Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Saving Money at the Store

"If I buy this, I'll save money. It's, like, seventy percent off."

A simple ruse, yet like most of its kind, remarkably effective. What makes it most effective, sociologically speaking, is not actually the more direct expression of it, in the sense of convincing people to buy something they would not have otherwise bought. For example, we may be living a life, living a day, planning on hanging around the house (dialect for not going to a goods repository and trading currency for something as a form of amusement; although that gap has already mostly been bridged, the saying still has a trace of non-purchasing left), and not otherwise intending to buy anything. We can modify this behavior by making the purchase--literally subtracting from resource-acquisition capabilities--become a necessary, helpful, vital, resource-acquisitive act, by creating the illusion that the purchase is actually a necessary saving and/or acquisition of resources. Ergo the implication that by losing money, one is gaining money--sic.

We see the effectiveness of this technique magnified across history by the theft of credit for accomplishments during historical periods, wherein a prisoners' having acquired something is credited to the keeper. It's an easy trick, in the sense of assigning an anticipated value of zero to the time period in question, then crediting the desired authority with anything greater than zero. These assumptions made, the greatest bar to progress becomes the cause of progress. Whether mob-rule, cohort rule, or sales for things which wouldn't have otherwise been purchased, without the ability (or desire) to discern that the voyage might not have occurred, or something to have been done instead in the interlude, the liar's math is simple: any accomplishments must be the result of the act, even if the act itself was an act of subtraction. Socially, personally, we can pay witness to, if nothing else, media effectiveness, whereby one is saving money by spending it; where an act of self-harm becomes an act of self-aid by the illusory predicate of preexisting tech; by the exercise of body- or personality-conditions set long ago. Ergo the modern consumer actually does believe he is saving money by spending it.

We might liken the individual act in such a case to doublethink, except that doublethink implies a sophistication; an ability to believe both things, and thus to understand the truth of one while denying its truth. There is a similarity, for confronted clothing-savers would, at some level, understand the postponed schism between bank accounts and clothing, and thus, if forcibly educated with each purchase, would vocally admit an understanding that saving is not actually spending. Yet the true doublethinker simultaneously, completely understands, avows, and disavows, and therein lies his material genius. Two plus two actually is five, always, just as much as it can never be five, and there is never a moment of "breakdown" where a masterful doublethinker can perceive the contradiction. There is no contradiction, there never was one, and outrage at the implication that there might be such a contradiction is justified so thoroughly that, if you're not outraged, you're stupid.

The lesser stuff required of the masses, in the case of saving while spending, is less refined. We can buy things we wouldn't have bought, understanding the difference under cross-examination, yet putting it aside mentally for useful functioning. Obviously the end result of such behavior is trying, yet the historical variety is similar, but effects more because of our unfamiliarity with the passage of time. Ergo we may understand, vocally at least, that spending is not saving, yet when considering one millennia, rather than one afternoon or one lifetime, one's estimation of what would probably have been accomplished, compared to what was actually accomplished that we know of, controls the evaluation more than does one's evaluation of quality alone. During a period of dominance/ascension by a group, then, the prediction that achievement will be at zero, or near zero, controls one's evaluation of said group's effectiveness, more than does one's much-more-limited evaluation of the quality of the work alone. High expectations versus low expectations, perhaps. And in some sense, the girl with the new dress that potentially makes her look better than the last twenty-six will become upset, perhaps even good-naturedly, at the implication that the new dress was not needed, but if you set your baseline at "gonna spend at least $170 today" then shopping is saving.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

The Subtle Blade, Part 2

Continuing from Part 1.

Christianity as Conquest: Control of Art

This one has touched on this issue before, about which it is at once simple and impossible to be comprehensive. Which is to say, you can be comprehensive simply by saying, "Everything," but beyond that, you barely brush the surface.

Consider, as we go through this one, how art is, like other things taken by Christianity, but a component of "spirituality," about which more could be more-incompletely said. As a throwback to this one's promise to not attempt at being herein comprehensive, consider again the idea that everything spiritual becomes defined, through conquest, in Christ-language. We will never know what would have been written, let alone thought, in a Christ-free environment.

In that vein, consider the small sub-component of spirituality that is art. We certainly have been instructed, somewhere amidst a vast assemblage of Christian-founded and -enabled public schools or universities, on the Christ-centered art which permeated Europe, and then the world, since the advent of Christianity and colonialism.

We note here that, like universal Bangism, Christianity is the direct, sense-making predecessor to what was, as it is a form of its creator. The university and its learned men are not hostile to the press, nor vice versa, because of where they come from. And yet, dead white men who vocally believed in white supremacy and/or Christ founded the said universities and/or presses. In all technicality, this should be a problem during the new phase, in which the sins of the past are cast off, but we will not accept new tradition; only a revamped, yet somewhat-actual, tradition works. Ergo black academics do not break away in righteous media anger to found their own medical college, but rather take over, or try to take over, existing American/European colleges, because they were either, logically-inconceivably, "always black" (we actually did build this place) or "should've always been black" (we had the spirit to build it but actually didn't even though we could've). Wordplay aside, they are right, like feminist-preferencing universities. Nominal targets change, but foundations remain the same.

The even more subtle ways in which this weltanschauung served as a cruel gift, though not quite as subtle as that of basic perspective, is through its private subversion of art, in which the child's first fantasies include Christian themes. Not historically meaningful, it seems, until we attempt to calculate the growth and worldly effects of said X billion children. Far more profound, really, than that of the still-profound statues and paintings of biblical figures produced by older artists raised in a Christian perspective.

We encounter anew the darkly brilliant subtleties of Christianity, here. Through the jealous exclusivity of Yahweh's monotheism, we forestall countless avenues of progress, akin to jamming all the ocean's rivers through a single small funnel. Made of case-hardened titanium, you are free to do whatever you like before or after the funnel, but even the modern's relative freedom, and the pseudo-rebellion or managed transition from Christ-worship to Bang-worship, delivered by the same or successor media, the Christianization seems to be foundationally European. A simple trick, played after the bodies have been discarded, upon the stupid- or rape-spawned leftovers; like the Great War or wicked King Edward I, it works on those who believe the company line about their history. Publicly professed identity during the occupation is assumed, by the undiscerning, to be voluntary. Flattered Nu Euros seem to presume freedom as their baseline, so the choice to attend a meeting or fight a battle is perceived as an endorsement: a vulnerability they would address if they’re to survive in any recognizable form. Consider state policemen or soldiers, and they tend to have strong disagreements with, shall we say, the world historical significance (or local political significance) of the organization at large which they theoretically represent. When ignorant, it’s easy to believe in random "greatness"--it comes naturally to the remnants of Europe--and it often takes years for them to realize they’re just focusing on an area because someone told them to, and might be neglecting other areas for reasons that aren’t theirs. So too do we see age come into play, for once you've devoted your life to invading Africa/Asia, or handing out traffic citations, you are old and it harms you personally, your offspring, and your self-image to perceive of wrongs as wrongs. Plenty of retired soldiers and cops are vocally brave, and know better than to challenge the duped enthusiasm of the young. This is the inner conundrum of the whistleblower, who believes--often correctly, as many non-living friends and associates evince--that they'd better stay quiet. We hide what we know, in part, in disappearances, asylums, and official suicides.

“In the old days” they might resign and/or take up other trades. Yet they don’t, because there are no other careers, the pension doesn’t vest if you rock the boat, and several layers of intermediary officers offer an even more plausible veneer to what’s happening, being subject themselves to differing stresses.

There’s no way to tell what Leonardo actually would've painted on his own, just like there is no way to tell what anyone we believe in historically actually believed in the privacy of their minds. Maybe some of them actually did believe in that Rabbi, just like some people who spent 3 years in the Middle East actually wanted to defend Israel with their lives, or some people really thought the biggest problem in Middlesex was white drivers who exceeded posted speed limits.

...or that the best way to run society is to put an obese inbred in charge and do whatever his attendants say he says. People "should" be smarter about their history, and stop assuming that things existed because everyone thought it was the best way to do things. VATs and income taxes, for example, are paid because of a complicated dynamic of repression, appearance, and warnings, but not because everyone, let alone a simple majority, agrees with the idea or what the taxes are being spent upon. Like so much else since JC arrived, a majority of people could be privately hating/doubting the king, but be prevented from expressing it due to their individualized preferences against being hammered upon, and the amazing quantity of funds available to their oppressors. A new history would be currently dangerous, in the sense that it would expose who was actually creating this system of shifting illusions.

Art is nearly identical. If we're stupid, we assume that if Mom had not left the room a minute early on that one special day, she would've met the man who gave up and tried with someone else instead, and therefore we'd've been raised in, and believe in, a different denomination, and be equally certain of our salvation. Or maybe that man's our father, that's how they met, and if grandmom hadn't had that five-minute delay with her hair that night, she'd've never shown up, never met Grandpa, and would've met someone else in the next five years. Yahweh has a plan, of course, and makes things happen correctly, but if we're so delusional that we can look beyond that type of explanation we see different worlds, forsake Calvin, and ask what Leonardo, or someone almost as famous, would've painted if not the Pentateuch and later works. We do not know, similarly, what all of the "screenwriters" would have done with themselves without Hollywood, and if we think we're smart enough, we might imagine a different, non-invasive, actually creative venue for plot structure and the use of technology, and not be so reverent toward things as they are. Funny when we try to have it both ways, like the wrongness began sometime in the twentieth century: mentally, though, we can ask what might have been created if people weren't being sought out, groomed, then largely ignored by merchants who wanted to create and sell a certain derivative product.

What would have been painted? Written? Sculpted? We don't know. We can only guess, and we're limited by minds exposed since inception to products that have already been mainstreamed. Who we would have become, and what thoughts we would think, have been governed so thoroughly that it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to imagine thinking better. Consider a formative moment from your own memory, and then try to imagine what it would have been if you had been, oh, twice as inspired. Who are you today? Who would you be? The wasteland is harsh and tough, and breeds to its own methods. None of us know who we would've been in a worldly paradise.

Or just eat a Purim-cookie and celebrate the death of the pointy-eared holdouts again.

Funny that this one is listening to Christmas music while typing. There are adaptations, attempted traditionals, and a few "new but supposedly in the spirit of" ones. And they are often quite good. So we ask, again, what would have been created without the understood framework? What would've been built, what would've been channeled, and what would our special times look like and feel like if all of our drive to be creative, reverent, everlasting, et cetera, had not been funneled through the Risen Rabbi? People who believe in an environmental approach to society might say that "Christmas" (like those of us who remain, a stolen thing with only echoes of past meaning) creates certain traditions, like not shooting infants, and they have a plethora of explanations for why certain groups might accidentally discharge firearms at all, or on such a time.

People who believe in genetics might, though, imagine a past, and maybe a future, where Euros create, revere, and are spiritual as they are allowed, and while they appreciate the idea of a winter festival of some kind, find the peaceableness and togetherness to be created by the people rather than the environment. It's less than narcissistic, of course, to imagine that everyone doesn't approach things the way you do, but maybe, just maybe, a hint of the forebears might've survived.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

In Case Computers Delete It

Just a record--this one signed in to Disqus for some reason and found a bunch of old moderated AmRen posts that were, as they say, rayciss and therefore thoughtcrimed. Sticking them here because.







Monday, December 4, 2017

The Subtle Blade: Christianity and Conquest

In this discussion, we'll acknowledge, but try not to focus on, the foundation and use of Christianity as an aspect, perhaps the most important, of biological conquest. Not lightly do we address this subject, given the incompletely valid references to passions young and old which persist as side effects. Imagine, for example, a person from 1,000 B.C. and a person from 2017 A.D. transported to a mediation table, where they each scream at the other that they have no idea what it was like to live in the other person's timeline, and how much assistance their spirituality gave them, and how ignorant the other person is of the way the world has worked or is working.

Though it would mortify the person born earlier, on whose grave we've been dancing for quite a while now, there is still some cohesiveness attributed in part to the post-JC wasteland, wherein forms of spirituality, disguised successors to the older, have been, as it were, manna in the desert. Arguably older conclusions, were they made, can be said to've been partly wrong also, which error is of a substantially different variety--yet, in its consuming aspect, and the reduced interplay with formal pseudoscience to which some older spiritualities were subjected, wrongness is rather comprehensive. Far be it for this one to dance harder upon graves, particularly ones that attempted to be helpful rather than to forestall through guesses made gospel (sic), but we must at least acknowledge the potency of religious wrongness, for even in a tiny portion it can be misused.

Christianity as Conquest: Soulular Universalism

Here follows an acknowledgement of the unspoken non-topic, the prelude, to Christianity's wrongness. We might first notice the universalism that underpins Christianity. By decreeing that every soul was valuable, Christianity made humans numbers, interchangeable and useless except as vessels of deference. The predecessor to affirmative action, to say the least, Christianity's march turned the landholding fathers' decision into, so to speak, the television masses' vote or the welfare degenerate female vote (whichever you prefer, as both are true; and yes, landholding fathers are idiots also, but a thousand and a half years ago, we might speculate a different quality of "average voter," which speculation might render us assistance). The effects have been profound. Whether for good or ill can be your judgment, but Christianity's ideatic role in rewriting the future, and the governmental customs of several continents, must be noted.

We recoil from, say, the hypothetical attempt to cull disability from future generations, as though subsidizing the production of non-disabled is more evil than our current tax structure. Easy to do if you're not congenitally disabled and haven't felt it; even easier if you're merely very selfish, and don't mind imposing suffering on at least ten generations by aiding in the perpetuation of said suffering. Such weighing of lives finds its roots in Christianity, wherein the soul of a pain-wracked cripple who steals from the collection plate is as valuable as the soul of the lusty hero who saves three children from the runaway train. Christianity foreshadows Bang and now in so many ways, notwithstanding its contentious relationship with then-European strength-favoring culture. It is easy to underestimate this effect if one considers the "obvious" perspective before Christianity, where it is an obvious wrongness to breed a hundred stealing cripples at the expense of one healthy track-attendant. Like many things here for which it is impossible to perceive a previous obvious, Europe's comparative preference for sloth has been subtly altered over hundreds of years.

(Talk with some pained dying about creating more people with their destiny, and keep your own survey about whether or not they want to put someone through it, as opposed to letting half the number live without it. Really, do: today, you might find not zero, but some of a hundred clinging to the belief of a "cure" that will liberate potential successors, but absent the reality of such a cure you might find, instead, a Stockholmish or hateful attitude toward the causes of the pain.)

Christianity as Conquest: Imposed Blindness

In accordance with the aforementioned effects goes Christianity's observational denialism. By demanding ignorance, Christianity's notion of "faith"--which we previously knew as either "trust" or "stupidity"--has had matching effects on government and society. The trend of blindly trusting authorities stems from Christianity's hidden texts and subversion of Latin, ergo our acceptance of televised elections with "best available" leaders no one likes is Christian, as is our reverence for a priestly class of "scientists" or "academics" which knows things of which we could never conceive. Like the rest of Christianity, the losses and opportunity costs of this aspect of redesigned Zoroastrianism were of vast cost: a gift that has given for more than a thousand years. Not only political blindness, and the innumerable toxic things that have resulted from it, but creating an inherent derision for the un-godly learned, and the consequences of mistrusting unpleasant but observed facts, has been seeded by Christianity. Our denial of doctoral degrees to disagreers is thoroughly Christian, for we will not acknowledge the potential for wrongness.

Christianity as Conquest: Actually Requiring Conquest

The imposition of Christianity by force needs hardly to be spoken of, and yet it does, for many still have the impression, fostered even by the purportedly anti-Christian mandatory schools of the Christianized world, that the religion's stupid promises of future pleasure caused it to be willingly adopted by "the west." In fact, Europe had to be conquered, region by region, century by century, in order to leave behind a population that vocally allied with inbred leaders who claimed allegiance to Christ. We've recently discussed the wrongs done to the Irish, but in turn consider what the survivors did to those Irish who resisted the first armies who murdered the majority of Irish who were "heretics."

(Of course, the grandchildren of the Irish enablers or stay-quiet-ers were given their just desserts from within and without, as are the raped and murdered spawn of the most would-be joyous enablers of western immigration now. Have you been shot by prison guards, yet, while you were trying to break Breivik out? No? Then enjoy the future. Terrible justice, indeed.)

The "side effects," or actual effects, of this conquest were prodigious, not merely in terms of Christianized political systems, but the genetic losses, also, whereby minds that combined inquiry and honesty were almost wholly eliminated, leaving behind as their survivors only the superficially amiable but internally loathing, or the vast majority of quiet non-seers. Christianity by force was rather an acidic test for Europe, whereby stupid herds were given genetic preference. If you still retain a touch of the past, you may wonder at how evolution could've worked that way--and through outsiders imposing Christianity, you have your answer--careful planning.

Nu Euros have grappled with this issue throughout the modern period, wherein thinkers regularly ask, in one or more forms, how the masses can be so stupid. Politics and markets have to deal with manipulation because, absent it, the masses would be so easy to control. Without the guidance of even a Ronald McDonald, people would literally drink poison that acted much, much faster--and they have. Quite seriously, surviving hordes will eat literal "in about an hour" poison when someone interferes with the message. All people who deal with health in some realistic way must confront the issue of "reaching" the everyman. TV helps, but people keep forgetting to finish, or even watch, their televisions, so a constant barrage of "what to do next" must be employed, else they'd strip themselves and start burning things just to see what would happen. Ergo commercials have to be subtracted, or made suitably subtle, and devices have to exist which deliver television commands without even their supposed source of meaning.

Were these traits endemic to Christianized populations before Christianization, or as a result of it? This one holds the latter, but it's certainly possible that dumb enough people do this anyway, ergo the surviving mass of Christianized peoples is more likely to pursue entertainment-by-television, so to speak, than would've been the pre-Christian mass (sic, sick).

Christianity as Conquest: Birth Control

Early Christianity advocates natalism because so many were killed to establish it. We might consider the suddenly-stalled butchery of Africans whereby normal people went across the ocean to kill because they were engaged in the work of uplifting, and then, a few generations later, well-wishers of derivative religions encouraging normal people to cross the ocean to breed. If you're familiar with what happened to people who live near a source of diamonds, versus how eagerly well-wishers now work to rapidly expand Africa's population through breeding and feeding programs well beyond continental infrastructure capability, conjoined to a readjustment of attitudes to those currently acceptable (sold as "modern"), you can imagine Europe after Christianity's advent, where those who stuck to "old ways" were murdered en masse, and those who converted encouraged to quickly have a lot of children. Much is made of the Catholic opposition to "birth control," like the details of many staged rebellions, yet the actual status on birth and reproduction was effected by the first widespread birth control--the Catholic "rhythm method"--whereby intercourse was encouraged for pleasure during non-reproducing times. The rather hilarious pretense that this was not birth control has borne the fruit it was intended to with modern demographics. As time passes between conquests, Jenomic cleansers ("Judaic religions") gradually accede to limiting in certain areas and unlimited in others--an obvious genetic boost to a conquest-focused system. A terrible form of righteous justice, that, comparable to what is befalling the remaining survivors now.

One of the many ways to accustom the unwary to obey you is to tell people to do things they're already going to do. Ergo telling a bunch of young people, "Do it," is a great technique for getting them used to carrying out your wishes. Much of Christianity's similar "advocacy for births," which has proven its truth over the years (always through its actions, though not always through its words), is this technique writ large. Of course if you make yourself the center of "Europeans doing it," the Europeans will continue to do it. Claiming credit makes you quite foul, then ever-so-quietly removing support for births lets you control them. For this is what birth control actually is--the control of births, rather than anti-natalism. Who shall be born, and when the births shall happen, is birth control. It proves itself a short step from "Don't have babies until an old hetero-virgin has pledged you to each other" to "Don't have babies," and the notion that you should pay for someone else's six babies and cut one or two babies from your own total is then easily achieved. Thus did Christianity serve as a useful tool for taking control of a growing population, then seeming to be its ally while first stabilizing, then shrinking, said society.

Like many critiques of Christianity, the observational science--sic--of birth rates, social control, et cetera, can speak for themselves. Even those who believe in the Risen Rabbi can see the way that He has claimed credit for the initial recovery, then shirked credit for the later reduction, in the birth rates of occupied territories. An alien fleet which suddenly occupied Earth, imposed worship of a reptilian general, and happened to be administering things during some triumph--say, the greatest-ever bicycle race coverage or the cure for cancer--would claim credit for the positive things that Earth had produced, eschew full responsibility for the negative, and seem, at first, to be obvious and evil. Yet in a great deal of time, said alien race and religion might be adjudged a native thing. The said invaders would thereby be deemed responsible for the natural progression of bike-races, cancer-treatments, et cetera, even though those things had happened before and would continue to happen.

Christianity as Conquest: Access to Children

This discussion is not about the larger, more systemic of Christianity's negatives, but about the smaller. Superficially, if we ignore all of the details of Christianity's imposition, and focus only on now--an enormous task, but assume it--we see the brilliance of the disease that keeps on giving. Christianity isn't merely about killing infidels, encouraging blind trust and stupidity, and absolutely revising itself (notions of advancing time and inevitable social progression being one of the numberless derivatives of the latter), but of ways small and varied that can make it effective in any environment. We'll purposefully avoid the discussion of similarities between all Judaic religions and the populations at which they were targeted, focusing bullishly on "European Christianity," even when such similarities abound.

One of the cardinal rules of successfully conquering a population without exterminating it is severing the parent-child bond. Christianity has done an exemplary job of this, setting the stage for not only mandatory secular schools in occupied territories, but a closer relationship with the state itself, rather than the family. This one commented elsewhere about feminism:
Interesting fight between people who want to defame America’s founding fathers for the wrong reasons, but are factually correct, versus the people who defend them wrongly but for the right reasons. This one also has to point out that, forgotten now, is how a lot of early feminism drew its anger from social impressions of hundreds of years of mandatory Christianity. Pedo-reverends/pedo-priests handled mandatory punishment of kids, getting “confessions” of desires, masturbation, etc. Yet again, this one’s not saying that feminism was correct, but one can understand its source, as well as how the untermenschen and many individuals in crypsis used the Risen Rabbi to gain access to people and families. Viewed in that light, feminism is quite understandable; one of the many fruits borne by Christianity, like modern men’s rights transitioned into Judaism in a match to the women’s movements that had come before.
Feminism stands out because it was primarily (though it didn't know it) about child protection, in the sense of taking a mother's future from her and convincing her to tell everything to a theoretical virgin instead. Forgotten by many, if not all, is the mandatory nature of religion throughout most of Europe's history, where one could not reproduce, work, sleep, or live, without regular attendance, contribution, and ritual. The busybodies in one's condominium association were, in Christian times, like an I.R.S. audit team, ensuring that every child, family, and individual fill space in the pews, listen to whoever was preaching and what they were saying, signing up (or providing an excuse) to take another piece of land from the Arabs and give it to the Jews, et cetera. This theft of freedom, still antithetical to the Nu Euro, is a great part of why the liberation of women was partly (you can make the fraction whatever you like, but be sure to multiply it by infinity for the predilection for protecting women then still more extant in European survivors) correct.

To be continued.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Grief Forestalled

How long to forestall grief?

If ten children are killed one day by a suicide trucker, we respond accordingly. Some of us jest for shock, some of us exhibit shock by not jesting or by avoiding discussions about trucks or children. Some of us pretend it didn't happen, ask for a moment of silence, et cetera. We may punish an acquaintance or a celebrity for expressing shock wrongly, and days or decades later, we may or may not remember what we'd decided about the person who'd done that at such a time.

Less specific; less contentious. We can make nature more impersonal. Say X firefighters were killed by Given Natural Disaster. No diversity hires nor smuggled records, just tragedy, and instead of birthing Y Africans, happy pseudo-goy billionaire who has otherwise not funded Y Africans establishes childhoods and career funding for firefighter-widows and -children, so without tie-ins to the past there's less to talk about this time. And it happened every day since hypothetical pre-industrial times based on our presumed and acceptable time-scale. So there's nothing apt, no climate change, no one to blame, just backdrafts and old buildings, and okay there's still someone to sort-of blame, there always is, why do we still allow this old construction and who owned it and who inspected it et cetera. There's always something, but assume the X firefighters are killed as blame-satisfaction-lessly as possible, they used their equipment properly and got out everyone who was there and had enough equipment and didn't go back in to rescue the Mayor's Pomeranian, they were just banal heroic oh god the news is talking about them (there's always something to complain about, but for god's sake try not to focus on that), so everyone is sort of mum about firefighters for a while and you can't blame the laws of physics so everyone stays relatively quiet for some quantity of days.

And at some point, like guns at schools, things go sort of back to normal. Maybe it's one year; maybe it's ten years; whatever. Everyone can discuss matters in polite company which might otherwise be off-limits if broached by polite people at a polite time and place.

And then society changes and it's inconceivably rude to talk about the public speeches before--irrelevant millions, say, in favor of backdrafts or suicide-trucking. Like it's not even something you're allowed to think about. You've seen that, right? You get remarried the day after you're widowed and the eyebrows cease raising, but something new becomes unmentionable. Whatever it is. What is the acceptable delay? A hundred days, a year, a hundred years, a thousand years, since the tragedy...when is it not funny or even tiresome any longer, just boring? Best forgotten? Best not focused on; talked about; contemplated? There are people on the internet, maybe, who talk about certain things you're not supposed to talk about elsewhere, but even they have their boundaries, particularly when profession or background or beliefs or sex or race come into play. So when is that point?

In The Forgotten Dead, this one reminded:
Even in the very short term--two millennia of somewhat-contiguous written records and extant building and bodily remains--the crimes of the last invasion are apparent. How dearly bought was, if nothing else, Ireland! The mutilated children of the bulk of the continent are so far forgotten that no one will ever knowingly dig up the ashes of their bones. As with Iraq to Columbia, though, evidence from Ireland provides sufficient justification to strip all assets from the whole of Europe's toxic banking and peerage ranks, and return every last little Macron and "of Wales" floater to the care of their southern owners.
In Rapespawn Kult, this one also reminded:
[T]he reason Europeans fantasize about comparatively godlike peoples is because they, too, savaged and/or outbred a predecessor race/species whose achievements they could worship at, but not then duplicate nor maintain.
Make it more personal. Your mother was killed, your granddaughter was raped, your great grandfather was betrayed and murdered. Forty years ago, four years ago, forty hours ago, now in front of your eyes. You're supposed to think things are different when time has passed, because time has passed. The doctors all say it's a sickness when you can't let time wash away the wounds. Have the bodies gone cold, yet? The time for vengeance, if it even solves anything, has passed. The opinion has been given. Professionally.

It is a sickness, a diagnosable sickness, to be unable to let go of something on a Terran time scale. Sure, there are insects that only live for twenty hours, so it might be several lifetimes of theirs before your grief begins to pass. Within some subdivision of your entire lengthy life, you should be able to let things go. What are you, a freak?

For about half a second after stubbing a toe, you're allowed to be really pissed. Then you're supposed to regain control. If you suddenly curse and shake a fist a year later, you're crazy, even if you stubbed your toe a year ago without shaking a fist and cursing. Wounds should be relative. You walk on eggshells with doctor-talk around the guy whose wife was killed by that sorta-unlicensed-but-cheaper plastic surgeon in Uruguay, even ten years later, and that's okay, although he really should get over it and remarry by now, since it's clearly insane to disbelieve in settling for the present since she'd want it to be the best it could be for you if she were still here. So it's relative: any human reaction must be shaped by, tempered by, a physical event, and flare-ups have to be staggered to ritual with diminishing returns, like anniversaries alone, with exceptions made for the vulnerably young or old.

Crying over a movie is okay, having lingering feelings from childhood is okay, but attempting to visceralize or anthropomorphize non-personal memories into any form of pendancy, of now-ness, is wrong, we all agree. Being angry about the past is wrong (barring rotating exceptions with permissible past-afflicted psychoanalyzed victim groups); even if you liken it to your current plight, frequent doses of now are necessary to avoid accusations of craziness. Ergo in the deceptive realm, there must be new tragedy as well as links to past tragedy, while in the realistic realm, there can be no affectation of past tragedy. So, if an Arab blows up or shoots or runs down a Nu Euro as a small part of taking over Europe, we're sort-of allowed to be affected for a short while, but we're not supposed to be affected by a different act of ravaging a few more years ago. E.g., an Arab kills a person in France, we're not supposed to be affected by it in particular, though outside media culture you're sort of allowed to. So the White kid run down in France can matter somewhere. When it becomes crazy on top of crazy, though, is when you feel in your gut the same sense of wrongness about people killed similarly, a thousand years ago, in a different takeover. This one might defend a presumed ethnic sub-group murdered a few months ago, but traces of ghost from, say, 700 A.D. are off limits. All the kiddies raped in Britain now matter to some people, versus all the kids who were raped in Britain a thousand years not mattering, to the same group of people. Tragicomic, to say the least, as not only the crust but the body of the sandwich is trimmed away, leaving only crumbs.

It's sweet, in a terrible and mocking way, to see one set of European rapespawn lamenting their own demise at the hands of others. Yes, there were more statues and rocket-ships in the meantime, and that stuff might vanish, or more probably, be derivitized into achievements that take centuries to retroclassify as "not all it could've been, actually." Because the ability to accurately conceive of opportunity costs relies upon a vision that is, when it still lingers, tainted. Which is to say, we don't know what Europe might've done in, say, seventeen hundred years without soulular universalism. Absent Jesus, Mars would be not a hotel-colony, but a mere ancient stepping-stone to something we probably can't imagine anymore, founded sometime around what we wouldn't then call the first millennia B.C. And by being here, we're responsible for that lack. Bitter pills. Jagged, even.

But still, this one empathizes, quite a bit, with the small echoes of unfairness contained in yet another ongoing loss. Call them sub-sub-minority telegenetic cognizati; call them whatever you like, but among our best hopes here is to imagine what could've (materially) been. (Strengthens the brain, maybe dangerously, but that's what they said.) So depending on your perspective, can you be as upset about this year's kiddos as yesteryear's? Probably not--but maybe you can still imagine what it would be like to have a memory, and a sense of time, minutely more strong to allow for such. Only a thread attached to the dragon's tail, but it's all you have. Imagine not just the comparative handful of kids being Paki-raped, who should of course not be forgotten (and what a social ordeal it is to even contemplate trying to remember them in the company of polite skulls), but being able to remember, without imagining, without forcing, without distending long-stunted temporal connections, a million Alpinic kids meeting the spreading Jenomics. We don't have the memory capacity, let alone the emotional, for such a meeting, but we can imagine its shadow. Are you so dull you can't care to the same degree as about watching it happen across the street? Almost certainly. Can't even imagine the people, now long dead, who could have felt what we call emotions that we're not now capable of manifesting? We like to pretend desensitization began with TV, but it didn't. Cry for the flesh that was cut away.

More useful, here, is the basic and the boring. What would your life be like if there had been no "Catholic church" forestalling thought, observation, and investigation, for let's say 1,700 years? What would geography, nations, races, look like without it?

(What if I had just ten more years? What if I could do it over again knowing what I know now? Rant at the stretcher. It'll listen?)

Another irony--so unprepared for death, yet in our deaths we can, maybe, still ask some of the relevant questions. Will we remember that, by right, they are not just ours? "Unprepared" means very little education, and god help you if you try to take a class, which they offer, and might yet force, on people--the beauty at the end is the "true" material in a way you didn't see until then. Not this one's speech, but maybe I just didn't learn what to ignore? Those last few instants are less corporate, if you will, than anything leading up to them. You've been taught, been controlled as to, how to perceive, but around there, you're a little more free. Use it? Huge tell if/when they try to destroy it by making it a subject of education.

Are philosophers genetically motivated to destroy from within? Which is to say, is international publisher-supported David Benator, knowing or unknowing, trying to magnify his racial opportunity cost by forestalling white births? A question of which he should at least be aware, but likely is not, nor is willing or wanting to be, particularly given his location. Teaching in Capetown, and using an otherwise ignorable, but not for the childfree life, New Yorker-pushed sinecure, to try to convince upper middle class, book-reading Nu Euros to avoid child-bearing to reduce the pain of life in the imaginarily-homogenous, science-illegalized western-world, seems rather an overreach, but not necessarily--he may only be prodigiously stupid, as ignorant as any modern, similar to your neighborhood Richard Dawkins-ish religious Bangist, wherein one has tested the pudding, meant primarily for the inmates, so often that one believes it. Or, also Dawkins-ish, the opportunity presents itself for self-at-the-expense-of-others, wherein the entire career and persona is so laughable as to be performed solely in jest, and where the world may burn so long as I party for my allotment (ergo the quite explicable disinclination to put philosophy into practice, common among all living nihilists, particularly reproducing ones). As this one said elsewhere:
Great thing to see--if we take [Dawkins] at face value, he's ludicrous, but if we see him as a revenue-generating media machine, he's brilliant. He's amassed wealth for his daughter to use in exploiting the next century, all by telling us that it's simultaneously right and wrong. The end result is a wasteland, but as long as his offspring privately schools itself, they'll emerge from that at the top of the game, producing more genes at the expense of others. Morality trumps politics, sic.
"Benator" is indicative because the framing of his New Yorker-ish "buy this from your nationally subsidized retailer amazon or just check it out from your local-subsidized depository" hit includes references to "the Great Hunger." What a crime that: as Irish slaves export a massive excess of calories to English tables, even to the point of throwing out too many potatoes (in England), they were certainly left hungry, but not because a god of random markets or random lives led them to it. More telling is the internationally focused traders who decided that those potatoes would be shipped to England and not eaten in Ireland, and that their counterparts in universities would pretend the massive, ongoing, actual Holocaust, with real mass graves and foretelling and tangible "was hungry and could for a while exhume corpses to prove it" recollection aplenty (contra pulley-esque oven stories that were historically recanted almost as if they were collective plot-notes), would be made to happen. As in all things, we see that it was planned, but experts tell us it was mostly random, possibly due to our own evils.

(This one tells us similarly, though in the sense of saying "you were so stupid that...", which is objectionable to all extant sides of the issue. Ironically--or perhaps not--"race realists" hate being told they were wrong since historical inception, but the most scathing critiques of why they were wrong include all or more of what they say they believe. The tools have already been there. What if every action were sin?)

Benator's effectiveness is mirrored in many funhouses, not the least of which is the New Yorker, but most telling here is the aforementioned "Famine" extermination campaign that paved the way, so effectively, for the twentieth century:
Benatar had selected a vegan restaurant for lunch, and we set out to walk there, along the Hudson. At the end of Vesey Street, we passed the Irish Hunger Memorial—a quarter acre of soil transplanted from Ireland, in 2001, to commemorate the millions who had died during the country’s Great Famine. At Benatar’s suggestion, we spent a few minutes exploring and reading the historical quotes displayed in the entryway. The famine lasted seven years; recalling it, one man wrote, “It dwells in my memory as one long night of sorrow.”
To some degree, Nu Euro academics have been permitted, through the loophole of having Britain's colonial past receive partly honest, incompletely documented (who actually paid for and benefited from those ventures? the average man slaving in a factory or being roasted by natives, or the international trader who had had his friends move troops and create markets?) critique, to recognize that there was hunger and famine--but that it was on purpose, unnecessary, and done to exterminate, yet again, those pagan-ish Celt-remnants who yet persisted. In short, so to speak, those potatoes were there. Enough to feed the people. The Irish starved because they labored on farms where the produce was sent away. Even mainstream history has recollected that. Like Trump's border wall or the Great War, it's a giant turd in the punchbowl that everyone pretends, inconceivably, is not there. Another history may forget it, and in a certain span of time, so too may you. Nonetheless, right here, right now, we can recognize it. "The Irish," or whatever we want to call the wave of remnants murdered by throwing food in London alleys to rot rather than in begging Celtic gullets to be eaten, were murdered. Hidden in plain sight by the retro-proximity of "the Civil War," we formally know it. And yet.

Modernity is strength in the wrong direction, materially; the tendency of the Nu Euro to remember snatches of the immemorial truth, even where not currently beneficial against the latest horde, hampers his genetic efforts, and will for a long time. The newest invaders may be too impulsive, too reckless, too stupid, to invent fusion, but deep down, they've come to terms with their capacity in a way that Nu Euros haven't. They hate and envy what they can't create, exploiting it with a touch of ruin, raping you dead, but that is a slightly more honest crime. Your treachery, over thousands of years, is worse. Even the here-successful germ-plasm is unrepentant in its goals. It lies to you, kills you, and sells you successively less visceral pieces of a mythical elven past, always wrong by your standards but never by theirs.

How far can grief stretch? Take a hungry child, and watch their lashes as they try to gobble something secretly before it goes on the cart to the ships. Maybe just a corner of one peel that doesn't look too good anyway. Caught! The club until you spit it out in a bloody mouthful. Do it twice and get beaten outside to starve slowly while a thousand other preteens are eager to handle the picking for daily rations. Promise not to do it again but they're not even listening and then you realize you can't rise from the mud and something's coming to take you away.

A couple centuries later, do you forgive?

Whose decision is it? Is it even possible? Do you just throw dirt until you can't see it anymore? Villefort exhumes what he thinks is a body. Kiss the jagged remains of its mouth.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Dominant Dominant Genes

Largely forestalled here on Terra, probably on purpose, probably out of a need for survival, is research into the "dominant" and "recessive" status of alleles. Part of the Bang religion we're asked to believe in to contrast with Risen Rabbi is the far more subtle lie that alleles peacefully organize themselves based on poorly understood understandings of dominance and recessiveness. Widely taught in western spiritual madrasas is the acceptance that, whether or not the Risen Rabbi or Randomness programmed it, certain traits know to recede before other traits. For example, we may believe that a plan for certain levels of pigmentation doesn't include protocols for "pigmentation absence," and a simple allele can be utterly voided by another with a more intensive plan. We may consider the example of brown eyes being "dominant" over blue eyes, wherein we personify the genetic relationship into a sort of amicable fisticuffs match. Perhaps this belief is better suited to the early twentieth century than the twenty-first, and over time we may see some corresponding adjustments to a "genetic yielding" or "genetic sharing" regime, wherein the complete dominance is, in an open-secret fashion (like a century's tracking of results for military placement exams), likened to an act of acknowledged cooperation rather than one of dominance.

(How embarrassing, in a way, for them to have chosen "dominant" and "recessive" for their story. Or so it seems--we're the ones who fell for it. Like, "The Rabbe told me you should believe in Him in defiance of visual observation," it's more a story about our gullibility than their brazenness or narrative-disfunctionality.)

One of the things someone may learn 'pon survival (eventually inevitable, but here mapping to perhaps the next few hundred solar rotations, rather more perception-optimistically than warranted) is the nature of what we now hymnalize as the "genetic dominance" underscoring most of our day-to-day beliefs. In contrast to our layman's diagrams of peaceful surrender, we would learn of a material life which is more like unto the rest of it that we know, rather than a solemn gentleman's agreement appealing to the aged teachers of the early twentieth century. Christianized, financialized, and duly flattered, the foregone victories of self and pseudo-objective results were rather predictable, much like the scholarship of Lothrop Stoddard's blind cattle before their precipice. Even the eugenics-based resistance was only the logical extension of Bang, in the same way that exterminating infidels proved to be the carefully-managed extension of believing Saul about J the C. For what else is the comprehensive pogrom, or instant eugenics, but the logical conclusion of Rabbi or Bang? Like carrots dangled in front of cart mules, the tools have always been there, but you prefer the whip. And what a fine line must be walked to ingratiate and exterminate--it seems so risky to introduce such plagues. Yet the risk is understood and managed, and ultimately proves not only not to be a danger, but to be a resounding success. As I've said before, first we take Manhattan.

Being more life-like as an aspect of a bitter struggle with an inexorable purpose, rather than a milkwater concierge choosing genetic seats, we may come to see the contest of carried genes more as a living process than a preplanned game of musical chairs, and "recessive" alleles as defeated slaves in the slow, inevitable process of dying. Our ability to keep records and view things with longer perspectives may be likened to the desire of the aged to give away pricelessly worthless household treasures to people who cannot appreciate them: too little, too late, viewed from the cynic's perspective of lifetime efficiency, versus the comparatively beautiful longer term perspective of landfill decay more truly involved in the process. Which is to say, from certain perspectives, it might/would have gone better to save the money instead of to buy the then-new and now-ugly serving set, but from longer perspectives, who cares?

Many consumer products in the current climate could doubtless be developed from a better understanding of the invisible ranking system that underpins what we call "genetic dominance." Yet, for reasons that may be obvious, the ability of some genes to command fealty of and to seemingly external loci would forestall such research, as it would for our more complete understanding of these bodies' systems. In particular, the mechanics of our thinking, and of our level of belief in "rightness" or morals, would yield a wealth of results in the idealized modern sense, wherein we pretend that knowledge is not forestalled, never needs to be forgiven nor forgotten, and is always its own reward. Indeed, we would find in these early mental conundra a precursor to our understanding of genetic dominance, and how and why it influences what we call "character."

Sunday, November 19, 2017

"Like"

This one would like to "like" things, similar to sometimes preferring an e-mail over a paper letter or a text message over a phone call, not because I suck, but because there are situations where the former in whatever case is more suitable. "Liking" something, like a manly nod or a heartfelt look, is a form of communication whereby one can extra-verbally communicate things that do not always transfer verbally. Its perversion by the largely unthinking masses, as they might be called, was possibly not a cause, but a symptom, of something greater, in the same way that the results of gifting a box of loaded guns to each asylum/prison inmate does not produce results indicating that a gun is itself bad. Far be it for this one to defend Zuckerberg, who probably knew what he was doing when he sent the guns wrapped in bows and bright paper to each padded cell, but rather let this one defend "liking" in the sense in which it was originally conceived and/or perverted. One can like something to communicate a variety of messages, including for entities sharing some level of mental proximity:

"I'm in a hurry but this is cool"

"You know what I think about this and you knew when you posted it that I'd feel this way and I do but have been inspired in new thoughts about which you did not even speculate and that's sort of existentially amazing let's remember to talk about it later in more detail okay bye"

"Haha yeah it's just like that"

All of the said responses communicate the same and different things, and besides the temporal expediency of each, they often provide a means for nonverbal communication when verbal communication is destructive, unnecessary, would not occur, et cetera. Certainly the "like" can, and primarily does, mean other things as used by said inmates, such as:

"Yeah" (said so rapidly the content isn't even noticed)

"Umm" (said so rapidly the content isn't even noticed)

"I'm not sure who you are but I acknowledge your humanity"

"Maybe you'll increase my perceived popularity by returning this minute and perhaps unnoticeable bribe"

"Err if you say so" (again, said so rapidly the content isn't even noticed)

...and so forth. As with guns in the proverbial asylum, the results are predictable, horrifying, and can't seem to help but cast doubt on the tools as well as the users. Yet we can, though perhaps now tortuously, imagine a social network where the internet is a minor buttress to the web of materially-facilitated interactions we have here, in which a tool for harried planning or reconnecting works that way we imagine it's supposed to, with every single end-user recognizing that a deeper mental connection, possibly linked to a flesh-presence, is an endgame of virtual presence, and the "like" not metastasizing into something that seems beyond our control. The social network is more of a barometer, the crucifixion of the innocent, than it is an inherent condemnation of wood or weather, like drunk driving crashes to alcohol and/or motorized vehicles.

Like that high-caliber asylum, this isn't the planet on which to try such a thing, but we should be clear about the true source of evil in the "like," namely the people who abuse it rather than the tool itself. Various networks of such kinds, if they even developed as more than a passing fancy on healthy 3C planets, could accomplish all sorts of useful things to aid and assist relationships; again, in the same way that feminism rightly condemned the universalist, democratic, Judeo-Christian slave patriarchy of its forebears, the traces of truth in the poison made it go down the sweeter. Ergo we blame Zuckbook, perhaps rightly so, when it is the clicking drones who deserve the lion's share. (Perhaps the only share, but that's a different question.)

The pathogen is by no means left without a form of responsibility, but the question of host vulnerability remains quite apt. One expects available resources, in this case proactive and immense stupidity, to attract resource-exploiters, and one expects savvy resource-exploiters to foster stupidity rather than resistance. No one is smart enough to prove that they or someone else actually lost or obtained employment due to correct behavior on a social network a seemingly-unrelated few months ago, and a dearth of survival instincts cannot be retroactively blamed on the exploiters. Tragically for carrots, bunnies like to nibble. As they say, duh.

An expression of hatred of the "like" is, similarly, partially correct and mostly incorrect, in the sense that we're primarily concerned with mass stupidity and mass abuse, rather than with the tool itself. Take away the tool, and they would still be incredibly sick, incredibly broken, seeking in the dark for a doll whose shape, cuddly softness, and means of creation they've forgotten, though they are very vigorous in the seeking. Though superficial, frenetic, and ignorantly so, the unfamiliarity with what people are missing as evinced by, say, activity on Facebook, is its own prognosis of the terminally ill. Should artful leaders save such a sickened race from its sins? Such a tradition is an insanity quite literal. How Rousseauian; really, how liberal, in the sneering university sense, to imagine a commune deserving survival under the stewardship of Real Lords™ who understand the stupidity of the masses who, though an apex, would act like this without proper guidance.



How far the Nu Euro has fallen--if only such a revenge could have been predicted. If the world offered a form of justice, death might look like this. Days of coddling treatment, years of coddling treatment, has as much effect as you would predict for early adopters. In any case, the choice in leaders has been made, even if the choosers are too daft to recognize it. They will, if they survive in any recognizable form, choose some future goodie even more noxious, using as much shreds of free will as they can be said to possess.

Would you be their savior? Their critic? Either is a form of learning. Take it, if you will.

It is our own salvation, in a way, to imagine releasing these sad saps into a world of fruited gardens, a paradise of intuitions and interpersonal reconnaissance, where we fantasize that they will learn to again read, at a bare minimum, diction or body language. "The world of purity will save them, as the world of computation has destroyed them." Hogwash. The internet could be pure, and the flesh could be corrupt, for we bring our sin with us. The people create a culture, remember?

We haven't in place the structures to find us products or mates or careers, and we pretend that the internet is at fault. Ergo we are beloved of the conclusive text and the non-present "like" as we are of the doorbell, because of the justified potential unavailability of our physical selves in proximity to salesmen in crypsis. We don't believe in anything strongly enough to argue it with every salesperson, and through our insanity, they are so hyper-funded that they make a joke of ignoring what little diction and physical language they understand. We are the "victims" of rape, acting surprised that wearing our shortest skirt alone in the alley at 2AM has caught attention: a metaphor that cuts deeper than we may at first think, for there is nothing intrinsically wrong with short skirts or being looked at with desire, anymore than there is with indicating your vague half-second approval of your friend's picture of some kid looking vaguely toward a birthday cake. We were too stupid even for the daguerreotype. The "like" barely begins to take the jealous mistake to its logical extreme, for there are other ways to prove our liar's-immortality and temporal popularity than to produce advertisements in paystyle. What a powerful purgation our mealy-mouthed social critique brings us, when we pretend the mouse made us do it.