Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Slave Statues and Spirit Dances

I've noticed that the purportedly decent and honorable people who run our government are not choosing what actions they take based on even a rough facsimile of a moral code, but rather, that whenever they want to do something, be it blowing children into small pieces or torturing Africans for trying to live near mining operations in Congo, they claim it is the most moral and necessary choice. The media spent two years "warning" us that Trump was an anti-establishment rebel, and now, after attacking Israel's regional enemy and embracing U.S. citizenship for pregnant immigrants, Trump is visiting Saudi Arabia to give another hundred billion dollars to the evil men who run a slave state where women are mutilated at birth and beaten into lifelong servitude. All while Americans feel triumphant about tearing down, at taxpayer expense, a bunch of idiotic metal paeans, created and maintained for a century at taxpayer expense, to the close relationship between the one or two percent of plantation owners in America, and the international financiers and North African slavers who ran the Triangle Trade.

It is dangerous to see patterns in any of this behavior. I constantly endeavor to find a way to think around it; to come up with some other plausible explanation. But, at the very least, I do not in any way believe that the cruel tyrants who oversee the religion of this time period have undertaken to do anything based on a concern for humanity. Accordingly, I cannot celebrate them. I am disgusted by their feigned righteousness. The shreds of Palestine are a real live concentration camp happening right now, in 2017, where genetic testing divides citizen from prisoner, and where people are assaulted daily by tanks and stormtroopers and fighter-planes, where children are starved and an entire population group is being exterminated using endless American money and American protection from the rest of the world, even as the rest of the world tries futilely to break past the American veto on the Security Council. What a vulgar distraction it is, that while we do those things--actions where there are no smokeless crematoriums running constantly, but where there are actual bodies and burials, photographs of the dead and graves with DNA and shrapnel proof of what was done--we have the temerity not only to downplay them, but to at the same time congratulate ourselves for what we're doing here.

I think that these kinds of behaviors are related; I think that our ceremonial spirit dances, where we banish the ghosts of Lee and Jackson, help distract us from the real actions that we're taking; from the physical ways in which we're affecting the world right now. Many of the records of the Dutch East India Company and the people who sold to them on the other end are now destroyed, but there is a lot we still know. Instead of booing or cheering for the pro-immigrationists or the anti-immigrationists who fought back then, I think it would serve us much better to directly trace the fortunes involved in delivering low-wage labor to Europe and America. We could find out who exactly was behind this terrible crime, and where their tainted proceeds had gone; maybe even recover these proceeds. The danger is, we would commit additional thoughtcrime if we saw any parallels between the population transfers of then and of now. I know that all history is supposed to be random, and that it is completely wrong to say otherwise. But as I said, if nothing else, I believe it is still acceptable to refuse to praise the disgusting imperial administrators of today for their disingenuous humanitarianism.

It is so sad, so ironic, that if these people really cared about Africans in any way, they could save five African kids per year from being shot to death by using all their anti-statue energy and -funding to cut the CIA's ammunition-giveaway budget in East Africa by just a few dollars. Instead, they let those kids die in order to preen in front of the cameras here while they take down a statue of some dead person. The use of "cuckoldry" to describe "white" peoples' obsession with saving "black" peoples is not truly apt. The most bleeding-hearted of dumbass white people, the vaccine-pushers and the Jolie-Pitt-level adopters and the tearful statue-condemners, do not care at all about reigning in the CIA's mercenaries in Ethiopia and Somalia. Black lives matter to them far less than white perception of having relieved blacks' offense. It is easy today to see the white idiots harming themselves by pretending to en-whiten blacks like pets, and to think, "Those cucks are helping outsiders to their own peril, those dummies," but truly, the fragile, horny emotions of the whites involved earn them lurid emotional pleasures more important than the satisfaction of lesser lusts. Whites who buy drugs to cure Africans of uncleanliness, or who give impassioned speeches about the evils of Confederate monuments, instead of devoting that money or energy to stopping even one mercenary from raping even one kid in Africa, clearly value black lives less than the vindication they themselves receive by causing, then being known to relieve, a lesser wound. It is not, therefore, cuckery. To call them "cucks" is a compliment compared to what they should be called, for it implies that, however misguided, they actually care about someone other than themselves. Their unwillingness to care about white people or white children is not a racial prejudice or a misguided act of outward-directed altruism, but is proven to be something entirely different by their unwillingness to care about black people and black children. They are not duped by advertising into wasting their genetic passion for giving on outsiders, but rather, led by their own colossal inner brokenness and cruelty to manipulate dream-pets at the expense of the bloated corpses of little black children floating a bloody path down the Jubba River. The obsession offers its own disgusting returns of mental satisfaction, for the more simple the task--hiring a nanny to raise an adopted child; making a speech about taking down a statue since it hurts feelings too much to be tolerated--and the more pitiful the observable contrast--villages visited by the CIA's pet warlords--the more rewarding the sensation of having been involved.

We must pay mind to our interpretations of both white-on-black patronizing abuse and white-on-black patronizing altruism, and come to see them not as a form of irrational rage or confused selflessness, but as a rational and sophisticated, albeit sickening, pursuit of sadistic mental pleasures.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Everdeath by Design

From his earliest years Cincinnatus, by some strange and happy chance comprehending his danger, carefully managed to conceal a certain peculiarity. He was impervious to the rays of others, and therefore produced when off his guard a bizarre impression, as of a lone dark obstacle in this world of souls transparent to one another; he learned however to feign translucence, employing a complex system of optical illusions, as it were--but he had only to forget himself, to allow a momentary lapse in self control, in the manipulation of cunningly illuminated facets and angles at which he turned his soul, and immediately there was alarm. In the midst of the excitement of a game his coevals would suddenly forsake him, as if they had sensed that his lucid gaze and the azure of his temples were but a crafty deception and that actually Cincinnatus was opaque. Sometimes, in the midst of a sudden silence, the teacher, in chagrined perplexity, would gather up all the reserves of skin around his eyes, gaze at him for a long while, and finally say: "What is wrong with you, Cincinnatus?" Then Cincinnatus would take hold of himself and, clutching his own self to his breast, would remove that self to a safe place.

In the course of time the safe places became ever fewer: the solicitous sunshine of public concern penetrated everywhere, and the peephole in the door was placed in such a way that in the whole cell there was not a single point that the observer on the other side of the door could not pierce with his gaze. Therefore Cincinnatus did not crumple the motley newspapers, did not hurl them, as his double did (the double, the gangrel, that accompanies each of us--you, and me, and him over there--doing what we would like to do at that very moment, but cannot...)

He was not angry at the informers, but the latter multiplied and, as they matured, became frightening. Cincinnatus, who seemed pitch-black to them, as though he had been cut out of a cord-size block of night, opaque Cincinnatus would turn this way and that, trying to catch the rays, trying with desperate haste to stand in such a way as to seem translucent. Those around him understood each other at the first word, since they had no words that would end up in an unexpected way, perhaps in some archaic letter, an upsilamba...

-Vladimir Nabokov

Not a Metaconsciousness? Changes in Popular Culture

This one has discussed in some detail the effects of mass communication on human societies. In particular, the growing ability of utterly or relatively powerless individuals and entities to so thoroughly endorse the expressions of powerful individuals and entities that those endorsements can withstand not only short-term but long-term detriment to the endorsers, whose opinion was neither necessary nor desired. We've discussed, to one degree or another, the now-centurial and commonplace observations that popular culture has replaced increasing amounts of what we might call substance with what we might call insubstance, in which the story is replaced by improved detail in the feelie, and the rebellion by the angry scribble. To use a simple metaphor for this process, consider the replacement of a settlement's courtship dance by a settlement's three nightly taverns, of visiting your sick grandmother by e-mailing her, and of participating in sporting contests by paying to watch others do so. These trends in popular culture are sufficiently advanced that most have noticed, and been permitted to share observance of, them--ironically, shared observance reliant upon the ability to collectively further the purportedly obscene culture being commented upon, as when men claim to resurrect the patriarchy by mastering their club game. The backlashes in these cases are planned ahead of time, and depend for their success upon paying, in both the short and the long term, the very masters of the cultural change that are supposedly being critiqued. The rentier of the tavern seat, and the owner of the virtual salon, are delighted to sell tickets to those who use their newfound access to propagate the revolution.

More recently, we have discussed the ways in which this aspect of popular culture has advanced to a stage where redundant and unnecessary elements--the culture's own fuel--express and maintain self-damaging aspects of that culture without recompense. Over the past century, the culture of vicarious celebrity derived from mass attention to the gambolings of the Carolingian inbred has peaked, then burst, scattering a pollen of celebrity across Terra. Many individuals and entities have noted the visual aspects of this change, drawing similarities most drastically between the ways paid celebrities have marketed themselves in popular media, and the ways unpaid killers have portrayed themselves in the same venues. Fewer, but still many, individuals and entities have noted the ways in which non-killers have self-celebritized the mundane, rather than dramatic, courses of their own lives; first, sharing pictures of the entire family on holiday, then trailing toward the as-yet nadir of one's ungroomed morning selfie. The vicarious, then literal whoring of the non-celebrity was, thanks to biology, frequently enough noticed that few disagreements were raised when it was mentioned; the billable rate of sexual performers dropped dramatically as supply flooded the market, many of the erstwhile performers recording and sharing their own niche congress for the most modest of fees, via careers so temporally brief in their period of remuneration that, could one claim the adult performer was once appropriately compensated for her or his services, the argument is no longer rationally defensible.

American students may permanently indenture themselves in the amount of significant local currency for educations which do not produce careers. Such unemployed workers can at least allege that educations similar in form, if not substance, once led to lifetime careers, while those employed in various forms of the oldest known profession have no such excuse regarding unpaid work. Admittedly, arguments can be made that one might snare virtual tips, investor exposure, or the undying love of an adoring wealthy protector by transmitting to the globe one's home colon hydrotherapy and subsequent erotic employment of the relevant area, but the economic memoirs of the retired self-pornographers say otherwise--and in that career, unlike that of having a Master's degree in Basket Appreciation, the timeless prostitute's rule about being paid makes improbable the scammed university graduate's argument of historical expectations of future employment. Which is to say, someone who gets some degrees and is then angry that there was no job may claim tradition-based expectation as a defense for not being paid in the end, whereas exhibitionists who offer free samples may not.

Why the uncompensated whoring? It would be easy to blame economists alone, charging them with failing to account for a valueless product. Sadly, the economists can't be insulted here, for the same trend has occurred in less visceral social media. Sharing one's family's holiday picture may arguably accomplish a number of functions, both financial and non-: it may express an image of tradition, solidity, or cultural orientation, making job- and promotion-seeking, or other types of networking, more profitable. It may show off influential or monied relatives, influential or monied gifts, cooking skills, financial potency via visible decoration or architecture, or, for strictly social reasons, it may demonstrate how happy everyone is, and how well someone is succeeding at any related aspect of life. Many lofty fields of formal inquiry, economics included, can find rational justification for showing off one's expensive vacation, new purchase, successful relationship, or difficult job completed. Where this rationale fails is the proliferation of self-downplaying for those who have nothing to play down, which consists of almost all Americans/westerners.

Through the venues of replacement pop culture, people self-propagandize their bad sides, too, uncompensated. Acting as both their own paparazzi and their own publicists, individuals showcase their failures, their worsts, their unattractives, et cetera. This seemingly counter-intuitive behavior does not fit with celebritization as we think of it...or does it? Indeed, the available history of Europe after the fall, post-Nicean Europe, has shown the sick delight that Europeans have since taken in building up and tearing down images of their hollow leaders. Perhaps it was due to the void created by distant "general-kings," then "delegates-generals" kings, then "delegates the delegates who delegate generalship" kings, with whom Charlemagne and his immigrant viziers replaced the onsite-participant kings of pre-Christian Europe. Perhaps it was caused by the forced dissonance of hosting delegates from the "not as I do" liar's stoicism of the Gilded Indulgence Boyanus Yarmulke Palace in Rome; perhaps by something else. Royal/Hollywood events, still extant in the 21st century, draw primarily from the celebritization of a costumed hierarchy mandated upon Europe by the self-named universalist/globalist church, which has always provided salacious, semi-hidden scandal about who is or isn't allowed to touch whom.

In any case or combination of such cases, celebritization spread, at first theoretically warranted by wealth and influence, now adopted by the masses of the opposite. Celebrities, whether cardinal or actor, need by virtue of power and hedonism to demonstrate their everyday humility through false or exaggerated displays of normalcy. Politicians doff expensive suits in favor of untucked flannel shirts and working trousers in order to convey how ordinary they are, theoretically in order to trick the local peons into believing that feller from Washington is a roughneck, too. In such situations, the powerful entity's attempt at visual deception is rational, while the local peon's is unnecessary. The new self-celebritization has been characterized not by the ability, but by the willingness, to exploit the supposedly negative self in the same way as the supposedly positive self.

(Pity the Objectivist noble who discovers that the embarrassing cellulite-, sexual-, child-, or death-related scandal was not a dark blot upon a celebrated and rewarding career built upon that person's inherent, diligently cultivated, and incredible thespian skills at court or cinema, but that career's necessary foundations and intended fruits! Succeeding in acting and politicking have been at times considered shameful in occupied Europe, not because people possessed a measured or inherent dislike of someone attempting to entertain them on the stage or deal with the necessities of administering society, but because it became apparent to earlier subjects that actors and politicians were being chosen for other reasons, often their willingness/propensity to set harmful examples. Some lingering traces of this trend remain in our collective memory, particularly as regards politicians, or perhaps a general distrust of "Hollywood," but that instinct is in 2017 considerably reduced from centuries ago, and is still being downsized. Most people now accept "business is tough" and "you gotta compromise" as acceptable rationales for whatever outrage they may notice.)

This inter-centurially evolved trend of self-detrimental behavior might at first blush seem to be related to altruism, whether in the giving of one's body and soul to help free fappers or the giving of one's body and soul to help politicians achieve agendas. These acts, when harmful to the actress or actor, may be confused with altruism, except that this behavior seems to be systemically offered in an inverse relationship to need, creating the situation wherein people are far more likely to give to the uncaring, unnoticing powerful. Moreover, these acts occur in flagrant contradiction to the actress' or actor's own passionately self-enunciated ideology, wherein support for a politician who has exemplified everything in which that actor believes is impossible, while support for the personifications of the binary opposite of that drone's ideology is enthusiastically embraced. Tumblr whores are not altruists who expose themselves to the homeless or bedridden, but to people with the funds and privacy to quietly and solely enjoy reliable high-speed connections. Voters, too, vote for not the underdog candidate, nor the perfect candidate, but the "settle-for" candidate who feels, to them, "realistic." (Whispered commands from the Oversoul.)

Again, the most recent U.S. presidential examples serve well for illustration: a trust fund baby from Connecticut becomes the expression of rugged independent frontier cowboymanship; a silver-spoon prep school Columbia/Harvard white-gened and white-encultured decimillionaire becomes the pinnacle of poor urban black achievement; a wife-swapping loan-taking Talmudvision star who marches in Zionist parades and takes photo ops eating Mexican food and hugging black preachers is celebrated as the resurgence of the true European peoples. Without the false ideologies, none of them could adequately satisfy their appreciators nor their detractors, whereas if they did exemplify those false ideologies, they would be liked less by their friends and hated less by their enemies.

What an impossibility it seems. The costume department's work on Bush II, for example, made him just rugged enough to be presidential, whereas even the purportedly greatest fans of cowboy ruggedness, and purportedly greatest haters of Connecticut financial pedigrees, did not vote nor want to vote for any actual cowboys and/or rustlers. People who said or believed that they really wanted a crusade against Islam, that they really wanted to be led by a cowboy who shot from the hip, instead chose old Connecticut money. To criticize Bush II for being a phony, and demand real homesteaders or cattle rustlers instead, was a sin against the necessary illusion. Similarly, Democrats wanted to believe that Bush II was an inexperienced cowboy; they needed that, needed it so desperately; needed to believe he was a rampaging cattleman, rather than a financial scion of a New England family descended from British royalty and quite well able to maintain the Clinton legacy. The illusion gave everyone on "both" "sides" just what they needed to get through it all. Consider Obama's black/whiteness and Trump's national/globalistness in the same light as Bush II's cowboy/heir-ness: like chimp to human DNA, the people inside are 99+% the usual filler. But, without the veneer of excitement elicited by the role the actor is playing, no one can love them or hate them in the proper ways.

Counters to Metaconscious Growth

Arka has discussed the above, and many other ways that everyday fleshbags have begun to celebritize themselves. Perhaps this behavior is only vestigial elements of lost self felt collectively, representing the failed hopes of people who possess nothing but an illusion of fame. In a world where nobody sees character anymore, only the more translatable logos with which one associates oneself, maybe this is a sociological phenomenon alone; some by-product of evolution that causes people to mimic their surroundings in pursuit of a fabricated entity, even to the point of publicly demeaning themselves as a totemic attachment to idealized celebrity. If a dentist's wife with a new 4500-square-foot house in a pristinely manicured gated community, and a nanny for her children, posts a picture of her dirty kitchen ("Lol, I'm so messy! So overwhelmed! *sigh*"), it makes a sort of sense in a cruel, triumphant way, whereas for a broke single mother with a 500 square foot apartment, and no sleep in between three jobs, to make the same essential post on the same social network, raises the question why she would spend her microwave-waiting time doing so. The "messy kitchen" post is a form of communication, to be sure, but why, and of what, and how it can produce identical form through such different venues, are the questions answered by metaconsciousness. "Monkey see, monkey do" surely plays a part, but that principle does not stretch quite far enough to suffice for an explanation.

Perhaps Arka is incorrectly or exaggeratedly personifying these inexplicable mass happenings by calling them the development of new forms of life--metaconsciousnesses--rather than simply accepting on faith that these mass-coordinating, reproducing, synchronizing effects are the result of randomized individual reactions to cultural prompts. This potential critique would be similar to the critique that microscopic germs do not cause illness, for everyone knows that demons are the parties responsible. In this case, we do not need a microscope, but a megascope: the ability to perceive living entities on a larger, slower scale. The Oversoul's mass-humans are not delusional, but in fact, are highly evolved, well-functioning components; were they delusional, however, they would be minilomaniacal, rather than megalomaniacal, for their behavior is harmful to the self while seemingly benefiting no one. Kinship altruism, or forms of sacrificing the genetic self for the better perpetuation of genetically more-similar individuals, could attempt to explain some sacrifice, but in the instant 21st century case, mass-humans sacrifice to the detriment of themselves, their kin, and even their distant non-kin rulers. For some, it may take the form of risking apocalyptic war that would slay their co-ethnics, co-ideologues, and enemies alike; for others, it may involve scattering radioactive waste that will have a global effect (including on one's own direct lineal descendants ten generations removed), or attempting to preserve self-destructive cultures (other than one's own). The behaviors here discussed are too absurd--that is, inexplicable--by the rules of even large-group genetic benefit, to be explained by any individual or large-group desire for success. Instead, the minilomania demonstrated by mass-humans is most simply, completely, and necessarily explained by the use of mass-humans as the components of a larger-scale entity. It is, therefore, sensible, when a billion cells are amputated to save the whole, even by the rules of random mutation and natural selection. Neither evolution nor fool's evolution are violated when a fox chews off its own paw to escape a trap; so too with the willingness of mass-humans to displace their own thoughts, bodies, and offspring. When understood to be acting as component parts, rather than as singular deciders or genetic-perpetuaters, their willingness to destroy self, kin, species and/or planet in various ways is rational and explicable.

(Contra the universalist/catholic church's prohibitions against cleanliness and advocacy for demon- and sin-based epidemics, our biological challenge in this time is to see things not smaller, but larger than we now can or want to believe in, then gain an understanding of how they work. How can metaconsciousnesses be contacted? Certainly not through parliamentary debates, interviews with publishing chairmen or executive producers, or reading the official comments to Fed directives, can one expect to interact with the trans-thinking behemoths who make decisions that affect the world. Germs proved able to subvert human language, and to eliminate it, but not to respond to it; instead, it took well-timed chemicals or other germs. And the successful usage of, say, antibiotics, was not caused by marching or praying or negotiating around vials. Mass-humans have found a way to negotiate between mass-souls through illusory language delivered by proxy, which methods we might characterize as "reading between the lines" or "bullshit," or "political correctness," et cetera. Standalones can recognize and track the behaviors of a metaconsciousness, but not yet perform them well enough to consistently communicate. By contrast, people whom we might call "bankers" or "globalists"--even non-Semites--can use incoherent, broken pieces of recognizable human language in order to communicate coherent ideas to each other. Undisclosed and/or private meetings are certainly facilitating this effect, but given the presence of secretly-standalone retainers with a potential penchant for leaking, some greater, more evolved form of communication is occurring somewhere, wherein more complex ideas are being successfully communicated with a shared understanding that is beyond current standalone ability to perceive. This could explain the seemingly idiotic policy of globe-crossing in-person meetings in the 21st century in response to demands of instant political necessity: not only for privacy reasons, but because the nuances of dynamic, coordinated policy shifts cannot be effected without, as it were, neurons touching neurons. What might we later learn about the real way to translate closed-doors, yet still sanitized, political speech?)

A Negative Parasitism of the Mind

A discussion of a mass market consciousness, or metaconsciousness ("Oversoul" is an English translation of a derogatory term), should not be confused with an argument for a new "philosophy" of life. The somewhat nascent metaconsciousness found on Terra 2017 meets even biased local requirements for "life" (such as "requires water"), as well as more widespread ones ("can reproduce itself"). The effects of the metaconsciousness are felt both consciously and sub-, as in our common sense of various inevitablities that would not be inevitable were we wholly- or mostly-standalone, self-actualizing beings who dominated this planet. Our cyclical fascination with apocalypse narratives, which recurs on a more rapid scale with the infantile stretches of the metaconsciousness, is an example of this. So too our recurring obsession with "artificial intelligence," whose cycle accelerates with seeming exponentiality. This does not mean that all of us are part of the new evolution; it compares more closely to the hypothetical wading fish who sees others climb onto dry land, recalls smaller percentage occurrences of such during its youth, and recognizes a pattern, while being unable itself to breathe air.

The virtues or sins of this metaconscious organism, or any of its component parts, related to or subsequent to its speciation away from standalone humans, are irrelevant for the purposes of discussing the process of evolution. Posit Mexifornia's oneday C.E.O. Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, a metaphorical neuron collective of this new organism, versus retired U.N. Army soldier, active drywall repair expert, and avid L.A. Lagos fan Joseph Plumber, III, a metaphorical immunological component. They will both do things that will befuddle and upset older-fashioned organisms. Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, for example, may require Joseph Plumber, III, to perform twenty hours of weekly community service patching holes in the walls of the nearby Razachurch's megapews. Chad Miles, non-rallying non-voter with a collection of vintage VHS tapes in his garage-bedroom, may be upset by Clinton Mezvinsky's administration, and may falsify his own community service records an hour or two a week; and, he may be even more upset by Joseph Plumber, III's baffling interest in Los Lagos de L.A. games and in purchasing Los Lagos de L.A. products.

To Chad Miles, outdated standalone human, he seems to be living in a dystopia, and like the proverbial Winston Smith in 1984, Chad Miles can't understand why Joseph Plumber, III doesn't want to break away from the bland horror; indeed, why everyone else seems to enjoy participating in the process. Much human fiction over the past century has dealt not on standalone or national heroics and/or acts of grace, as once was, but on the metaconscious dystopia, as portrayed by more-standalone entities who perceive their pending extinction. Truly, these dystopias may seem bad or horrible, but in fact, the L.A. Lagos merchandise and Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky's labor-tithes form a highly integrated, efficient system of communication, whereby the subtle arrangements of obligation, deference, efficiently vicarious competition, and frugal reward, help govern the behavior of Joseph Plumber, III, keeping him operating within certain parameters with a minimum of directly applied force. His gleefully subservient existence, like that of Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, permits the mass mind to carry out its growth, development, self-image, and other functions, with reduced dissent among its component parts. "Bread and circuses" carries a pejorative taint, similar to "cheating" and "deceiving" and "slave," but these distinctions, so important to standalones, are healthy and necessary for the metaconscious development we see now. And Mexico's going to pay for it.

Un-fetaling in Response to Material Irrelevancy

The confusion, frustration, and perhaps denialism of the nineteenth century farmer, with his horse and cart, at seeing a 2017 Ford drive past him, would be perhaps similar to how standalones feel today, when contemplating their comparative material irrelevancy. The difference between metaphor and reality in this case is that standalones are not 1899 farmers, but 2017 farmers who simply haven't visited the right parts of the city yet, or who have in some other way managed to avoid recognition or acknowledgement of the continuing development of the automobile. In a way, what many of us have done over the past few centuries is presume that individuals and groups of individuals have stopped evolving, and that technology remains the same as it always was--ergo the incessant complaints of outsiders that something is "wrong" in London, Brussels, Columbia, and so forth.

People are perpetually encouraged to believe they are "taking things back" or "cleaning out" places that they supposedly designed and created themselves. To mass-humans, this helps ease the mental transition, since they have no desire (if they can even be said to still have desires as standalones would have once defined "desires") to "make things the old way again." For standalones, though, the desire to "fix this mess" by getting rid of metaconsciousness is as doomed as the hypothetical farmer's attempt to outlaw non-horse transportation. Those god-damned machines are so loud and filthy, so unnaturally swift, where you can't wave or talk to or acknowledge anyone. Little does the hypothetical farmer know that the people in the cars are browsing the internet, watching movies, and videoconferencing, being less and more connected than ever before.

In 1916, most Europeans would view 2016 Europe's politicians as impossibly evil entities; the transition from 2016 to 2116 should be even more shocking, even to those now prepared to accept mandatory transrhinoceros transadult prostitution. We must not let our outdated disgust at what future Canamerican C.E.O. Theodore J. Kushner's administration will require of the remaining standalone humans in eastern America's territory to blind us to the realities of the evolution that is occurring. Perhaps this is our moment to mourn; perhaps to share physically-unrecordable kinship with our previously exterminated and forgotten predecessors. In any case, we must put those things aside and focus on the observable development of metaconscious life, not the appurtenant moralities thereto, lest we fail to perceive the metaconsciousness, and outdatedly-blame what we incorrectly conclude to be conspiracies of standalones.

"Sociology," like "political science," "Newtonian physics," or other recent minutiae, is the pretense that the newborn mass mind(s) do not exist, and that their doings are merely random phenomena based on tautological axioms ascribed to an unknowable god-standard. If we fancy ourselves among the last standalones, let us hope we do not react with too much shock to the notion that our own preferred tools, which have served us so well in some ways, are neither foundational nor complete. Let us become able to fathom that it is no longer appropriate to adjudge the doings of our world based on the assumption that everyone else is engaged in, or still capable of, standalone operation.


We'll turn next to the unstable nature of the local Oversoul, and some of the ways in which it will fail.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Taking the Red Pill

(1) Years upon years of ancient culture.

(2) Years upon years of written culture.

(3) The Odyssey is disseminated.

(4) Plato's "cave" allegory is disseminated.

(5) Beowulf is disseminated.

(6) Faust is disseminated.

(7) Lana Wachowski begins her lifelong transition.

(8) Lilly Wachowski begins her lifelong transition.

(9) The Matrix is disseminated. An African-American computer genius and a butt-kicking female street-fighter teach an Asian-European geek how to face the real world.

(10) The Matrix Revolutions is disseminated. The Asian-European geek sacrifices himself to save an underground Afro-Asian city named "Zion."

(11) Staunch European-American nationalist-traditionalists realize they've discovered their cultural rallying cry. Take the red pill!

* * *

What could be more indicative of stillborn mutation than the continued memetization of "red pill"? The Enemy is laughing.

Obama is far more masculine than Trump

Obama surely seems more homosexual and more personally wimpy than Trump, but consider: when Obama wanted to protect a potential habitat for spotted owls, he designated an area of historical or natural significance, and it was so protected. Bim, bam, done, like a jab and a right hook to the jaw, now let's go play golf.

Any resistance from Americans? They demand the right to hunt, farm, develop, whatever, on the land that Obama has protected? Obama sends in the Feds. No bullshit, no "negotiating with Republicans in Congress," no whining that some lawyer in a robe might disagree. He just got the job done. Men with armored vehicles and guns were on the move, ready to kill to back him up. Judges were later permitted to write scholarly articles about potential justifications for or against what had already happened.

Conversely, when Trump "wants" to protect something...sorry for the air quotes; for discussion purposes, presume he's not a lying shabbos goy...okay, conversely, when Trump wants to protect something, be it America's history, America's people, America's future mestizo-on-gringa rape victims, or even just the natural beauty and environmental cleanliness of land along the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump dithers over it for days, weeks, months, years, unsure of what to do or how to express himself. And if he ever does finally express himself-- if his team of handlers ever does "negotiate with other Republicans in Congress" enough that they can then feel ready to "negotiate with Democrats in Congress," and then be ready to actually-actually almost kinda sorta get something done--the tiniest pea beneath his mattress throws him off-track.

Declare the border region a natural conservation zone and arrest anyone trying to cross it? No. Arrest traitors and fifth columnists in sanctuary cities and bless them with the privilege of living in their beloved Central and South America? No. Deploy troops to the border, or even build a big dumbass wall? No. All it takes is the tiniest of imaginary "objections," and Trump kicks up his heels and shreds his blouse in a fury. Obama had the balls to get things done. However expensive, infrastructure-hurting, Americans-hurting, or outright dumb and/or evil those things were, he sent armed men to see them done. Go without corrupt health insurance and refuse to pay the penalty, and Obama would co-opt local law enforcement to seize your possessions and sell them at auction. Resist, and Obama would send SWAT to seize your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. All in the name of protecting you from the grim darkness that is not buying AMA's NEVR-FAYLE insurance-like product.

Of course, none of this is true unless Trump is a complete and outright (((liar))) and cohen-man. If Trump is a complete liar and con-man, then he might well be strong and masculine, and we just don't know it because he's deceiving us. He doesn't care if the South's Judah P. Benjamin monuments to continent-destroying negro-importation and -maintenance are torn down; it's not that he's a sissy afraid to protect his people, but that he's a strong, clever con-man whose job is to distract the Southern rabble while they lose all that, since those aren't his people and he wants them to be dispossessed.

If you believe that Trump is not a total liar and con-man, though, you run into the masculinity problem. If Trump isn't a con-man, then what a complete wuss you have to conclude he is, since even Backdoor Barry could get things done in a man's way better than Trump can.

It's possible, though, that Trump is neither a con-man nor a coward, but just a person so incredibly stupid that he is not cognizant of the tools at his disposal, ergo his "failures" really are failures, and he is good and well-meaning but not smart or educated enough either to realize he has an army to protect his people, or even to copy what the last president did. Unlikely; my money's on the "ZOG op" explanation (not because I was ever given an opportunity to place bets, but because I'm currently trapped in the game). I think Trump is manlier than Obama. Not that it matters; they're just two people who worked for the same boss, and Trump was straight and Obama was gay, and they both did the job they were supposed to do. But in a personal way, a "facets of character" way, Trump could be accurately described as "more masculine" than Obama. Both ZOG, both evil, both wear suits, but Obama was a bit more effeminate in his personal behavior.

For people who think that Trump is a generally well-meaning man trying to address a difficult situation, though, it really must be a conundrum that Barack Obama's balls are certifiably ten times larger than Trump's.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Good Cop Bad Cop

Many leftists right now think the media is biased for Trump, just as many rightists now think that the media is biased against him. Both are correct, and both are incorrect. Some in the left understand corporate marketing enough to identify spotlighting something as an endorsement, e.g., "There's no such thing as bad publicity." That old saw isn't meant to be taken literally, but it holds a lot of truth. (Assume standard Terrans 2017 for all examples herein.) Prohibit entry to an area, and it becomes more desirable to enter it; advertise a door fee, or a type of watch, as being "too expensive," and you drive traffic to it. "Bad" marketing is in truth good marketing. It drives demand to advertise a strip club as "too scandalous," a Christmas toy as "too hard to find," or a politician as "too serious about doing anti-establishment things." Certain Christian organizations offer great assistance to publishing houses when they lament "this book is too imaginative for children!"

The smarter leftists recognized this early in the campaign, when Trump received massive, early-Rowling-esque, international media attention for being such a popular rebel, therefore causing his books to see a huge increase in sales him to actually become a popular rebel. Even after DACA and Syria, many Trump-supporters still believe the revolution was genuine. No surprises here; Goldman Sachs was a top Obama donor, but many leftists were so desperate to believe in something, anything, that they continued to talk excitedly about how BDS and breaking up the Fed (sic) and reining in the Pentagon (also sic) and ending AIPAC bribery for playing foreign policeman (sic again since they're all heads of the same hydra) were going to happen under Obama. And none of those things happened, in fact they got worse, and like the usual American voter, the poor damaged creatures became in response to these failings more attached to the embodiment of their hopes, rather than less; they had invested so much of their selves, so much of their dreams, in Obama, that when he ended up doing everything Dubya did, including the golfing, they had to believe in him anyway, and they spent 8 years blaming everything bad he did, including proactively mass-massacring Africans, on Dubya and/or "the Republicans" or "the racists" or "the media" Now, having Trump around seems to vindicate them, but the cycle begins anew with desperate Trumpists blaming "the Democrats" or "the globalists" or "the media" for Trump doing none of the things he said he would. I lament their having been betrayed, I pity them their pain, but as ever, the ruse is so elementary it continues to seem deserved. (On the American end of things, of course.)

Reminds this one of my little ditty on dissonance from 2015:
Still Antiwar: Why do you support Obama's war on terror?

Now Curiously Accepting of War: Because it's not his fault. He was mired in it because of Bush and now he can't stop.

Still Antiwar: So if a president isn't responsible for starting a conflict, but is only carrying it on, that president isn't responsible?

Now Curiously Accepting of War: Yes. You can't blame Obama for not leaving the region in shambles after everything Dumbya did to it.

Still Antiwar: It says here that Bill Clinton bombed Iraq almost every week throughout his presidency, and that he viewed invasion as inevitable to protect America's interests in the region. He sanctioned Iraq for years, causing over a million civilian deaths, and military forces were constantly active in the region. Clinton even struck a lucrative pipeline deal with oil companies, promising to defend the pipeline from an anti-corporate faction in Afghanistan called the "Taliban"--by military occupation if necessary, if pipelines were damaged. Does that mean it's not Dubya's fault when he took office and found himself mired in an ongoing conflict?

All easily adaptable to Trump and DACA, or of course Trump and Syria. How superficially strange, how seemingly impossible, to reflect on how very passionate leftists are about the dignity of Arabs sometimes, yet how brutishly callous they are about the lives of Arabs when NATO is involved. Which is stupider; which is more horrible; which is worse: the leftist's lies, or the rightist's? Nowadays, the rightist claims to want to prevent the Islamization of the West, the browning of America, or whatever, and yet nothing done wrong in that regard is anyone's fault. Perhaps it's a lack of inner emotional security that makes them feel afraid of being judged, therefore they're afraid of judging? No, it can't be that, since they'll judge the other "side." But why the fear, the impossible and insurmountable fear, of judging those who have betrayed, are betraying, and will continue to betray, them? Why the infantile aversion to seeing their own imaginary paladin defile the statues of their beloved gods? It is not truly their ideals that they respect; it is something different, for the ignorant, wanton forgiveness they lavish upon an Obama or a Trump, as either of the latter pisses rampantly on whatever they all claimed to value, negates forever the idea that they ever actually cared about those things. Even most of the self-professed "Nazis" out there are interested in defending Trump the Dreamer-globalist now, just as most of the self-professed communist universalists in 2009 were defending Obama the saber-rattling capitalist. This grasping need--this insane, oh-so-pitiful retardation--is beyond the realms of analysis pertaining to independent, self-interested, rational actors.

Considering the horrible things Trump has done to America, there clearly is a media bias in favor of him. The ridiculous things they accuse him of make them appear to be biased against him, but consider: if you murdered someone and were at your murder trial, and the prosecutor came out, ignored the murder charge, and started screaming to the jury that you had 300 unpaid parking tickets and had once stolen change from a vending machine, would the jury perceive the setup? To a less discerning person, the prosecutor would indeed appear biased against the accused. His apparent lunacy, though, could distract the jury from the murder. The accused could have committed the murder in front of the jury members on the courthouse steps that same morning, filmed on 100 separate bystanders' iPhones, then signed an affidavit of agreement with the team of geneticists who verified that the accused's DNA was found on the handle of the knife buried in the victim's heart. And yet, if the prosecutor does his job well, the jury will try the man based on the shoddy speculative evidence of the 300 parking tickets, and the hearsay about stealing change from the vending machine, and completely forget about the murder.

To a bystander, screaming, "What about the murder, you idiots?!" the duped jury's behavior would seem like madness. But then, if you're familiar with the way people around here think, you'll see the the prosecutor having an obvious bias toward the parking ticket issue is the easiest and most effective way to get the jury to forget about the murder. They want to feel that they have done something right; have figured out the daily political sudoku; have been thoughtful and intelligent and "seen through attempts to trick them." And letting them figure out that the prosecutor is actually biased about those parking tickets, about the accused's wife being ugly, and any other irrelevant crap a creative defense attorney disguised as a prosecutor might think up, can help a group of weak ones take pride in discovering that there were no records of those parking tickets at city hall, everyone knew that prosecutor was a bastard, now let's free the accused and go out for beers, hooray! We're detectives! Can't fool us!

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Defining our own Boundaries

Dislike it as we might, this raises the question of how easily malleable anyone can be in response to shortened memory. If you suddenly jerked away from the computer screen--try to imagine with me. If you suddenly jerked away from the computer screen, and woke up in a white-walled hospital somewhere, connected to a bunch of tubes, and the doctors said you had been in a coma and they had been running a plausible reality program to keep your mind from degenerating since the, make it better, you found out that God had created the world as an illusion, and was now cutting the funding for the could find that somewhat believable. Most westerners could. You wake up and find out that the world was a shadow simulation, a computer program, the spell cast by an evil demon, a Matrix, a whatever, and you can accept that to a greater degree than you could accept that Nineleven wasn't done by random Muslims. Even if you believe in conspiracies, it's so hard to accept that the WTC, the Pizzagate, might really be real, that it's easier for you to process the idea that all of reality itself is an illusion. Cosmoticians say that reality is a holographic donut with 24 unfathomable dimensions, and we swallow it with ease, feeling intelligent for having done so, but the deliberate malfeasance of certain of our fellow terrestrials is beyond the pale. How?

It's a question of our relative perception mixed with our self-image: we can believe that the universe may be a metaphysical hologram, but for pride's sake, we want to believe that, inside that hologram, we understand the way things work. It might all be a video game, but it's a game to which we know the rules. Ergo the chances of the Epstein and Alefantis client list sharing up refugee kids are seen as smaller than the chances of SETI being contacted from afar.

We are sure that we know what we know, and we are equally sure that we know what we don't know. What proud, arrogant, and yet what very very sad, broken, self-demeaning creatures we are.

Petty Fantasies of Trans-Steroids

It would be nice if professional athletes were able to come up with enough ways to cheat that people gave up watching or caring, causing the death of spectator culture at any sport except those played by friends and/or family members. Sadly, this one doesn't think that'll happen. They'll use eugenics, implants, cloning, androids, then touchable holographic competitors, to set endless successions of records with planned obsolescence, and people will keep noting the incremental progress toward the 0.9 second hundred meter dash and then the one-minute marathon, and it will remain a peevishly petty act to wonder why exalting in the comparatively pitiful exploits of a weak fleshy ape, operating under an insanely unnatural rubric that attempts to patch-proxy imaginary natural competition, ever mattered.

Competing to see who can put one's shoes on the fastest is, in its own way, inoffensive, even when a community analyzes the statistics of foot-shape and finger dexterity and coaching philosophy and life history and this season's required shoe stable as part of watching. Inoffensive, that is, compared to the indescribably sicker notion of grading the artistic merits of timed shoeing, graceful socking, and flamboyant tying. Yet, though the attempt to produce an accountancy of freestyle dance is sicker by far than World Cup riots, the two are connected in a dirty way; the fumbling toward vicarious eroticisms of collectively individualized mass achievement, in goals made or salchows landed, is a fouler dissolution of the responsibility to maintain a productive soul than the milder, perhaps even slightly admirable, pride one may feel when the museum's roof is completed.

In the comparison between a people's finest architecture and their champion's knockout blow, we see that imbibing advertisements is a form of tithing for the new steeple, whereby one joins the rugby squad in becoming incrementally less mentally capable in order to share in the besting of a self-defined barrier.