if I were offered the opportunity to become Oprah® or Trump® at their rate (even their starting rate), I'd take it. Would I have the power to, once I had a few years' apartment-managing (or talk show) money saved up, quietly leave the scene, thereby forfeiting my place to someone equally bad? Or would I have the resolve to use my position to speak out against my public persona? I'd like to think so--that, once I had some savings, I could expose the system that had used me--but I think that when people do that, they end up with an unforeseen or rapidly-concluding medical condition, suicide, or car crash.

I guess that gives me hope. Celebrity functionaries who die like that might be the proof of living redemption--people eliminated before they can admit what they know, because they really were good people, and they managed to resist the allure of power for power's sake, once they had enough to put Ferrari on the table, excuse me, food on the table. Or, maybe weird drug interactions and small plane crashes just happen to people like that, and once you've completed your first assignment and gotten paid, you're already so corrupted that there's no turning back.

Given that, what do we do? Do we hate Oprah because she became Oprah®, peddler of things too big and stupid and evil for her to understand? We can righteously hate, say, Clinton or Leibowitz or Dershowitz, or people who understand what it is they're doing...or do they? Does higher verbal ability mean that, unlike a Trump or an Oprah, they actually understand the cosmic significance of their role, or their intended prescriptions? If they actually did (or could have) written their own books, does that mean they're actually their persona®? And, that said, should we revile them for ongoing participation in the persona, or for, instead, the one choice that really mattered--that first, "sell your soul" choice, in which they agreed to, for one season, be that persona?

Viscerally, I tend to want to make an intelligence-based and sexed-base assessment. I'd like to find fault with Clinton (Hillary/Chelsea), because they crack a certain level of projective intelligence, while not finding fault with Oprah, who is simply too dim to be anything other than the luckiest one of her audience members. Trump, by contrast--while less intelligent and perhaps less willfully-evil than Hillary/Chelsea, I'd still fault, since that's what you sign up for when you choose male. But am I doing him an injustice? Should he--a trans-Oprah, sub-Chelsea phenomenon--be adjudged evil, even if he's merely the most-blessed would-be Walmart night manager in existence? Or poor Stalin, another historically powerful dunce, unable to craft or comprehend the works of a Mao or a Lenin, be charged with responsibility for what any moronic enlisted would do if suddenly handed the reins to a rampaging bear, merely because he was the reverse-piƱata attached to latter-day Bolshevism?