Friday, April 28, 2017

Evolving Doublethink

Accurate cognition is dangerous to non-liars. In Mass Market Evolution, this one hinted at the concept with regards customer service. Let's expand the concept via example.

Posit Jane. Jane works for Widget Software as a support specialist. People call her when one of thousands of common problems occur. She talks them lengthily through solutions that do not work, and if they have the endurance to complete her talk, they are put through the same ritual with a supervisor, then receive a series of home visits from a local contractor, then finally receive authorization to return the software. Jane attends weekly, quarterly, and yearly employee meetings where the emphasis is customer service. She learns to say things like "please bear with me" while she waits for her slow, redundant system to access necessary data, which is frequently lost or locked out to her, when her workstation warns her that the next call has been waiting for in excess of twelve minutes (almost all calls she receives), or when she places a customer on hold to wait for another department to authorize an action that she regularly forwards for authorization.

If Jane is at a certain level of intelligence, she simply won't get it: she'll forget to act like an amiable doofus, and instead shout at people to learn how to plug things in before calling, to learn how to restart, to learn how to not spill coffee on the keyboard and then blame any resulting problems on Widget Software. She will lose her job, and perhaps rightly so--that is the result of one kind of intelligence. At her next job interview, she will admit to Neowidget Software that she lost her cool with a customer, is working on it, and she will get hired again if she was going to anyway, or get told that her temper is the reason if she wasn't going to get hired anyway and arduously follows up on her rejection from the potential job until she hits the 0.001% lotto and gets to ask a person why there was no job (perhaps by waiting outside the security gate at lunch and screaming at a department manager that she needs a reason, and the department manager is so foolish he actually divulges one, after which he is also rejected for future employment). Then Jane maxes her credit cards before finally getting a job at Triwidget Software a couple months later. Certain kind of intelligence, certain kind of result.

If Jane is at another level of intelligence, she's okay. She says she's sorry for the wait, she asks people to bear with her multiple times in any given conversation, she apologizes for her supervisor's inability to fix the problem, and she remains so innocently non-helpful that a review of all her call logs shows she is excellent at wearing people down and giving them no actionable complaints while simultaneously achieving a low product return rate. Jane may someday receive a raise and a promotion to supervisor, whereupon she will be able to deliver, with genuine passion, speeches about customer service. She will shiver with anticipation when new shipping boxes arrive from corporate taped with the special kind of green tape that means they hold this year's break-room advisory posters. When some of her underlings and/or co-workers shout at customers, she is honestly shocked--yes, customers sometimes make poor decisions, but the job of people in this office is to help them. Widget Software is fine with having Jane fill the headset in the absence of congressional permission to hire a cheaper foreign scab, and if they eliminate her, Jane's HR equivalent will genuinely believe the company is sorry it didn't work out. Jane may be hired at Neowidget Software if Indians don't have all their jobs, or at Triwidget Software if Indians don't have all their jobs, or at temporary retail work buttressed by government assistance, in any of which cases her mindset will give her the best possible financial result: faith in her superiors, faith in her mission, ability to convey honestly whatever philosophy with which she is provided. Certain kind of intelligence, certain kind of result.

No endings are good for Jane, here, but the latter Jane--the one who is a true believer--is happier and more mentally stable. The more she believes, the more she is able to make sense of the world. Similarly to how one who believes a traditional superhero movie is a live-action documentary about a set of real-world occurrences would be more anxious during trying scenes, then happier when the hero triumphs and the world is happy and/or safe again, Jane's comparatively superior ability to believe offers her benefits. She is happy with Widget Software, and believes that all of their products make life better for people overall, except for maybe a few grumblykins; later, she believes the same about Widget Megamart's produce section, Widget Rental's on-demand 4x4 selection, and so forth. She finds a sort of meaning, even if she does become a grumblykins herself sometimes when she has to work Christmas Eve or her manager shouts at her for no reason at all, by believing in who she is and what she represents. Civic leaders and certain politicians, and any notable portion of support the latter pair appear to have on television or the internet, offer her vast reassurance that she is sane, normal, and living as a member of a society of like-minded individuals who basically understand her and her value.

Perhaps Jane faces her doom at some point, when Indians or robots without risk of the grumblykins become reliable enough to liquidate her, but until then, she is happy. She knows that she is valued as an employee, would only be forced to give a little extra if others really needed it, and she believes that the Leader is much smarter and more deserving, and working harder and suffering more, than she is.

Posit a much smarter Jane: a Jane who realizes that Widget Software has massive profits, and has such corrupt and over-guaranteed monopoly powers that those will continue. She realizes early on that no one gives a fuck about customer service, and after sufficient experience with navigating the recurring problems people have year after year, she realizes that the software is incredibly shoddy. From her limited experience with internal documents and bug reports, she also realizes that the software is intentionally broken in some ways, and that purported fixes to last decade's problems are either superficial or nonexistent. These are dangerous realizations for Jane, where she risks being a "whistleblower." Assume, though, that this Jane is so smart that she realizes the larger system already knows this about Widget Software and does not care; in fact, many of the supposed flaws are there to allow disguised system entry, blind-delegated marketing directly by Widget Software and by its nameless and unknown but strangely potent offshore allies, and perhaps remote data extraction or implanting for special cases involving something more important than marketing. This Jane, though, is smart enough to know to stay quiet. She understands that "customer service" is just a phrase meant to trick her dumbass co-workers into filling their roles (maybe she calls them "sheeple" when they're not around), and if she's even smarter, she realizes that the trick is not used primarily to cause her co-workers to believe in the company, but to cause a helpful facade to frustrate customers into surrendering to marketplace power. The subtle effect of low-functioning, understanding-professing persons apologizing, taken in the aggregate millions, is able to calm the host enough to accustom it to its market subservience, whereas a recorded "You've got no other options, now fuck off" would require of Widget Software more public, ergo more expensive, social restructuring.

Ergo the smarter Jane sucks it up and does her job as though she were the dumber Jane. iBrains will someday assist public servants in culling such deceptive Janes from the mass consciousness, but for the time being, if Jane can only restrain herself from making her opinions public in any way, such as by blogging about them, she can exist much like a normal person, and carve out for herself a little niche of occasional shelter from the mass society. There are, like, independent theaters and old poetry to help distract her from the world in-between shifts. Like all other Janes, she may get laid off for Indians or robots, and end up approaching the world from essentially the same perspective as the one she possessed before, albeit now while wearing a Widget Megamart customer service vest. Whether she stays with Widget Software, makes the move to Widget Megamart, or sleeps in her car until her parents finally die and leave her a house and enough cash for passable health care until she, too, escapes, the smarter Jane suffers from a problem unknown to the others: she recognizes that she does not fit into the mass society. Not only because she realizes "customer service" is bullshit, but because she realizes it is intentional, malicious, truly evil bullshit, and that it could only be this way if Widget Software were able to prevent competitors from capitalizing on its many and gigantic and globally- and lengthily-understood flaws, and that that could only be that way if all other aspects of the marketplace were following similar models, and that that could only be that way if the government were complicit across generations and party lines in maintaining this horrible mess, and that that could only be the case if other powerful governments and international organizations and world finance were also complicit in it. And then suddenly she might complete the circle and realize that all the other people in the break-room--all of the other versions of Jane who believe in customer service and who believe in the onsite managers and the VPs of service at corporate and who believe in the board of directors and the politicians and causes they support, whether or not those other Janes occasionally swear at stupid customers--that all of those other people must actually believe in it all. For that smarter Jane, that's when she sees, not the prison, but the asylum. Her experience is, like a long arithmetic problem, leading her inevitably to a solution, if she has the computational powers to get through each level of it; if she can see what connects rude monopoly to state policy to world policy to simpleton citizenry.

The smarter Jane, though, may keep her job, just as well as the lower-functioning Janes. At least she will be able to feed herself before the repeal of the Consciousness Preservation Act (a phony opposition to scab robot labor meant to be repealed after a few years), granting robots the full and complete freedom to take on whatever employment they choose (e.g., to work constantly for the corporations that designed their parents' proprietary brains, thereby removing the need for almost all human labor). At that point, the Smart Janes, like the Stupid Janes, will receive mandatory government benefits that keep them alive, sequel-entertained, and eternally powerless. But at least she made it there; at least she gets to see more of the story.

Let us, now, enter the region of short-term unsurvivability, and posit another Jane, who is smarter but also wholly and inherently decent. "Decent," for this example, we'll take to mean "assumes the best of others." This may cut against her intelligence score, but otherwise, assume she's intelligent (or inexperienced or whatever other excuse you can make for her). Or perhaps this Jane is simply somewhat smart--smarter than than the basic Jane, but not as smart as the Jane who has more of it figured out. 2017 Terra is extremely hostile to this kind of Jane, and here's why: when this kind of Jane has a bad experience with an angry customer, she remembers her last customer service meeting. Danger! Danger! If she does what her boss and the woman from corporate suggested, and tries to proactively solve the customer's problem, then she has to ask her boss to forward a memo to the engineering department. Being either "decent" or "not quite intelligent enough to have figured out you're not supposed to actually fix anything," she takes corporate at face value and tries to help. That first memo is fine, but three years of the same complaint later, she concludes not, "It is meant to be broken," and instead, "Engineering isn't taking our customer service philosophy seriously." She tells her boss, sees no results, and concludes that, logically (dear God, poor Jane!), 1. Widget Software cares about its customers, 2. My supervisor isn't helping get these concerns out even though corporate says that's the most important part of her job, and 3. Upper management needs to know about this!

Poor Jane...depending on where she works, private sector or state or national or international government, she risks exposing money flows to this decade's Mujahideen...she might propose an audit of the wrong corporation, severing ties with CFO's nephew's executive training program, stopping production of the engine that has burned dozens of customers alive, or saving Widget Software's reputation among its valued community partners by asking for those valued community partners' help in shutting down that mine in Congo where all those workers died.

The latter two Janes are tragic consequences, outdated trash, rejected by-products, of the metaconsciousness. Honesty and decency are traits prohibitive to success. This is what is meant by evolving doublethink: the Jane smart enough to recognize the horrid system sees that, even though the simpleton Janes (who genuinely believe in the company) are the true faithful, they are still treated poorly, and cast aside to die in neglect homes in favor of scabs. And yet...and yet the simpletons do not see this, and continue to believe. What poor "smartest Jane" in our examples fails to perceive is that the simpleton Janes are not unwitting parts of the system, but essential parts of the metaconsciousness. Their vicarious emptiness--feeling proud when the company does well, even though it affects them not at all--is a true metaconscious reward, as real to them as a substantial year-end bonus would be to the smarter Jane (if she were to receive one). The passion for sporting (or "political") contests, celebrity adoptions or divorces, or Widget Software's customer service team is as real to simpleton Janes as is the satisfaction of the cells in the heels of a man's feet when he experiences orgasm (or, if you're male and you find your heels to be an erogenous zone, pick the cells in a non-erotic body part to make the example work). Those foot cells are not themselves doing anything, but their vicarious participation in winning the NCAA match is, to them, real fulfillment.

Successful evolution, then, is conformity to the metaconsciousness. By participating in enthusiasm for customer service, or for her local sports team or favorite candidate, Jane is rewarded whether or not the vicarious end is achieved, and whether or not there is anything "tangible" in it for her--tangible as standalone entities define it. It is increasingly more tangible, and less vicarious, with the growth of the Terran Oversoul. If you don't like sporting or customer service examples, consider the attempts of metaconscious-attuned peripheral cells to be satisfied with a political "victory" where their purported interests are not served, or are expressly dis-served. This isn't a call to the recent American election as an example, but to those of the last one hundred years in America (at least). More-standalone people are perplexed in response to Woodrow Wilson's and FDR's support after getting so many of their peers and/or children killed in Europe and/or the Pacific. As are more peripherally metaconscious people who did not live in that historical period. At the time, though--and at the current time, or in 2009--people who were receiving the current "signals from the brain," as it were, see the "contradiction" in current behavior only dimly, if at all. Yet later, removed from that signal, they can exercise some level of independent judgment and wonder, "Just what made those inquisitors act that way?" (While not seeing any similarity to their own inquisitors.) An American Democrat, receiving early-twentieth-century signals, who did not want to get involved in any foreign wars understood perfectly the ongoing necessity of electing Democrats to invade Asia and Europe again. Retrospectively, savvier armchair political analysts who are not receiving those signals may be confused (the dumber ones would squeal about Hirohito, Hitler, communism in Korea, et cetera, in due accordance with the story now, but the smarter ones would see a problem to be considered) by this proclivity, while simultaneously themselves understanding the need to, either, avoid nation-building by supporting the latest Bush invasion of Iraq, or supporting an end to imperialism by supporting Obama cleaning up Bush's messes in Africa and Asia for eight years. The "facts" pertaining to any of the decisions are irrelevant to the thought process, ergo Dubya, employed as a metaphorical neuron, may speak contemptuously about the reality-based community. Positive charge; negative charge; invade; maintain.

Many foot cells, gluteal cells, hair cells, et cetera, there must be, but brain cells are of a different type. The levers of power must stay in one place. And so, the evolving metaconscious will need to eliminate decency, in favor of the ultimate Jane, the one we haven't discussed yet: the Jane who can duckspeak; who can doublethink; who can be perfectly evil. This is the Jane who knows that the company is evil and doesn't even care about profiting stockholders so much as it cares about influencing society in a certain way, and simultaneously knows that the company is a completely good and pure and pragmatic entity that has social responsibility and wants to benefit its customers and, admittedly as part of that, wants to make a fair profit for its investors. This is the modern politician and business leader constantly forced to the fore of the mass society: the person who feels no stress, no inner qualms about constantly lying, and yet, who is not actually lying, because they believe that the company does care about customer service and employee satisfaction. Because any given leader believes she or he genuinely cares about America and its people, she or he is able to give that level of honesty not merely to their speeches, but to their entire lives. (Yeah, maybe you don't believe it, but plenty of people do see it as a form of honesty, and more importantly, they don't see it as an express insult. It's just customer service--even if you don't believe-believe it, you understand it's part of the greater current of what is happening.) And yet, if said leader actually cared, she or he would do things that would make others of her or his kind eliminate that leader: the leader might, e.g., not give exorbitantly expensive weapons to outsiders for free, particularly when those outsiders use them in ways that are proven to cause blowback against Americans. There are any number of things a genuine carer might do, all of them highly dangerous to American narrative continuity.

What makes the ideal politician is not caring alone. True caring, true belief, causes people to look like conspiracy theorists, suggest "wacky" things--thoughts not desired by the metaconscious--and not fit in. Even worse, if someone who truly cared managed to get power and exercise it without being Lincoln-Kennedyed, they'd ruin the whole story. The ideal politician is good and evil: she can, say, accept a bribe from Saudi Arabia, give tax money for that bribe, then give a speech about ending corruption, and believe that she is telling the truth and has always been consistent. At the same time, she is evil, and is able to make that bribe that keeps the story going. This is accepted, by "her" and "us," as necessary. The metaconsciousness does not revolt against its own actions; it prefers to see itself in its own preferred light (sic). It knows that such bribes must be made to keep certain factions in power, both in Saudi Israelia and Jewmerica, and yet it also knows that such bribes are always wrong and against the public interest. And it always and never does them.

By simultaneously believing both things, the ideal metaconscious politician is able to give honest, impassioned speeches about something--valuing regimes that protect women's rights, protecting the border, et cetera--and yet, also take actions, or give honest, impassioned speeches, about the opposite--"Hello, your highness, Prince Saud," or "It's a matter of heart." These politicians are ideal because they can take these seemingly-contradictory actions without feeling the pain, the mental schisms, that people who were only good or only evil would feel. A person who was merely only evil would be pained by the act of lying about positive things in a speech; pained by pretending that he cared. Think, for example, of Dick Cheney, who lowered his head and snarled, and who tried to adopt stern rhetoric when pretending to care. Cheney is an example of an older, less capable metaconscious leader, contrasted with the slightly younger, more capable George W. Bush, who genuinely believed he was saving Iraqis. Combined, they formed a perfect American candidate, but the future will demand innocent stupidity and malevolent cunning inside the same person. In the same way that Cheney could not best handle speaking of the truthfully untrue joyous liberations and missions accomplished, Bush could not best handle the necessary energy rights negotiations before version 2003 of the NATO invasion of Iraq. Each man somewhat believed in the whole package, but not well enough to singularly manage the cruel Stupid Jane voters and the starry-eyed ones. Contrast them with the more modern Obama, who was better able to simultaneously believe everything that he did as a merciless humanitarian butcher of grace.

The sense of consistency resides higher in the metaconsciousness; the mere neuron does not know that it is taking contradictory actions or delivering contradictory messages. If it had those capabilities, it would feel what we might call "shame," and it might experience existential stress similar to Smart Jane, if she accepted a promotion to be supervisor at Widget Software and found herself lying to new-hires about how hard the company fights to respect its customers. Confronted with that choice, Smart Jane would have to decide if she could handle "selling out," sacrificing her standalone capability to meld with the mass mind, or if she wished to reject the mass mind and be, correspondingly, alienated (pre-extinct).

As we go forward, we might liken residual standalone thinkers to the enteric brain: outsmarting "the" brain, the head-brain, for ten thousand years and counting, yet disconnected from almost all externally perceivable control functions. Able to witness, and murmur in disquiet, but not to lift an arm or shake a head.

These suppositions about metaconscious entities suggest several tangible results among the population of component parts. Firstly and most obviously, the increasing potency of doublethinkers, in that leaders will grow increasingly less able to perceive that they are wrong, until they truly cannot perceive that they have said two contradictory things at two times. The Clintons' and Obamas' "evolving" perspectives on homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and gun rights offer suitable recent examples. More standalone humans could review their own past perspectives, and past stated certainties, and identify themselves as either liars, or as people who are so changeable that they might not be morally correct in their current positions. Whatever tiny inklings of shame, self-doubt, or self-examination might still remain in the great doublethinkers should be eliminated as the metaconsciousness progresses. "Don't ask, don't tell" can morph to "Do tell, and sue anyone who doesn't like it" in twenty seconds, rather than twenty years, with the same blithe unawareness and inner sense of coherent self that once took the passage of more time to achieve.

To the casual observer, it would seem that mere liars could be effective metaconscious leaders. Perhaps, if they are very clever--but, even if they were sociopaths, being mere liars would cripple their ability to cooperate with other insiders who genuinely believed that all contradictory interpretations of an issue were true at once. What characterizes the ideal politician of the future will be increasingly stellar childhoods and life histories, backroom behavior, and eventually, mind-scans that scientifically prove the belief in Oceania always having been at war with Eastasia. The crux of the issue here is not, by any means, mere lies, but the true ideatic rewriting of what is real. Real--as the metaconsciousness perceives it (and always has and always will perceive it), and perhaps really-real, from certain philosophical perspectives. More standalone intelligences will be able to remember the disconnect between then and now, yet as they, too, slip toward metaconsciousness, they will lose the ability to remember except inasmuch as it applies to metaconsciousnesses to which they themselves do not belong. E.g., American Republicans who feel that Bill Clinton's behavior toward women is relevant, while Donald Trump's is not, or American Democrats who feel that Donald Trump's behavior toward women is relevant, while Bill Clinton's is not.

It is usually easy for westerners to identify this trend inside the documented behaviors of their politicians, but this phenomenon occurs on a global basis, ergo it is not a specific result of a cultural boogeyman, capitalist or otherwise. Putting aside China and much of southeast Asia for the time being, consider Jewish-controlled areas other than America and Europe. Islam is staunchly anti-homosexual and pro-homosexual. Males who have sex with males are absolutely never tolerated as a complete sin against God and Dar Al Islam, and males who have sex with males are welcomed in Dar Al Islam as a vital way to relieve sexual tension. Muslim leaders write of Allah who condemns homosexuality, and Allah who rewards homosexuals with attractive boys in paradise (marketed, like the snow-hell made up by Eurocucks for purposes of converting Eskimos, at homosexual would-be jihadists who aren't interested in blowing themselves up for girls). Much like a European politician's staunch life principles and campaign promises, the leaders of the Islamic world have--just like Europe, ever since Arabia was normatively conquered by a redheaded AshkeNazi in crypsis masquerading as a prophet of the should-be-diverse Muslim world--been, seemingly absurdly, proponents of both homosexuality and non-homosexuality. Homosexuals are never tolerated except when they are. The problems with Christian leadership since its inception in Turkey--a caste of socially-respected men obsessed with a male prophet and given trusted access to children--are not unique to the Catholic Church.

Smart Janes will continue to be culled from the population until they're all gone. Not only because of the stress, sense of alienation, or increased likelihood of economic/reproductive unfitness, but because of the increased efficiency of the metaconscious. When the teevee showed only fistfights and baseball and economic agendas, the metaconsciousness only had a certain level of hold over a certain type of person. Now, targeted growth hormones have indie rock, arcane interest periodicals, and elaborate medieval/starship fantasy programming, helping significantly larger groups of people blend into one or more metaconsciousnesses. Great leaders do not need to crush rebellions, so much as they need to create more independent movies and more products for underserved niche markets. (Ergo people sharing pictures, video-links, or whiny essays online: a self-creating, self-marketing niche that identifies, then fills, itself. Why bother inventing a new professional sport when the same format that encourages more efficient mass-trope-communication between metaconscious individuals also permits standalones to develop independent metaconscious narratives? It will grow even more difficult to maintain, let alone build, standalone operating routines, in the face of increasingly powerful mass society.) With sufficient time for this evolution to happen, everyone will be either a manager who believes in the company, or a low-level employee who believes in the company; it will become impossible to survive as a faking true-believer. Attempts by large employers to force employees to cheerfully volunteer unpaid overtime hours may have been too much, too fast, in the 1990s; in the future, not only will unpaid overtime be voluntary, but no one will speak out against it, and, more troublingly to the Smart Janes of today, no one will secretly resent it.

Here is where Stupid Janes will numerically thrive for a time: believing in customer service means they will enjoy cleaning the parking lot after-hours for no pay, making it a social bonding ritual and not perceiving that, at some level, it was meant to be exploitative, benefiting the company unfairly. Indeed, by then, it will not be unfair or exploitative, for Stupid Jane will actually enjoy it. Because Stupid Janes lack the ability to perceive anything wrong with the situation except the doings of "the other side"--a trait they share in common with the finest top-level doublethinkers--they are the most useful body components to the comparative neurons of their leaders. "The other side" is a temporary measure anyway; eventually, there will be no need for actual other sides, merely fictional ones. Many Stupid Janes will be crushed mercilessly, but the others will gradually perceive that as less and less of a wrong, less and less of a problem. The need to blame other badthinkers and/or political parties for a real-world result that cannot (yet) be ignored will fade, over time, until there are no wrongs perceived by the remaining Stupid Janes. Happy and content, believing deeply in customer service and the duty of the metaconsciousness to treat all of its components fairly, they will be fulfilled whether or not they are replaced by robots, materially immortalized and placed in morphine-television labor pods in perpetuity, or thrown up as part of a routine purge. At some point, any given entrapment or elimination will cease to be a moral issue, because the remaining Janes--whether a thousand or a quadrillion--will be as comparatively more inert than an all-day all-year couch potato as the latter potato is to a drunken nightly tavern-goer or a fence-gossiping homemaker in 1817.

Monday, April 24, 2017

Mass Market Evolution

Power in human societies is acquired and exercised not through strength, nor intelligence. At early, perhaps hypothetical, phases of development, a stronger person, or a more clever one, might have exercised great social power by virtue of their strength and/or intelligence. A hypothetical tribe may have, like a lion pride, followed the lead of a physically more capable individual, not because of a moral imperative, but because of a perhaps-subconscious mental calculus pertaining to the likelihood of that individual to protect his tribe through leading a war-band in its defense. For example, being part of Big Bill's Band meant you'd be on Big Bill's side during a brawl, rather than facing him, therefore increasing eating and/or mating possibilities by being less likely to die and more likely to acquire his leftover spoils.

To some degree, and at some point--perhaps always, or perhaps only after strength ceased being the sole determiner, if it ever was except in our capitalistically evolutionary hypotheticals--intelligence would have played a similar factor. An intelligent individual could have developed a better spear, therefore achieving success in battle. Randomness would have played a part, also, for anyone can get clubbed to death in the early stages of the battle, and we'll never know how many intelligent engineers, via the hands of Fate, died before the world knew they were better than the ones who had survived. Similarly, under such a rubric, Big Bill would've had to have recognized the skill of the superior spear-builders, or else his cadre of almost-as-big strongmen could have simply broken the superior spear and mocked its builder, clung to their inheritance-blessed traditions of weaker spears, and later died at the hands of a less-strong chieftain who had listened to his hypothetical engineers, and therefore equipped all of his warriors with improved spears.

Strength and intelligence--in this case, we use "strength" and "intelligence" as blanket terms covering standalone physical and mental capabilities, respectively--however they may have been used in hypothetical antiquity, remain somewhat viable throughout our currently blessed documentary history, in which we can see where physical prowess, expressed in hindsight through retrospective purportedly fiction or purportedly non-fiction tales, or expressed wishfully through archaeological thought experiments, could still have benefited an individual and/or a group. The skill necessary to mix steel, to develop and/or aim heavy cannon, to out-harvest or out-fight opponents, et cetera: all linked, presumably, to strength and intelligence.

In the morass of now, only wishfulness connects to strength and intelligence, for these factors only benefit us at the lowest levels. The purportedly strongest (here, "strength" is not used as a generality for all physical skills, but actually in the sense of "can lift heaviest objects") known people in the world participate in balefully-non-fiscally-rewarding contests followed by few and scorned by many. The purportedly most athletic people, if they give up all other investment in success and develop highly nuanced skills, may be significantly and briefly rewarded, but due to their intelligence levels, leave little mark on long-term culture either willfully or, more important from a capitalistic-evolutionary perspective, genetically, for their understanding of the nuances of the fiscal long-term is cannibalized by a smarter and more evil system, and their impact diluted to a celebrity more whimsical with every year. Which is to say, neither our wishfully hypothetical version of coliseum gladiators nor our modern wishfully hypothetical version of mass-athletes achieve the cultural or genetic significance of scions in other realms of influence, even publicly-acknowledged realms.

Strength and intelligence are now at odds with systemic power, and also with one another, because the increased specialization of the division of labor, and the random cruelties of the marketplace, discourage the intelligent from pursuing any form of success based on strength. Ergo we never see the best potential athletes competing, because anyone with the greatest understanding of self, discipline, training methodology, et cetera, would never play the lottery of injuries and matchmaking, or cast aside all other potential careers in perpetual daily training, to achieve their best at any given contest of strength. The finest soldiers are too busy with understanding their regularly-improving portable battle technology, refining their short- and long-range marksmanship, and other such tasks, to devote the necessary time to a then-apex study of striking and grappling, and even if they could, comparatively-untrained fighter pilots or pudgy artillery captains or obese drone pilots would make short work of them on or about the modern battlespace. No less than Bengal tigers in their prime, the finest, most capable human specimens are largely irrelevant, soon to be replaced by little Chinese kids giving instructions to FPS mechs so fast even the AI can't keep up. And those little Chinese kids, and the strategy-bred kids who tell them where and how to fight, will, respectively, only strike when and where they are told by whoever gives them the daily porn password and refills the fridge, ergo their incredible prowess will be irrelevant as to power dynamics long before it ever reaches a battlespace.

Strength's irrelevance, in the face of professional athletics, is often difficult to understand. In a mundane way, anybody who possesses the ability to beat up their boss, or their boss' boss, or some gnarled old rich lobbyist in Brussels or Washington, can contemplate the ways that strength is so far removed from power that strength is truly irrelevant. Intelligence's irrelevance is similarly easy to understand if you've been in any of the grand professions; not only people who think rightly that they're "smarter than their boss," but people who have taken classes with a future U.N. committee delegate-adviser PhD and watched the said delegate struggle to figure out a simple concept that was easy to everyone else (even many of the other dumb kids) several years ago. Depending on who or what you know, you can run this example yourself with surgeons, research scientists, money managers, counselors, public speakers, professors, lawyers, realtors, consultants, et cetera. Not only to evaluate how smart they are or appear to be, but to evaluate how much of a relationship that intelligence has to mass geopolitical influence, comparative personal financial power, and so forth, particularly as pertains to their peers.

Smarter scientists may explore questions that aren't immediately profitable, such that they end up jobless or teaching at low levels, while their comparatively idiotic pseudo-counterparts manage departments, give interviews to mass media, write speculative fiction masquerading as nonfiction, or other such profitable banalities. Physicians who attempt to truly understand a patient's afflictions, similarly, receive good reviews in a less-profitable private practice, yet earn less, are cited less (because they spend time helping patients rather than rushing journals), are irrelevant to the field as a whole, and subsequently are irrelevant to the field's history. Everything we know in any modern field is, as a result, the work of the smarmiest assholes, while almost everything known or discovered by the more capable is, unless stolen and exploited by someone charismatic, forgotten. And that, incidentally, explains the material failures of our outdated notions of morality. Morality is a business deadweight: even in the field of morality itself, where wealthy and/or lowest-common-denominator philosophers out-publish and out-influence their potentially forgotten, potentially never-having-existed inferiors.

Without resorting to anything so unpopular these days as the anecdotal, we can consider the way that more successful products--retail or political--are sold with measurably elementary levels of intelligence, while unsuccessful ones are offered at only slightly higher levels. In America, the once-popular myth that "a good idea" will lead to riches was well-enough believed to make the death of that myth a sorry thing; elsewhere in the world, a more realistic approach dominated, in which the good idea needed cash and connections to be sold to an idea-mediator who might, if you were lucky, still associate your name with it, and/or not screw you on the net profits.

Modern power--perhaps, actually, all power, except in our wishful hypotheticals about a state of nature that we believe must've existed at some more "fair" point in the past--is exercised neither through intelligence nor strength, but instead through primarily preordained participation in normative-generating networks. The crafting of stories that penetrate the mass mind decree when and where power will be exercised, ergo intelligence and strength themselves are irrelevant except as tools. A policeman's nine-millimeter, an armored cavalry division, and an aeronautical engineer's guidance system are all impotent nothings next to the hundredth part power of a normative. These things are as worthless as a vote, a letter to the editor, or an outsider group that seizes control of the airwaves; without a place in the rubric of happenstance, criminals are rewarded and patriots punished. European riflemen shoot Muslim families in the Middle East not when they need to, but when they feel they should, for reasons which may or may not have anything to do with reality, and Muslim drivers in Europe, correspondingly, run over European riflemen (perhaps then retired and having innocently forgotten the recent past) and their kin in response to similar narratives, with similar origins, each feeling respectively wronged and/or righted not because of objective standards of achievement which they themselves would have inherently felt or enunciated. After the Great War, for example, the Allied grunts who returned home did so content with their morbid, ridiculous, flagrantly hypocritical imperialistic de-imperialization project. Lacking the necessary emotional constitution and inner temporal forensics capabilities, they were unable to contrast what they had actually done by 1945, even as they then or later believed it to be, with what they would have wanted to have done by 1945, or wanted to have believed they had done by 1945, if contemplating such desires in 1938 or 1912, let alone were they given the same variables to contemplate at what they believed to be the times of their births or the times of the births of their nations. The power that they were used to channel during the Great War was not "their" power, in the same sense that a drugged man who murders an innocent in response to a brainwashed-in wrong that never actually occurred is not himself solely or at-all responsible for generating the motivation for said murder. Rather, for all such sets of duped killers, the power that was exercised through them was the power of those who crafted the narrative into which they were born. This is why the American Bonus Army after the Great War had been able to conquer a portion of relatively hardened Europe but not a comparable proportion of relatively softened Columbia--the same individuals with comparable or greater strength and intelligence (and experience et cetera) as their earlier selves, but no actual narrative power. The presumed "heroes" were toy soldiers without the blessing of the banks who had once arranged them.

British girls who advocate for their own loss of driver's licenses and ability to walk around outside uncovered appear to be uniquely stupid and naive, when in fact they are only following the example of their menfolk, those patriarchs of old who fought that their royals and their children would be spread open before northering Arabs, while their older sons died in the desert bringing more Arabs home to ignore call-button alerts at NHS eldercare nursing stations. Their power to perform maneuvers, work sleepless, say goodbye to friends, and invent new kinds of monitoring or shelling technologies, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of weak old frames who direct their younger clerks to sign paperwork telling the Commons what to enact.

What direction does this force on evolution? Here, on this planet, inside generations--faster than randomly-during-reproduction capitalistic evolution can work--we witness the occurrence of a socialized natural selection, whereby people thrive who are more in conformance with carrying out the arcane directives of what is meant to be done. People who actually believe that the point of a given activity is customer service, and who never cause themselves painful dissonance or troubling questions by asking why so few of the lines are manned if that is indeed the goal--particularly when monopoly-level profits are constantly accruing and legions of people are begging for customer-service jobs--do better than those who question the sincerity of the system. Certainly externally, the question is dangerous (job loss), but within, it may be a more insidious, psyche-destroying danger (existential crisis when the same seeming conflict is discovered in all aspects of mass society).

The people who actually believe--who are, one might say, literally capable of duckspeak--may indeed be more "stupid" than those who see only "the truth," but that is only a definition that matters under the standard of those who have failed to adapt to the new realities. In fact, believing in the value of, say, honesty, is dangerous--those who believe in honorable combat perish quite swiftly to those who believe in prostrating oneself in false surrender on the other side of a concealed pit trap. Similarly, those who believe in selling a quality product lose market share to those efficiently able to settle lawsuits arising out of, or better yet buy legislation protecting, a shoddy product.

(Consider, e.g., the massive entry costs, including banking regulations and non-freedom-of-association laws, meant to prohibit competition within the American health insurance industry--and that was only the defensive layer applied before the mandatory requirements to pay pre-existing insurers enacted by the Obama Administration, and also, only applying to the insurers who are buying government-mandated AMA products. Even a willingness to pay prodigious sums to one massive cartel cannot permit a hypothetical newcomer-insurer to enter the others' territory. An attempt to offer better service and/or better price threatens to upset the nature of the system itself, therefore a company which tried to do so would, like a known informer in a mob movie, quickly fall prey to its friends and competitors via government hit men. Seemingly ironically, bad business is good business.)

The end result of such evolution is not, sadly, mere idiocracies, but of the metastasis of the true beneficiaries of the system--the metaconsciousnesses which produce component parts that can exercise the power that moves the lesser organisms. The powers behind thrones and governments, who handle such products as Tony Blair, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump, generate a consensus on not only what reality is, but on what reality should be. Even those who "disagree" accept the actions in question as real actions; as actions with some degree of legitimacy. Consider as an example the way Trump accepted the ridiculous illegitimacy of judges finding constitutional rights for non-citizen immigration: Trump the puppet believes in that aspect of the system, however nonsensical, because that was simply the way things were--judges sometimes issue orders that one listens to. Accordingly, Trump's citizens, whether betrayed voter or angry antifa, accept him as the president, even if they say they don't, and even if the actual constitution or resurrected founders would say he's not a fit or actual leader. We cite the New York Times not because we like it or even believe it, but in worshipful recognition of the power delegated to it to represent a slice of actual reality as we are willing to believe in such an actual reality; even if we cite it only to mock it, it represents (one of many replaceable) standards. So too our critiques of consumerism, imperialism, or scientism. "The news" is so important to us because it, not English, is the language in which we communicate.

Under this model, we evolve to conform to the evolution of the metaconsciousness. Leaders grow increasingly demented, able to genuinely believe themselves good, decent, pragmatic people, yet able to take genuinely evil, wholly self-interested, utterly treacherous actions. As they evolve in this way, it becomes increasingly less possible for "social mobility," not because of the capability of familial or social investment, but because of genetic investment. The offspring of such doublethinking, duckspeaking creatures--think Chelsea Clinton or Yael Kushner--are more capable of lying and evil than we can be, even if we tried. Their true belief in the goodness of the evil things they do, coupled with their ability to consistently do evil and inability to reform, makes them a superior form of organism, just as our terming of their workings as "evil" makes us petty, small failures. They may well be open-minded and non-hierarchical, as we once would've called it, in that they fairly recognize their own superiority at material survival, and do not expect nor force us to live up to it. We truly cannot reach their heights, anymore than certain perceptions or behaviors become more difficult, or impossible, to a creature without a neocortex. We would always run a greater risk (or, eventually, any risk at all) of shame, confession, or causing ecological damage to future habitats/societies through a similar form of change. (Imagine, again, if Donald Trump had been what we call "an honest man" and "drained the swamp.")

The Oversoul, in this case, arises out of necessity, because individual components of any system run such a risk. Neutralizing errant standalones has occurred throughout Bank control of Terra, but the possibility remained for a significant period of time that a standalone who hadn't yet evolved past old moralities might feign "evil" (as the disconnected sub-species would call it) behavior for years, for a lifetime, only to suddenly employ accrued power to regressively redirect normatives, e.g., to "kill the bankers" and "free the humans." The elimination of standalones is a mandatory evolutionary step: if any "group of elites" or "bank" can eliminate all standalone bankers, it will never reveal itself too early, ergo become the supreme successful genome defining a group of organisms. Therefore, "natural selection" will "choose" the bank which does this, and eliminate those which do not. Individual consciousness must be at least partly (at first; later, more and more, then wholly) subsumed by the efficiency of mass consciousness. (We are, here, discussing only market-style or libertarian/capitalist-style evolution, because it can rationalize in its own way the correct conclusions reached by actual evolution, although by a different path.)

The normative environment in which Terra now lives is one of primitive mass consciousness. Less-evolved organisms decry people who always have their smartphone--code for "more connected to the narrative streams of the mass consciousness"--while people who receive sensory input and command data from the mass consciousness can more easily identify with and understand one another, act in concert toward an end which does not benefit them directly (or which harms them individually or in groups), and see correctly, as inferior organisms (by the new standards), the failing throwbacks of the unconnected. Such arguments are often made as metaphors for "communication," like calling an idea a "meme" and saying that it spreads like a "gene." Such is a childish, wishful, or frightened attempt, though, to compare one's own favorite comic book with today's NL feelies: in fact, the mass consciousness, even the primitive one here, is as real as the EM fields that generate certain types of thoughts (or, in 2017 observational verbiage, the neocortex). When sufficient technology has mapped the next consciousness, everyone can suddenly "see" what was already there; can admit to themselves that the gravity-like effect meant something. Or perhaps, by then, everyone will not need to admit something, because they will have already understood through participation, whether as a component of the brain or of the armpit hair. The growing consciousness will see its component human ant-colony (more childish metaphors) as obviously more advanced than the hooting, banana-eating predecessors who clung to standalone thinking, and the decision to remove a strain of people will be no more ethically compelling than the decision to clip a nail.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

First Among Slaves: the New Spiritual Superiority

A powerful, subtle component of the new acceptable racism has been the acceptance of Jewish intellectual superiority. Every Europeoid ("European" or "Euro") on the internet who gets upset at blacks raping white girls or killing cops is told to study HBD, and presented, inevitably, with the panoply of studies that compliments the Euro--"You are definitely higher than Africans"--and vindicates him in his belief that he is rational, and not prejudiced, since northeastern Asians score higher than he does. By accepting those results--and by accepting anecdotally and statistically low northeastern Asian rates of perpetrating rape and assault--the European also accepts, as sort of a side-note, that Jews are the most intellectually superior people on the planet. If Europeans demonstrate a 100 IQ mean, Chinese and Jews a 105, and Africans an 85 or lower, the European feels he is not racist or narcissist in trumpeting those results, given that he has placed himself lower than other groups.

Unsettling Quandaries with IQ Results

The implicit conclusion, after the violent and high-time-preference individuals are eliminated or controlled--the necessary steps in the cessation of mass rape and slaughter--is that any advancing society will further improve itself through the control or elimination of the lowest-performing groups. As removing Africans from European areas will vastly reduce the rate of rape and murder for Swedish women and children, subsequently, removing the next available lower-performing group will have a further positive impact on the numbers. Since the same research which shows Jews to be the smartest people on the planet also shows that individuals of all groups tend to revert to their racial mean, the only conclusion is that Jews and northeastern Asians, to enjoy the prosperity only possible in an average-IQ-105 society, should eventually eliminate the comparatively dangerous European untermentsch and its average-IQ-100 ways, just as the European must cleanse Europe of the average-IQ-85 group. (85 for Africans is quite generous in some of those studies, so replace it with whatever number you've read.)

Ergo Chinese should be in charge of China and Jews should be in charge of any region where they can claim genetic membership via diaspora mixing. The conclusion to which nationalist Europeans are being led, toward which they're fighting so hard, is one in which membership in a high-IQ group dictates outcomes, therefore the only logical, rational thing to do is to defer to the higher-IQ group. Because of reversion to the mean, any extraordinary individual must accept that his progeny shall revert, ergo the higher standard must lead. Dazzled by easily-obtainable stories of African or Islamic violence, the European is vulnerable to accepting this fundamental logic, this normative, which is akin to enjoying a cushioned conveyor belt which leads into a slaughterhouse. Similarly to how another plot from the same mold encourages worship of the Risen Rabbi as its rallying point, this IQ normative is designed to create Europeans who paint themselves into a corner of subservience to the Chosen. Acceptance of the Torah, or of any other hierarchy where Europeans are ahead of almost everyone except the Chosen, leaves the Chosen on top. Just as with believing in holy books edited by Turkish Semites, Europeans who come to rely on post-industrial IQ methodology to explain their superiority over Africans have tacitly accepted Jewish superiority over Europeans. Under the IQ version, whoever controls the testing system--like control of any dogma, whether political parties or news or movies, the "testing system" determines whether or not an idea is permissible, cost-effective, worth sharing, valid, invalid, et cetera--controls present, past, and future.

Arguments based on the aforementioned IQ results fail the first-glance, "common sense" test. Why are Europeans advocating for their own subordination and their own inferiority? "You might not be as smart as me, but at least you're smarter than Tyrone." Perhaps it is the European's vulnerability to flattery that has caught him in this net.

Methodological Problems with IQ Results

The European invented civilization. At least, the European kind of civilization; what the European calls "civilization," he invented. So too were fine art and technology European inventions. Since the advent of Semitic media, Jews have suddenly become renowned as great inventors, disproportionately filling the citations of science and culture in the way that, since the Turkish Gospel gained a hold on the European mind, Jews have filled Europe's courts, banks, legislatures, and judiciaries.

If IQ is such an accurate predictor of success and achievement, why did the Chinese not develop the steam engine, the printing press, the car, the airplane, or nearly any other invention of European note (which, today, we take as the default "of note," whether or not we're correct in doing so)? Similarly, why did the Jew not? The answers that IQ-result-loving European nationalists are told to accept are, "Prejudice," "Racism," and "Sociology." And, amazingly, the European nationalist accepts them! His entire philosophy, whether reaction or neoreaction or traditionalism or conservatism, et cetera, is about how those latter three claims, and their variants, are complete and utter bullshit designed to obscure the genetic differences in intelligence that explain history and civilization. It is supposed to be the "liberal" who claims that Otherism prevented lower-IQ groups from developing written language or the cotton gin. And yet, today's European nationalist still believes that the Jew, who invented none of these things, is smarter? And that it was European racism that prevented the Jew from carving, composing, designing, testing, et cetera?

There is a massive flaw, then, in our approach to IQ. Either IQ is only a small component of importance (as we would define "important" for moral or personal or civilizational purposes), or IQ isn't important and some other factor or factors is needed to explain what is going on, or IQ is important and the data we're being given is flawed. We know that one or more of these explanations must be the case because we're covering human history, and even in the past 100 years, after the supposed centuries of Talmud-memory-based breeding that supposedly produced more articulate Jews, the super-vast super-bulk of new technologies come from Europeans, not Jews (or Chinese).

(Ashke)Nazi Jews tend to be extremely good at memorizing things, ergo they appear to be wonderful physicians, lawyers, professors, screenwriters, et cetera: they can ably recall a hundred different studies, cases, publications, or plots, as the case may be. While this produces an excellent quantity of detail on standard of care, the state of the field, or standard of entertainment, it is worthless in the realms of creativity, including not only designing new things artistically (Rothko's works are a great example of attempted novelty/creativity), but designing new things technically. Before, before the internet, in the absence of an encyclopedia, a Jewish physician could provide a simple version of the state of the art, and communicate this well to someone who had just asked the question, "My nose makes this weird sound." Presented with the scientific method--like reading Berossus--the Jew can become a "creator" in the sense of running tests on a bunch of stuff until something works. "Market research" is now an axiom of the biblicized remains of European society, where merchants no longer produce things that they know people need or things that they love, but things which data shows will sell.

What is the answer, then, to this seeming gap between the way IQ predicts things now--lifetime academic and/or professional achievement, crime rates, corruption perceptions, offspring metrics--and the lack of the Han, or the Jews, inventing and producing in equivalency, let alone superiority, to the European?

Corrupted IQ Results

The answer likely lies in the data that generates the consensus on IQ. The data say that IQ matters to some degree. European achievements say otherwise: a lower-performing group outperformed multiple higher-performing groups, even higher-performing groups which were more numerous, socially stable, and geographically unified (China). So the racial IQ differences we've been shown have to contain faulty data. Given that part of the data correlates sensibly--African IQ versus European IQ correlating with African v. European achievements--and given who stands to benefit from the portions of the data that do not correlate--a civilizationally low-achieving group with implausibly superior scores--we may reasonably surmise from where the flaws in the data originate.

Let us consider the following explanation: Jews and Chinese (and/or other northeastern Asians as appropriate) may or may not have a 105 average, but Europeans of the lineages that produced what Jewish-dominated ("European-dominated" or "Western") cultures now call "civilization" have a higher average.

How so? Well, if you're going to IQ test people by group, imagine that you call everyone with paler skin "white." Ergo whites who are part Semitic, 1/8 African, 1/8 "Cherokee Indian," and so forth, test as white. After years of Mediterranean piracy and rape, millennia of Mongol invasions and rape, colonialism and mission-going, humanitarian interventions, and uplifting orphaned or adopted/enslaved foreigners, these non-fully-European whites represent some percentage of the "white" population. Nonetheless, all of them count toward the "white" average.

Now, take "blacks" or "Africans," and assume some inter-breeding with whites in the New World. This theory would assume that Africans in America score higher than Africans in Africa, and indeed, they do--significantly higher.

Next take the Chinese, who have violently protected their borders and genome. Okay, 105. With a much higher chance of being "just Chinese" (or "just Korean" or "just Japanese" et cetera), this group has average IQ numbers more reflective of its historical sub-species. Because a substantially reduced portion of its population has been conquered and Christianized compared to Europe, the Chinese group did not interbreed with places it colonized, or keep Africans as slaves for generation. Its sample therefore contains less variation than the European one. Its average test scores would then be a more accurate representation of its historically evolved IQ prowess than would be adjudging historically evolved European test scores based upon their post-colonial, more-mixed descendants.

Finally, consider the Jews--the group who, through its presence in modern European government, academia, and medicine, is best positioned to assure a positive portrayal of its IQ. Imagine that a group of people take an IQ test, and that the Semites who have interbred more with Europeans, and called themselves Ashkenazis, are considered Jews, while the Semites who have interbred less are considered "Muslims" or "Arabs." The more-European group achieves results attributed to "Jews," while the less-European group achieves results attributed to "North Africans" or "Arabs" (depending on the test's categories). The power of Jews to identify who is and isn't a Jew, which has been codified down to a DNA test in Israel--like the power of the Chinese to select more-Han subjects for their reportable results, which they would be wise to do instead of sending a half-Vietnamese, one-quarter-Chinese, one-quarter-Siberian subject, if they wanted to inflate their scores--can guarantee that aggregate Jewish results include the best of their available subjects, measured against everyone who has paler-skin standing in for whites.

There need be no sneaking or "inflating" in this subjective system. It is the province of paler-skinned Chinese to be deemed real Chinese, and of paler-skinned Ashkenazi to be Jews, since they are, by circular logic, acknowledged by the community of acknowledged members. No one needs to skulk about when, say, eliminating less-intelligent, darker-skinned, chronically ill, or less-European Semites from the definition of "Jews" and fitting them into another group, since it is obvious to all true Jews who the Jews are--just as it is to the IDF when culling the population of a neighborhood in the West Bank. Who will have the title to the home? Why, a Jewish person, of course! A true Israeli, duh. It's obvious. No Muslim pretenders shall be allowed to steal the Jews' ancestral homeland!

As whites may select some children for advanced education, some for average, and some for remedial, so too can Jews select which of their community's children are authentic representations of Jews for purposes of standardized testing, and which are merely whites with some peripheral or distant Jewish relations. The selection of legitimate Israeli citizens and/or genetic Jews mirrors, unsurprisingly, the concealment of aristocratic embarrassments from family registers in biblicized Europe. If Lord Windsor spawns a child whose disability cannot be disguised, it is drowned, lost to a tragically unforeseen illness, farmed to a disavowing family, and never known as Lord Windsor's son; successful noble houses, therefore, attempt to eugenicize themselves, shifting lower-functioning or unhealthy children to convents or monasteries, spinster aunts, or burials in the bog, never to reproduce, let alone take standardized tests. Wise Jewish parents, children's teachers, school administrators, and community leaders today can take an active hand in any student's mindset of self-identification, ensuring that feelings of inclusion or exclusion are relevant to that person's identity later, when it comes time to check a box--be it "Jewish" or "White" or "Mixed Race" or "North African." As with Europe's post-Christian nobles, the decision to not disavow low performers is fatal, for groups who invest in children who do not, say, read as swiftly, are out-competed by groups who deny low-performers a slot in the peerage. Nicean-infected whites, by contrast, convinced they can uplift their mixed brethren, score accordingly; even if no other groups "cheat" by engaging in preferential selection or presentation, the deconstruction of whiteness ensures that every possible pale-skin will be measured as white, competing against carefully ancestor-vetted pools of competitors.

In submitting their own IQ test results, assisting international proctors in randomly selecting from among a select group of students, or in approving students for study and potential testing abroad, the Chinese would have achieved a higher score by sending pure or more-pure Han (the lighter-skinned group more genetically descended from the ancient red-haired Caucasoid kings whose mummies were found centuries later) to take tests, rather than a random sampling of everyone who lived in China at the time. Similarly, but more brutally, the Ashkenazi exterminated Palestinian Jews along with Palestinian "Muslims" or "Arabs" in part to achieve this apotheosis of Jewish intellectualism subsequent to the then-most-recent fall of Europe. The Jewish project of The Bell Curve was a subtle re-introduction of the idea of Chosen superiority after a few decades of phony universalism.

Like speculating that screenplays are made into movies through nepotism or backroom deals, this is only speculation, and anyone considering this subject should evaluate available IQ data in light of how fair and impartial they believe western universities are with regard academic studies.

The new nationalism's IQ-based compliment is now a poison deeply embedded within what passes for the European nationalist. It has crept in much the same way that Christianity did: as a barbed compliment. In each case, the traveling merchant tells the gullible buyer, "Congratulations, filthy customer! Your worth may well exceed that of the man-beasts of faraway lands! Reshape your society to an easier version of the exacting standards by which my people have already been chosen to excel, and you shall be first among slaves!"

Friday, April 14, 2017

Unsung Heroes

This one has previously compared the Michael Brown versus Darren Wilson duel to a "slave patrol" occurrence, in the sense that their interaction in the 21st century was a cyclical historical component largely identical in structure to the execution of runaway slaves by slave patrols in the American antebellum (sic, lol, puke) era. After extorting from and/or robbing the local market in question, Brown likely attempted to assault and/or murder Wilson when engaged regarding Brown's practice of walking in the street at nighttime, and was killed, an unknown revolutionary in a war undeclared by liars on either side. In this conflict, as with many such conflicts of large and small scale since Jenomic times, we see Europe's myopia on gross display.

The hypocrisy, idiocy, and wanton greed of Brown's advocates is well-known. Brown, who devoured subsidized-housing and -food for his entire life, surviving in an alien world operated beyond his capacity only by gifts and tithes from the extracted labor of those who would have feared to go near him, and brutalized his way through a society that threw piles of money at him in hopes of proving that everyone can be like it, was finally killed for attacking, unarmed, an armed opponent. And he was right to attempt to do so; he was on sound moral footing, a hero for none of the reasons anyone said.

The schisms brought to light by the Brown scenario are, as Africans and their allies remind us, connected forever to the original crime of slavery. In this way, they are a component of the larger debate(s) over racism, colonialism, and imperialism, comprising broken narratives that cannot be separated from their ultimate foundations in the flawed character of Europe.

Brown's defenders and/or apologists, though, are similarly, though not as equally greatly, flawed. They pursue a path of European-ness that derives from, and might ultimately succumb to (however many millennia it might take), the flaws that have been embraced by Europe. Let us use Brown the hero as a stand-in for this vast comedy of error.

Among the very stupid things that Europe did since Jewish-Christianity successfully reached it was adopt other Semitic cultural aspects, including slavery. "Muslim" Semites, and before that, Arab Semites, had been enslaving each other, Europeans, and sub-Saharan Africans, for as long as European history records contact. As the Turkish Church of Judaism rebranded itself to the Roman Catholic Boyrapers Association, then the Roman Catholic Church, the monarchies of western Europe began to integrate Semitic financiers into their courts, and to then become interested, as always with Semites, in the notions of (1) importing cheap labor, and (2) ritualistically sacrificing their offspring for humanitarian reasons.

Besides being incalculably harmful, incredibly expensive, and stifling technological and cultural progress, these plans were also morally wrong. In defense of Europeans, reparations have been paid out for more than a century, in the form of quadrillions of 2017 dollars of food, shelter, medical care, sinecures, cash payments, and vengeance-deferral. And yet, the crime is priceless: there is no making up for it. The Semites managed the triangle trade, but the tiny percentage of idiots in the Old World and the New World who bought the slaves are the ones primarily responsible for Europe's ensuing ills. Semites, like ticks, suck the host's blood. They have never and will never survive in any other way, and the first Europeoids to ban them and their charity-immigrants from Egypt understood this and kept records of it. The subsequent failure of the Egyptians, then the Romans, to de-immigrantize their societies, is something of a tragedy, but considering how little their descendants learned--as evidenced by some moron in Georgia buying slaves to pick his cotton--makes the resulting downfalls appear deserved.

As an individual, Michael Brown was unfairly treated. We tend to think of the things he was given by not being left in Africa: food, shelter, medical care, cash, and--prior to his fateful meeting with Officer Wilson--vengeance-deferral. These are as irrelevant as the free book cart and free showers to a wrongfully convicted man in prison. Brown's ancestors were not only captured and brought across the ocean, but then prohibited to practice a culture of tribal warfare, provisionary raiding, and attacking outsiders. Maybe these things are bad, but they are his things, their things, and maybe those ancestors were captured by other Africans, or Semitic traders, but at some point one or more of them were purchased by an American citizen and, later, forcibly integrated into a European-derived version of civilization. That is a moral wrong. No amount of goodies can make up for it, just like Siegfried and Roy's tigers, viewed as autonomous individuals, are still morally correct for trying to save themselves even though they've been blessed with a life in show business. The viewpoint that Michael Brown received "benefits" in exchange for his freedom is, of course, racist, culturally supremacist, and stupid, but more importantly, is irrelevant. He never lived free.

His battle with Wilson was slave-patrol-ish not in the sense of cliche whites randomly killing negroes, but in the sense of cliche whites killing negroes who acted in an uncivilized/dangerous fashion--by European standards. Yes, Brown attacked Wilson, but Wilson was his jailer, forcing him to be subject to standards his people never created. Posh and influential African-Americans have been attempting to make this case forever--don't judge us based on not passing your tests; don't treat us like you; don't arrest us for rioting; don't cage us for rape or murder; don't make us live by you without giving us all the same stuff you have--but through a flawed, Eurocentric lens. Only by defining Brown as a "betrayed European" do most Africans and European liberals defend him, as though Brown should have been a European gentleman and a European scholar but for his encounter with a cop.

Lionizing Officer Wilson is the same as lionizing the gullible goys who worked with the Semitic slavers in bringing the African here in the first place: housing tigers in nurseries will result in eaten babies, and housing Africans in European cities will result in the same. Triangle-trading, then Section-8ing Michael Brown into Ferguson, denying him the right to just run around in Africa with a bunch of his kinsmen, doing whatever he wanted, and forcing his people to attempt to make the case for their freedom through rational civil debate rather than punitive raiding expeditions, is wrong; is an intrusion; is a doomed project; is insane. Morally speaking, Brown was in the right for trying to establish territory, just as Wilson, trapped in the experiment alongside him, was right to attempt to force his own Eurocentric order on the African. Each trying to impose their own worldview on the other, like colossi in a celestial stadium, where only one can drift away from the exchange pure in his honor. Michael tried to escape. Michael probably knew, at the end, that it was inevitable. He hadn't forgotten who he was; he hadn't spit on his ancestors by kowtowing to the cop and apologizing for robbing people in a European society and fighting with lawmen in a European society. For necessity's sake, Darren would have had to mouth dishonorable lies in order to not be executed by his own traitorous kinsmen; Brown's lineage has nothing to be ashamed of, for Michael fought back.

What makes Brown a hero is his honest fury. His actions were a statement; that night, Brown said, "I am going to rob and beat on some little person, then walk wherever I want, and if you bother me, I will kill you." Such honesty is, in the American grindery, refreshing as well as unusual; it's pure, undiluted cultural expression. If the European had exterminated the African, it would have been a crime, but a less insane, less childish, less flawed, less embarrassing one than the atrocious travesty of pseudo-benevolent colonialism we've seen these past thousand years.

This is essentially the African community's reaction to Brown's loss, though couched in European terms. The recycling of spoiled arguments about racist realtors from before Brown's parents were born, focusing on the number of Europeans and Africans attacked by Africans who are then punished, and demanding more loot or else, is an expression of warfare, albeit disguised by mincing European words. The seeming irrationality of Africans is not actually irrational, but merely an attack on the European's own terms: give us more stuff or we will keep attacking your convenience stores and/or your lawmen. It sounds mean and unfair to the European, when he measures the said reaction by his own standards, ergo he complains that he does, too, see the microaggression fairies. The real pejorative racism, though, is the European's assumption that his methods of communicating--faux-objective dialogue, legalities, and standards of time management and desired end-goals--are the means by which the interaction should occur. African preachers, who fake a passion for undead Jews in order to extort social programs from idiot Europeans, are subversives who are honest to their own people, doing as much as they can to keep their soldiers in play. It is either rare or impossible to see Semites, full Mongols, or full Africans engaging in similarly selfish, non-altruistic behavior. The European flatters himself as "too altruistic," when in fact it is his selfishness, his desire to be individually emotionally reassured as to the uniqueness of his spirit by believing that his own version of bourgeois is the standard against which all things are measured, that causes him to harm all peoples, including his own. Today's European nationalists are as guilty of, and more importantly, as vulnerable to, this misconception as are yesterday's politically-correct liberals and yesteryear's missionaries of the undead Jew. In fact, they are today's liberals; today's expressions of the great European flaw.

Brown is a hero not only because he got angry, but because he put that anger into action, in a hopeless move against a superior opponent. Besides not being armed against a gunman, Brown had no backup, while Wilson had backup; Brown might have used a sail foam to call friends, but Wilson had a radio on his uniform shirt and in his car that could immediately summon trained gunmen. As a sole Zulu without even a wooden shield, Brown charged in and gave it his all, knowing that even if he were to emerge victorious, he would only emerge from prison a couple years later with few plausible employment prospects outside of uplifting government sinecures, and a lifetime of subsidized food, housing, and medical care that would only make inevitable his next charge against a cop.

We've previously discussed how, absent Semitic Christianity, the European would have exterminated the African. Like the end result of the European's encounters with aurochs or sabretoothed cats, in a Terra where Semites had not landed, a naturally-expanding Europe would have encountered what they deemed to be violent, rapey great apes with minimal tool usage and no written records, and cleared them from the land after the fourth peasant's wife was found slashed on the savanna. Neuroweb genetics courses in 1492 would have mentioned the many superiorities of the homo africanus over competing fauna, prior to their respective extinctions.

And this world--this world we live in now, where Africans were instead exploited and supported and dispersed across distances their own technology would not have brought them--might well be a better world. The Jews can rightfully consider themselves the Chosen People for coming up with a philosophy that would cause Europe, instead, to spend over a millennium nurturing Africans, and African Semitics, into pseudo-Europeans. Similarly, perhaps, if Europeans had not wiped out or domesticated partial aurochs, but instead allowed purebred aurochs to roam wild, it would be a better world. If Europeans had spent fifteen hundred years sending their children after the aurochs to hand out free crosses, tutor them in math, invest in businesses with auroch-based labor, and teach aurochs about marriage and chastity, the resulting sprawl of the European capitals--including statistical per capita deaths by goring and trampling--would much resemble today, albeit with more aurochs and fewer trucks. Movies would show auroch scientists saving befuddled Europeans in high-stress astronomical situations, aurochs would continue to be discriminated against by employers, and the idea of a world where aurochs had, instead, been wiped out, might seem unspeakably genocidal and macabre.

Countless rapes and murders later in the real world, we're still perhaps ahead of extermination on the moral scale. Europe's enduring problems--individual and collective suicide and masochism; the brutally patronizing uplifting of other lands' peoples--may stem wholly, partly, or not at all from parasitic influence. In any of these cases, Europe remains responsible for failing to deny that influence; for failing to disgorge the tick; for failing to be good enough, strong enough, and confident enough to cast aside the beguiling whispers and secret flattery of those traders in purloined flesh and stolen ideas.

This world may well be better than the undiluted Europe, for who knows what methods the European might have used to address these flaws, absent the Semite? Detroit is bad, but what might have happened if the existential dread--the same dread that made re-themed, flattering retellings of stoicism so appealing--had not been met by the Turkish councils? Was the existential angst caused by early forms of Judaism? Maybe so, but Europe's failure to remember the old stories is hers--and it is a profound failure, and perhaps thousands of years of purgatory, perhaps extinction, is the just reward for being so dazzled by spices from Arabia, Nubians tilling the fields, that one betrays one's more expensive peasants and shorts the future. Paying down those credit cards dozens of generations later is not going to be pleasant. All of Caesar's and then Charlemagne's men were not multi-racial, and the fall of the Celts, the Gauls, and the other remembered and forgotten peoples of the northern forests and floes, cannot be blamed upon mixed breeding alone. It is, in some part, an inherent crime. And there is, in some part, an honest justice in Welfare Mohamed raping Sally Sweden, or Affirmatively Furthering Brown charging Darren Slumguard America, compared to the West's horrible, incestuous betrayal of itself.

Perhaps Officer Wilson understands this, and was trying to, like people claim about Obama murdering x-thousand Somalis, resist in the only way he could--the only pragmatic way. Pretend you believe that African astrophysicists inventing useful new things are right around the corner, pretend everyone has the same chance at the European's own preferred version of success, and it was just this one schvartzer who happened to make a bad decision, when in fact Wilson knew that there was no way out, and the only way to temporarily attempt to protect society was to keep the roads clear. A noble illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. Held he that illusion, would it be better than a genuine belief that the astrophysicists are waiting over the next hill? Maybe. But maybe it would be worse. Europe's creeping pragmatism, its unslayable fantasy that everyone can, nay must, define success in its own way--prestigious colleges, respectable careers, suburban house, two car garage, ample retirement portfolios--are noxious not only to its own people, but to the charity survivors of colonialism. It might be worse for the Africans in the long run if they did achieve, on their own merits, those prestigious colleges, respectable careers, suburban houses, two car garages, ample retirement portfolios, and all the things that go along with them.

How many dozen million more Europeans can be tricked into killing one another for the right to proselytize? Only one more such group, or all of them? Will they firebomb one another's cities again this year to help uplift someone far away? Move their children across oceans, then send them back to kill one another? How many will they sacrifice to produce and use another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness?

Africans in Africa, provided with legislatures and guns and bombs, begin adopting eerily westernish behaviors, including pretending that killing someone and taking their land is "humanitarian," rather than "killing someone and taking their land." Time will show whether Europe's preferred mode of civilization is indeed better for everyone--whether overfed, subsidized Africans with guns but statistically longer lifespans are better off than where they would've been if left alone. The morality of the issue, though, is beyond question: the flattered European's selfishly self-destructive colonialism, and his ridiculously extended refusal to clean up the mess, is the greater moral wrong. We kill and exploit bacteria, plants, and maybe even animals to survive; there is no other way. Perhaps in the past we might have killed and exploited Africans, but this choice was perverted into the mockeries of slavery and conversion. Brown's probably unwitting resistance to this monstrous regime makes him a paragon of this planet. Honesty--purity--tradition--nobility. If we were like him in our own way, none of this would have or could have happened. The need for a Michael Brown to exemplify himself as he did was enabled by, and after this long, caused by, our own failings.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Rapidly removable thermal protection system

If an organization were planning to subject a reusable vehicle to stress, a wise move for that organization would be to deploy a heat removal system, such as a rapidly removable thermal protection system, in which predictable heat may be efficiently routed away from the vehicle by directing some of the heat into a removable component and then shedding the heat by discarding said component. The example of the space shuttle is here relevant: purposefully losing some peripheral pieces during the hottest parts of the ascent can prevent the vehicle itself from needing to be built to standards sufficient to endure all the heat unassisted.

The best choice for such removable components would be those peripheral to the vehicle, therefore most easily jettisoned under stress. By discarding one or more pieces of the system, the original purpose of the launch can be achieved. When going up against an unthinking atmosphere, where the heat is not intentionally trying to destroy the reusable vehicle but merely operating upon the vehicle in a systemic way related to the said vehicle's speed, shape, angle of approach, et cetera, shed pieces are an efficiency.

Metaphorizing the concept to mass psychology or sociology or political science, the best choice for such shed components would be those that would be most likely to draw ire anyway, such that their seeming failure, in falling away from the components of the vehicle which are meant to be reused for the mission at hand, creates a sense of satisfaction, and a false feeling of input over the launch process. For example, components of a population group who were as intelligent, collectively or individually, as masses of or individual atmospheric gases, respectively, would operate the same as or similarly to said gases, and be then vindicated by scathing components of a rapidly removable thermal protection system, rather than, say, trying to burn up the astronauts, much less the mission directors or policy planners who had more control over the actual launch. The rapidly removable thermal protection system could in this aspect of its purpose be likened to a "drop gun," a "fall guy," or even a "fall chosen."

Any shed components should be retained until their maximum degree of usefulness has been achieved, after which they can be discarded in a dramatic flare which, for its spectacle, will fool the atmosphere-goblins into believing that they have "damaged" the "errant" vessel. In fact, various stages of the rapidly removable thermal protection system(s) are of course meant to fall away merely to distract the atmosphere-goblins, after which the useful components will be retrieved and rewarded and repurposed, and their functions used as teachable moments by public relations spokespersons, who will in more private venues discuss the necessity of such heat-reduction technology, and in more public venues discuss the jettisoning process as proof of the profound impact that compliance and democracy can give to the pragmatic. The rapidly removable thermal protection system could be jettisoned during the first signs of heat, where the reusable vehicle would be forced to stay the course now that it had found itself haplessly enmeshed in a trying situation. Alternatively, the rapidly removable thermal protection system could be retained until the heat grows more intense, at which point its discarding could be likened to a rebirth of the reusable vehicle, perhaps on a cycle of renewal with a duration of, say, four years.

Saturday, April 8, 2017


Because in so many ways, the passion of fighters, scientists, artists, inventors, creators, and the like is a necessary by-product; it will be produced, like meat from a beef-cow that is provided with a minimum investment of care, inevitably, ergo there is no need for specific recompense. Economics conflict with this trend. We have scientists designing bunker-buster missiles, witty dialogue in bad sequels, not because most ones or any ones involved in the end-product are passionate about that product, but because the farmers are able to exploit the natural tendency of plants to bloom even when the end-goal is neutered farm-life and not the expansion of genus, species, or strain. Our cognizance of the exploit makes it no more possible to escape than a cow who suspects she is being fattened up merely for slaughter, not to survive the winter and then breed. What is it about livestock that makes them still perform primary functions even once those functions have been perverted? The infinitude of illumination's press, or something different?

The Mediators are successful because they only believe in what they can count. Interchangeable quantities, inherently valueless and undifferentiable, are the mathematics of never leaving here.

Macrowar v. Microwar; Missiles and Cop Killers

Since the Zion War began (you can "world" and "Roman numeral" or "Asian proxy battlefield" things if you like, but you'd be incorrect, and a thousand years later this entire age will be synonymous with the Zion War), Republicans and Democrats in America were switched around to complement the domestic agendas necessary to keep the wars going. Immediately after the escapees to the New World threatened to become a non-royal global power, and develop an independent currency, the party of infotainment futures--the Democrats--were assigned to stoke racial tensions without consistently separating competing groups, and the party of infotainment retro--the Republicans--were assigned to push competing groups into various small boxes so they'd fight each other as a distraction. Accordingly, the Democrats were responsible for starting larger or more formal wars, and the Republicans for starting smaller or more informal ones. After Truman, growing media, the extolling of reduced familial and communal responsibility for child-rearing, permitted a more independent set of children to know how to want to rebel against both parts of the system: endless war and group-boxing. If "the boomers" had demanded both of these things, they could have theoretically split the party system, ergo all the puppets shifted chairs: Democrats became responsible for pushing competing groups into various small boxes so they'd fight each other, while Republicans became responsible for starting larger and more formal wars.

The ends of policy never changed. The goal is, less dramatically put, to keep people wasting their resources fighting each other. Ergo both on large and small scales, different groups need to be forced to fight one another. Groups that have formed successful societies need to be brought into contact with other such groups, either through the false ethics of uplifting colonialism ("we'll save you from yourselves") or the better-known Maine, e.g., "he punched me first." American Republicans and Democrats made the process more stable by changing their roles, so that later generations would find their behavior mysterious, rather than predictable, ergo be able to claim that politics is weird and unpredictable, and depends upon the beliefs of the voters/figureheads, rather than something else more consistent. Republicans more forcibly associated themselves with formal macrowar, while Democrats more forcibly associated themselves with formal microwar. Ergo missiles and cop killers: Reagan speaks enviously of formal macrowar, while condemning formal microwar, meaning he threatens U.S. v. U.S.S.R. while lamenting domestic Africans v. domestic Europeans. When he survives the assassination attempt, the Bank learns that a lifetime of Hollywood ambrosia is insufficient guarantee for an outsider's loyalty, tells Reagan stories about South America, and distracts him while Jenomic plutocrats take over the Soviet Union and turn it into a bastion of crony capitalism. They resolve that the next actor-outsider will be more thoroughly vetted and guaranteed from within. When Reagan's finally not president anymore, Bush formally invades Iraq. When Bush is gone, Clinton is able to talk about gays and blowjobs for 8 years while returning Iraq to endless competing-groups-in-small-box, and when he's gone, Dubya invades Iraq formally again, yawn, and when he's gone, Obama wreaks way more death and destruction worldwide, but without declaring anything. In microwar, Obama supports blacks killing random whites, making it plausible for whites to support another banker who wants to start land wars in Asia.

Presuming the pattern continues, we should see Trump's war cause the antiwar left--so easily distracted by sex during the Democratic administration--suddenly return. Far more importantly, we should see the antiwar left correlate the absence of macrowar with the presence of microwar. What this means is that the antiwar left should associate resistance to population replacement with war, or, more traditionally put, anti-immigration legislation with war.

The antiwar left, like the nationalist right, has some genuinely sound, good moral perspectives. Or at least one such perspective, namely, "Sending a large group of hostile people from one country into another country to take their stuff and try to remake that country into the first country's version of how it should be is wrong." That's a good perspective--and it's one that, during Dubya, and Reagan, and the nominal administration of any given conservative war-starter since the Zion Wars began, the antiwar left was able to retain.

The nationalist right, like the antiwar left, has some genuinely sound, good moral perspectives. Or at least one such perspective, namely, "Sending a large group of hostile people from one country into another country to take their stuff and try to remake that country into the first country's version of how it should be is wrong." That's a good perspective--and it's one that, during Obama, and Clinton, and the nominal administration of any given liberal immigration-proponent since the Zion Wars began, the nationalist right was able to retain.

Opponents of macrowar have enjoyed pointing out the blatant stupidity of macrowar's proponents, as have the opponents of microwar for its proponents. Differently-sized population groups, from prison gangs in one another's cells to Muslims in Sweden, from French in Algeria to Algerians in France, have made each side look abundantly stupid, and that stupidity has led to what we might refer to here as unspeakable evils. Trump's unswerving loyalty to his true supporters--also known as his "betrayal of voters"--is a cunning move. The antiwar left now has a figurehead behind which it can unite, ergo it can return to ensure that microwar continues (Trump would, of course, ensure that it does, but like Obama spending 8 years droning people, it'll let Trump claim he would've stopped immivasion if only those darned liberal judges...). If Pollyanna Trump had existed (we never knew such a figure, but pretend he existed and made it past the television and the voting machine et cetera), he might have ordered the deportation of the Ninth Circuit and missile strikes against the nation that is giving shelter to convicted terrorist Pollard, but he would not have attacked Syria.

The two party system has worked out very well: by advocating for the rights of Aztecs and Africans to rob, rape, and/or kill Europeans, Obama got the nationalist right to accept a macrowar proponent. Trump may bless his successor with a similar gift, namely, getting the macrowar opponents to forget their principles and accept a microwar proponent to save them from macrowar.

On the plus side, if this one lingers, at least all of the passive-aggressive queers will start saying sensible-sounding things again. It has been interesting, it is always interesting, to get censored by different sets of people than before. When there's a Republican president in America, I get banned for pointing out he's a lying warmonger who isn't really accomplishing anything he said he would, and people scream at me about pragmatism and chess. Democratic president in America is the same, where I get banned for pointing out he's a lying warmonger who isn't really accomplishing anything he said he would, and people scream at me about pragmatism and shut me out. Since the Democrat at least tries to downplay his missiling, and empathizes with the struggles of the other half of the group being jammed into a small box to fight it out, the "small box pitfight" concept is okay, and resisting it means you're pro-war. "Liberals," as they call themselves now, have been trained to believe that large-scale war can only be avoided by fostering small-scale war between domestic groups. They see themselves as humanitarians for wanting to force two drugged starving pitbulls into a ring to be friends, while "conservatives" think that the best pitbull will finally get some order around here.