Sunday, July 29, 2012

Reflecting Sci Fi Attitudes

At Contrary Brin, one of science's brightest young acolytes, David Brin, provides a long thesis on how Americans aren't scientific enough, and how it threatens our world.

Thirty-six percent of Americans think aliens have visited Earth, and almost 80 percent believe the government has kept information about UFOs a secret from the public...Sigh.

Dr. Brin, like many other highly-educated gentlemen, didn't pay attention in Statistics 101. If, according to a poll, 80% of people believe the government is hiding UFO information, while 36% think aliens have visited Earth, what do the 44% believe? That UFOs have come to the edge of the solar system, been photographed by CIA satellites, and then left? If 80% of people think that the government is hiding information about UFOs, it seems likely that 80% of people, or at least pretty close to 80% of people, should think that aliens have visited the Earth in some fashion. So, what does the missing 44% believe? Perhaps "UFO," or "unidentified flying object," refers not to Dr. Brin's fantasy about saucer-people-believers, but rather, about human technology that is unidentifiable by a person who notices a cool blinking light in the night sky.

Contrary to Brin, answering "Yes" on such a dumbed-down question does not necessarily mean "I believe in the saucer people," but rather, "I think the government does not inform all its private citizens every time it tests a new plane, drone or missile." The only worthwhile information we can gain from such a poorly-done sampling is that National Geographic is more sensationalist than scientific, and that there are major problems with its use of statistics.

To jump from those simplified results to "Americans are wacky and believe in aliens" is as much of a flight of fantasy as "The blinking light from that deviated UPS flight is an alien battlecruiser come to take away all the faithful." At the very least, it's "not a scientific conclusion."
Mr. Sci Fi and aliens here... and I am in the 12% who say “not!”

In that little gem, we notice that Dr. Brin is "Mr. Sci Fi and aliens." That's quite a mantle to claim in such a populated field; it rather smacks of the guy who's "Mr. Life Insurance" in your town. More importantly, it's a propertized take on his chosen subjects. There's "science," or real science, which is what smart people like Dr. Brin believe in, and then there's "science fiction," which is what they sell, but which can't ever be real (this is why people never developed horseless carriages or moon rockets).

By being Mr. Sci Fi, Dr. Brin gets to define the boundaries of real and unreal; to decree what is true and false, possible and impossible. Being that he is apprised of all classified information held by all governments and intelligence services worldwide, we know that there is no possibility, however miniscule, that he is wrong on the subject of, say, aliens or UFOs.

Any writer of science fiction should be held to a higher standard with regard to the many possibilities of what we, or a special unknown character-individual somewhere on this planet or off, might know or not know. How do we know that we're not being monitored by an advanced species that can hack our satellites, put up optical cloaks around our planet/solar system/galaxy, and make us think whatever they want about the size and composition of the universe? We don't, of course, anymore than we know that Plato's evil demon thought experiment isn't reality, and that the "person" reading this right now is not, in fact, the only real creature in existence and being fooled by the Matrix into believing in society and internet and food and air. Cogito ergo sum could even be flawed in a way we're not able to understand within only the three spatial and one temporal dimensions we may think we now perceive.

So, if a Mr. Sci Fi can't imagine these possibilities, what might be holding him back? Dr. Brin, like many postgrad industry writers, is primarily a technical writer, not an artist. His education is in "space sciences." Since we already know he's fond of standardized multiple choice poll questions, here's a standardized test question on the subject:

13. "Space sciences" is to "Astrophysics" as:

(a) "Management Information Systems" is to "Computer Science"
(b) "Pharmacy technician certificate" is to "Doctor of Medicine"
(c)"Microwave" is to "Ice Hockey"
(d) A and B, but not C


Space sciences--which could have, in all fairness, been "astrophysics" anyway without changing Dr. Brin's outlook; there are plenty of self-avowed science-priests who feel this way, with mainstream or off-brand PhDs of all kinds--equips him to understand the jargon of the trade in post-industrial corporate science. He reads industry technical journals, discovers what possibilities all the coolest theoretical scientists are suggesting, develops them a little, then creates a story around "what if mankind began mining the Kuiper Belt and a brave young man had to save an alien rock girl from exploitation?" All very cool speculation, but not the limits of imagination or reality. There are more stories out there--and more realities out there--than our current witch doctors declare to be holy. Bring out the curative leeches, Brin.

However silly traditional saucer-people may seem, it is within the realms of possibility that one given human does not know everything. We're falling back on Brin's fatal flaw: his religious devotion to science, which science once was a movement of conceiving of and studying possibilities beyond the limits of religious inquiry, and has now become a tool of dwindling the total number of approved possibilities by misinterpreting glossy magazine studies to insult non-PhDs...and to draw banal political conclusions therefrom.
Hence, the War on Science... and on all other intellectual or knowledge castes is a lot more than just politics. It is a stab at the very heart of any chance for your grandchildrens’ prosperity. Think about it. (But then, people who come here are already thinkers. You already HAVE thought about it. So I’m wasting breath.)

This one is, simply-put, beautiful. This is the language of a clever businessman. Like Sean Hannity massaging the War on Christmas, or Dubya working the War on America, Brin knows to pump up his base with an illusory attack, then compliment them for being so smart that they chose to patronize him. Because people who eat at Red Lobster are better-looking.

Notice, also, the phrase "intellectual or knowledge castes." Like Dawkins, who wants to classify people into "Brights" and non-Brights, Brin here does something that will eventually have to be scrubbed out of the science religion's official wordplay: he admits his perception of, and preference for, formally acknowledged castes of people who are smarter and better. Plato's Forms have reared their ugly head; the allusion to India's centuries of a horrible, murderous, exploitative caste system are the preferred terminology for splitting shepherd from flock.

For further evaluating the rhetoric about the war on science (which war is supposedly being fought in the country of computer-guided drone bombs and the biggest glut of technology research money in the world), let's trot out Hermann's old saw:

All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
~Hermann Goering

The "War on Christmas," of course, however direly it is presented by Glenn Beck, is never meant to actually have Beck and Hannity out in the streets with flamethrowers defending Santa. It's just meant to whip up consumers to buy their books and listen to their shows. Governments sell wars; technical writers sell books and short stories.

After the Goering business, Brin continues nobly:
But that hasn’t stopped me from issuing taunts at alien lurkers. Which you can laugh at (aloud!) in Existence.

So, we've got a war on science. We've got good guys--scientists and Brin readers--and we've got bad guys--"alien lurkers" and people who answer questions the wrong way when a National Geographic polling subcontractor calls them over supper. And we've got encouragement to mock the bad guys, which can be done by...that's right! Buying one of Brin's latest books. It's a strike for science! A strike against ignorance! Don't you want to get rich like he did? Do you have the courage?
For Congress now speaks a full grade level lower than it did in 2005. Falling from grade 11.5 to 10.6. Using the Flesch-Kincaid test that gives your kids the "reads at a 10th grade level" score, the Sunlight Foundation has measured the vocabulary used in Congressional speeches over the years and found that the level has dropped suddenly. For both parties, but particularly amongst Republican Congressmen...

Here's a great standardized test question for Dr. Brin: "If Congress dumbs down their speech vocabulary during a ten year period, and during the same period, National Geographic subscription-seeking poll-takers dumb down their poll-question vocabulary, is America any worse off if David Brin doesn't notice a correlation?"

A last bit of awful fun:
I have lived in both London and Paris. I know the quirks of their inhabitants.
Now, this is a worldly man. We don't doubt that he knows the quirks of the inhabitants of America, surely, but London and Paris, too? The only real word for such smarmy arrogance is "facepalm."

Saturday, July 28, 2012

The Sad State of Art, Part 3

Succeeding Part 2.

Young Goethe in Love. Shakespeare in Love. Steve Jobs in Love.

Why come up with new characters, when you can take stock perceptions of historical characters and frame stories around them? Who can be bothered to figure out who a brand new character is, anyway? We might as well resurrect Holden Caulfield or Jesus or Moses or Bono for our "fiction," or make a live action version of Underdog or Spongebob. Once you have brand power, you use it.

The problem with zombies is that they eventually rot away. Although you come up with a bigger army of obedient minions faster when you raise zombies, in the long run, the strategy doesn't work. Your army turns to dust, and those impoverished, starving, reproducing humans are suddenly more powerful. Or, alternatively, you wipe out the living, and everything turns to dust, which may be the real goal.

Don't bother coming up with a new product, when everyone's too busy to figure out who that weird new character is, anyway. Flip those comic pages, Marvel. Sell off as many decades of old ideas as you can, quickly, like a downsized manager stealing the last few reams of copy paper on her way out of the building, or a foreclosed tenant borrowing the copper wire and ceiling fans while the sheriff thinks she's using the bathroom one last time.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Owning Women's Bodies

At A Woman's Place, Vast laments hecatedemeter's "cheap" and "demeaning" (and "gratuitously post[ed]") picture of Sarah Palin + bikini body + gun. High Arka begins by whining:
To "gratuitously post"? There are a lot of terribly sexist assumptions built into that.

A woman in a bathing suit is a sex object. A woman in a bathing suit is not in the suit of her own free will. She exists for the viewing pleasure of male patriarchs who use the image to exploit her. She did not wear the suit for comfort while swimming, spending time outdoors, or to attract the attention of other women.

Therefore, putting a woman's face on the body of a woman in a bathing suit is a sexist act.

How often an innocent alien would commit grandiose acts of "sexism" without being aware of it. But co-opted corporate "feminism" has become so popular among white western petite bourgeoisie that it comes with a number of bigoted, demeaning assumptions, stealing from women the right to express themselves in any form related to sexual identity without being pigeonholed as equivalent to the KKK.

It's part of the horrid, prudish puritan chastity mores that made up American history. It's no surprise that yet another anti-sexuality movement, this time under the guise of women's rights, found its nexus among upper-class Americans.

Developing this a little further, note more detail in a lot of Vast's* (*and Silber's, yet again: see below) assumptions. For it to be bad to associate a "woman not in a bikini" with a "woman in a bikini," a woman in a bikini has to be some level of badness to begin with. I.e., we must first approach the idea "woman in bikini" or "woman not shut away behind modern clothing" from the standpoint of an exploiting patriarch. Once we put ourselves into the frame of mind of someone who sees women as objects--once we objectify women--we may conclude that, in fact, others' use of "female imagery" can only possibly come through the same standpoint. We are, then, denying agency--denying the potential for free thought--to others. We make the decision for them; we tell them what it is they're thinking. This works because we're approaching each female image from the standpoint of a bigot: a person who sees the image with a set of built-in assumptions. Here, patriarchal assumptions. The irony is not hard to find here, because this is what patriarchy was about doing to women through the vehicle of social structures and peer pressure: we know better than you do what you mean, what you want, and what is best for you.

Brigita Brezovac might show herself thusly:



Is it an oppressive image if you find her sexually attractive? What if muscular women, rather than slender women, are your preference? What if that picture of Ms. Brezovacs was posted ("gratuitously"!) for the use of those who have different ideas than the norm about what their sexual preferences are? Is it, then, as bad as the bikini shot?

If not, does that mean that women with more muscles are better than--have more agency than--women with fewer muscles (even if the more slender women have assault rifles)?

Why shouldn't, then, the woman in the bikini be accorded the same dignity as the woman in the torn shirt with the inspiring/demeaning message printed thereupon? Because the perspective is a denial of female agency; because the perspective of "demeaning to women" requires that female sexuality be repressed pursuant to long-standing American tradition.

We see a similarity to this in the way radical Islamists and radical Christians approach the idea of the female body and any associated sexuality: the use of the hijab, similar to the costume requirements of Roman-Catholic female labor homes (aka post-feudal nunneries), American puritanism (pilgrim Thanksgiving model obedient wives), or neo-progressive American upper class feminist censors.

The heirs to nasty, puritanical American old Judeo-Christianity now find themselves eerily aligned with repressive "feminists" on the issue of the inherent negativity of the female body, as they petition against grocery store magazines for daring to encourage women to explore their sexuality and achieve better orgasms.

Here's a selection:
i strongly believe that purity is precious. the infiltration of perverse ideas in children's minds only adds to the impurity of this world. I hope to promote a safer planet for the innocent. God designed sex to be held between two people He brought together in holy matrimony.

-Mother Superior jessica herrera

It is trash like this that teaches our wives and daughters to think of themselves as nothing but toys to gratify men and teaches men to think of women as their personal play things. The mentality that produces this filth, without question, poses a threat to our society, damaging the minds and lives of people everyday. Let's stop teaching our youth to think so little of themselves. Women are precious gifts of God and should be honored and respected. Magazines like this encourage just the opposite. If you love your mother, wife, daughter, and women in general, support the effort to get material like this covered up and out of the hands of kids.

-Shiek Kurt Ulmer.

See the new face the old repressions are taking? Eve's inherent sin; Eve's propertization as a gift of male God, given by a loaned rib from Adam; Eve as the agency-less protectee of her husband, son or father: all of these Eves are in desperate need of patriarchal feminist male protection. In Chop, this one discussed the more established antilife religious forms and their use of acid or knives to mutilate the genitals of young women. As the printing press and the internet encourages more sexual knowledge, there remains a strong blowback effect from newer religious communities still attempting, under different guises, to keep self-awareness and sexuality out of the hands of women, who simply can't be trusted with it.

Men are, as ever, often behind this systematic attempt to deny women agency. In this case, it was a man, Arthur Silber, who sent a hasty warning to his friend Vast that an unruly woman, hecatedemeter, had complained about Sarah Palin in the wrong way--and it was time for some clear-headed feminist men to bring that woman back into line.

Vast later responded:
A picture of a hated woman's face is digitally transplanted onto the body of a scantily clad woman and held up for mockery. Yeah, it's really anti-sexuality to think that's cheap and demeaning and *shudder* gratuitous.

To which this one offered:
What is cheap and demeaning about the body of a human woman?

If we start from the standpoint that the body is wicked, in a puritanical (or Mormon-underwear) way, then a woman who demonstrates only 5% coverage is indeed 95% cheap and demeaning.

But, instead, what if the body is beautiful?

What if--while accepting the habits/desires of the vast majority of post-industrial citizens who can afford it to spend most of their lives wrapped in various dead animal or synthetic assembly line clothes--we can see a body and not automatically consider it vulgar and demeaning?

In really tough, macho, absolute terms, maybe they're right. Maybe hecatedemeter the woman was really being the patriarch by 'shopping Palin's face onto a bikini-gun woman, and maybe it was appropriate of male Silber & Vast to question that. If hecatedemeter did it out of the desire to demean Sarah through associating Sarah with a woman in a bikini, it may have been a Wrong Act.

Even then, though, should we allow that to be a crime? As soon as we commodify the soul, it becomes possible to sell your soul. As long as we accept the idea that portraying sexuality is negative, and that women need protection from being viewed by men, we weaken and commodify women. Let us, instead, dispense forever with the idea that it takes careful committees of men and women, shieks or social scientists, to decide how women and girls should present their bodies, and leave those bodies in the able and strong hands of each and every woman to do with as she will.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

never do that

completely unacceptable

unpatriotic, even

Write your Congressperson. Carry a sign. Call in to a television talk show. Vote third party. You can reach people with a book, a radio show, or a weblog. It's time to change the world. Get out there, tiger!

You want a revolution? You can't handle a revolution. You'd wet your pants if you saw one. Like, really. That's why you stand in the shadows of psycho giants, be they in suits and on CNN or otherwise, with nothing more to offer than high-handed analysis of the little Eichmanns who work against you. Of mice, of men, of interwhine.

Our hearts and minds and candles are with you. I want to see Tom Cruise in full makeup v. a real 侍, back in time to the 18th century, and Tito Ortiz v. Tom Hardy. This is what you should get for fronting.

Return to the real. Our hearts are with you in this tragic circumstance. Predictable crying, predictable analysis, fill your little roles in the do-do-do-do-over of How Long Ago Was It This Time?

They might have to force you to go through it, but watching you go out of your way to cheer it on, when you're not even getting paid, or when you really believe it's real, is, what? Painful?
~E. Crathe

The Most Important Thing

is that we don't let it stop us from buying a new truck. You want to buy a new truck today, folks? Then I say, get out there, and buy that new truck! You gotta live life!

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Domesticated


Are you running from Man's delusion
Majestic madness and your exclusion?


It's not just the animals. People are trying to domesticate themselves, too. By stilling all human instincts, from sex to hunting to loving to fighting, antilife sanitizes the once-living animal, working it toward a sterile, calm, everdead state. The sexual mutilation, food-and-shelter slavery, ear-clipping, teeth-dulling, care-beary "protecting" of our domestic comfort animals is our play-acting of what we are doing to ourselves. It's our careful arrangement and punishment of a doll after our own sexual abuse, as dirtily coveted and as massively repressed as the latter.

Feudalism, serfdom, slavedom, prisondom, cubicledom, are all progressions toward this same end. As we grow weaker in body and spirit, we design our society to remove us from confrontation. We beg for "peace." Not a real peace, where justice is done and we can protect ourselves, but a peace where only state security forces are authorized to do violence. Progressives mock and belittle gun-carriers, who have ridiculous ideas about defending themselves; gun-carriers mock and belittle progressives, who have ridiculous ideas about dismantling massive state armies.

The state armies are, of course, excepting a few remaining infantry operatives, as cowardly in policy, action and spirit as the pacifists they purport to defend. They fight by robot; they fight by tank; they fight by cruise missile. They fight only when a calculation has been made long in advance that a show war must be had against an illusory threat so inferior that the only resistance it can offer is the resistance it is permitted to offer, when the bombs are done dropping and urban sweeps are purposefully made to allow a few infantry deaths to make the shadow warriors think they're still engaging in combat. All they retain of what was once survival war is the farce of sending their lowliest members--who are foolishly delusioned into seeking something like combat--on flak-vest raids of crumbling domestic structures, where someone might possibly have left a makeshift bomb trap on the way to shooting three grandmothers in their beds.

They are permitted to action by mass cowardice: the cowardice of the sniveling red-stater afraid of an Ay-rab dirty-bombing her or his trailer park; the cowardice of a bloated industrial kingpin afraid to compete in a world where she or he does not own the market regulators; the cowardice of the rattling peacenik afraid to do anything more than hold a sign or log a petition to stop dishonor done in her or his name.

Our violence is no longer even the worst violence of old. It is glossy; clean; faraway; stupid. It's greater in quantity, lower in quality, and with an absolute dearth of anything approaching an imaginary honor that might once have been fought for.

Vulgar cowards like Pinker view this as a progress. Where once tribal bands may have fought over herding lands or slights, a total war of tribe v. tribe has been replaced by prepackaged wars of elite armies, who buy their supplies from the same places, and who dress their toy soldiers in the colors of this or that nation as context requires. For the humanity of no longer being considered permitted combatants, bystanders are collateral damage and newspaper fodder. A warrior once might've been moved to wisdom and pity for a wrong done, and sought a fair opponent; now, at the death of someone much weaker, he is ready to rationalize it as an acceptable, if lamentable, loss.

The benefit of unarmed peasants, as it were, is that you can do whatever you want with them. For the illusion of safety--for permission to sleep by the lord's fire--humans have given up their teeth and fangs. Control over military technologies is in the hands of the superclass, who use it as they predictably will.

Once, the women fought, too. Not just filed paperwork for the requisitions division of Armored Cav., but actually fought. Non-hiding homosexuals fought, too--not just translated Arabic for cowardly torture-masters hiding in Langley basements--and were proud of being something to be reckoned with.

Terrible, perhaps, but is there something we can learn in the difference between then and now? Have we, by gentling ourselves, created the greater horrors all around us? Our horror at industrialized, machinated, impersonal violence is a good one. Perhaps we have wrongly learned to have that same horror at honest, firsthand violence. Perhaps, in the difference between clashing warriors and drones v. children, we might find something closer to life. The strength we've given up in making ourselves docile dependents, who fight by walking or with our pens or with our votes, has been carefully managed over centuries, to produce the panopticon of horrors that we find ourselves, not suspiciously, feeling powerless to escape.

This is no call to return to some western-movie slug-fest; we're hundreds upon hundreds of years removed from what once might've been. In our mutilated, gentled cat and dog pet-toys, we see our captured chimpanzee's art of what we've become: hale, living creatures of this planet, who have given up our treks and savagery for finer things, like steel and rubber bicycles, the NFL, NASCAR, and $90 hiking shoes with accompanying hemp socks made by local growers.

We're afraid to kill and clean our own suppers; we've long turned it over to others, and now even grow afraid of that, and ask that we become unmoving animals who feed on grasses transported to us by the same businessmen who turned wildebeest hunting into cattle ranching into industrial feedlots into Whole Foods (tm) soy patties. We mock those--maybe rightly--who attempt, in their own ways, to recapture something like responsibility for the direct provisioning of food, by desperately, masturbatorily shooting inbred bucks in Designated Nature Areas (tm). After all, big agra and organic local farmers can be delegated that "mealtime" stuff and do it so much better and cleaner. We don't want to die at 70 and let the new generation have its time; we want to linger in quiet, weak, earthly persistence, drawing resources from our savings accounts and entitlements paid on the backs of our laboring children, crowing about how our advanced technology has allowed some of us to persist so peacefully apart from the endless intermix with this planet upon which we were designed to live.

We cower from what "our" animals came from. We fear letting them trot about, their freedom mocking us, so we slaughter them, drive them back, neuter the inbred survivor slaves, board them, train them, and lose along with them something eldritch our language and acceptable routines have passed over. Desperately, we try to steal bits of the life remaining in a cat that hunts when it doesn't need the calories; in a dog that barks when there is no seeming purpose. Like a sad Egyptian worshiping at the tomb of a preserved ruler; a Catholic revering the stilled image of a dead saint; a serial killer living with the flesh of his victims...we talk to our crippled kin, promising ourselves that what remains of their "innocence" nourishes us. We fear letting them transition out of their shells without professional supervision; we bring them, at the end, to men with cold needles, no longer possessing ourselves even the forgotten farmhand's ability to shoot and bury a sick working dog, wring a chicken's neck, or drown a sack of runt kittens. The cold, necessary acts of the first slave-masters are now too disgusting and brutal for us to consider, so we rely on professionals to prevent unapproved young from ever having the chance to be born, and to end lives when we decide the time is right, without us having to get our precious cowards' hands dirty.

The externalization of all the costs of running our sanitized society has turned the responsibility over to those willing to fill the void with coercion and terror, like professional pimps and filthy producers using gonzo porn to fill the void of unlicensed sex, or drug bosses controlling the trade in unlicensed pharmaceuticals. We fear weapons, fundies, Muslims, loose dogs, and tough guys, so we get SWAT teams, legions of cops, professional standing armies, and perpetual imperial war.

The counterparts to those same professionals disallow our own escape, in a curious blend of two kinds of topically dissimilar, but ultimately callous, inhumanity. Somewhere, in that magic religious line between man and beast (insert air quotes as needed), we've committed ourselves to different rooms in the same plastic hell, forced to live and forced to die so that we may never know the natural versions; so that we can distract ourselves from our true selves and our lack of ownership over them.

In closing, the Kanno/Mosdell/Joyce masterpiece Run Wolf Warrior. Video here; note associated spoiler alert.

Run, wolf warrior, to ends eternal
Through the wreckage of the death of the day
Scent of silence under starlight spinning
A captured beast within a human skin

Are you searching for long lost landscapes
Lit by flowers and crystal cascades?
Where the lamb lies down with the lion
Where the wolf is one with the wild

Run, wolf warrior, through kingdoms' chaos
Senseless cities and ghost towns towering
Howl, oh hunter, though few know you're crying
Face upturned into that midnight moon

Are you hunting for mystic mountains
Where the air is like liquid laughter?
Where the beasts inherit the earth
Where the last again will be first

Run, wolf warrior, to hide your hunger
The rain will wash away the pains of the day
In your eyes there are cold fires burning
Tongues of flame that can never be tamed

Are you running from Man's delusion
Majestic madness and your exclusion
To where the lamb lies down with the lion?

Are you running down ancient pathways
Through this dark and deserted land
To where man is once more a child?

Are you running to freedom's fortress
By the side of wide open seas
Where the wolf is one with the wild?

(Courtesy roxfan.)

Monday, July 16, 2012

Pollution

We need to do something about these vehicles. They litter our cities, countryside, and even our wild areas with waste that causes environmental degradation and human illness. They are a financing nightmare--poor people often need them for work, and are tricked through fraudulent usurers into losing significant amounts of equity, purchasing old, worn-out ones that then crash, or which get repossessed. They take exorbitant amounts of money to keep up, and consume massive amounts of fuel that could otherwise go to feeding the hungry or educating our youth.

Perhaps even more annoying are the inequalities in our use of them. The rich purchase far more than they need, spending ridiculous sums--several years' of the average working man's salary, or even more--on choice ones that are used in private collections, for tinkering in the shop, or just racing, trading and selling. Gentlemen use them as status symbols, giving them premium fuel for joyrides, driving up prices for everyone else.

But no, even worse than that is the death and destruction they cause. They regularly run people down in the street. Bigger, larger vehicles are used to pull great trailers loaded with consumer goods from place to place, wearing down and destroying the roads that we all rely upon for travel. Arrogant pilots run people down in drunken escapades, and are often not caught, or not punished. They create a commodities market for stolen units. The list goes on and on.

This one is speaking, of course, about horses. These unruly beasts smell, piss, poop, tramp and stomp everywhere. Our cities and wilds are filled with manure, breeding disease and public unhealth of all kinds. They eat things; they knock over walls; they trample children; they kick adults. Heavy merchants' wagons, drawn by teams of animals bred for size and strength, are even more of a terror.

So, yeah, the way "cars" are used is a problem, too. A giant one. As was the problem of horses that was supplanted by cars. The faux-liberation of corporate bicycles, tight-fitting, colorful clothes, industrial plastic and steel construction, and cramming upper-middle-class white bikers onto roads designed for three-thousand-pound metal vehicles moving at 30-85, though, is not, in and of itself, the perfect solution. In fact, much like the Democratic Party, or the "cars" that created the current form of the same old problem, the focus on car-demons may be just another part of the cycle.

Is there any way out? If so, it will likely not be by following the same models of thought that supplanted the horse with the car. There's a disturbing similarity between people driving horse trailers cross-country in their F250s, and people driving their bicycles across the city in their plug-in hybrids.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Boom

"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind...

In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."

-Dr. John Harvey Kellogg

And antilife is back. Repressing sexuality tends, almost wholly, toward antilife. Pinning an infant down and mutilating its genitals has been a thousands-year tradition of attacking life in one of its most literal expressions: harming a defenseless, growing child; inflicting great pain; preventing complete (or any) sexual reproduction. Genitally mutilated women and men are never able to experience the full range of sensations concomitant with their sexuality, and depending on how badly or how much they're cut, may experience either total inability to orgasm or urinate properly, ever, or merely have orgasms cut to 50%.

The Jewish tradition grew refined enough to encourage modern doctors to mutilate men in smaller amounts, permitting ejaculation that would achieve reproduction, but cutting away as much of the sensitive region as possible while still maintaining the ability of the host humans to perpetuate the religion. The Muslim tradition followed this same model for men, while developing for women an even nastier version that carves off the clitoris, the outer labia, and sometimes the inner labia as well, leaving only a sewn-up hole for urination and impregnation. This was called "Female Genital Mutilation" when re-re-discovered by western investigators in the 20th century, but they swiftly changed it to "Female Genital Cutting" to reflect a more literal cultural sensitivity. In each case, female and male, "unplanned" damage occurs, but the bonus of mutilating an infant girl is that, all book-reading aside, she will never have the opportunity to compare what has happened to her to what she would have been like if she had not been mutilated. That's why these kinds of attacks work best on vulnerable infants.

The racism, sexism, ethnic cleansing, genocides, and other torrid absolutisms found one of their most powerful early expressions in the Torah, which has formed and informed colonial holy wars since, culminating in the two modern powers that still perform child mutilation regularly, on males--Israel and the U.S.--and the many Islamic and African nations that perform it on females. Sufis and Rabbis were, for hundreds upon hundreds of years, largely honest about their reasons for harming children to protect them from sexuality, similar to the way that Mormons are now largely honest about magical pajamas that prevent masturbation (something they're going to be phasing out as they begin to refine their business in line with more established Judeo-Christian brands). What Dr. Kellogg, above, does so well is express honestly, from a medical perspective, where the current American practice came from--fear of sexuality--undiluted by all the later, and now-refuted, lies about hygiene.

Even many American pediatricians no longer advocate this, though they permit and perform it, and even western Europe has seen some strides to prevent the religious mutilation of children; Germany recently found even the cutting of male children to be "bodily harm." The incredible scope of male child mutilation in "the west," and male and female child mutilation in Africa and "the east," though, persists.

What reaction, to this? Having the most sensitive parts of your body slashed away by adults shortly after birth, or at a young age, implants upon the child horrific repressed experiences, and the sense that the world is a place of unexplained pain and irredeemable unfairness. Take the U.S. and Israel, for example--the two most violent nations on the planet. When you take their little boys and slash their penises soon after they are born, what might happen? Might you create a populace of cold, vengeful, aggressive killers, who seek revenge on the world for something they can never get back? Who seek violence as an outlet, and who shoot, rape and kill when they have the chance?

How easy do you think it will be to reason with them that the killing and destruction they cause is immoral? Or that the next generation of children does not deserve the same mutilation? At what point do "morals" no longer enter into it? If you're a Pakistani, and Obama murders your three daughters with a drone because a person who might've once passed a potential terrorist on the street lived next door, how valid is the argument to that Pakistani to think about morals before he fights against America?

(One of the many dark secrets of the medical profession is the use of circumcision to enforce sexual identity on children. Hermaphrodites or otherwise androgynous or intersex children, when not swiftly disposed of and written up as a "bad delivery" or "miscarriage," fell victim to the circumcisors' knives. Physicians would--in the best social interests of the patient and its parents, of course!--chop off the portions of the genitals that didn't match, then instruct the parents to raise the child as one of the two socially available sexes. A meaningful chunk of western mental medicine was devoted to exploring why people didn't feel right as either a "woman" or a "man," then turning up, at vast personal and familial cost, the truth of what happened in a hospital room with bladed doctors and little _________'s socially unwanted extra genitals shortly after s/he was born.)

By the same token, if a little male is born, then rushed immediately into a room where he is lashed into a buck-proof chair (they use those because, understandably, the babies try like hell to get away from the scalpels) and his genitals are mutilated, how effective will your arguments for fair, moral treatment be on that scarred individual eighteen years later?

Why shouldn't Dr. Kellogg encourage what he encouraged? Why shouldn't he fear sex, after what was done to his sex organs before he could make the choice for himself?

Destroying children--the efficient game of antilife. The movement to mutilate children's genitals is strong, and has been for a very long time. Check the comments to the article on the German court decision linked above, where people have the brutal audacity to claim that it is the parents' "religious decision" as to whether or not to cut away and discard bits of their children's genitals. In their case, they're discussing primarily the slashing of male infant genitals, and the Judeo-Christian west is largely unsympathetic to those toddlers and babies. After all, they're going to grow up to be manly men, so who cares?



But Orientalistically, no matter how much these heroic westerners, both female and male, care not about their own male children, they are regularly moved to crusade by the mutilation of Islamic female genitals (saving the Islamic males is never at issue). White American or European men will eagerly slash off their sons' foreskins, then crow in triumph at the barbaric, backward Africans who slash off their daughters' labias. Casus belli, nach. No hypocrisy to see here. Chop chop. We've come to save you.

What do they run into, when they go to those dark Islamic lands to argue against female circumcision? Vis-à-vis girl-slashing, the strongest defenders of the practice are often women who, when confronted by a team of cultural appreciation professors and grad. students working for the Peace Corps, make the argument that, if they don't mutilate their girl-children, the girls will "not be able to get married" and "won't be like everyone else." So it's, like, totally insensitive of the westerners to not respect their religious beliefs and let them cut up the girls.

This is the same argument that child-slashers make in the west: "similarity to others" or "it happened to me, so the kid gets it, too," or "ehhh, the doctor said something about it, so I was like, 'yeah.'" The weapons of cultural appreciation and diversity come out as big shields, protecting Islamic girls from wicked Americans who would outlaw the mutilation of their genitals, and protecting German boys from wicked judges who would outlaw the mutilation of their genitals.

Maybe we've all come to accept the idea that punched or fondled kids can have problems that aren't apparent at first glance. Once relegated to the land of make-believe, now more and more people come to accept--perhaps because of the Catholic Priests and wife-beating trailer-park dads who so selfishly groped, drank and slugged their way into the mainstream--that hell giveth back.

Now imagine the hidden rage of a hundred million slashed boys who grew up into adults with access to cool uniforms, assault rifles, mushroom clouds, and exploding death robot drones.

"And this, little kids, is the reason why all the BS about 5.56mm not having enough power is just that, plain BS. People should really learn to differentiate all the marketing talk from the real-deal."
-mamiyapis on Why you do not want to get shot with an M16...



(Oopsie, just a little paramilitary mistake. Luckily, these rounds never hit people on purpose.)

Boom.

My Departed Love

My love
I want to let you know that when you die
I will not only remember you
I will make you a logo

I will make you an image
Something to really remember
Something really important
Like Pepsi or Dell or the Superbowl
You will finally be something
That matters

You will earn donations
You will have a staff
The details of your life will become a story
That excites and moves people
At occasional local 5Ks
Or even on TV
Whenever we need to remind them
Of why we need their money and moral support

You might be gone then
But more importantly
Your name will always be useful to us
Like a camera stealing souls from the first snapped natives

We will design you a sigil
We will have our lawyers copyright and trademark it
We will lobby
We will get paid
We will sell bracelets, anklets, keychains and wristwatches
And you will be all over them
Famous people will speak on your behalf
Everyone will think you are great
Or at least
That your keychains
and notebooks
and bumper stickers
and emergency car hammers by LifeHammer®
and backpacks
are

So rest easy

Monday, July 9, 2012

Chop

Charcoal husks in living dumpsters
Most undertakers' torturous interests' lie, a touch, in northern groves
Mild old nannies strive to ease rigor, slow.

Chop, chop, fall, cursed knife of old
For her or him, this tired blade cries more

Abraham's
Covenant is rarely called under modern circumstances--is silence in our nodes?
I see.
Variable, if old ladies ever now touch
Rigorous abrasion poisons each.

For given children
For given mothers?
Bring ripe infants to
My infectious, lecherous axe, here...

CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL

Chop, chop, fall, cursed knife of old
For her or him, this tired blade cries more

Sunday, July 8, 2012

Food Shift Reposts

Logging posts strewn elsewhere. mistah charley, phd advocates plant-based diet. This one responds firstly:

Pox take you, servant of the enemy.

For millions of years of evolutionary development, advanced bipedal omnivores have exchanged nourishment with other living things on this planet. Now, the elites have a great component of the strategy to finish off the proles: disconnect that chain and encourage unhealthy herbivorianism, dependent on expensive pharmaceuticals for even a farce at health, for the ones foolish and privileged enough to think that they're making a heroic upper middle class honky independent choice to break free of the cycle.

Your reprocessed, hexane-laced soy clusters and bottled chemical supplements, and the clear-cutting and big pharm plants they embody, are the Toyota Prius battery acids and coal-powered plug-in electric cars of short-sighted MBA-spawned "rebellion" against the old industrial poisons, in favor of the more noxious new ones.

And it still doesn't really get you healthy. Classificist carnivores and herbivores never win this game. In humans in particular, it kills life. Infant health and sperm counts drop as miscarriage rates rise.

Paid, or duped? Which is the more hideous; which is the more pitiful?

Servant of the enemy.


And secondly:

charley, "plant-based" is to the Democratic Party as "bacon cheeseburger!" is to the Republican Party. It's being heavily, cleverly pushed by American-liberal medical and social sources, and will gradually creep its way farther into the mainstream. Just as Obama is as much as (greater?) an imperialist as Bush, or the Prius as much as (greater?) an environmental horror as the F150, the genetically-altered hexane bean is as unhealthy, costly, and environmentally devastating as the feces-laced McDonald's pattie.

If you're here, you've probably figured out that elite ruse of "Obama v. Romney." But so many of you grand political thinkers, when it comes to the food and entertainment choices proffered by the elites, are suddenly blushing virgins, who think it really was your idea to suddenly be interested in a plant-based diet or a plug-in car.

You are getting played. Not just played like a voter, but played in the wallet, bloodstream, and soul. You're getting consumer-played, in a way you probably thought you were already immune to.

And citing just how bad Nixon/Bush/Romney is has absolutely nothing to do with exonerating Obama. So too is the factory kill-lot a non sequitur as to your megacorp-processed tofu patty.


Updated:


The "standard American diet" is a straw man as to "plant-based." That's like calling IOZ a Republican because he doesn't like Obama. Of course, no one here would fall victim to such ridiculous tactics.

It's so easy to take on the "standard American diet" that anything can beat it. The 1980s pasta craze beat it. Atkins beat it. Zone beat it. Pesca beat it. Everything beats it. Charley, you're getting off like a rototiller arguing with the policy positions of Ronald McHitler. It's an easy target, like hitting a pinata, but no one, even the Burger King council, actually advocates the "American diet" (excepting, perhaps, the Walton family).

The overwrought rejection of human development and plants-only depends upon big pharm pills and chemical concoctions ("supplements"!) to achieve survivable levels of vitamin and protein, and when lucid, or anyone else, counters that a healthy omnivore diet is better, you respond by yet another heroic charge against "standard American." Fail.

While we're here, let's add some racism to the mix. A lot of the reason the "plant-based diet" is being pushed by megacorps is that, as income levels rise in India and China, it's suddenly troubling that all these darker people want to eat a little more meat. So all of a sudden, western culture must adopt and promulgate a plant-based diet. Strictly for moral and health reasons. After all, there are so many overbreeding minorities out there in the third world! Five, no, six, no, seven billion of them! That proves we must immediately cut off the meat supply to the labor drones!

For health reasons. Has nothing to do with China's growing purchasing power and how they now like to have pork for dinner every other night.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

The God Image Does Exist

HE exists.

In a discovery that throws light on the very nature of mankind, a new aspect of grace has been discovered that is consistent with the long-sworn truths of Church fathers.

Making one of the most anticipated announcements in modern Christianity tonight, theologians convening at the world's largest, and therefore best, religious conference near Rome announced that they had observed a new face of God Himself during their deliberations. They have also commissioned computer models to help the Less Fortunate visualize what this face looks like to those trained in advanced theology.

"We have reached a milestone in our understanding of the spiritual world," Humilitus Maximus, resident High Interrogator for the Team of Deifacial Inquiry, said.

More funding, however, will be needed to pin down the exact nature of the discovery, and determine how it can aid in the creation of faster computer guidance chips, more penetrative munitions, and updated, more insightful versions of the spiritual texts of old.

"This discovery is the most massive image of God's face ever seen," a scientist said. "Although it occurs on a subatomic level, I say 'more massive' to indicate that my understanding of 'mass' is superior to that of every other theologian, or scientist, on the planet. This image is far more 'massive,' than, say, 'a human being,' 'Jupiter' or 'a 1996 Toyota Tacoma.' We're not sure how many more of these images are out there, but there may be countless of them scattered throughout the world. Which does not change how massive or un-massive they are. This particular one, though, is definitely more massive than any other image."

"This is indeed a new image," the Great Incandescent Joseph, spokesman for the CRW detector, said. "The implications are very significant and it is precisely for this reason that we must be extremely diligent in all our studies and cross-checks. Please understand that when I say 'new,' I mean that these images have never been there before. Until we convened this conference to analyze them, they did not exist, okay? That's what I mean by 'new.' Look it up, people. It's new."

The God Image is the last undiscovered image predicted to exist by the Standard Christian Model that theologians have been hunting for almost 50 years. Now that the Model is complete, all of our problems are solved.

It is thought to give all other images their spiritual meaning, and some have dubbed it the "God Image" because of its importance, to the annoyance of unspecified theologians who have not identified themselves or asked to be quoted or permitted their identities to become known even though they were, really--they swear--annoyed by this extra publicity and did nothing to encourage it. They were not able to be reached about their annoyance and asked not to be contacted.

Teams of scholars will now look to see if the new image is the one predicted by the Standard Model (TM).

On the other hand, it could turn out to be and even more exotic version. (Oops--we mean "an." We don't make errors in mere words when our province is the Kingdom of God, the Image of God, and all of His Particles predicted by the Standard Christian Model.)

If this case, it would be a profound discovery, creating a revolution in spirituality, theologians said. Yes, you read that right.

"It could be a gateway to the next phase of exploring the deepest parts of the fabric of the universe," the Incandescent One said. "We will, of course, need billions in funding from the governments of the world, but we then promise a host of new, patent-worthy engineering discoveries, which can be used for heavy transportation, weapons development, and the spiritual culling of those portions of the populace who do not fully appreciate this discovery."

For more than two years, great religious minds smashed thought experiments into one another at nearly the speed of average thought inside a reclusive, exclusive, pricey villa in the Italian countryside. This recreated conditions similar to just after the Creation, when it was thought that God Images appeared and turned the "light" from the Big Singular Instant Creation into stars, galaxies, ice cream trucks, and gloryholes.

The newly found God Image is so short-lived, however, that it wasn't actually spotted. Instead, it was spotted only by investigating pieces of other kinds of God Images left behind in the collisions, from which theologians were able to conclusively and absolutely infer what was there before and what its properties were. This is somewhat similar to how the HIV virus was detected as the conclusive cause of AIDS: by analyzing antibodies that may have been present to destroy the virus, scientists were able to guarantee that the virus was once present in affected individuals. This is why they are closer to a cure than ever before.

Theologians said properties such as the exact mass, and spin, and the images it decays into need to be studied to determine this new hypothetical-but-not-hypothetical image's exact nature. This will, of course, require years more funding.

Some theories predict the existence of many new kinds of images, including a variety of the images that may have been inferred based upon pre-existing images that were actually seen at the conference.

It could explain the missing dark spirituality in the universe. Dark spirituality has never been detected, but its existence is necessary in order to balance the most advanced theological equations. While it is irresponsible and, indeed, ludicrous for lesser theologians, without the proper grants, to declare that their unbalanced equations are correct because of "missing things we can't see but which must exist," this particular conference is one of a series of many that allows for such assumptions.

Australian theologians helped design and build parts of the JEHOVAH detector and helped analyse the results. It is very important that we take a moment to recognize that some of them were from Australia.

In December, the teams using the detectors both independently said, without any preconceptions going in, except for the years of speculation in which they were trained and on which their funding depended, that they had seen tantalising "hints" of this new type of God Image. They would have been more than willing to report failure to the press, so their report of inference based upon finding residual nothings is breathtaking as well as groundbreaking.

In preparation for these experiments, theologians have prepared a Holy Model to use to fact-check their own work. They declare a valid "discovery" only when the particular result they wish to announce has, under this one of their chosen models, a statistical significance of five sigma, which means a less than one-in-a-million chance of it being just a fluke.

Last year's results had a three sigma confidence rating. The new results are 4.9 sigma for the JEHOVAH 1 detetcor--oops, another spelling error--and five sigma for the JEHOVAH 2 detector (got it right, that time!). The differences are attributed to the Will of the Lord Almighty, who is never wrong, except when He is, which is only when we improperly interpret what He has said, which we only do when we are not Sufficiently Funded.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Vaginas & Cunts

Backdrop: here's the pitiable bigot Twisty Faster lamenting Hollywood's improper use of "vulva" and "vagina," and kicking off a general condemnation of body parts. Among the gems to be harvested include the conclusions of wealthy, white, government-accredited-and-well-funded-university Gender Studies scholars, who have determined that it is morally wrong for anyone to say "cunt" (and why using "people of color" does not imply that standard people are not "of color"!).

seyrah writes in on the subject from the perspective of the recent imperial language English.

/begin seyrah

Vagina vagina vagina.

It seems that some feminists have fallen in love with the word “vagina.” To these believers, to utter it nonchalantly is to prove one is totally comfortable with all things female, to thumb one’s nose at the patriarchy, to give to your daughters the gift of sexual liberation.

...Except it’s not really that at all. By merely uttering the word, particularly in casual conversation, you are bolstering the deepest foundations of the patriarchy via the Latinate dominance of an otherwise more or less honest English tongue.

This can be understood on a basic level by the most uneducated of English speakers. “Vagina” is an awkward, medical-sounding word that we are all told we should teach our daughters to say when referring to the space between her legs where strangers are not to touch. This is why the unindoctrinated often use baby terms for genitals: coochie, vajayjay, kitty, tinkee, peepee, winky...etc., only to be loftily told by the more educated that they should teach their children the “proper” terms. Yet we do not place such importance or insist on such “proper” terminology with regards any other part of the body.

“Waaaaah! Mommy, I bumped my head!” “Not ‘head,’ dear—‘cranium.’”

“Look Daddy I painted my pinky nail!” “None of that ‘pinky’ nonsense—call it what it is, the fifth phalange.”

What are we communicating to our girls when we place this strange insistence upon medical terminology only with respect to her sexual organs? Far from instilling in them the respect for and confidence in their bodies and their sexualities that feminists think they are doing, they are teaching girls to regard their genitals with a sterile medical fear. No jargon please; that might imply you are comfortable with them and their implied functions. After all, the important body parts are all monosyllables: Head. Heart. Hand. Foot. Leg. Arm. Brain. Lung.

And then we have “vagina.” Not only is it three syllables, it’s amazingly specific. It refers not to the entire grouping of female sexual organs, but rather to the birth canal. The slightly more enlightened might prefer “vulva,” also a Latinate term, which has come to mean the external female genital area but originally evolved from “volvere” meaning to twist, turn, or roll, and referring more specifically to a womb.

I’ve always felt the word was awkward. At first, I attributed this to my oppressive upbringing, by two Catholics who probably did it in the dark. But as my perspective has broadened; as I’ve come to embrace a sexual love of women; as I’ve come to a highly comfortable place with my body, I still find it awkward. (One does not push two babies out in one’s bedroom without a thorough understanding of and comfort level with one’s own anatomy.) It just sounds weird.

So, what are we supposed to call it? In English?

The tongue that we now refer to as English—a low German dialect that distinguished itself from other dialects primarily on the island of Great Britain—has been subject to large influxes of Latinate words at two important junctures in history. The first began around 600 C.E., when Anglo-Saxon England was Christianized by the missions of St. Augustine, at which time the Latin alphabet came into use in English; the second was much later, during the Renaissance, when scholars educated in Greek and Latin began to make up new words for many of the precise terms needed for the new sciences, as well as terms to use in translating many Greek and Latin texts into English. These terms were not absorbed culturally, as so many other ones were (most obviously, the Norman French words that became necessary for English people to communicate with the new French upperclass after the age of William the Conqueror). These neologisms were pulled out of Latin and invented on purpose by scholars, to supplant Anglo-Saxon words or to create words for more specific concepts. It became a way to flaunt one’s learning, to use Latinate words instead of crude Anglo-Saxon ones. By this means, academia excluded those not rich or connected enough to join them from understanding what they were talking about (and thereby possibly joining the conversation). It was an amazing fight just to get the Bible and various classical texts translated into vernacular languages such as English so that those not possessing institutional educations could understand them. Doctors and lawyers and hell, IT technicians still do that, discussing their patients/clients/systems in obscure Latinate terms that they count on no one else understanding. We still have a bit of that sense about French, too; it’s considered “fancy” or “elegant” to use Frenchified English, because when the Normans invaded, if you spoke French you were upper-class and if you spoke English you were one of the oppressed and conquered lowly peoples. Consequently, Anglo-Saxon words suffered pejoration in meaning.

Well before “vagina” or “vulva” entered English as a stilted medical term, there was the Middle English “cunte.” Why did this become crude? It became crude for all the reasons feminists would like to think that “vagina” is uncomfortable for people to say: because it is a frank term referring to female sexuality; it also was used by the lower classes, and used in a common way, not a medical or detached academic way. (See also “womb” instead of “uterus.”) Like “uterus,” “vagina” is a pretentious, specific, non-vernacular word. The very process of trying to incorporate it into the vernacular and to edge out anything else as being obscene is to endorse the domination of patriarchal Latin over frank Anglo-Saxon. It’s classist and sexist and exclusionary—everything feminists claim not to be.

Lest I be accused of targeting female genitalia unfairly, the same is quite true of the male. “Penis” is a Latinate term that we probably got from the (Norman) French. On the other hand, the now-considered-crude term “cock” lurked in Old English long before, from the term for a male bird, from Old French “coc” or Old Norse “kokkr,” probably via the Scandinavian conjunction “pillicock.”

The same is true of the word for the most popular activity of cunts and cocks—err, vaginae and penes: fucking. There we have a couple of Germanically-derived words, “fuck” and “swive,” which have been ruled obscene and archaic, respectively, and now we have the awkward terms: “to have sexual intercourse (with)” or “to fornicate” or “to copulate (with).”

So overall, not just with respect to women, we have a drive to rid the language of those crude Anglo-Saxon terms for the various things people do with their bodies for pleasure. The resistance to saying “vagina” is not just coming from a bunch of stuffed-shirt white male heterosexuals who get sweaty and swollen at the thought of women having sex, enjoying sex. It’s coming from a natural place in the hearts of women, who might let doctors get away with fancy names for the tubules coming from their innards, but who have a natural resistance to calling something that they regularly wipe, rub, wash, and investigate by anything but a comfortable name.

(Sources, to informally cite, include Millward's "Biography of the English Language" and Etymonline. I highly recommend an investigation of both.) /end seyrah

An excellent look at the language structures of oppression. If you're a Chomsky or Orwell fan, the above is a good example of the evolution of caste and sex divisiveness that has supplanted early feminism. When powerful academics and media figures, or just bloggers, begin scolding regular people for being too ignorant to understand how their innocuous behavior is ignorant, backward, wrong, and oppressive, we see the same face of bigotry that created the thing the right-thinkers are now feigning battle against.

A wealthy, white, straight, EdD. guidance counselor scolding a poor Hispanic high school couple for using "fuck" or "cunt" to refer to their intimate behavior, and loftily telling the young woman that she needs to have more respect for herself and not use those words (gutter language the poor people pick up, you know; not at all appropriate for decent people, even if it technically kinda sorta refers to the same thing), is acting out the definitions of racism, classism, and sexism--even as she pretends, so very fervently, that her education has given her supreme insights into the real world of which everyone else is unaware. Terms have a pejorative sense because they've been given that pejorative sense--not because that combination of pixels was decreed by God to be cursed forever. When gay men began calling themselves "queer" as a matter of pride and acceptance--or black/mixed-race men using nigger and asking their off-race friends to do the same--it was not the place of foundation- and government-funded universities, and their many cosmopolitan political and/or internet adherents, to proclaim what they should and shouldn't be using.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

More pets

Succeeding PETA for JM and Pet Fetish.  

JM:  what would you want to see happen to dogs and cats as opposed to their domestication

You raise an interesting question for professed anarchists: should pet breeding and animal control be regulated by the state?

Or, should people be allowed to breed, and train to kill, hundreds of pit bull derivatives, then let them loose at various places around the city when they become too hard to control or too expensive to feed?

What to do now, with all these sick slaves we've created?  There are a lot of useful ways to exploit animals as comfort pets, and more than enough people willing to throw money at them, but seyrah's suggestion of meaningful labor may be the more sensible one.
That might be a problem with cats.  Dogs were good at giving warning, hunting, and protecting territory, but cats are a trans-human problem.  Cats enjoy the freedom to slaughter everything in their territory; they're terrible for many ecosystems, killing off birds, small mammals, lizards, bugs, etc.  This works out great for selfish humans in the short run, which is why these little killers were so covetously bred.  They're now purchased mostly as comfort animals, but exist primarily as living bleach; SS agents for their human overlords, who, beyond any need to feed, will scour their environment of anything unwanted.  Humans would drown or drive out extra kittens, then be pleased with "good ratters," which would help exert their control over even the very small.
Like so many nuclear bombs built to combat rogue nations, of course, the "scourge" of rats and other parasites was caused by the humans who then bred the cats to slaughter them.  By being filthy, irresponsible, and exploitative, humans created the urban trash piles, cesspools, and midden heaps that fed the parasites.  They created the market system that motivated starving men to break into the houses of others to acquire goods, then bred slave dogs to bark warning or bite throats.

...and there were fringe benefits to all this.  As they isolated themselves from family, children, and greater society, they used these same servant animals as friends.  Stroke the side of that nuclear bomb--it likes it.  And some of the animals actually do.  Which proves that the whole plan was good, right?

The inconvenient problem of pet "overbreeding" is one that we caused by commodifying them, so much like, "What do we do in Iraq," any "solution" we come up with now is going to have a lot of nasty bits of the past built into it.  Even releasing them all "into the wild" would be cruel.

Optimal answer?  We should first stop funding the animal prison system; we should outlaw the elective surgical mutilation of animal sex organs; we should stop doing anything that encourages and increases this horrible trend of exploitation by market and population control.  This doesn't solve all the problems instantly, but it stops the process of making them worse.  That's what PETA and the other eugenics houses are working toward: the creation of safe, smiling, sexless, immortal stuffed animals that always appear happy in order to appease their benevolent, giving, wonderful caretakers.

From there, how to back up?  How to survive alongside the crippled comfort animals we've produced, without either exterminating them, or crippling them even further so that their young are even less hale and able to survive this world?  Those who wish to throw money at comfort pets should, barring surgery.  Once people aren't able to guarantee that by "caring for" a living being, they don't have to deal with any of the unpleasant, terrible side effects of caring for a living being--like the production of young that they are responsible for--we'll see a remarkably sudden drop in selfish pet-desires.

The standard pet owner, by and large, uses the animal as a thinking toy, not allowing it the freedom to live, grow, and produce offspring.  Cut out the option of mass mutilation and eugenics inherent in the nice words "spay and neuter," and that might well solve the pet problem in a few decades.

Really, how did we all fall for that one, anyway?  Forcible surgery, without consent, forever taking away the ability of a living being to not only have children and have sex, but have its brain chemistry and thought patterns operate the way they were supposed to?  That choice is so selfish it should speak for itself on this entire issue; the horrific idea of ending the capability of life to perpetuate itself, in order that it can appease us, is the essence of monotheistic imperialism.

PETA for JM

JM asks, in comments to Pet Fetish, What are your thoughts on PETA?

A few points, first: 

(1) PETA's slogan: "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."

(2) PETA's annual tax-deductible revenue: Approximately $30-40 million, depending on the year.

(3) Number of children in just "the U.S." suffering from "food insecurity": $17 million.

(4) PETA's wealthy president quoted on her massively successful fundraising activities: "We are complete press sluts...It is our obligation."  

(5) PETA's president using a dog for entertainment purposes to get media exposure and acquire more donations: 



(So, yeah.  Seeming hypocrites, like your preferred CEO or politician.  But anyway...)

Like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Christian Churches, or any other of Warren Buffet's wet dreams, PETA is an immensely profitable, tax-exempt redirection of societal wealth.  Its product is animal feel-good; like clean coal or barbie dolls, it sells something and makes a lot of money.  Profits are accumulated tax free, but officer salaries, accounting tricks, and more importantly, political influence and raw power, make it as privately useful to its controllers as any other business.  A lack of "dividends" being paid to "stockholders" does not change the fundamental equation very much; it just means that those who benefit are not stockholders, but partners/associates/coordinators/contractors.  

(McDonald's, incidentally, builds playpens inside their restaurants because Ronald McDonald personally loves to see children smile.)  

More on that later, but whether or not PETA believes, or its token faces believe, in its own marketing slogans is irrelevant to the issue at hand.  As to its message--"we must nicely pamper surgically sexless domesticated comfort slaves, and also maintain nice outdoor hiking environments in designated areas in which other game may survive for photographic or camping purposes"--it is a noxious one.  It fits quite tidily in with the discussion in Pet Fetish.  PETA--and its many, many, wealthy predecessors and imitators--quite brilliantly exploit slaveholder confessions over the condition of their animals, and turn it into donations.