Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Consistently Outperforming the Market

r/K selection theory and eugenics rear their flattering masks again. You know it's right, because every pick they've sent me has been right for the past seventeen weeks running.

Take a group of 100 lazy turds and assign them to picking something: horse races, homecoming queens, large-cap stocks...whatever. At the end of twenty races/proms/quarters, there might not be one asshole who's always right, so do better next time. Following the principle that if you want to get something done right, do it yourself: make an XY graph of football matches or bond funds and assign your 100 lazy turds--no, no, that's outdated...fire all the lazy turds, come up with 97 fictitious personas, hire three of your cousin's nephew's in-laws, and assign all 100 of those people to carefully staggered sections of the total possible contenders in the different horse races et cetera. At the end of the period, not only is some asshole always right, a majority of assholes are always above-average.

All the old scams are on the internet, and amazingly, they still work. Maybe college was all about putting off adulthood and not education? Or about living vicariously through your children's tinderized dorms? In the "stolen luxury goods available ridiculously cheap" scam, you have the inside man putting up real money to motivate buyers, and to sell timeshares, you have the attractive couple in their fifties (and in aloha shirts) who are there to buy their second since they had so much fun with their first. We know all that, we can read all about that on Wikipedia, but somehow, Mestizox Beale and Jewlo Yiannopocock are putting out the purportedly bestselling book pushing the purportedly racist alt-right agenda.

All they want us to do is to destroy the Ottomans for them yet again. They do it every so often and we're so gullible we keep trying to kick the football. I know I can't stop you now anymore than I could last time, but what else am I going to type about?

Playing God isn't a bad idea because we're afraid of science; it's a bad idea because we're not godlike. We possess the faculty to slightly adapt our forebears' technology into a better computer chip, but not the faculty to predict which chip will be the best in the future. In Philip K. Dick's future, Deckard stops his flying car to make payphone calls to the office. Even more outrageously erroneous, major institutions gave a damn about stopping androids, which was off the mark well before 1968.

How many fecal petits millionnaires out there are wondering why they can't pick as well as--oh, who's the current Iacocca? something-something snackbar?--and how many are in enough on the game to not get down on themselves and enjoy their fewer Forbes mentions as mere Manhattan managing directors? How many believe that they themselves personally actually do make sub-par choices, and ascribe the difference in outcome to some Calvinist super-will that mapped out the course beforehand?

Okay, so we want all of our kids to be disease-free, damn good looking, either athletic-ly muscular or slender-ly hourglassed. So their cells vigorously resist current diseases, which is great, but future diseases turn out to not be diseases, but pre-emptive adaptations to diseases we don't understand yet, so only the ugly non-mutated survive. In 25,000 BC, given gene-labs, we would've created the biggest, hairiest, most fanged cave-dudes ever, and been pleased that our eugenically perfect children were successfully hunting mammoth by hand, not having to resort to wussy spears. Certain early peoples might've bred a sub-race of catamites that would be with us today, and 1980s scientists might've adjusted the hair genome to produce the perfect hairdo naturally. Pick your poison--do you know which of (what you would consider) our best accomplishments today derived out of mutations that would've once been considered detrimental? How about bookishness, reluctance to fight to the death over a social slight, or an unnatural interest in adding and subtracting abstract figures? Once the Dry Age hits, all of our 6'4" Ken Dolls will die, outlasted by the 5'0" children of the poor, whose ugly hunchedness gave them the erratic metabolisms and caloric humps they needed to survive. Actually, second thought--better exterminate all of the non-evolved ahead of time, so that once our Actions As Collective God kill us all, no one can later prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the un-treated would've fared any better.

Genetic Conflicts and New Evolution

The Mongoloids have already corrupted or destroyed most, if not all, of the DNA of the first human burial sites in America. It's possible that, a thousand years from now, there really will be no evidence that the Mongoloids raped or wiped out anyone when they arrived. There might even be a new form of science proving that Mongoloids originally evolved in the Americas, arising out of primordial swamps to become genuine "aboriginal peoples" who never once immigrated.

This will come into conflict with Africoid and Europeoid interests, because Afros will want to be both from Africa and from Europe, while Euros will have to be from nowhere, since being from anywhere would cause dissonance with aboriginal peoples policy platforms, which assign ownership based upon NuScience's hierarchy of propertization, therefore giving Euros any birthplace is impossible.

The NuScience platform on evolution will have to be something along the lines of the following: Mongols arose naturally from primordial soup somewhere in East and Central Asia, while Afros arose naturally from primordial soup somewhere in Africa. These races built great civilizations, but these civilizations were destroyed from within by a genetically-diseased pallid subgroup. With incredible restraint and empathy, the Afros and Mongols permitted the diseased ones to depart without recrimination, whereupon they made their way west from Asia and north from Africa, settled in Europe, mixed together, and established colonialism, trying to invade the descendants of those who had taken pity on their ancestors.

That narrative will work well for the future. It explains traces of ancient Euro civilization in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Current anthropological finds show that Euro DNA was associated with settlements and megaliths in all of those places prior to partial or complete subsumption into a Mongol or Afro mass, after which civilizations either decayed to mud (Africa, some of Asia) or remained in a holding pattern (Persia and northeast Asia). NuScience can show that this is because the Euro virus stole all the technology from the ancient civilizations they abandoned, and the resulting exploitation caused aboriginal Africans and aboriginal Americans to forget written language and the wheel, while Europe became a success due to the legacy of thievery. We now hold the Egyptian megaliths to have been built by a Nubo-Semitic coalition, the American megaliths by a Mongol and partial Euro coalition, the Chinese megaliths by an Indo-Han coalition, and the European megaliths by pure Euros. NuScience can later script this such that the original work (and any DNA evidence still then understood and/or retained by whoever's alive then) was done by the aboriginal civilization (either Mongol or Afro), with evidence of Euro parasites present but not responsible, before the expulsion to Europe, where the Euro work was merely duplicating pre-existing African architecture like so many Einstein awards. Pyramid megaliths in the Americas that predate "Nubo-Semitic" work in Africa can be ascribed to the copying of pre-Egyptian megaliths in sub-Saharan Africa, evidence for which can be inferred, like so many Higgs bosons, from the absence of the Congo pyramids, which proves not only the superiority of their construction, but the envy in which the fleeing Euros held them, since they had to destroy them out of spite before they left.

NuScience in that form will certainly not last forever, since it will make itself irrelevant once it's believed. What should be more interesting to those of us here in 2016 is that, in, say, 4016, it's quite plausible that all available records from past civilizations will verify NuScience's conclusions. The foundations of later biology and geology, including what will then be considered primary historical sources on the organization of society and the appearance of pivotal figures, will be the preserved remains of, if not NuScience, then one of dozens of other similar narratives accepted with a degree of trust by their finders, similar to the ways in which we now approach Homer or Tacitus. Our tendency has been to believe that which is corroborated, but after seeing Stalin build monuments to invisible gods reinforced by the testimony of millions, it is not inconceivable that the children of 4016 could be at least half in error; it is, rather, inconceivable that we, right now, are even half correct.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Blogging, Territory, and Power

This one started this blog to pursue ideas. My first posts weren't actually "posts" in the sense that we now consider that term--the finest of the mean being polished essays expressing a clear argument, the mode being a vindicated linkerpretation--but postulates, suggestions, responses, encouragements, that this one had posted elsewhere. Someone would seem to want to discuss philosophy, and this one, like a foolish child in public school, thought that the point was to discuss philosophy, and therefore did so, only to discover that wasn't actually the point; the point was to reaffirm perceived internet group coherence, and the ideas were mere window dressing. If you didn't care about establishing perceived internet group coherence, or if you cared about it only secondarily relative to learning or truth (e.g., you were as insufferable as this one), you were like the guy who wears his underwater watch to the Game of Thrones royal ticketed costume dinner at the comic-con: mood spoiled, fun over. The difference being, the ticketed costume dinner at the comic book convention actually has stated policies about underwater watches and other such mood-ruining technology (with exceptions made for the television they watch old episodes on), whereas many of the blogs are theoretically about "exploring ideas," or somesuch nonsense. And unlike a university, many blogs were supposed to be honest about that.

It never really worked out. Relatively rarely, people had weird personal real-life problems and abruptly stopped blogging forever with one of those emotional posts about how it was all over now, or sometimes they suddenly deleted their blog on their pastor's advice, or changed religions, or got really into hiking, and all the posts started including pictures of them at some trailhead and reviews for Zone bars--but, for the most part, the pure pursuit of ideas proved itself anathema. Racists didn't want to talk sociology, and sociologists didn't want to talk races. What people call "the alt right" now wasn't able to spread until certain mediators took it upon themselves to help. Quite recently, approaching race issues with, "Well, what about...?" would result in almost a 100% chance of being called a faggot (by nationalists) or a repressed faggot (by Republicrats), whereas now in late 2016 you can at least get the average blog-dweller on either side to respond with something about crime statistics (nationalists) or institutional racism (Republicrats).

This one has previously discussed blogging as homily. Even that comparison does blogging too much credit, since "homily" often connotes an element of the sacred, whereas blogging, even of the religious type, retains a garish snootiness less churchy and more akin to the regulars at the local bar snickering at the couple whose car broke down and needs to know if there's a bathroom while they wait for the tow truck. (Obviously, this post was written before everybody had cell bathrooms. I mean, talk about dated.)

I didn't want a blog. Everyone else having a blog seemed so great. This one could read things whenever, talk about all the ideas people thought were different ideas, and so much could be learned and shared. But like I said, it didn't seem to work that way. People were weirdly territorial about their free internet blogs. They deleted things they didn't like, and then people would e-mail this one asking why she hadn't responded, or I'd think of something I forgot to mention and be unable to edit or add to it because it would be gone. So I started posting notes and responses on a blog, and swiftly learned that people don't like you to link things on their blogs, since they don't want other people to stop reading their blog and read your blog instead. They'd say, "You people telling lies about Congress being full of corrupt murderers need to take it elsewhere" and then they'd delete any references that allowed other people to find where that elsewhere was. I always forget how this place is--how sickly and covetous people are about things like that--and it was initially a sort of surprise all over again, wondering why someone wouldn't want to test their ideas to help them grow. Ah, the internet infancy, like the infancy of unified spoken language in multi-family communities, so seemingly hopeful, yet felled again by Big Man inner affirmation! What would Jean-Baptiste say?

In theory, no one wants to be accused of being a censor, except everyone actually wants to be accused of being a censor--just a good censor. An effective censor. Under the guise of stopping spam, fostering community, or some other University of California-esque policy, everyone deletes what the majority disagrees with, and more importantly, deletes almost any links elsewhere. Even agreeable links had to go, if they went to someone else's blog. This revolting little amateur competition for time occurs, where people want to have more readers, so they try to brand themselves as an ideal place to go to discuss Topic Of Interest, and they try to get comments on their site, but not comments that consist of links to somewhere else. People only have so many minutes a day to read blogs, and if you want to be among their first stops for Views X, you don't want them to notice that someone else had the link first, or pointed out the obvious inconsistency in the video first, or reacted more appropriately than you to the poll. We make fun of video games, then rush to see who can get more thousands of followers by virtue of being the first one to retweet a funny picture next to the latest Times. Except for those parasites who actually are making money by filtering the news to the untermensch, it's like an unpaid reality TV show about MMORPGs.

Some degree of linking was inevitable, and people who wanted/want to retain and/or grow readers formed informal networks where they would prop each other up, share readers/comments, and use the resulting synergy to create higher walls to outsiders. Two "moderators" saying that someone sucks, or that it was proper to delete whatever, is more plausible than one. I'm not talking about the financial pyramid schemes here--they're getting a certain kind of reward for what they're doing--but about the actual private citizens, ad-less or with minimal ads that don't make them much money, who just want attention because it's pleasing to have someone pay attention.

Jealousy--in the older, less-Orwellian sense of "jealousy," not the current perversion synonymous with "envy"--worry, and avarice play strange parts here. Problems attend censorship, kin to those spawned by the needy sort of selfishness, and the bloggers anxious to retain the veritable microphone learned to self-censor. Their audience sought the comfort and community of assured ideology and lack of turbulence, therefore whatever traces of an investigative nature remained in the censorious landlord had to be stifled. New and upsetting ideas had to be kept to a minimum, lest readers miss out on their dose of community and go elsewhere. In the pursuit of attention, like the pursuit of profit, "successful" bloggers have become successful in the Hollywood fashion, repeating themselves ad nauseam to a putrescent sort of acclaim. Most blogs repeat their primary message with slight adjustments for the topic of the time: any identifiable sub-group of belief-holders can take a news website and find something that proves why they were right, then share it with their audience, who is gratified to (1) not have to read the news website themselves, and (2) not feel alone in their scornful interpretation of the news. The blog-leader's responsibility is to skim the news each day, and post links which prove that cops are excessively violent, or banks are excessively corrupt, or certain politicians are indeed liars, and so forth. However correct each new "post" might be, the "author" has become a self-censoring brand, and with each new affirmation of faith in the prior idea, the impetus against change grows larger, for the betrayal of one's followers would be that much more profound.

You can't actually teach people how to avoid all pyramid schemes; they need the emotional strength, not just the analytical ability, or they'll only avoid the ones for which they don't feel a need. It's like true art versus commercial art. Battling for readers, viewers, attention-providers. Being nameless in conjunction with fame is ultimately unsatisfying to those trapped by themselves, and popularity, even of the supposedly organic internet kind, brings temptations of celebritizing the now-popular self, focusing increasing amounts of attention on the person that is the brand that is the person. Pseudonyms drop like bras in the new starlet's first nude scene; man replaces message. Yet this is itself not the greater tragedy, for the earlier tragedy, that of message replacing exploration, is the greater. Along that course, exploration never existing at all, but only pursuit of messaging a man to a point where he is noticed, is still worse, though we can give some of them the benefit of the doubt and assume that, once, they might have possessed a spark of interest in learning rather than affirming.

The irrelevancy of me, the irrelevancy of where--the dead satyr inside the golden bell. Loosed weathervanes orbiting silent moons in the blackness between barren stars while grass grows downward from a dripping galaxy of sea urchins wrapped in glitter tape.

The Great Debt we Owe to Christianity

It is often lamented today, particularly in more "liberal" and/or "progressive" circles, that Christianity has, and has had, such a great influence on western civilization. People cling to their "guns and Bibles," and vote a certain way, and so forth. Actually, though, the entire progressive, liberal tradition of western civilization has a great deal to be thankful for--everything, in fact. Imagine how dark and terrible the world would be without Christianity.

Imagine Rome--a Rome without Christianity. Before Hellenic Judaism and Judaic forms of Jew-Christ worship entered Rome, Rome was suffering under the rule of the primitive pagans: traditional western paganisms of various colors, including Arians, Gnostics, and Zoroastrians. These were the vengeful tyrants who had conquered all of Europe, turning it into a series of semi-independent, racially homogeneous tribes and kingdoms, developing such backward practices as racism, sexism, nationalism, horticulture and agriculture, animal husbandry and animal eugenics, aqueducts, and architecture. Refusing to share "their" land with "outsiders," these rural oafs would never have opened the Roman Empire up to cooperation with the Turkish Empire, nor have called such a union an "Eastern Roman Empire," nor have brought millions of Afro-Semitic slaves north into Rome to do the jobs the Romans wouldn't do and enrich the Italian peninsula, its architecture and culture, with diverse influence--nor have brought these same gifts into the Germanic forests, the Celtic hills, or the plains of the Norse. Without Christianity, the ignorant, backward pagans would never have recognized that the one true culture which was always and must always be the true foundation and destiny of humanity--the light unto the nations that we now call "Israel"--must become a vital part of European affairs. The amazing cosmopolitan perspectives afforded by Judaic Christianity, and its founding peoples, allowed Rome to break past its foolish isolationism, and begin enriching the other northern lands to which it was a gateway.

Without this new form of Christianity, the Romans would never have partnered with the Turks at Nicea, and destroyed so many old and bigoted heresies, replacing them with the universalist Jewish-Christian God who helped the European Romans understand the need to embrace the Turkish Romans as their loyal brothers, and the Khazaran Romans as their wise, loving, and disciplining fathers.

Imagine the horrors if the Roman Empire had not crumbled! If the mercenary legions had not brutalized the peoples of the Gaulish forests and the Celtic hills, and if the bigoted Imperial seat hadn't passed into the hands of Saul of Tarsis' new enlightened Church! All of European history would have been different: Europe would have remained a retro-Nazi community of independent tribes, free to clear land and build settlements and telescopes, investigating the very orientations of the stars centuries before the papacy permitted it! The gifts of international finance, and the replacement of vulgar "warrior kings" who knew their subjects personally, by a network of cousin-marrying rulers never glimpsed by their people, and responsible only to machinations of gold and incestuous blood far away, might never have happened! The people of Europe could have well been charting the stars and navigating the globe for hundreds of years, rather than investing their treasure in the wise business of bringing Christian civilization and Christian charity to the horrible Aryan bigots who controlled India before the arrival of European traders acting under the behest of wise kings and financiers.

Progressives now even dare insult Christians for having had a part in slavery, and in driving onto reservations the Siberio-Mongoloids who had out-competed the original seafaring settlers of what we now call North America. Just imagine the conquest of the Americas, and what it would have looked like without Christianity! Imagine Europeans, with metal alloys and firearms, sailing to America and discovering stick-wielding sacrificial cultures who thought they were the descendants of the "sky gods" from whom they had seized ancient pyramids. Without Christianity, the Europeans would have exterminated these Native peoples, driven them into the sea, rather than intermarrying with them to produce a massive mestizo population, and driving the survivors onto reservations to be subsidized! Without Christianity, America and Canada would suffer the loss of reservation diversity, and lose the ability to atone for their ancestors' sins by endlessly supporting the Siberio-Mongoloids.

Just imagine it...instead of a bunch of repressed homosexual priests taking European gold and building children's schools in the New World, it would have been a Viking strike from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and all of North and South America today might be white! Christian charity, and the extremely important drive to teach people that Jesus was the son of Yahweh, was all that could keep the Natives alive.

Even bigger, imagine helpful Middle Eastern slave traders bringing African slaves to settle in America. Without "Old Testament" support for slavery, and without close ties between the slave traders and the royal joint-stock companies funding the humanitarian Christian work in the New World, American settlers might have refused to accept this massive population transfer. They might have seized the slavers' ships, and killed the first few boatloads of Africans, or let them run free among the soon-to-be-destroyed Indians, or even returned them to Africa! Christianity was pivotal in encouraging a bigoted society to become less bigoted (although not yet perfect, by any measure!) to accept these Africans and teach them the blessings of Christianity and international civilization.

In Asia, western missionaries would have had no part in having Asian societies destroyed in order to build missions, send generations of young white women as chaste nuns to minister to Asians, and fighting lengthy wars to convert swathes of Mongoloids to the worship of Jesus Christ the One True Son of Yahweh. European-Asian relations could have been entirely different. Christianity helped motivate many generations of soldiers to fight and die breaking into marketplaces in China and Japan, rather than building things in Europe.

Really, can you imagine it? Without gentling the west through Judaic Christianity, that most enlightened source of all anti-pagan religions, would have left the rest of the world prey to the backward bigots of Ukko and Wotan. Yes, the badly organized and monarchically-hampered wars and colonialism in Africa and the New World were terrible, but imagine how bad things could have been without Torah-based Christianity to help preserve the bright future that led to the European wars of religion and succession, the world wars, and the United Nations. Instead of a two-thousand-year wave of missionaries and conversions and helpful immigration, the New World and Africa could have fallen prey to the raid on Lindisfarne writ large.

In 1016, the world could have been wholly made up of European and east Asian peoples. These disgusting racists would have spent the next thousand years using their resources for their own despicably selfish purposes, instead of promoting the idea of Yahweh to all men (and women!). By 2016, it would be lore that, long ago, our ancestors had killed off the ancient evil races of goblins and orcs, just as their forefathers had done with the cave bear. Racist archaeologists would use bigoted biometric reconstructive data to tell us entirely inappropriate things about the nature of goblins and orcs, and most of us would not even view it as a wrong that the vile races of old had been unable to live among us, anymore than most of us now worry about the morality of killing wolves near preschools.

Distracted by space travel, glittering mass transit, nigh-nonexistent violent crime, and a snooty highbrow culture we can only imagine, those alternate versions of our current selves would not even know the massive debt that they owed to the One True Christianity established by Yahweh the creator of the Chosen people and the chosen religion--the debt owed to the universalist message of conversion, penitence, bodily fluids, forgiveness, and redemption. We owe that kind of Christianity a debt that we can never possibly repay.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Pro Sports Ethics and the Nature of Rules

Imagine a future where Terrans have genetic engineering a little better than now, but still have professional sports. How many bad movies, how many Mockingbirds and Philadelphias and Caitlyns, will have to be churned out to reconcile the muck?

Say that every year the U.S. Department of Education subsidizes the creation of five top tier wide receivers for the NFL. They're all 5'10" to 6'2", they weigh 200-230 lbs., they run the 40 in 4.2-4.8 seconds, they average 8.4 profitable league years, and they cost X dollars in feeding, divorces/hookers, supercars/hummer-limos, and lawsuits, while generating Y dollars in TV, ticket, jersey-mugs, and ad revenue. Their parent(s) and/or (more likely) society bears the invisible costs of creating them, then of treating them when they're older, and the Department of Education subsidizes their professional training at a cost of Z dollars (disregarding the astronomically larger cost of a feigned educational regime for non-top-tier athletes and non-athlete non-professionals that disguises the robbing of the actual capital investors).

Now imagine the future where Amgen can generate its own top-tier wide receiver. Maybe the parents take out a loan and buy it specially, maybe Amgen clones and/or adopts the child and owns it directly, maybe the university or the team or the league or the DoE gives the loan and/or owns/adopts the child as security. Either way, for a cost of (Z - $100K) + X, Amgen produces the same crop of wide receivers. Consistent drafts, reliable insurance, the same excitement, etc.

Go to the next step and imagine (Z) + (X - $60M): Amgen engineers, yearly, grow five custom wide receivers. They're all 7'3", they weigh 375 lbs., they run the 40 in 3.1-3.6 seconds, they average 20 profitable league years, and off the field they're mild-mannered ascetics who contribute their earnings to "helping the disadvantaged" (probably through the furtherance of genen, but let's not go into that now). How interesting is any sport, at this point? Amgen's aging linesmen can outrun the best organic 22YO wide receivers, and Amgen's most accidentally sissified quarterbacks can knock down three farmboys at once. There's no incentive to do anything else, financially, so to maintain the dumbass illusion that professional sports offers, you have to bring in NASCAR-like restrictions, where the horsepower and torque are strictly regulated.

You'd start out by saying, "Naturally born only," but transsexuality has already destroyed that. If a man can take estrogen and compete as a woman, it's bigoted to deny a woman the right to take testosterone and compete as a man, so why can't an infant engineered to generate its own internal HGH, without supplements of any kind beyond insemination, also compete? If any given league bans "engineering," they'll have to define engineering in such a way as to allow transsexuals to still compete, so all Amgen has to do is create a 7'4" 400 lb. musclebound sprinter with XX chromosomes (or with a cosmetic vagina, just enough to pass the initial and/or yearly tests) and it's in. Un-women goliaths with chromosomes that just barely pass league tests would dominate at all sports, until engineering "for purposes other than post-birth reassignment of one's sexual identity based upon a genuine psychiatrist verified desire for the player to become a member of the opposite sex" becomes illegal. And there are innumerable ways to cheat that sort of requirement, but assume pro sports settles into some kind of stasis where everyone knows the year's big star isn't really a woman, but s/he is still allowed to compete because (A) money, and (B) enough yahoos believe the teevee that it's actually a woman.

The latter is arguably not futurism in 2016 anyway, but let's return to expressly avowed futurism: why shouldn't men-women and/or Amgen goliaths be able to compete in the same leagues? How many people love football/soccer but can't play it because they don't have the lungs, the legs, etc.? If someone always wanted to be a pilot but lacked the eyes, and can get eyes put in to help meet the challenges of the dangerous pilot shortage of 2040, why can't someone who always wanted to be an NBA center go in for resequencing and come out 6'10" with a great vertical and improved reach? We don't believe in God, so why do we have to accept that some people will never have a 2K deadlift which unfairly prejudices them from defensive line? It would be heartless not to give the Champ stem-cell-grown gray matter to overcome his early dementia caused from blows to the head, and after his heroic recovery, it would be equally heartless and fiscally traumatic to not let him return to the ring--and once he does that, why can't a less-able younger boxer purchase pre-trained white matter to help him climb through the professional ranks?

Like this one said above, can you imagine all the heart-rending bad movies and TV shows they'll put out about the trials of How Gary Got His Game Back or how Rudy managed to be the only non-genhanced player on the team, or about a minor league player who reconnects with his son after the divorce by finally overcoming his currently-minor social substance problem and then scoring the winning play? How many movies, how many dissertations, how many multi-billion-dollar (in 2016 dollars) government initiatives, how many congressional hearings examining the legal percentage limit of code modifications and their sportsmanship implications? If Amgen gave you more than God would've otherwise given you, how is God not acting through Amgen, and how is that not what He gave you, when you weren't the one operating the sequencer when you were designed? How many lives have to be ruined by prejudice against the 8'1" titans who dominate the UFC and who are unemployable once rules are introduced to prevent them making a living by fighting? What's the difference between my competitor's steel alloy pistons and your competitor's genetically engineered biceps, and why does it matter who wins when the guy who hacked into the league's computer system and named himself the winner, even though he didn't actually "compete" or "show up" in the traditional sense, is titled champion of the world?

What we should come to realize at some point during all those things is that the winner of sporting events is the enactor of the event itself, the setter of rules and regulations, with the power to encourage and/or trick and/or disillusion enough people into caring. "The house always wins" holds true here. The games were a celebration of the gods, not the athletes, and the ways in which athletes were chosen, groomed, and permitted to perform, were an exaltation of the force that had summoned and permitted it all. People who organize and agree-upon and play and witness exalt themselves are being as territorial (and as satisfied) as songbirds, whereas people who build the casino and let others play inside are exercising a higher level of dominion. This isn't meant to enter into the trite, "fans are stupid, play yourself," territory, but rather to recognize the true nature of a ruled competition. Merely holding it signifies the ability to control territory; establishing rules for arbitrating disputes, then arbitrating them, when people really care and are paying attention, is an expression of authority via lesser jurisprudence.

The nature of who plays and how they play, then, tells us something of significance about the hosting powers. Not so much that "violence is exalted" because sports can be violent, or "winner takes all" because there is a strictly twofold competition (win/lose), but in the technological sense. We've seen how already-hypocritical rules become more hypocritical, more absurdly irrational, the more technology makes the arbitrariness of simplistic decisions increasingly obvious even to the more distorted points of light among us.

We get a higher utility from this than thinking of "pro sports" as mere bread and circuses. They're like technological exhibitions, a World's Fair of our primitive biotech, where we present the clumsy results of prior eugenics and rulecrafting and collectively marvel at them.

And what do they teach us, these sports? Analyze the inmate's drawings at the asylum after "art hour." In our sports, our hypocrisy of "competition" is atrocious. We prohibit certain kinds and quantities of steroids for certain kinds and quantities of purposes, and we take weight limits as necessary to boxing but irrelevant to rugby. NASCAR limits engines, concurrently with Terrans limiting their true technological advancement in favor of entertaining trinkets. In our power-reducing regulations, we see mirrored Terran abstinence with regards technology. The rise of professional sports occurs with the fall of true technology: our space programs and disease-curing, so to speak, die out alongside our more restrictive competition. No one wants to watch women's baseball, because they're not really the best in the world--the men are--yet we're shocked when some savvy ballplayers rig games mentally, either through "cheating" or "drugs." We're delighted at a player who can obviously outrun or out-pass another player, but indignant at the thought that a 5'5" goaltender might become viable if he got to load up on drugs for a few years of effective professional play. It's a strange form of worship, where we revere a combination of God-given and man-given nature, reflecting our mass agnosticism; our collective uncertainty over whether or not anything has a purpose. We don't know whether our achievements are our own or God's. We're ragingly bored with what God made alone, and we invest vast resources in the nuances of creating professional competitions that maintain the illusion of "natural ability" via intensive medicines and interventions and knee replacements. Yet we stop ourselves, trembling with fear, at the thought of going beyond some arbitrary boundary, as though we're aware that we're not yet the gods we want to be. We empower ourselves by denying some of our abilities and exalting others, lying all the while that some unspoken consensus creates a fairness that is entirely different from the state of nature, yet also the purest possible representation of it, vicariously through our living totems of sport.

Our collective fright at technology is disturbing, and our sports show that we're not actually the technophiles we pretend to be. We're afraid of generating better energy, traveling farther and faster, and living longer, and we confuse our timid forays into the ramshackle predecessors of more advanced technologies with excessive, not defective, passion for greater things. Clamoring for "smaller" smartphones and "cleaner" energy disguises the truth: that we're not really the selfish idealists we pretend to be, but self-limiting cowards combing our dolly's hair at thirty, bereft of an emotional framework that tells us why we compete or what we're competing for. And so we don't actually try: we mime playing, as we mime regulating or cheering or caring or ignoring, pretending to invent by refining alone.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Corporate Personhood

I'm a bitter night nurse who thinks she's smarter than the doctors. I'm a frenzied bookkeeper who deserves an accountant's salary. I'm an unknown artist who thinks Jack and posting makes my despair beautiful.

A touch of personality enlivens your blog. It drives clicks. People want to know the you behind the story. But don't go too far or it's mom rock. Everybody wants to read about your opinions until they get too personal.

I think I'm smarter than the doctors because I always show the new residents where the extra gloves are. I didn't get my certification because I was too busy either having kids or partying or wasting my life on a man who left me with nothing. I never made it to the Gagosian because those bastards have no heart, man.

Hillary wants to tax estates at 65% instead of 40%. Outrageous. 40% they deserve, but 65% is too much. But it's only for over like eleven million bucks. Like Buffett, the message is to tax my income and not my holdings. Funny. A hundred years ago we wanted to break up "monopolies." Before that it was royal lineages. After that it was mere financial "estates." Now it's "corporate personhood." How long until they break up the great charities, the great governments? The real wealth is hidden in governments and, to a lesser extent, in charities. Governments set aside the bulk of the world's land as non-usable, prohibiting people from living on it or turning it into wonderful resources. We shiver at the thought of Exxon harming the caribou, but not at the thought of D.C. harming the Paki snow leopard. Going all soft over the caribou, as opposed to a Paki toddler, is one thing, but aren't snow leopard kittens or red deer yearlings cute, too?

We've talked before about the use of "states" as un-productive entities, meant to extract value from human labor while preventing the use of planetary resources, and we've talked about charities as a pseudo-privatized version of that same wealth, and we've talked about how states use "nature" as a means of controlling land speculation for future developers. Now Hillary wants to tax the mini-elites at 65%, while hiding the uber-elites' perpetual wealth inside private foundations. And that worthless sterile fuck Scott Adams is made indignant by the thought that he, too, might have to fake a charitable infrastructure in order to live vicariously through his cut of the Universal Uclick scheme. Watch out, Scott, you might have to pretend to be curing malaria. Choose something more up your alley, like improving working conditions in China. God, the next thirty years of that turd's life are going to make for miserable bystanding, as UU's media partners spin a Dilbertian hagiography of a simple man who set out to become wealthy and then turned to workers' rights philanthropy. If he never runs for president, at least we won't have to find out exactly how much he skims. Someday they're going to need to create a non-Israeli tax haven for all the Angloid partners and pirates who can't hack the Holy land's DNA requirements, but who still need a way to maintain plausible imperial citizenships while avoiding tax without having to establish some damn "charity."

Internet, then blogging, then Facebook, then Twitter, what can possibly be more brief? How long until we're all searching for standalone letters of the alphabet, and cheering at their insight? I think it was Confucius who said brevity is the price of wit.

Imagine the cumulative effect this has on the mass mind. We no longer need to act out, gesticulate, or merely verbally perform our thoughts. We don't have to write or polish. The instant something occurs to us, we can dump it into the internet, and it's "published." And in so doing, we've shot our load; we've stolen our own thunder; we've prevented ourselves from distilling and refining our ideas into a more mature form. If we tweet a cool idea we had, then later expound upon it in an essay, it's already lost some of its spirit. The readers already know the punchline; there's nothing more to be said but to flatter ourselves in the redundant details. How many great theories, how many epic novels, have we lost, because someone posted a snippet of an idea on the internet, then got the satisfaction of having shared it, and never needed to polish it up, first, or spend years developing it? Pick some great old deceased author you like, if there are any, and ask yourself, how many of their books would never have been written, if they could have swiftly unloaded the burden of a great idea to an appreciative audience without having to dip a quill for months on end? Take the proverbial Poe and presume he Facebooked one day, "So hypocritical how elites party during strife what if that came to visit them in disguise?" And that quickly, he relaxes. Need fulfilled. The Masque of the Red Death never has any need to be written, because he's made his point. You bought a cat so you don't need a child.

People whine about corporate personhood. I want corporations to have personhood. The first time Shell kills someone through negligence, instead of paying a fine, it goes to jail for two years for plea-bargained manslaughter. Every single operation is shut down for two years while it's in jail. Bam, it's nearly dead. For two years, every sign comes down and every property is leased out to their competitors. Let them have the vote, let them have free speech, and sign them up for the draft. The second time they kill someone through negligence, the first time they falsely claim a deduction, it's hard time for ten years. All the way dead. Please god, let corporations get personhood. Let the S&P 500 get 500 votes spread worthlessly across the states in which they claim primary residence, and let me have the right to "stand my ground" when Adobe tries to repossess last year's Photoshop.

To save us from the despair of unrefined workwomanship, maybe a wine-like subculture will develop, where people appreciate the effort and unobtainability of refined thoughts. But it's already ruined because it's now been compared to wine. Okay, pick a different metaphor.

Maybe this is all for the better, actually. Maybe there never was any need to mull things over for years before you finally crafted and presented them. After all, Rothko, right? Simplicity is the essence. Forty-year-old parents in Winnie-the-Pooh pajamas. If you combine your twitter with your blog with your end-product, you can talk about the same idea from seven different angles at once. You're so constantly published that you're never actually published. If women can be men and whites can be blacks, then no one can be anything--you figured that out, right? Well then, when the world's a stage, there are no more actors.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

If you gaze

The future will vindicate. Why talk when no one listens? Because you're enduring for history. You're bearing witness and paying heed and offering testimony for the future. This is why Dostoevsky and Tolstoy were able to stop the Bolsheviks, by describing in utter detail the subversive plan years before it was put into effect. Sure, no one listened at the time, but the transhistorical message they so painstakingly laid down, though treated as mere entertainment at the time of its writing, kept the demons out of not only Russia, but Venezuela. It's easy to ignore current commentators, due to the temporal distortion of them writing about things in which they have a vested interest (sullied by desire for attention), but you can trust people who screamed into the void many years ago.

The future will cleanse. Even the full historical backing of being directly vindicated by history--being proven right as a tracker and predictor of international politics, in the grandest sense--was nothing for them. We still read the tale of the foolish count who cucked himself for the noxious sort of ideas given shelter in Parisian circles, and we see the suffering he endured thereby, and how his eagerness to discard his serfs and become one of them failed his fathers' fathers and put his pudgy ass in prison camp; and, we read of the dark spirits and those they possessed, and of the ways they work and of the empty, clumsy narcissism of their fĂȘtes and suicides. And somehow we have proven that the future void is no more responsive than the current void. Neither monastic solitude nor minor infamy nor worldwide translations and academic regard for constant centuries can save us from our generalized inability to want to understand.

Inside the West, Tolkien wrote the history of the second half of the twenty-first century--albeit dressing it up with a victory to soften the blow--and was yet simultaneously himself an advocate for the rule of the Uruk-hai and the peevishly dour fallen wizards who had, by then, already taken the Shire. The Mirror's future was that of his distant descendants, and even while writing of its horrors, he encouraged his son to fight for the enemy. How even more ironic, how damning, compared to the prophetic heights of Dostoevsky, that Tolkien could himself lament the dire consequences of which he was, at that very moment, encouraging his posterity to pursue! The Western soul is oft considered less tragic and melancholy than the Eastern, but that is only because time has not yet thrown more of its light upon the recent West.