Friday, March 27, 2015

SSRIs and suicide

The factors we'd need to consider to relate these two things may be impossible to acquire for study:

1) How many people are depressed and don't see a physician, either because they can't afford it in terms of money or time, they're embarrassed, etc.?

2) How many of those people then go on to commit suicide?

3) How many suicides are not classified as suicides, but rather, as drug overdose, incautious driving, sleepy driving, etc.?

4) How many people who were going to commit suicide anyway happened to take SSRIs before doing so?

5) How many people would have committed suicide if they hadn't been stopped from doing so by their SSRIs (as opposed to the minority of their peers who weren't so stopped)?

6) The connection between SSRIs and suicide was evident before, during, and after their approval process(es). So why did the media wait until now to make a big fuss over it? Some of the more cynical people in the health care industry suggest that it's because all the major SSRIs are now readily available in generics, while many new neuroleptics (antipsychotics, some of the popular ones being Latuda, Fanapt, and Saphris) are still in the patent-protected phase, and thus generate significantly higher returns when prescribed to patients where a generic option is not yet available.

For (theoretical rational) grown-ups, this means that the anti-SSRI message is being broadly disseminated now in order to switch people to name-brand drugs out of fear of suicide (even though the antipsychotics also correlate with suicide--which no one will care about until they run past patent, and something new gets developed, at which point Saphris will be blamed for the Nut Of The Hour, and everyone will switch to some new billion-dollar miracle with as-yet-undisclosed suicide risks).

Maybe increased suicide risk is a good thing--maybe SSRIs help their users be more true to themselves, more filled with a sense of mercy and goodness, etc., ergo they walk away from Omelas in the only way possible. No, that doesn't apply to the Latest Nut We Noticed® (Clint Eastwood has no plans to make a movie about him, because the body count isn't high enough), but it could arguably apply to the vast majority of others, who simply exempt themselves quietly from the process of georapine.

It's beyond debate that western culture is a causal factor in suicide; far be it for me to halt any bashing of big pharma, which deserves any and all conceivable bashing, but it's pretty cheap to blame it on a drug. You want to end drugs? Then everyone stops going to work, and eventually revolts. Inhibiting serotonin reuptake is the cheapest way to keep the rabble from tearing down Manhattan.

Don't be too impressed

Any predictive model which postulates tragedies will regularly appear to be validated.

A more interesting question is, how overjoyed is the modeler when that seeming validation arrives? And the follow-up: could there be a correlation between such schadenfreude and the fact that such models continue having opportunities to be validated?

Monday, March 23, 2015

Day 25 Among the Endangered Silverbacks

The Anthropologist's Take

Day 25.

5:46 AM. Arose at 5:46 AM. Had a powerbar, checked last night's journal, and went to the western slope.

6:13 AM. Took observation of initial group activity. The herd is on the move. Group 4 is traveling somewhere. Appears to be Group 8.

6:18 AM. All the packs have moved frequently since the beginning of my study. Lots of socialization but no major changes. Still, today I feel like something's up.

10:27 AM. Group 4 and Group 8 definitely meeting. Silverbacks encounter each other. Group 4 Alpha defers! Group 8's Alpha is an older male, broader and heavier all around. Group 4's Alpha, who I nicknamed "Teddy" on Day 1, makes an obvious reduction in posture and yielding body movements before this new Alpha.

10:33 AM. After his submission ritual, Teddy exhibits extremely unorthodox behavior in line with his earlier submissiveness--he is left with the younger members of the pack while all of his females shift to his superior's control. Group 8's Alpha already had one female in his harem, now he has five. The dominance just oozes off him as he leads them away from Teddy and the children. I'm getting horny just thinking about it.

11:14 AM. All of both packs' females fawn over Group 8's Alpha, who seems to be the head of this new group. When one silverback yields to another, a new Alpha is clearly appointed to control the harem of the new pack formed as a result. Teddy may be forced to become a loner for a while. My poor subject! The young are crawling over him and he eats a little to comfort himself.

11:55 AM. Long minutes pass as the females continue to pour attention on the new Alpha. It is colder than ever, but still I managed to sit in the one tree that had ants. They're a common variety around here--they got into my cargo pants and bit me a dozen times before I got out of my perch, stripped down, and swatted them away. Note to self: bring more bug spray along on the next expedition.

12:18 PM. It appears as though Teddy, the new secondary male, or Beta male, has discovered some food. Everyone else is converging upon it except for some of the females. Did the new Alpha prohibit them from eating? They are some of the younger but physically mature ones. Maybe he doesn't want them eating around Teddy?

12:41 PM. The younger mature females are definitely not being allowed to eat. They have remained away from the others while the others are eating and socializing. The new Alpha is keeping them away from their former harem-master. Alphas always protect their women from Betas.

2:12 PM. Looks like the feasting is finally over. Teddy has to leave the group for some reason--sent away by senior male? The females groom the new harem-master.

2:15 PM. Teddy has been allowed to return to the group. He is left with the young while the new Alpha again takes the females away. More grooming! Will there be mating this quickly after a show of dominance only a few hours before? Memo to self, buy more ventilated clothing for next expedition. I know the sexual tension around here shouldn't be getting to me, but it's just SOMETHING, so spicy, to think about the kind of mastery these beasts have over their females. If I wasn't on the job, I'd touch myself and not stop touching myself until the sun went down.

3:06 PM. Day's observation almost complete. Soon it will be time to return to the lab to report on the 25 day spread. The bigger, older silverback remains in charge of the harem. I have decided to call him, "Teddy Senior." I'm gaining a little more affection for him as I peruse his bedding material through my RED Digital Cinema zoom-lens. I don't think Teddy Senior has mated with any of the females yet, but they have groomed him and he has disciplined two of them on two separate occasions. Teddy Junior is all but forgotten.

3:18 PM. I can't take these ants anymore. The wind is beginning to pick up. At least I'm cooling back down a little. The Alpha display from Teddy Senior is incredible. That quickly my entire perspective has been confirmed. It's just like it is back home.

4:09 PM. Hiked back to base camp. It's been a tiring trip but also wonderful. E-mail updates went to the entire department every few days, and during the layover between my flights back home, I have a skype meeting with the director of research, to discuss the effects of my findings. This might seem mundane to a lot of people, but it confirms everything we've suspected for years about not only primate behavior, but human behavior as well.

Susie's Perspective

"Ted? Ted? You know, I hate it when you just watch football the entire visit!"

Ted smirked. "You wanna go see the old man, you go see him."

"But he's so booooring!" protested Alexis. "I had to look through these slides for, like, hours! And his study smells like 'Old Spice'!"

Smothering a giggle, Tracy added, "And old farts! I swear, he was letting silent-but-deadlies the whole time we were back there, like he thought we couldn't tell."

Ted grinned, but waved at the girls. "Don't make fun of your grandfather."

Alexis made a face at him. "Like it was your problem. Every time you drag us there, you just watch ESPN like a doof, and make us put up with him."

"Suze?" Ted compressed his lips into a line, giving Susie a meaningful look.

Exhaling slowly, Susie turned to her eldest daughter. "Sweetheart, he's serious. We all need to check in on him now and then. How would you feel if this was our last visit there, and that was the last thing you ever remembered saying about him?"

Alexis thought carefully. "Relieved?" she offered, eyes sparkling.

Pretending to check the driver's side mirror, Ted tried to hide his laugh.

Susie frowned at both of the girls. "Well, at least you got to see Grandma."

"I like Gramma," shrugged Tracy.

Alexis made a noncommittal noise. "Anyway..." She perked up. "Did you see that weird guy in the tree across the street? What was he doing up there?"

Giggling, Tracy said, "He was sitting on ants--I saw."

"He was, like, fapping," Alexis confided with hushed seriousness. "He was looking in their window the whole day."

"Girls!" Susie rubbed her temples. "Oh, I am so drained. Please, please be mature about all this. " She drew several long yoga breaths. "Dear?" Batting her eyelashes appealingly, she turned to Ted, who was just about to merge onto the freeway. "I love you so much, sweetie." After a careful pause, she asked, "Do you think we could get Chinese tonight? Pleeeease?"

Ted thought. "Long as you put on those ribs tomorrow, yeah, sure."

"Oh, thank you!" Susie leaned her head against his shoulder. Shutting her eyes, she listened to the sounds of muffled truck engines, trying to decompress from the day.

Alpha Internet

In White Boiz, How to Pick up Women, and How to Pick up Women, Part 2, we've looked at a portion of internet marketing which capitalizes on bourgeois men's issues, and which primarily goes by terms borrowed from the femboi/transsexual community ("Red Pill" and Matrix-franchise-derived terms), and the lower class African-American community ("Game"). A small portion of this cultural phenomenon includes people discussing institutionalized bigotry, which can be interesting and meaningful up to the point that its own inherent selfishness--namely, its feminism-like narcissistic focus on domestic men's rights contra global death and misery tolls affecting exponentially more men and boys in exponentially more serious ways--causes the good portions of the critique to collapse, like feminism, into a vulgar caricature of decency which attempts to resort to collective punishment as the only possible defense/solution.

The majority of the bourgeois men's issues blogs are, like the Occupy Wall Street movement, reacting adversely to something only when it begins to powerfully affect the bourgeois. E.g., it's fine if judges throw black men in jail for being unable to pay criminally-deranged levels of child support based upon "imputed income" during recessions for forty years, but once it affects some young white people who work in IT, it's a "new wave" of feminism that absolutely must be stopped in the interests of all men. (The OWS comparison is that American blacks have been living under those same financial hammers for centuries, and OWS didn't become national news until some white bourgeois students started disliking their student debt, then trying to connect their burdens to the larger historical injustice. Which isn't to say that OWS was "wrong," but there's certainly a comparison to be noted there.)

Ergo we have all of these delightful new masculinist blogs and literature-producers that look exactly like feminist literature, only with the pronouns and jargon largely reversed. The marketers are making money by advocating various collective punishments, and everyone, even well-off white people in Britain and America (a lot of the men's rights stuff comes out of the U.K., actually--way more than you'd think, because just like with feminism, the hypothetical financial Powers That Be in London may be reasonably speculated to foster social movements based around collective punishment and rationalized bigotry), likes playing victim.

Alpha Males

From certain temporal perspectives, it becomes easy to see the ebb and flow of movements like these, particularly when they originate among an imperial seat's managerial classes. Why, then, would this one waste time discussing the anthropological example above, where it's so easy to tell that the perverted dunce in the tree had completely missed the point?

A side note about Anthropology

It's interesting (although duplicated in nearly all other fields, still interesting) that, when you deal in anthropological pedagogy and literature, anthropologists talk about how they need to avoid mistakes like the ones above, whereby they project their own desires and cultural assumptions onto the behavior of the subjects they observe. They even teach graduate-level courses where they're supposed to learn how to identify the effects that such biases can have on their research. And yet, even though they teach this, their open admittance of the problems does not cause them to question any of the core tenets of their discipline--let alone the idea of the discipline itself, or its development and paladins over the course of the centuries (by whatever name). Like medicine and politics, anthropologists are wedded to the idea that, no matter how rotten and crumbling the foundation of their entire history and worldview, they can make things better if they continue building new floors on top of their leaning skyscraper.

Returning to "Alpha Males"

This one had posed the question as to why we would waste time discussing such flawed examples as why Ted and Susie's trip to visit Grandpa and Grandma could make it appear to a foolish observer that Ted was submitting to his fat, stinky, weak, broken-hipped old father as an Alpha, and handing over all the females to Grandpa to augment Ted, Sr.'s harem. Why?

Firstly, because the idea of "alpha" specimens still has such a powerful hold on the western consciousness. Like other little-boy fantasies of domination by strength and presence, the coveted western idea of assigning people letters of the Greek alphabet based on presumed prowess draws upon the same thing as almost everything else upon which western culture is based: mangled lies of crony capitalist, free market evolution. The observers who made the original error in propagating the sexualized, classificatory "alpha" fetish were making almost exactly the mistake that the silly example which began this post spells out.

Rudolph Schenkel's 1947 study, "Expressions Studies on Wolves," was exactly the study that the Silent Generation wanted to see after the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden. It was a crappy, terrible study, in which researchers observed a family unit of wolves in (obviously unnatural) captivity, and then concluded that the deference that wolf cubs showed to their mother and father meant that there were "alpha males," "alpha females," "alpha wolves," et cetera, along with other "lesser wolves" (obviously betas, gammas, or something else).

The study has been thoroughly debunked, even by its original authors (see Dave Mech's page, which still hosts the original study), yet it had such a profound impact on modern "science" that it massively shaped nearly all avenues of zoology, as well as politics, economics, human sexuality, and now, in 2015, confident idiots quite earnestly playing caste games on blogspot, unaware that their favorite Greek lettering system is less accurate than Margaret Mead's wishful work.

(It's hilarious enough that all of these rich Anglos are using Lana Wachowski's terms to define themselves as manly, but when they're also using the lettering system borrowed from the Athenian boyfuckers to describe their superiority through comparisons to someone who studied animals at the zoo, the snickers are rather more pronounced.)

Primatology was thoroughly affected, also. Most westerners' impressions of gorillas (along with lions, whales [see Moby Dick for waaaaay too much fantasizing about big males leading harems of females; you can try Call of the Wild too, if you want more of a flavor of Americans getting into the idea of animals as sex-fantasy projections], and other animals that make Anglo boiz get shivers of masculine feelings) are still centered on the "dominant male controlling female harem" notion that is, simply, a human fantasy projected onto complex animal relations by a bunch of guys who wanted to get together in tents in the jungle to talk about gorillas more than they wanted to swive women. But that's another subject.

Even in such a modest arena as dog training, the hierarchical "pack theory" favored by the Anglosphere is still being re-re-re-debunked. It's simply too appealing for so many people to think that they need to be an alpha to their dog that, nearly seven decades after the broken study, teenagers at friggin' Petsmart are lecturing corporate executives about it when the latter bring their children in to learn how to make Fluffy sit.

You may have never heard of Rudolph Schenkel or his study, or his retraction of its conclusions as erroneous, but if you have any experience of the make-believe perception of "alphas" out there in the western world--in human social dynamics; pet social dynamics; business leadership; watching a nature show; political analysis; job interview advice--then you've felt the effects. Not just of that one study, but of two generations of scientists building entire theory sets upon it, and continuing forward with them even when the original study was conceded to be an abject mistake.

So why did we talk about this, anyway? Well, we talked about it because, if you're still clinging to the idea that mercantilist evolution doesn't set social prescriptions, maybe looking at all of these pickup-artist bloggers will help you see a connection between inductive science created through the projection of personal fantasy (I'm here because I'm among the fittest, I'm the heir to "alphas," I have a chance at being an "alpha," etc.) produces bad results as well as incorrect ones. A single piece of misplaced fantasy, if it resonates with a group in the right way, can have tremendous consequences.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Rites of Passage and Guns to Heads

Before you can really trust another criminal, you have to make sure they commit a crime with you. Rob someone, beat someone, kill someone, etc. To a lesser extent, maybe just use drugs with you. You can't let them have a pass on it, or they might be a cop or some other kind of spy.

Politicians work the same way, and parties control this. To be eligible for president, you first have to be a governor or congressman, so that you have a record of having previously sold your soul. They have to watch you commit heinous, immoral acts, like signing off on a state budget, or shelving a clemency plea, or otherwise playing ball. Without that, they might accidentally let someone good through the system.

Every power-centered industry protects itself this way. In American law, for example, it's possible, though extremely difficult, for someone to fake their way into the position of a judge. They make it tough: first, they want to see that you've been a prosecutor or a public defender. They want to see you as a respectable prosecutor, blackmailing people convicted of victimless crimes, ruthlessly destroying peasants left and right, and ignore-enabling the silent thugs behind the curtain. Almost all judges and politicians are lawyers with backgrounds in prosecution, State Bar administration, professorships, or other policy avenues where they are forced to serially commit mundane atrocities before being allowed to gain influence. Those with any conscience are driven out in the early stages, before they've had an opportunity to use their influence to exonerate more than a small handful of people, and it takes decades of work even to get that power.

A good, decent person could (theoretically) fake her or his way into a judgeship merely by being a social asshole and billing major corporate clients, but a catch awaits: normal judges aren't allowed to make law. Only American appellate courts can "make" law, in the sense that their opinions are binding upon future court decisions (even though they can then be overruled by higher state or federal appellate or supreme courts, if a given judge has a late-life splurge of conscience). Mere "trial" judges are apprenticed for appellate and supreme roles by being forced to commit terrible crimes against people, destroying lives and stealing property. Only when enough horrors have been committed, and the person's goodness has been completely forfeited, can they be trusted to have an effect on policy.

It would be possible to lie and fake your way past these people by only acting like a terrible person if not for the requirement of actually being one, by sentencing people for possession or propping up horrid landowners or finagling a chemical company's way past already-farcical regulations; they vet you like this in order to make certain that you commit terrible acts as part of the process, so that you can't be a decent person who lies in the service of gaining power which can later be used to change the world. No, that power is carefully denied until they've watched you execute a few POWs first. They want to see your soul scarred and bleeding before you're allowed to command formal respect. If you're First Lieutenant, you have to sign off on patrol missions, tell the Privates to go into that neighborhood and smash it, and if you don't, you'll never become Colonel, certainly General. If you're Private, you have to be part of wiping out that neighborhood before you can become Sergeant-Major and be perceived by the public as trustworthy enough to comment on policy.

You don't get to run the police station until you've shown that you're committed, as a beat cop, to evicting the poor, using beatings or murder to defend owners' food dumpsters against the intrusion of starving homeless, and writing traffic revenue tickets. Trying to change the system from within is impossible, because the system is designed to replicate itself by digesting only those who perpetuate it. Once you've done the terrible things necessary to become powerful, you have become everything you might once have thought you were planning to fight against. There can be no sleeper agents.

Physicians are tested throughout medical school, residency, and then their early practice years, vetted away from professorships or licensing committees until they've shown their loyalty to the organization by prescribing and/or condoning lots of chemo and methylphenidate. Journalists don't make editor until they've flushed their young lives demonstrating that they're willing to write fluff pieces and downplay substance. You don't get in front of a live camera, as a news correspondent or an actor, until you've wasted years of your life condoning terror and saying nothing valuable, and proven that you can be trusted not to suddenly look at the camera and tell 40 million people that it's all a lie.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

License to Cheat & the Changing of the Guard

Remember this? Not so stupid after all, it turns out. It may've been laying the groundwork for a setup.

Check out IRS Notice 2014-33: apparently, these two fiscal years will be a "transition period" regarding enforcement of foreign income reporting requirements. Yes, that's right: the local police department just sent a memo to the high-income zip code informing people that the next couple of years will be a transition period for speeding ticket enforcement, and April Gillespie just told Saddam that her boss had no opinion on Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait.

Glorious setup for those who have been not reporting "foreign income," e.g., not paying taxes on foreign investments? Or, is it an obvious trap for the same group?

If you're not following the question so far, what it means is that the I.R.S. (the American tax agency) announced that it will probably not punish wealthy people who break certain tax laws in 2014-2015, while it "transitions" its policies regarding those laws. What the I.R.S. did is equivalent to telling certain wealthy people, "Go ahead and cheat on your 1040s this year. We will probably be too busy to punish you."

To what we might, in the vernacular, call "morons," this means that the I.R.S. is very busy developing big important rules, so for a while, they'll need to focus their audit teams on domestic salaries earned by non-wealthy households. To what we might, in the vernacular, call "grown ups," this means that the I.R.S. is (again) officially a big scam meant to take money away from those who work and give it to those who sit on their butts and collect rent based on "ownership" rules made up by evil racketeers thousands of years ago.

In earlier periods, America would do this kind of thing behind closed doors. Mayors and aldermen, judges and other bigwigs, would meet with local nobility (just think "businessmen") at clubs, or over private dinners, and talk about how, to "encourage development," they were going to "probably" not be able to as aggressively pursue, say, certain coding violations for a certain period. Those businessmen who were in the know nodded seriously, then cut corners during said period, gaining a distinct economic advantage over regular citizens, to whom the law still applied. Everyone intelligent suspected that something had gone on, but because of the privacy involved, no one could prove that a bribe had been exchanged for a favor. And most people, despite their deep-seated gut feelings that the economy wasn't fair, were unable to believe that anyone could be quite so dirty as that (gasp!). After all, no one outside of a movie could be so unfair, right? People never act in coordination to make money, and it would take sooooo many people to be involved in such a sophisticated conspiracy.

Now, though, some of this stuff is being released to everyone, the way the I.R.S. did last year. 2014-33 is a public notice available on the internet to every person in the entire world. The license to kill--or to steal, to cheat, etc.--is right there on the I.R.S. site, freely accessible with government backing.

It's audacious, certainly. City managers and state legislators mimic their federal peers in cutting advantageous land and tax deals with their cosplay selves. Example: two family friends, one of whom works for Walmart and the other of whom is on a city council, arrange to give Walmart a "sales tax inducement" to set up shop locally. Normal citizens subsidize the construction of private buildings, allowing Walmart to pocket more money, some of which they kickback to reelection campaigns. Yawn. Boring. America: the land where no one cares anymore. A hundred years before Dick Cheney began farting into the White House bedding, the Halliburton connection would've been a scandal, rather than an irrelevant bit of liberal trivia. So yes, it's certainly an audacious methodology they use now. No more does the policeman wave his baton sideways and lie, "Nothing to see here." Now, it's more of a level look, a hand on the gun, and an honest, "We're cheating you, but you don't got the guts."

And yet, elites are continually clever. This kind of tax notice (license to cheat) suggests a piece of information that could be useful to mere bourgeois, whom elites sometimes hate more than proles.

So the question is, again, did they release this announcement of a no-tax license in order to reassure their buddies that this was a good time to transfer stuff without risking audit?* Or, did they release it in hopes that clever bourgeois would notice the "mistake," try to take advantage of it, and get caught, thereby diluting or eliminating middle class savings as part of the cyclical washing out of potential future elites?

( *Just like the risk that a nobody local D.A. might bust Senator Such-And-Such over bribery allegations, the elites' only risk from the I.R.S. is if they have a falling out with someone more powerful, or if an agent investigates something directly, rather than referring it to the higher-ups. Barring infighting, the right people are never going to get investigated, so their biggest concern in that regard is that some overzealous little true-believer might notice an inconsistency and look into it on her/his own, causing an expensive embarrassment before someone "more experienced" takes over the case and buries it.)

Either answer seems equally plausible. Various market indicators are consistently used to destroy pension plans, sub-8-digit private equities, and other hallmarks of a menacingly large set of future elites. Cyclical crises destroy middle class holdings quite deftly, as do constant methods, the most successful being the income tax. Tricking some would-be clever physicians and project managers into massive fines for foreign "tax evasion" could be, merely, a great way to strip them of their potential one or two millions--ergo the cunning release of a "non enforcement period," akin to the attractive police academy girl who leans into your car window in the red light district with a bargain offer, hoping to create a prosecutable event.

And yet, elites are now that brazen. It is by no means ridiculous to suggest that they simply did this as another part of their public cheatery; there is no identifiable low to which they would sink, and no act so un-savvy that it would risk rebellion if discovered.

If you're into the Nazis, you'll note an interesting parallel between the way that this particular event--whether entrapment setup or elite invitation to cheat by not disclosing foreign rents--mirrors the pre-Great War coordination designed to get the right people out of the kill zone before the proverbial shit hit the fan. Videlicet, ensuring that the whitest, most important racketeers were given a signal that it was time to quietly move their investments and families from continental Europe to England or the U.S.A. In the years prior to the assassination of the archduke, the right white people moved to America, escaping the decades of European and North African trench and chemical warfare, holocaust, and racialized land-grabs that were to come. Like the printing press, the internet creates a massive efficiency for them, for it permits them to communicate instantly to one another, in code, warnings like "Get the hell out of Europe, we're going to destroy it."

We see there a good way to predict when a new nation will be chosen as military hegemon: by watching the elites' movements. Like proverbial rats, they'll be the first to know when the ship is going to sink, although unlike rats, they possess the knowledge because they're the ones who screwed a hole in the hold. The powerful Roman lines who escaped the barbarians didn't do so by lucky coincidence, but because it was time to re-establish financial capitals in Gaul, then the Celtic Isles. So too with the later pre-WW1 shift to America, when the land pirates didn't want to be around to suffer the destruction of their earlier capitals, which destruction would justify the brutal establishment of new ones.

(Interesting side note on Britain: Oxford elites are now trying to hide the Celtic genocide down the memory hole, by claiming that--get this--the Roman invaders are actually Celtic. Double take. How much more ridiculous could you get? Yet Oxford is actually claiming that, based on a study of people who interraped (interbred is far too kind a word) their way into a society hundreds of years ago, shattering and dispersing what was there earlier.

Wait a few hundred years, and America will be doing its own version of this, too. Harvard or Yale will proudly announce that 95% of Americans have genes that prove they are descendants of Native Americans, therefore, there were no Indian Wars. That's how filthy and audacious Oxford is, but as the Celtic genocide recedes into history, it becomes easier for the rapespawn offspring of the ex-Roman Senators to pretend that they themselves were actually the druids who were there first. It's logically impossible to equate the ex-Roman, ex-Gaul pirates to the people who were invaded and killed off by those very pirates, but through rape slavery and murder, one can so wholly kill and replace a culture that one can assume, in retrospect, the identity of the departed.

Half a millennium later, similarly, South Africa and Israel will be able to "prove" that their own populations are, actually, Arab, therefore Europe never invaded Palestine. Such are the flaws of believing too heavily in the importance of genes; the spirit of a people, its culture and its synergetic life, can be totally destroyed, even if some of the genes are preserved through sellouts or rape. In a thousand years, your people will believe that they never existed. Which is a kind way of putting it--rather, they'll believe that they existed, but existed as the invaders. That's why Palestine might ghost dance: not because the people will all be gone in a genetic sense, but, as in the case of the American tribes, because something will have been irrevocably destroyed. Something that doesn't appear in a vial.)

Returning to financial markmanship, keep an eye on those elites. When it's time for them to drop the U.S. and fiddle with the map a little, you'll notice more of them strengthening their ties to wherever they'll want to pretend to be natives of, when a new hegemon arises. They won't entirely pull up roots and abandon American citizenship, oh no--that's the old way. There are people smart enough to recognize that. Instead, they'll buy multiple citizenships, feign continued ties to the U.S., but always have that one foot out the door, so that before the switch is thrown, they can be at a villa in Italy (Romney; Vidal) a panic suite in London (Bush), or a concrete fortress in the Manhattan Pacification Authority headquarters (Clinton). Hegemon switches don't result in long zombie apocalypses, but merely brief transitions to second- or third-world status.

Actors aren't the real ones to track, though, even though their antics are the funniest. If you're actually interested in trying to stay one step ahead of the system, be ready to move when the unmentionable bankers behind the curtain pull up their ties and resettle. Collapse is never collapse; it's just rezoning.

A Tale of Two Systems: Indivisibility v. Transcendance

This one once had the respective pleasures of counseling two systems, each of whom were 5C and working on travel technologies. Both were pretty normal: each had a stable star cycle to work with, and the first had three occupied planets (one origin, one established non-origin, one effectively privatized), while the second had one origin, with no intra-system expansion possible. They were trying to go faster, so naturally they faced the issue of infinity cascades, which here is usually known through Zeno's paradoxes (the arrow paradox, Achilles and the tortoise, etc. If you don't remember those, here). The basic issues deal with light and dark, in that you have to transverse the IC in some way before you can "travel at the speed of dark" (sorry, more new stuff; the only way to "exceed" the speed of light is to "travel" at the speed of dark, which isn't really traveling in the way the expression serves here, because light always has to travel, while dark is always already there).

In each case the goal was accomplished, but differently, which feels weird in retrospect. The first system utilized indivisibility, in a throwback to classical Earth's conception of the atom, i.e., a foundational structure which cannot be further divided. And yeah, the atom can be divided, and the quark, etc., but at a smaller point, they found something, don't even remember the name, where they concluded it was impossible to further divide the quantity. Fractions no longer applied, ergo the paradox wasn't a paradox--in order to advance at all, Achilles would have to cover at least that minimum distance, making it impossible for him to not overtake the tortoise, given sufficient time. And they did well with that. All sorts of practical applications. Still, they couldn't get darkspeed, at least while this one was there, because they didn't technically have the right answer. Earth repeatedly tries to follow a similar path, simultaneously and hypocritically adopting hypothetical endless divisibility alongside the "obviousness" of movement.

The second system did it in an entirely different way: by addressing the paradox directly, they did other experiments and determined that there were no indivisible quantities, and that therefore, all movement anywhere, everywhere, was and would remain a paradox.

And it is a paradox. Even to take a single step is a paradox, because before you can move your foot any given distance forward, you have to cover half the distance, then half the remaining distance, then half the remaining distance, etc., which should technically be forever. You can conceptually divide anything, even if you can't physically do it; anything that can exist can have a half, so Achilles can't ever catch the tortoise. Yet he does. However beautiful math can be, it's still a tautology. That should humble us here, but it seems instead to only embolden us (irony, among the more sophisticated of the currently perceivable paradoxes).

Anyway, for the second system, the way they eliminate the dilemma was to conclude that, by overtaking the tortoise (as it were--one of the popular old-timey stories there was a pretty cool one about the impossibility of clapping your hands, due to the infinite distance between them), Achilles was committing an impossible act. The very nature of reality, therefore, was itself paradoxical. Existence was contrary, they maintained, ergo they rather more easily approached the issue of darkspeed. The essence of existence was the generation of impossibility, inasmuch as we might understand impossibility, which is why they did much better much faster. Their computers also got lots better, but this one didn't deal with that part. Anyway, fun.

The impossibility of existence is fundamental to understanding evolution. We're going to do a more detailed overview of that later on, focusing on reality rather than on refuting the hatred-based systems, so this one shared the above anecdote as a setup to that. During the interlude, reflect on the genuine impossibility of life and movement. Take a breath--in order for the air to travel from your nose or mouth to your lungs, it has to traverse half the length of your esophagus, then half the remaining length, then half the remaining length, and so on forever. Did you successfully take the breath? There's no way for it to be otherwise except by conjoining your perception of reality with your perception of impossibility.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Rape By Fraud

The manly man's blog Return of Kings argues both that a transsexual who sleeps with a person without disclosing their birth sex is guilty of rape by fraud, and that Yes Means Yes consent laws are evil and/or stupidly insane.

Interesting juxtaposition. Of course, it's unfortunate if you swive someone and then find out you'd've preferred not to've done so, e.g. swiving a transsexual when you'd rather not have, and it's also thoughtcrime/inquisition when an act's criminality is so sacrosanct that the mere accusation is sufficient to prove the case, e.g. the Junior Anti-Sex League's current affirmative consent witchhunt.

The men who produce the manly men stuff (like the women who produce the womanly women stuff) are just trying to get click revenue, but the people who actually read and agree with their drivel need to consider how any kind of "rape by fraud" doctrine is only a variation on "affirmative consent." Affirmative consent is an arbitrary, unprovable standard, which adopts the maxim "guilty until proven innocent," and guarantees to any partner ("any partner" in theory, although in actuality, the right to condemn by accusation alone will be reserved only to straight females or possibly to obvious male homosexual submissives) the right to prove someone committed a felony by making an accusation later on, creating thereby a presumption of guilt which is then legally impossible to counter.

"Rape by fraud" is just another variation on that theme. For example, if the manly man gets a trap blowjob, and is allowed to sue the oral recipient for not actually being a girl, how far do we take the allowance of fraud? Can you have someone jailed after sex for:

1) Not being as attractive as you thought they were?

2) Not making as much money as you thought they were?

3) Not being as young/old/intelligent/interesting as you thought they were?

4) Not really being old high school classmates with [insert name of famous actor or actress here]?

5) Not really being a men's rights advocate?

6) Not really being a feminist?

7) Not really being a good cook?

8) Not really being a skillful lover?

Et cetera. Any kind of rape by fraud doctrine, identically to affirmative consent, is a legal license to treat all sex as rape based on an ad-hoc revisualization of the sexual encounter. A man who sleeps with a transsexual in the heat of passion may, after ejaculation, find his arousal reduced, his shame increased, and decide to destroy someone's life. There is no gray area possible, for without constant security-verified surveillance of everyone, everywhere, for every second of the time, it would be impossible to prove that fraud had not occurred. Not coincidentally, affirmative consent works the same way, by permitting anyone to later decide affirmative consent wasn't given, and leave their partner with the impossible task of proving it was.

If you're already sensible enough to understand those principles, then take this post as an opportunity to note something far more important: namely, the ways in which the theoretically opposite sides of a false dichotomy--race realist, faux-traditionalist men's rights advocates v. theoretically hyper-politically-correct radical feminists--are, much like the Republicrat Party, kindred spirits on identical crusades. Women have a legitimate right to be concerned about rape, and men have a legitimate right to be concerned about rape (which is more formally called "presumptions of guilt under a totalitarian prison state"). In each case, the tyrannical solution to an overblown problem is the same. If men want women to accept that drunkenly inviting someone into their beds is going to result in a situation where ejaculation might be consummated despite indecipherably mumbled objections, then they also have to accept that imposing the same rigorous standards on their own judgment might leave them balls deep in some post-op's freshly-waxed ass.

Ergo unfortunately, if the manly men ever want to get rid of the outlandish State interference in social sexuality, they're going to have to accept that they might fuck a tranny now and then. The retroactive State protections they want are only available under the antilife rubric of comptrolling private sexuality. By the same token, the womanly women--who could as easily end up with ruined lives, felony charges, and jail time, once affirmative consent becomes widespread, and a vindictive boyfriend decides he was too drunk to have understood what happened last night--need to drop their affirmative consent invitation to spread Big Brother's duct tape across their vaginas. Big Brothers, after all, like to invade wombs just as much as they do bedrooms. Fear not, for "abortion rights" will never go away under this empire, but when Big Brother begins sending around government vans to forcibly seize female citizens' DNA for the growth of replacement organs for clones, womanly women might just find that this invasion of their bodies is equally, if not more, offensive. It will be a terribly poetic form of injustice when such things happen, given how eagerly feminists have placed female autonomy in the hands of police departments and courtrooms by asking armed cops and judges to retroactively guard their privates.

This interconnected agenda is being pushed by the pro-test-tube maniacs, so there's no stopping the message itself, anymore than we're going to stop advertising itself. Transsexuals are a popular scare Other for some men, while men are a popular scare Other for some women. Goering's Nuremberg quote serves well here. The doubleplusungood irony of embracing the idea of any kind of crimen exceptum is the expansion of the kangaroo court from Guantanamo, to Chicago, to any given traffic stop or set of genitals. For those who are merely emotionally-charged subscribers to this dreck, take this opportunity to see the similarity between two kinds of totalitarian con-artists, and learn how to withdraw your support from either avenue of insanity.