Monday, September 26, 2016

Sex, Syndromes, Shells, and Centuries

(Another great post © High Arka and the F.I.S. project.)

I began How Gay... by saying that the lack of technology here keeps us from having to confront difficulties in the way that lack of clothing kept our predecessors from dealing with even the marginal exisexual quandaries we face now. Example: right now, surgeons can chop a male human up in a way that results in it being able to mimic a female, and hypothetically result in some poor straight bastard doing what he thinks is a female and then finding out he was actually gay all along despite him not being gay. If you're a gynecologist and/or an above-average physician or you get genetic testing beforehand for everyone you screw, you could plausibly claim that it would be impossible to fool you, and if you're thrown into violent dissonance at the concept of the possibility of being fooled, you could implausibly but forcefully claim it, especially if your testosterone is fading with age and you don't acknowledge being 13 or 16 or whatever anymore, and you deny the chemical vicissitudes of embodied life as having no application to your current worldview.

Even allowing for the people who could actually discern, and who would be thinking about such things at such times, this wasn't as much of a quandary in the days before elective surgery, and it was even less of a quandary in the days before clothing, speech, and/or civilization. Some animals can actually-actually change sex characteristics, but homo sapiens sapiens isn't known to have those abilities, therefore, without any external means of mimicking sex characteristics (wearing dresses or getting vocal chords shaved), the possibility of a male pervert tricking another male into committing a homosexual act under guise of heterosexuality grows closer to impossible, because when no one wears underpants and anyone attempting genital surgery immediately hemorrhages and dies, there are no easy traps trolling clubs.

Right now, with the rickety bonesaws that pass for healers on this planet, there's still wiggle room for dumb boors and/or fading-T retrospectives to claim they could never be fooled. But what happens when brain transplants go live? The underlying psychospiritual quandary of "transsexualism" can be taken to several new points of consideration, much farther than gloves and corsetry now permit. With that in mind, consider the following scenarios, some of which are applicable now and some of which will only become applicable if Terran science figures them out.

Is it gay if:

A man has sex with a woman, then finds out later that she has Swyer syndrome and had streak gonads removed at birth? What about if the man, upon finding out, immediately elects to dump her and never see her again, and decides retroactively that it was terrible sex and he didn't want it? What about if the man, upon finding out, talks to several physicians and comes to the conclusion that the woman is a woman, just not a fertile one?

Is it more or less gay if the woman didn't have Swyer syndrome, but was a hermaphrodite who had the male sex organs removed at birth, then lived life as a woman? Is it kind of like a Schrodinger's cat scenario where, if the man never finds out the truth, he isn't gay, but if he finds out the truth, the act itself becomes retroactively gay, even if the man then disowns the act and the hermaphrodite? Or, by disavowing the act, can the man then reaffirm his status as not-gay, and/or make the earlier act affirmatively not have been gay?

If a man is raped by a man and doesn't want to have been raped and doesn't enjoy it and doesn't want to be raped again, that man is not gay, right? So, if he has sex with the Swyer-syndrome woman, then disavows her when he finds out, was the sex itself gay? If not, then what if he has sex with a post-op transsexual--born as a man, chromosomally a man, but possessing the complete bodily characteristics of a woman due to super-cool surgery?

Once the victimized man finds out he's been tricked, was the act of screwing the post-op transsexual gay, and therefore, the man has committed a gay act? Okay, maybe the act itself is gay but the man himself isn't gay, and we liken it to rape, albeit rape by deceit rather than by force. And if the man didn't ask ahead of time, "By the way, are you a tranny?" is he therefore gay for failing to exercise due diligence? Or can he rely on current assumptions of social perception, as he understand them, to excuse him his lack of due diligence? Furthermore, now that there are transsexual reality shows and TEA awards and celebrity movements and international bathroom policies, does it not make it incumbent upon the non-gay man to ask every potential partner beforehand, "Are you now or were you previously a man?" or else he implicitly accepts current globalist dating mores and concedes his willingness to screw based on appearance rather than origin? Even if not now, at some point in the near future, not asking, "Were you born something other than female?" will be like not knowing what e-mail is, and young people won't be able to claim they didn't know about the internet and/or potential transsexuals.

What if the man philosophically believes that transsexuals actually have become the new sex, and he's utterly disgusted by men but believes that surgery can create women--is he still gay? Does his state of mind matter at all, or do the chromosomes matter?

If the chromosomes matter, what about women who have XY but not Swyer syndrome, and it goes completely undetected during their lives because they never have any major health problems, take birth control, and never try to get pregnant? Are they still men because of the chromosomes, and is anyone who is attracted to, and/or sleeps with, them, therefore gay? If you're a man, and half of a percent of the pretty women you've ever looked at and thought, "Oh, she's hot I guess," have had a chromosomal abnormality, are you gay, or are you not gay if, upon being informed of the abnormality, you'd refuse to have sex with them and disavow your initial impression?

What about chemical influence, though? If someone is drunk, and it's dark, and they have sex with what they think is an opposite-sex orifice, then find out later, was the act itself gay? Is the actor now, or was the actor then, gay? And, if confusion exonerates the drunk who committed the act in a darkened orgy, why does it not also exonerate the person who thought the post-op was a real woman?

To further compound the "drunken orgy" question, what about a blind person? A person numbed by drugs? A person raised by a weirdo kidnapper who is taught that females have testes and phalluses, and therefore, who thinks that, by swiving a male, he's actually swiving a female? Is it gay if he doesn't enjoy it because his biology rebels? Is it gay if he does enjoy it because he's been taught that's proper, but, were he taught otherwise, he would be completely straight?

This one will answer most of these questions later. Even so, they're valid ponderables. What is it to be a person; what is it to be male or female; what is it to desire, or be repulsed by, something? Why and how does sin tempt some and not others, or how subtly or blatantly does sin approach a person?

Ongoing Quandaries

The above examples are all relatively simple. This is what passes for "complex" on Terra 2016. It's easy for low-functioning people to draw bright lines, deny any possibility of chemical or sensory influence, and have a pretty good chance of being able to shut out any private mental uncertainties about how they might have evaluated a person or a photograph during a hormonal peak. For people who function a little better, you can draw a bright line but make excuses for "didn't know" or "drunk," and so on. What happens, though, when brain transplants hit? EC flashing? EC-pattern cloning? Customized integration and reintegration shops? That's what Terra hasn't seen yet; that's where it becomes more philosophical than biological, and where you can't rely on local comparative technological incompetence to save you from adjudging what is and isn't self, desire, and love. Accordingly, let's look ahead to a later book in the series, and try the practice questions there.

Transplants

Is it gay if:

1) A man is near death, no body donors can be found, and so the hospital transplants his brain into the only available body, that of a female. The man then adopts the lifestyle of a woman, including having all of the right chromosomes in all of his non-brain-cells (rest of the neurological system is female, but not the transplanted brain itself), experiencing estrogen, being able to ovulate and become pregnant, etc. (we're assuming that early brain transplants involve the original brain maintaining the integrity of its internal systems while the transplant baggy allows it to interact with the host body as female), and then that man-into-woman has sex with another man. Is the act itself gay? The body was wholly female except for the transplanted brain. Is that other man gay if, upon finding out that the woman he swived was originally a preserved body into which a man's brain was transplanted, disavows the act and hates that woman/man forever? Is the man gay if he doesn't disavow the act?

1a) If the male brain transplanted into the female shell (MBFS) has its memory scrubbed as part of the transplant, and wakes up believing it is and has always been a woman, and then has sex with a male brain male shell (MBMS) individual, is the MBFS gay? Is the MBMS gay, either when he finds out or if he doesn't? Was the act itself gay?

2) If a woman needs blood during surgery and receives matching blood from a male donor in a last-ditch effort to not bleed out, is it gay for a man to swive her? What if the man later finds out that the woman received male blood, and was, therefore 0.8% bodyweight male during the act itself?

3) If a woman needs a kidney to survive and receives it from a man, then later has sex with a different man? Bone marrow? Skin for a third-degree burn? New heart cloned from stem cells originally sampled from a male donor? All of the above?

3a) What percentage of a female shell can be replaced by pieces from a male shell, or vice versa, before the resulting admixture is either straight and/or gay to fuck?

3b) If Eve came from Adam's rib, was it gay for Adam to do Eve? Why not?

3c) Since our frames' cells die off and are replaced all the time using atoms/molecules circulated through the environment, even pre-transplant, how is it not gay to have sex with anyone? The deciding factor clearly can't be the origination of matter, or else people who believe in Adam/Eve, Big Bang, or everyday science trivia have to define either everything or nothing as gay, since it all came from the same source. Accordingly, everything is constantly transsexual and/or gay.

Whatever our definition of male/female is, it can't involve reproductive capability, or else two heterosexual eleven-year-old sweethearts giving each other their first kiss are gay, swiving a woman on the pill is gay, swiving a post-menopausal or otherwise-infertile woman is gay, and worse still, swiving a man with an implanted womb isn't gay. So reproductive capability can't be the defining variable, anymore than a Vegas marriage can define "marriage."

Electroconscious Transfer

Brain transplant is still sorta sci-fi-ey around these parts, but actually connecting a mind to a new empty brain--let alone merely being able to maintain one without a host brain for more than a brief duration--is solidly sci-fi. In some ways, it's closer than Terrans think, since maintaining empty brains is something they've been able to do reasonably well for decades. In other ways, it's as speculative as they'd imagine, given their primitive understanding of EC wells. For discussion purposes, think of it as a pure hypothetical of something that "might" be possible "in ten thousand years." Imagine it being a rather ordinary thing for a maintenance facility to maintain a little electroconscious well, manipulate the well to draw a "spirit" out of a brain, hold it there while another gurney is wheeled over, then attach it to an unoccupied brain. Also imagine that, depending on the person's wealth and/or situation, the conveyed can elect to have memories, instincts, et cetera, written into the new host brain. For discussion purposes, assume that, in all of the below examples, the conveyed chooses to have memories et cetera transferred by duplicate coding, rather than by actually transferring any of the old physical storage, i.e., any of the cells in the prior brain.

How gay is it, then, when a man has his soul moved to a new body--a woman's body--along with the encoding of 100% of his memories, and then has sex with a man who's never had a body transfer? The scenario is Male Mind Female Shell x Male Mind Male Shell, or MMFSxMMMS. The souls are both male, but the MMFS has 100% female everything, down to the last atom, even in the brain, and the "only" part that's male is the EC essence. Is that enough to make it gay, even though it's a completely and utterly female body that was born female and has XX only and is capable of completely natural reproduction? For the purposes of example, imagine that the MMFS was rich or lucky enough to purchase an organic female shell, say, from a woman who died of a stress related illness and left behind a harried but functional brain. So, it's not even a vat-body, but a fully legitimate, all-natural "female," in every way except the soul. Still gay?

If you can't imagine science accomplishing that, imagine God doing it, and if you think God would never be so wicked, imagine the Devil doing it--same scenario as far as determining who's gay or not. Presuming a lack of extinction, it won't be a thought experiment forever, even here. And if you're a man, how can you have safe, legitimate hetero sex with an eighteen-year-old virgin woman when she might be housing the soul of a 900-year-old male pervert who can afford to switch shells every decade? To un-cloud potential morals, assume that this rich pervert doesn't have the girls poisoned or raise them on an evil slave farm, but actually just waits until someone dies young and beautiful of natural causes, then makes his switch. Maybe he spends his time in-between working at the food shelter or something, so his only bad trait is shell-switching in order to pull the ultimate trap.

Is the old guy gay for wanting to be the woman and have sex with men? Is the man who has sex with the beautiful young virgin, never knowing about the origin of the woman's soul, gay? Was the act itself gay, whether or not the man finds out he was duped? If he then minds or doesn't mind?

Even more fun: what if the soul was originally female, but then it was a rich old woman who transferred into a young male body, lived out that life, then decided to switch back to being a girl. Is doing her then gay, even though she's FMFS, just because she was previously FMMS? Does it change if she's lived 40 lives as a FMFS and only one life, centuries ago, as a FMMS? What if you check with the joint ICL-Oversoul registry beforehand, and get confirmation that any woman you fuck is and always has been a FMFS? And what if you find out afterward that, because he was so rich, the pervert was able to change his original records? What if you never find out because the records were changed so well, or because you only have commoner-level access?

Memories

The pre-Semitic religions--the native, indigenous Indo-Aryan myths--dealt with this stuff easily: reincarnation. If you swived a woman, you knew that she might've been a grain of sand, a beetle, a dog, or worse, an Untouchable dude, and her current state, not all potential prior states (or all potential prior states of any of her cells and/or technological augmentations at the time), determined your sexuality. The incompletely plagiarized, dumbly incestuous, vuglarly enslaved Semitic death-cults did away with this distinction, endumbening their believers into desperately believing in no-see-um charms that only worked until the next stage of technological and/or civilizational advancement. Ergo the world's first and greatest anti-homo religion produced the proportionately highest rate of pro-homo policies, hypocritically brutal in either direction, with toddler and preteen molestation rates so high that even Israelis are forced to report about rabbi indiscretions inside Israel, while the Semitic religions cut a swathe through Europe that alternately obsessed over and murdered homos, or exalted them into domineering, cake-suing lords of blind young venereal creep.

The recognition of the value of now-ness--the ability to perceive things outside the lens of a selfish biodirective and/or childish deity--proved itself to exceed also the value of then-ness and once-ness, respectively. Which is to say, the perfect Hindu does not take sadistic pleasure in the manner in which food animals or children are tortured for feeding/penance, while the perfect Yahwehite does; the ideal Hindu does not obsess over either the rejection or worship of variegated fluid transfers, whereas the ideal Yahwehite does. The Tel Aviv nightclub scene is to the Unitarian fag-minister as the sweating rabbi is to the brimming evangelical. Acknowledgement of a multifaceted self--perceptible to God or Science, though not ever at once to sinner or scientist--is healthy ability to adjudge the self even as molecules die and are born again.

Memories, then. Take the MMMS who, tiring of his current life and not wishing to move to a synthetic shell, goes to a high-caste maintenance facility and orders himself a fresh female form, cloned to his exact specifications, and then who, at the last minute, decides he doesn't want to remember himself. So he puts off the procedure for a few days, completes the requisite interviews, waives liability, and agrees to have his memories wiped and his life started anew believing he is and has always been the new young woman. His trusted attorney, overseen by that jurisdiction's contract assurances department, promises to transfer his wealth to the new young woman over a period of years, subject to stipulations the man outlines ahead of time, yada yada, he has the operation and doesn't transfer memories and now completely believes he is the new girl, and only his attorney and a few people at the contract division (who could care less) know the truth. And then maybe the attorney dies and there's some data loss and nobody ever knows on that world.

Is it gay, then, when and if she ("she"?) screws a man? Absent the MMFS's prior memories from when s/he was an MMMS, the soul begins shaping itself at more fundamental levels to correspond to the chemicals and traits of its current shell. Is it, then, actually a woman? Is it gay if she goes for a woman, gay if she goes for a man, or gay either way, since both an MMFSxFMFS and an MMFSxMMMS are homoerotic?

Try this: at the spiritual level, there is a separately-adduced homosexual element. MMxMM is homo, whether or not one is MMMS or MMFS. So, while physically it may be completely hetero if it's MMMSxMMFS, it's spiritually homo, and you can't tell until local technology (and corresponding terminology) is developed sufficient to differentiate EC sigs, which come in more than two. The part that might embarrass you, the "shell" part, is binary, so to a large degree, there are clear physical answers based upon the sexuality of the shell. Think of it sort of like a predecessor to spiritual puberty. Many of the weird feelings that humans get on this subject are due to the as-yet nascent structure of their electroconsciousness, which leads to frustration and anger, or just philosophical muttering, when they're confronted with, "What if I did a hottie and it turned out she had a brain transplant from a based dude?" Stockings and makeup and hair removal get way philosophically deeper once they don't even need to make incisions to move minds.

Let this one give you one piece of advice before going: the first time some major business comes out with the idea of a registry verifying original births and lineages and lists of "shells occupied," or whatever they call it here, don't trust it. It will be a commonsense idea, but it will be used like any other bank, to launder most publicly clean that which is dirtiest. You will never be able to tell if that incredible stripper you meet in the 25th century was once actually, e.g., Steve Jobs, even if the Grand High Databank shows her as pure. All you've got is your conscience, and unfortunately, having that tricked every so often down here is a necessary part of it all. I'm not saying don't use the database, I'm not saying don't get her tested, I'm not saying never "follow your heart," but purer forms of certitude do not involve that kind of reassurance here, and someone will always look the other way for a fiver. Good luck and good learning.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Endgame Nine

"Freedom? You come here with this rabble, Edwin, talking to me of freedom?" He spun away from the desk, cloak trailing. "What more would you ask? Freedom, ha...freedom. The freedom of a man to jam his dick into a luricone genicant shaped like a nine-year-old, written to act and talk and screw like a nine-year-old--God has given you that freedom. And still you are not satisfied. Still you demand new freedoms--freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom from war. Is there any stopping you?

"I have given you, given the people of this world, more freedom still. The freedom of a Jew to put a diabetic Mestiza behind bulletproof glass so she can issue thirty-four percent loans to illiterate niggers buying their first soarboards. The freedom to sell sycharine refreshments at a hundred and seventy percent markup. The freedom to restructure the safety codes to force Calizona to provide twenty-six-hour automated security around my warehouses instead of the irradiated children’s wards of my competitor’s hospitals. Those freedoms, God Himself could not give you; those freedoms are my gift, and mine alone. They're out there right now, this very moment, available for you to enjoy. Available for everyone. Everyone, damn you, damn your rhetoric, for everyone! God Himself could not even have imagined the freedoms I've sprinkled so generously on you people.

"And still you spurn me! You call me the enemy of freedom, as though I’m somehow oppressing you, jailing you, locking you up and forcing you to spend your every waking minute thinking about the blessings I’ve given you people, the blessings to be yourselves, the blessings to choose, the blessings to be free, truly free, in a way you never were, never could be, before I arrived!

"You, you and that half-sentient mob of charlatans out there, do you think this is the first time I’ve seen your like? The first time I've been called an 'enemy'? Oh, no, Edwin; oh no. This is no surprise, this loss of yours. It's simply an experiment. Do you think I minded my looks? My face? The wattle on my neck; the swinging scrotal protrusion of wrinkled moles and dangling hairs that proved so useful to your propagandists before Advent Four?" With a vicious laugh, he swept his steely fist toward the chilled coffin in one corner of the office. "It's still there, you know. I might adopt it again. I might design one even worse. I might instill you, all of you, into models just like it, and have my thinkers remove your sense of aesthetics. I could leave you here believing it was the height of beauty.

"But no, no," he continued, pacing to the window. "I'm forgetting my duty. My duty to you people. To make you appreciate freedom." A tsking noise stole around the edge of his helmet. "You’re simply too underdeveloped to appreciate freedom. Like a babe returning to the cradle, after I've tried to introduce you to a new shoppe. Afraid to crawl out and explore the world beyond, learning about balance, shapes, and colors; learning to fuck nine-year-old genicants and issue thirty-four percent loans, and doing—doing, well, whatever you think is freedom; whatever would make you people happy. You could even do that, whatever it is--whatever aggressively fantastic future you people think you would do, if you somehow stole away all the freedoms that I've granted you in so short a time!"

Edwin strained against the bonds on the chair. Teeth gritted, he promised, "Your kind can't even imagine the things that'd make me happy."

The man from the ninth tower roared with laughter. "That so?" Though he had no mustaches, his metal hand made small gestures near the front of his mask, as though he were twirling just such a keratinous decoration. "Is...that...so?" Bowing at the waist, he wept for a lengthy second. He swept straight again in a whirl of cloak, his mask's lines shifted to contempt. "Ha! Your dreams; how bright grows their willful idealism! Like a moth stripped by the flames, how I wither, how I recoil! Your icon has shattered my mind, your sacred waters have burned my flesh, oh, oh, whatever will I do, confronted by the undimmed goodness of the valiant hero!" Finishing in a spit, he drove his gauntlet onto Edwin's thigh. Wet bone crunched, unseen, beneath denim rags and furnace-burnt flesh.

"How stoically you die..." The man from the ninth tower paced to the window. "Your rabble--what remains of it--is dispersing. Mostly bonded in airships, but I do believe a few of them may litter the steps for a number of days, yet. My granddaughter among them. Yes, there she is now--oh wait, that's only her head."

"Bastar--aaahh!" Biting away the pain from having tried to move his smashed leg, Edwin collapsed over his lap as far as the bonds would permit. May. Oh, May...I told you not to come. Breath left him slowly, words failing also, as in the slow death of crucifiction.

The man from the ninth tower glanced over his shoulder. "Did you think the horror of it all would deter me? The truth behind your resolve; your undaunted you-ness; something of the sort? Did you think that would shatter me, would crush my image?"

Edwin could barely shake his head. Pain threatened to render him unconscious. May had come; ignoring everyone, she'd come anyway, and the bastards had somehow been waiting. It had been a slim hope, but even that was now gone. And May! At least she hadn't been captured. At least it was over for her; she wouldn't have to see the fallout of their loss. Oh God...if they were ready here, then they'll have been ready in Belfast, too.

"I’ve seen the things you do," dismissed the man. "The things a thousand, a million-million-million civilizations have done. I've seen what you call freedom." Tracing the armored glass, he looked above the reddened skies. "I've seen men like you often enough that it becomes boring. I've seen you conquer stars, galaxies, disease, want, and build opal palaces of beauty from one end of the stars to the other. Every man a sculptor, every breath an art...and it all ends in the realization that there was no freedom. There was no endgame, no true goal, oh no--there was nothing but the pursuit. The chase, but never the kill. The means, but never the end. It all..." Throwing aside his mask, he faced the red sky and sobbed into his metal palm, fingertips scoring bloody lines across his jaw and high forehead. "I tried to give you something greater than your quest for nothing. You poor, doomed fools. I tried to give you a wheel that would spin for all time. I tried to make you so free that the word itself lost its meaning, freeing you from freedom itself. I laid a boulder at the bottom of a hill that stretched into forever, and if you had only kept pushing long enough, you would have discovered that the boulder had been, all along, pulling you up the hill."

A chime sounded from the door behind the chair, and both men turned to

Friday, September 23, 2016

Misplaced Selfishness

Democracy is supposed to work out as the best system of government, or at least a system that is better than others, by achieving the greatest overall good for the greatest possible number of voters, based on input in the form of votes, whereby people vote are supposed to vote for what is best for them personally, producing an accumulated effect that results in the candidate who can provide the most total return of what voters say they want. There're a billion reasons why it doesn't actually work that way, and one of the more significant ones is that modern humans seem incapable of being intelligently selfish. Rather, the act of voting seems to involve not the selfish best interests of the voter in question, but the voter's satisfaction of various forms of emotional reward schema and image posturing, both external (easy) and internal (less clear).

Sheltered white people who vote for theoretically violent immigrants aren't at issue here. That's an easy thing to point out. Think instead about a different kind of massive disconnect in the ways people choose their candidates, and what they focus on as important. For this exercise, imagine that you're a voter, and that an election is being held. Think about the candidate whom you do not wish to vote for, and as regards that candidate, ask yourself which issues are the most important to you (and/or to people you care about):

Issue: The candidate's likelihood of implementing tax policies which will extract more money from you than is currently extracted, in return for government services equal to or less desirable than those you now receive.

Issue: The candidate's likelihood of starting wars which will increase the likelihood of you personally experiencing blowback from foreign enemies.

Issue: The candidate's likelihood of starting wars which will increase the likelihood of the end of civilization and you starving to death in a nuclear wasteland.

Issue: The candidate's on-camera temperament.

Issue: The candidate's off-camera temperament.

Issue: The candidate's health.

Now, rank all of the above Issues. Maybe they're all important, but which ones are most important to you--which ones might actually affect your daily life, in terms of either causing you to have less money, causing you to be killed, causing civilization to end, or causing you to feel annoyed and vindictive? And, which ones are more troubling to you, in a logical sense?

Then, take that list and ask yourself the question, "Which of those Issues occupy most of my thought regarding [Candidate/Election]?" Rank the Issues by the attention that you've paid to them. Have you discussed these Issues with other people? Have you read about these issues? Which have you read about more, or less? Which ones make you more likely to flip to that article, turn up the volume, click on a link, or apprise your friends or acquaintances of, and in which ones are you less interested?

...If those lists don't match up exactly, what does that say about you? How good are you at being (A) selfish, or (B) personally moral, or (C) socially moral, or (D) psychologically consistent, if those lists don't actually match up?

For example, if Candidate A's tax policy will cost you an extra $5,400 a year, but you spend more time worrying about Candidate A's temperament, what does that tell you about yourself? What does it say about your financial savvy, or your financial priorities? Would you be willing to pay $5,400 to Candidate in exchange for different behavior alongside the same policies? No? Then why would your focus be adjusted as it is? (For the same reason people are more likely to buy a new car when the salesman is wearing a _____ shirt, that's why. Modern economics has retarded our brains in ways far more profound than in dealing with transactions that are expressly and literally financial. Some of us are so neurologically mangled that we see "marketplaces" in all parts of existence; in the very constellations.)

Similarly, if Candidate A is both (1) very rude, and (2) more likely to threaten apocalyptic nuclear warfare, what does it tell you about yourself if you have spent more time discussing and considering (1) instead of (2)?

Democracy is as democracy does, of course. To go a step further, what will it mean when a majority of people--the same people who probably don't match up their "Issues' importance" lists with their "time spent having concern about" lists from above--decide that, in their minds, democracy is ineffective, and therefore, they now claim to want a monarch? Whoever they are, they'll probably be quite convinced that this time they've figured something out.

Ah, Terra!

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Biotical

The sky is falling, Jesus is coming in Y2K, and the antibiotics are becoming ineffective. For ten million, for fifty thousand, for five thousand, for two hundred years, we had no patented antibiotics, and their absence wasn't responsible for our successes or our failures. If you worry that the birth-control pill indirectly caused massively harmful civilizational changes by weakening social mores and crushing the family, why would you also worry that antibiotic-resistant bacteria are going to produce bad things, rather than good? The end of the antibiotic era is comparable to the end of the birth-control era. You wanted chaste morality and the survival of the fittest? So you say, but now you're whining about it, just because a few dozen million muds with dysentary are handling your produce before you buy it. Go ahead and scrub that tomato all you like--you can't keep the drug-resistant burrowers from the third-shift loading crew's hands from creeping into your belly. Pandora's box was opened long before penicillin arrived; now, listen to you whine about people ruining your perfect little antibiotics, like it's such an insufferable burden that you'll have to live with germs in the way that nearly every other human being in existence has ever had to.

How Gay Is It?

We all have it so easy. Our lack of technology keeps us from having to confront difficulties in the way that lack of clothing kept our predecessors from the same. Let's talk about homosexuality, or since they've stolen the word pretty seriously, "gay"-ness. We'll establish a scale of gayness using two extreme points, and try to suss out points in-between to understand the concept. We'll stick with male homosexuality for illustrative convenience, but it can apply either way.

Defining Leftward Boundaries: Gayest Possible

Okay, so what's the gayest possible thing? Is it gayer to have gay sex with a consenting gay partner, or is it even gayer to have gay sex with a non-consenting partner? I'll say the latter, since your gayness is so extreme that you're willing to cross the bounds of consent (but I'd be willing to hear opposite arguments about how valuing consent makes you gayer than being willing to cross the boundaries). And is it gayer to have gay sex with one partner, or more than one? That's a trickier one, since it's relative preference--a guy who wants to sleep with a million guys at once is pretty gay, but maybe he's all about quantity rather than quality, so the guy who wants to focus his complete attention on the perfection of just one other guy could be actually gayer than the one who wanted to have a million guys at once. So the scale of ultimate gayness can't depend on quantity.

Is paying for the privilege of said gay sex gayer than getting it for free? Again, dicey. Someone who would pay a billion dollars for one ultimate gay encounter might seem, on the surface, to be gayer than someone who wants the encounter but who wouldn't be willing to pay, but what if the latter non-payer doesn't want to pay because he wants the sex to be from the heart (even the forcible sex, i.e., it's on the heart for his part, not the recipient's)? So paying or not paying can't be the deciding factor.

The gayest possible scenario on our graph, then, is having forcible gay sex with an unwilling partner. But then, does it become even gayer if the partner is himself not gay? Not just non-consent, but utter revulsion? Or does that make it less gay because it's wholly one-sided? I'll say yes, it has to be non-consensual but lifestyle-reciprocal, in order for it to be ultimately gay. And I'll ignore arguments that private gayness allows for more measured appreciation of gayness, and say instead that exhibitional gayness is more gay, because it creates more of a systematic impact. And bringing sociology into this, let's say it has to be a known gayness, so Googling "Famous gay men" brings up as the first search result...what the fuck, Rachel Maddow is on the top of the page I clicked? Yes, checking, I actually did type "famous gay men." Okay, I can see the argument to be made there, but I'm going to dismiss that out of hand and try again...okay, this time I'll use "world's most famous gay man." Singular. And Google says...omg, you assholes, great programming job, it's right back to the same page with Rachel Maddow. Giving up on new search terms, just going lower on the existing list...the next two links are all about gay "people," not men, so going down to the fourth one, I get a top ten list, and the gayest one on that is "Abraham Lincoln." Therefore, the gayest thing possible on Earth at this point in time is for a man to bring Abraham Lincoln to the future and rape him on webcam.

Defining Rightward Boundaries: Straightest Possible

By some lines of thought, the polar opposite of gayness should be celibacy, but even without bringing Catholics into this, we can see that's a mistake, since the sterility of celibacy is closer to the sterility of gayness than is the fruition of straightness. The rightward boundary seems easy, but it's actually not: to be farther away from gayness, the boundary has to be reproductive sex, not sterile, pleasure-only sex; it has to include an hourglass woman, not one who is skinny and/or athletic enough that she could be likened to a boy or tomboy or butch or tough-girl or whatever; it also has to not involve any non-optimal reproductive positions or non-reproductive foreplay like unto sodomy. That doesn't mean that male/female oral sex is in any way gay, anymore than consensual male/male oral sex is in any way straight, but non-reproductive sex, as the pervies of old knew, is an eensy bit closer to the other side of the scale than reproductive sex, since it's a step away from the reproductive-naturalness that enshrines the difference(s) we're discussing here.

And if we mix in Europeoid-influenced cultures, we bring in marriage, of course. Marriage, the family, the shared parental investment, the genetic union: the straightest possible act on Earth at this point is either joyful or joyless male/female deep-penetration doggystyle during ovulation, where the female is mature but under mid-twenties for optimal reproductive success. Joyful or lustful thoughts don't kill the example, since those might be chemically and/or sacrally related to creating a better environment for pregnancy and/or childbirth and/or child-rearing. The woman is full-hipped and full-breasted, with adequate fat reserves, and she is thinking about hip angles for sperm routing; the man is thinking about his future progeny and/or his undying love for the woman's currently vital physical form, and they are in privacy, but with a strong family and national network waiting just outside who knows what they are doing and is ready to lend support to the pregnant woman and, later, the baby, and to respect and protect the inviolability of the couple's union, but equally ready to dissolve the union if it gets too dangerously pleasure-focused.

Middle Areas

Okay, we have our boundaries. Somewhere slightly to the right of "time traveling madman raping Abraham Lincoln on Youtube" is "Elton John's afterparty," and somewhere further to the right of that is "Tim Cook's date night with his significant other" (you see how my earlier Google searching paid off after all?), and then nearby, but further still to the right, is "desperate prison rape," and even further is "WW1 Army dude jerking his friend off in a foxhole when they haven't seen a woman or had privacy in years and think they're dying tomorrow." Still on the "gay" side, but not as gay as a man inventing a time machine to rape Abraham Lincoln because he so desperately needs to.

Somewhere to the left of "maximally reproductive sex with hetero life-partner" is "only having sex when she's not ovulating so we don't have a kid/more kids," and to the left of that is "condoms and/or pills in hopes of guaranteeing nothing ever comes of sex but fleshy sterile pleasures," and somewhere around there also is "male/female anal," and further to the left or is "femdom" or "strap-ons," which, although utterly gay, are not necessarily technically gay, if it is 100% male/female interaction both in physical expression and in the last extremes of chemical and psychospiritual nuance within the participants' heads and/or bodies.

Is there an actual middle point, though? Is "zero" an impossibility? Can anything be sexual without being either gay or straight, even to some tiny degree kelvin? Yes indeed; try this: abandoned infant grows up on an island, never meets another person, and one time has an amorphous dream during which he ejaculates, feeling desirous and feeling pleasure but never knowing why. He never knows that he has a sex, that there are other sexes, or anything else--he doesn't make a pretend-wife out of coconuts, he doesn't find himself attractive in the reflection in the lake, he doesn't think there are other things similar to him anywhere in all of existence, and he dies never being rescued by civilization, never having a second sexual dream, never giving it much though. That is our zero point.

This is all just setup for the real questions, with which we'll continue soon.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Linking for the Future

Being partially right is more dangerous than being all the way wrong. The way that merchants have traditionally subverted peons' social movements is by joining them (either in crypsis or via proxy), loudly stating certain things that are correct, then using nepotistic referral arrangements to take control of the movement and ensure that it never accomplishes anything that is either harmful to merchants or sustainably good for peons.

This is how our universities were stolen--by giving merchants prominence in history, humanities, and pharmaceutical/medical/social science while the bankers were saying correct things about those disciplines, we allowed them to self-refer their marketing network into a force powerful enough to drown out all other voices. As a result, we got feminism, chemotherapy, and microaggressions.

That's what tumors like Aurini, Cernovich, (((Roosh))), and Vox Day are--by inclusively marketing themselves as the alternative to feminism, and saying a lot of accurate (and immemorially obvious) things about feminism, they are channeling peon generational anger into a crusade against women, children, and families, rather than in ending the wars, tearing apart the Sanhedrin, and cutting off Israel.

Just a few years ago, those lying scum were all advocating for homosexuality as being part of the "manosphere," encouraging black men to pick up white women, and encouraging white men to ditch white women in favor of (1) sterile couplings with "Asian 10s" and (2) more money for VR sex and video-game retirement.

Now all of a sudden they're pretending to be pro-Trump nationalists. This is what it feels like to get merchant-ed. Merchants did not win the twentieth century by saying, "We are merchants, now do this." They did it by infiltrating each peon spot of resistance and co-opting it to their own purposes.

Building Networks

Let's look into one of the marketing networks brought together to manage resistance. We've talked about some of this before, comparing it and other pyramid schemes to internet porn self-referral networks. We've also repeatedly addressed the ways that this technique was used before the internet. Consider again the way western universities were taken over: by buying an academic journal, then collectively plumping the reputation of that journal, the journal becomes a means to launch careers and stifle ideas. We understand with ease now how the media echo chamber creates selective awareness of, and ignorance of, certain news stories, e.g., robber shot by police, elderly woman burned alive, young girl fed to alligators. Now take yourself back to the late 1800s, and see tenured professorships at institutions of higher learning being based upon community support, colleague votes, and nationwide publishing impact. By taking control of a few journals, merchants can publish chosen articles by chosen scholars, which are then taught and cited by members of the referral network, making them part of the established narrative. Ability to be published affects name recognition and career decisions, so that those not in the group are first published rarely, then published only in smaller publications, then passed over for promotion, then eventually never hired, then eventually never educated, while those in the group are constantly citing one another's work, critiquing one another's work (equally good at driving attention to it), proposing new projects based upon preferred older work (which are then heralded by the foundational professor's work), justifying grants based upon it, et cetera.

When does the NHS consider a study worth funding? Who deserves an endowed chair? Who should be cited by the Times or NPR or your local "First at Five"? What is serious and what is not serious? To whom should judges rely upon as expert sources when deciding whether a physician or a detective or an attorney exercised due diligence? Who should a screenwriter or costume designer consult about appearance or dialogue or mores covering the time period in question? Many people aren't aware of how truly powerful universities are--many people don't realize that, in cases of surgical malpractice, a physician's life or death decision will be evaluated, independent of a jury's fact-finding mission, and utterly removed from jury review or that of the public, based upon what some respected professor published regarding due diligence in a hypothetical surgical scenario. The same holds true in dentistry, law, insurance, banking, and even architecture. Standards that determine whether or not rape or murder or billion-dollar fraud or unnecessary extraction are "actionable" in a court are evaluated in light of "the academic literature" on the subject, e.g., what some "professor" opined on the subject. Western law, from provincial case law to constitutional amendment to international treaty, is processed based upon the selected works of prominent professors, who achieve degrees and promotions and tenures and social standing based upon how thoroughly referred-to they are by other professors. The unelected bureaucracy of lifelong civil employees in the City of London and Washington, D.C., is part of a better-known silent deep government; the professoriate is even better hidden in plain sight, and even more innocuous in its indirect fabrication of governmental reality.

There's an easy counterpart in Hollywood. Why does 1990s Julia Roberts earn so much? Because she's in demand. Why is she in demand? Because she's so recognizable and understandable after having been in so many movies. Why is she in so many movies? Because she's in demand. Why is she in demand?

...why is Paris Hilton famous? Why do Kim Kardashian's opinions reach millions? Why is George W. Bush U.S. President?

This is part of why innovation, both scientific and artistic, fled universities and entertainment media and politics over the course of the twentieth century, driving the nadir ever lower in a gloomy age without cures or frontiers or discoveries. Self-referral networks, like the jealous cousin-marrying incest underlying the merchants' path here (theirs and their pet royals, from whom Harry and William and Dubya and Hillary are all loathsomely descended). We know how these paths work, with This Year's Top-Selling Christmas Toy becoming desirable because it is promoted, which makes it expensive, which get news coverage, which makes it harder to get, which makes it more desirable, which makes for more exciting news stories, which World Cup Olympics Black Friday.

Why the Networks Work

The schemes work because they are always partially true at the beginning. The first professors to infiltrate western universities did serious research. They later coupled that research with bullshit about central banking and the necessity of European war, but they initially garnered attention by cross-promoting serious works: histories, diseases, technology, et cetera. Plagiarized, yes, but still substance. Consider the way it was done in America: the industrial north destroyed the south at the behest of various merchants and agitators, not only to make money destroying the south, but to produce the obscene fortunes and habits of the American Gilded Age. This foul triumph--the robber barons gorging themselves on the Caribbean, South and Central America, the southern United States, poor immigrants, women and children, et cetera--produced people who made easy and partly-justifiable targets for criticism a generation later. Seeing hobbled eleven-year-olds working in Gatsby's mines for a penny a day was an obvious wrong.

Now, this wrong was caused by merchants. By Gatsby, in part, but his ilk were just Obamaesque tools, talkers and kissers of asses--primarily the wrong was caused by the maneuvering that set the central bankers of New York on their insane crusade around the globe, smashing the Confederacy, then South and Central America, into giant plantations of evil Vincente Fox bastards ruling over hordes of starving, blended negro-indios. But it was a wrong. The reason that Woodrow Wilson's tyranny was able to happen--the reason that the Fed, FDR, and Stalin would later burn the globe--is because gullibly good people, seeing those hobbled preteen mine-workers in the Gilded Age, were tricked just enough to turn the revolt against the merchants who had caused the problem into a revolt against "wealth itself" or "our culture itself." The merchants had, of course, set it all up, and they cared not for the children they had originally put into those mines, nor about the historical esteem of the robber barons whom they first extolled, then crucified (yes, metaphor), then later again extolled, but they recognized that those hobbled mine-kiddies were useful.

We've talked about this before with the way that western patriarchy was used to create a similarly-silly, annoying image--the smug cad who debases respectable women--which feminism could be partly-correct capitalizing on to justify a planned overreaction. Remember that, as we go forward: these things work because they are partly correct.

Tools for Identifying a Merchant Network

Using our historical model, we should be able to figure out what's happening now. We've seen feminism, race-denialism, and other such ideatic tools run a particular course, and we know that those things originated from Semitic merchants. The course that those things took was roughly identical: Semitic religious texts propertized women; Semitic religious texts condemned sexuality to realms of paranoid hypocrisy; and, Semitic religious texts propertized, deemed worthless and loathsome and subhuman, and called for the extermination of all racial outsiders. Through both non-Semitic and Semitic fronts, these ideas were pushed into Europe, Asia, and Africa, where they transformed society. In Europe and Russia, where written records are available, we see healthy communities with relatively egalitarian but generally segregated sex roles turned into chattel marriage; we see the laboring poor turned into wage slaves or outright serfs; we see those same healthy, growing, family-based communities led by warrior-lords, and not caring about private consenting adult homosexuality, become subjugated to incestuous fag-nobles who rape children while developing a weirdly keen interest in a couple percent of discreet adult perverts.

The results, over hundreds of non-internet years, are major intra-European wars, the deaths of countless millions over the nuances of the Semitic death-god's potential rebirth and parentage, the granting of tax-farmer status to Jews, the rise of a different Semitic death-god and the beginning of the jihad to invade Europe, and the importation of Africans into the New World.

These effects were positive to the merchants, because without them, we wouldn't have dreamed up any of the stuff we see now--just like Wotan never would've recognized nor permitted the (((YHWH))) insanities that trailed in Charlemagne's wake.

We've learned some things over the years. Let's talk about how to identify the next one of these networks.

Firstly, the network should be self-referential. In the internet, as in Hollywood and newspapers and professoriates of old, we should see network fronts referring to one another in order to generate mutual interest and the appearance of popular support and consensus.

Secondly, the network wants money. In part, this is basic avarice--making money off whatever it is doing is part and parcel. This is also because putting a price on something creates the illusion of value--a trick that still works on Europeoids even after all these years. A lot of the operatives being used to front these schemes are semi-independent, and they actually need the money, because they sense how expendable they are. So, we should see ads.

Thirdly, the network will offer promotional materials. Physical or digital goodies should be used to spread the message. We should see junk being sold, like Joel Osteen's Bible commentaries or Hubbard's/Rand's fiction--easily duplicable mixed metaphors that serve to vindicate supporters through an evocation of shared ideas and ideals, without requiring difficult novelty or complex gradations that could detract from the reverence directed toward the group's explanatory model. Libertarians, for example, both can't and don't want to deal with the complexity of sophisticated and/or intrinsic cultural or ethnic networks, just as capitalists both can't and don't want to evaluate the colossal socialized marketplaces necessary to produce low-threat trading games. To preserve the beautiful integrity of a preferred theory, adherents' opponents must always be reducible to simple, previously understood forms, which can be reflected upon for reassurance. This is why mass-evangelists, a thousand years later, still need to blame their newcomers for insufficient passion, and sell yet another ghostwritten biblical commentary to solve the problem.

Normal people who actually care will sometimes paint a painting, play a song, or write a book, and such normies might also want to profit off of, or share, such work, but when we're dealing with fabricating cultural consensuses--the kind that have big bank money behind them, at some level--the proportion of shameless marketing should be high. The less-intelligent masses who need to be caught by these ideas require a hard sell. Bandwagon approach; giving a sample and then hinting that mysterious secrets are hidden deeper within--that sort of crap.

Fourthly, we should see lots of hypocrisy. It isn't actually hypocrisy to them, since the underlying philosophy of all of this is self-interest, driving even the merchants behind them. But, like any shameless power-hungry politician, we should see network members being willing to adopt different positions at different times, when necessary to attach themselves to something popular. This doesn't necessary reveal that the network has no principles, but rather, that its principles are more important than what it claims its principles to be. (E.g., feminism's recent embrace of European sex slavery reveals feminism to not be anti-male or anti-family, but rather, anti-Europeoid. Feminism claimed to care about rape, then devoted its efforts to fighting minuscule percentages of wealthy white college date-rape, while ignoring dozens of thousands of cases a year of violent black-on-white rape. This was easily glossed over as background noise, understood--like prison rape--to be an acceptable happenstance, far less important than a drunk college girl, until occupation forces began publicly street-raping and enslaving non-intoxicated women and children in the E.U. Mainstream media feminism was not actually hypocritical, but completely logical in its use of a certain rationale being used to accomplish a certain goal.)

Fifthly, the network should share enemies who are themselves self-referential. This is another situation where the internet makes it a degree easier to perceive the ways that these types of elite-backed cultural movements are set up to fight one another for show. A group of personalities who strongly support one another, and who regularly contend with a different distinct group of personalities who strongly support one another, is a dead giveaway. Like finding a cairn on a hiking trail, such a sight is indicative of deliberate planning. Groups of self-referential networks who speak loudly and often about their "intellectual adversaries" promote not only themselves and their message, but the counterpart message that the groups' originator(s) have designed for those who find one group's message unlikable. Think "American humanitarianism v. Muslim nationalism." Neither one is good, and each "side" can use the other side as a means of advertising for and acquiring new members and funding, as well as justifying the existence of sacrifice and hardship. When a network's faces drone over and over about how bad the other network is, they're doing a service to their partners in crime: anyone who doesn't like Person A has a strong chance of concluding, "Well, Person A hates Person B so much that Person B must be the person for me." Party politics isn't stupidly obsessed with personalities rather than "issues"--the point of the exchange is to cause a choice between, say, Tory and Labour or Chevy and Ford.

We should also see other aspects of "cult"-style behavior, such as shared terminologies (being adopted by people who mock everything mercilessly except for their fruity new metaphors, which are weirdly off-limits), hierarchical deference to a guru, censorship of dissenters, and appeals to timeless normatives that aren't actually timeless (but that less experienced people believe are timeless based upon wishfulness blended with pop culture). Let's stick with the stricter network markers to start.

The Network

Several years ago, the "men's" internet thing became a thing. Almost out of nowhere. It had been a background thing since there had been internet, like all other things, filling up countless listservs and chatrooms and boards and chans etc., but several years ago it got an infusion of cash and became, almost instantly, mildly professional. Popular open-access sites were suddenly flooded with "fans" of particular gurus, who had the time and funding almost simultaneously to break away from the semi-public fora and establish private, self-referential nexuses for shaping this new "men's internet culture."

Some of the linchpins of this operation--the Reality Kings and Brazzers of this sub-genre of media manipulation, if you will--set up a network identical to the one described above. The characters Aurini, Roosh, Clarey, Cernovich, Adam, Anonymous Conservative, Heartiste, Vox Day, and a few others appeared as movement gurus. The idea behind the scheme was that these were ordinary, everyday men who realized something was wrong, used their gumption and hard work, and made themselves independent internet marketers with a message who were able to work from home, bang hot chicks, replace the media, and teach you how to do the same. Arrayed "against" them--ready to say ridiculous things in counterpart to drive traffic to Scheme Maleside--were the characters of Scheme Femaleside, among them Anita, who because of Gamergate got her marketing credentials leaked enough by actual people that she sort of quit for a while.

The network should be self-referential

Scheme Maleside began this way and continues to be to this day. Aurini is more sales-focused, so he doesn't use a traditional blogroll, and he updates less often than the others. He isn't a primary source for opinion-shaping; rather, a secondary one for confirmation and the appearance of consensus. The Aurini site pushes many products, including free introductory podcasts, manly fiction by the named operative, and along the right side, a "bookshelf" link connecting consumers to books released under the names of Roosh, Adam, Aaron, Anonymous Conservative, Jack Donovan (the less-popular but still effective homosexual member), and Matt Forney. On the left side of his page, the independent masculine character from Canada has a link to buy some manly herbs, along with a hat:





Did I accidentally post a picture of the hat twice? No; that second hat is from a different website, from an independent masculine character from America, who operates "Aaron Clarey," or Captain Capitalism. In theory, he was just a simple economics whiz who realized he could make a lot more money selling his opinions online than by doing a traditional job, and besides selling you books about how to manage your money (which presumably don't warn their readers not to buy things like that), he can teach you how to be a blogger who makes money by cross-linking with other websites.



See, anyone can do it, as long as you pay to learn how, but only if you have an opinion about why feminism sucks. To prove it, Captain Capitalism links back to Aurini, as well as more than one openly-Roosh-hosted site, more than one openly-Vox Day-hosted site, and many, many smaller sites that sell supplements and workout advice. Like Aurini, he has a twitter and podcasts and books for sale, and references via Amazon.com to the same group of authors who also have supplements and books to sell.

Captain Capitalism chose his partners wisely, since Roosh links back to him:



...as well as to another of Roosh's own sites ("Return of Kings," which we looked at earlier for proof that most young women have sex with great danes out of sheer horniness), Cernovich, Vox Day, Heartiste, and Forney; Cernovich sells his own books, the same workout tips and supplements via proxy, and uses the promise of free lists of other "books men should read" in order to collect e-mail addresses while pushing a couple classics mixed with his partners' offerings.



On his self-named site, Vox Day currently only links to Cernovich and one of the publishing companies that puts out the works of all of the Scheme Maleside authors, but on his "Alpha Game Plan" site, he's more generous, spreading around the links to two different Rooshes, Dalrock (a peripheral Christian-targeted agent), a couple smaller facades, and Heartiste. Adam Piggott, a smaller fish, links to the book of his own that Aurini graciously pointed people towards, then throws in the same Captain Capitalism ("Aaron Clarey") product that Aurini had up in the same space only a click ago. For humble independent bloggers throwing off the chains of the office and changing the world by working from home explaining why feminism is bad, these pros manage to not only print and layout and format their own paperbacks (easy) and kindle editions (easier), but also to have available audiobooks (just a little more expensive).

The cairn has a level foundation on graded ground. We won't continue on with the pictures, but the meshing of message and product is immense. The plausibility of this happening on its own is nil, while the public claim would be, "We were all so cool we realized we liked the same stuff so it happened naturally." What dismisses that argument is the suddenness with which this all began, the commonality and abruptness of the offerings (transitioning from a dozen repetitive sock-puppets on reddit to a private website linking to multiple audiobooks and friends-with-audiobooks and joint seminars in Newark in less than a year), and the dearth of consistent philosophy discussed below.

The network wants money and the network will offer promotional materials

Everything is for sale. The philosophy is a ruse for selling dick-growth pills, dick-hardening pills, muscle powder, and a sense of brotherly camaraderie via repetitive, banal tomes on "self confidence." The personality-managers and layout designers crafting these sales networks betray their integration not merely through similar layouts and coordinated news & commentary releases, but by engaging in low-level professional tactics of salesmanship--not at the interpersonal level (e.g., car dealer), but at the structural level (e.g., car dealership owner's nephew's PR firm). They invest in freebies, pump target audiences for tiny commitments and contact information, then leverage shared lists to push increasing sales and involvement. They rent venues and hold events and shake each others' hands for professional photographers. It's a changeable ruse. Switching from "girls suck so just fuck sex dolls and play Call of Duty" to "real men are responsible fathers" isn't a moral or philosophical problem for them, since all they want to do is ply the audience for sales.

The network appears hypocritical

Even worse than the above, Scheme Maleside is a changeable ruse with a deeper purpose: pushing ideatic socio-structural products that have, as of yet, barely been presented to target audiences. It's quite possible that the content-generators and personality-managers think they really are just trying to sell dick-pills and dating advice, and dismiss the hypocrisy they commit within the scope of that assignment as "just business." And to help them feel better about themselves, there's always, "Yeah, it's not exactly spontaneous, but if I help someone get laid/married or feel better about himself, I guess I'm sort of an unsung hero, and everyone has to lie at their job anyway."

None of this is to "expose" these salesmen as salesmen to uphold them as "of bad moral character" or "just interested in a buck." Rather, it's to identify that the network is not the philosophical ally of those people who believe it speaks for them. Remember how this all began? Feminism--this was how early feminism looked. Against a backdrop of centuries of the battle of the sexes, women with strong financial backing suddenly appeared, in a coordinated manner across several cities, nations, and newspapers, urging women to buy certain clothes, attend events, handing out free pamphlets, and mentioning friends with slightly different approaches to the same essential material. Concurrently, the male Anita Sarkeesians and Jennifer Lawrences of the time played their part, loudly declaiming the suffragettes as irresponsible and outrageous--thereby ensuring more attention, more coverage, legislation, barren women bleeding to death in cubicles, and Title IX sports programs.

What we're focusing on here is the changeability of the network's "philosophy," because to do so can help us predict its ultimate course, and the reasons that this portion of the media network is using "men's issues" stuff to motivate the citizenry. So let's talk some specifics.

Most of the "player" characters are easy, and we've looked at them before. The pick-up artist facades spent years aggressively and completely promoting philosophies that are the inverse of what some of them now advocate, and the near-inverse of what the rest of them advocate. This seeming schism between then and now makes them either lying salesmen or incompetent dolts who shouldn't be able to match up with one another, let alone with certain parts of their referral network. Anonymous Conservative, for example, only sells his own book, but maintains an extensive blogroll linking to all of the PUA others--a seeming irony, considering that Anonymous Conservative's philosophy is supposed to be about how r-selected irresponsible mating/parenting and short-term pleasure-seeking is the definitive civilizational negative, while the people he linked to originally were all about having as much casual sex as possible, avoiding being tied down by marriage or fatherhood, and not paying child support to dumb bitches. Anonymous Conservative the persona has its own problems, given that "he" purports to be a staunch Christian, yet he exults in the idea of the poor dying off and the weak being slaughtered by the strong. (He wasn't always a Christian, and his Christianity changes every so often.)

Vox Day the mestizo from Mexico and Italy, and Roosh the transnational player, built their brands up on teaching men how to evaluate themselves for scoring with different kinds of women. Roosh the bearded Semite in crypsis became popular for describing raping stupid European girls who said no when it was too late, and both he and Vox encouraged black men to game white women in certain ways, while encouraging white men to game Asian women in other ways. You wouldn't know it now, from looking at Roosh's current offerings:



Yes, Roosh is now a fervent nationalist, supporter of family and fatherland, defender of European virginity against the Semitic hordes. Vox the mestizo demands that Trump build a wall to prevent mestizos from taking advantage of white women. Even polka-dotted-pajamas Cernovich is starting to see how his formerly homoerotic lifestyle of men excluding women to work out together with the silverbacks all day might be amended to include strong heterosexual unions for above-replacement-rate fertility to save the West.

Endgame

What are they driving toward? At each stage of this disgustingly hilarious and hilariously disgusting years-long process, these clownish pawns have had a few good things to say to sweeten the sauce. They've all complained about the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax, and the problems with western family courts, and, increasingly now, the problems with western welfare states, and they often did so accurately, the way early feminists could reference anecdotal spousal abuse or incompetent chauvinist tycoons. In the Dark Ages, we saw part of where the Semitic religions were crafted to lead us, and in Rotherham, we've seen part of where both Yahwehism and feminism were crafted to lead us. In each case, too, we saw inside those movements the partial truths glossing over the nasty, profiteering changeabilities beneath. Where, now, will this new dick-pill-based philosophy lead us, and what dark secrets are its masters hiding? The smirking hand-shakers themselves likely know not, anymore than the suffragettes planned to have Arab child-brothels in London or transvestites showering with little girls in Des Moines. Yet the methodology being employed again is so similar to last time that a darker future likely waits at the end of this particular road.

What will it be? And a hundred years hence, what new changeable philosophy will a well-coordinated band of facades begin presenting to us as a means of change?

Monday, September 12, 2016

Hope, Possibility, and Sickness

When a sick old human being is dying--even a sick old evil human being--we don't do ourselves and others well by delighting in that person's infirmity. It is good for the world if a vile murderer--a criminal kingpin who has participated in robbery and extortion and rape and child-starving and the murder of both the criminal's purported allies and the defenseless and harmless among the criminal's purported enemies--is going to exit the world, and it is good for the world if such a killer is merely going to become sick and unable to commit crimes any more, or unable to commit them as effectively, but shameful joy should not be our response. Pragmatically, delighting in such fortunes, even if deserved, fosters a world of such delights, which will not serve us nor our kin nor anyone else well during our own weakness. Tribal passions wax and wane, and none are free of sin, nor every form of ambition. That sword that gives us so much pleasure now, whether publicly or privately, might come back to cut us.

We here are not God. We here do not impose sickness or health. If God sent the tsunami that destroyed the sinners, why did He also give Grandma cancer? Why did He give you cancer? Why all those miscarriages? If God made the dark lord sick, and if it was a just punishment after decades of malfeasance, why did He permit said malfeasance? The equations of perfect justice are beyond your ability here to appreciate, and if you try to do so, you are laughing at all the wrong parts of the movie, trying in vain to show that you understand the joke, and God is embarrassed for you.

Neither should inordinate curiosity be our response. If a sick old person is being used as a puppet, the sick person and the details of the person's condition are irrelevant. It is of vast importance--it is of epic, world-historical, undeniable importance, about which no curiosity can be inordinate--that a sick person is being used as a puppet. In such a case, we should indeed be curious, intensely curious, focusing on the disgusting and macabre horde of liars and schemers who are using the sick person; who are making themselves part of a terrible, inhuman, utterly wrong scheme, which can only be being perpetrated for the worst of reasons. But the sick, confused, dodderingly incapable puppet, vaguely motivated by decades of habit and the shadows of dimly-remembered dreams, merits pity, or perhaps rescue, or perhaps indifference, but not the sort of cruel, prodding joy that reveals us sadists only waiting our turn. The armed soldiers, the mystics and the healers, the confidential agents and the serious advisers: these monsters are treasonous and cruel, both to us and to history and to their sad, half-aware puppet, and it is by their terrible props and strings, and the binding and horrifically punitive agreements that encourage them to abandon their honor, the jealous secrecies they uphold, that we have shown ourselves incapable of crafting a society that can protect us and them at our darkest. The precise details of the decaying puppet's incapacity are irrelevant, worth only exhibits at the trials of the attendants who violated oaths of word and spirit in order to obey.

* * *

Years ago, this one lamented the death of Robin Bush. Not because the demoness Barbara Bush or her steaming spawn deserved no ills in life, or because the many millions of children she would later help her husband rend and poison deserved their lives any less than Robin, but because of the precious one-trillionth percentage chance that Robin would have been a good person who might have dissuaded her older brother George W. to call off the invasion that one time. In that moment, the confused young version of Dubya, who looked in the thesaurus for synonyms and wrote "the lacerates flowed down my cheeks" on his school assignment, was just a little boy describing his baby sister's death. We know not what the world would have been if she had charmed her father, or begged her brother, into selecting a different path.

We do not exonerate the thief or the killer for these might-have-beens, oh no. We do not free them of the responsibility of choice, the origination and nurturing of foul desire, or the final surrender to wrongness which precipitated each of their acts and, indeed, set them on the paths down which they find themselves. For ourselves, we do not forgive the evil of those who fully expressed it at every crucial point in their lives. We may ask ourselves, "What would Roosevelt have become, if he had not been so feeble of mind and body; not been so reliant on Hopkins and Stalin and those lurking bankers?" We may ask these questions, and we should ask them, without growing dangerously wistful and permitting the subject of our retrospective inquiries the freedom to wreak further rape and ruin. Being prone to the full extent of dark whispers may serve as a defense in trials held beyond this existence, but here, such weakness is a crime tantamount to originating those same plots.

And so the just must protect. Yet they are just only when it is not a rotting pleasure, but a burdensome duty, which compels them to act. Schadenfreude at the misfortunes of the evil ones is the first step toward finding your own self surrounded by handlers, serving as a conduit for powers you no longer generate from within, on behalf of unseen faces in the murky darkness of the remains of your mind. Cruel laughter tastes the sweeter when it is deserved, we tell ourselves, and there begins our own journey toward an end that, from here, seems impossible. We marvel at those far down the path: how could someone become so very wrong?

Pity the lost. Take care that you do not go to join them.