Monday, October 31, 2016

Ugly Prequels: The Potter Period in Occidental History, Part 4




Succeeding the Potter Period series (1, 2, 3).

Along with the collapse of the Soviet Union, bankers were preparing to resume full-on western colonialism, invading and inviting the world. As part of this process, they created several wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, the most famous of those being the 1990 "Gulf War," where April Glaspie gave Saddam the all-clear to invade Iraq. Underestimating the staying power of Iran after their man Saddam had so badly damaged it during the extended 1980s war--and Russia's willingness and ability to help Iran survive--the J.S.A. focused on destroying Iraq through invasion and sanctions. Iraq somehow persisted until 2003 despite Clinton and Gore's best efforts, but the destabilization of the region proved highly profitable even though Iran still existed in 2016, and the survivors of the post-Cold-War invasions--the children of the 1990s and 2000s--would prove to be, once they came of age, successful foot soldiers in the invasion of the West.

In the Potter Period series, we discussed how the eponymous narrative embraced a benign nihilism, preparing that same post-Cold-War generation of children, albeit in America and Europe, to feel duty-bound to welcome their destruction by the angry DU-riddled rapist-children that the previous generation of the West had been lured into creating. The nihilism in Potter is vast in scope, latently and suggestively destructive in many ways, from the retrospective lies imposed subsequent to its creation, as well as its clear message of inherited predestinatory blank-slateism.

The blend of muck that comprised Potter's abysmally maleficious source material as we now know it, is at its thematic core the modernized work of the Verkhovenskys, as (un)original as many necrotizing philosophies, whether Marxism or mercantilism. It consumes, rather than builds; it borrows, rather than creates, like a "found art" of words and concepts, congratulated, like all other current popular works, for the slightest hint of accidental novelty in our familiar cliches. What is of further interest to us in pursuing the ways this particular media trend charts, as well as expresses, current forms of nihilism disguised as heroic trope, is that the Potter that formally defined the period is actually a backup version of a product initially released in time with George H.W. Bush's Operation Desert Storm: in 1991, a Jewish woman named Jane Yolen was credited as the author of Wizard's Hall, a magical tale of a young boy named Henry who discovers he is a wizard descended from an old wizard bloodline, and is sent to a special wizard's school in Britain. The school is accessed through a magical portal at a train station in London, and at school, Harry Henry makes a red-headed best friend, follows the advice of a wise older wizard, and unravels a series of riddles explaining why he must fight an evil wizard who was once a student/professor at that school (Quirrell, then with confirmed market saturation, Voldemort/Riddle). Later on, when the main Potter series ascribed to Rowling had made a billion dollars, J. Yoling Jane Yolen and her publisher released glowing affirmations of Rowling's originality.

(Many other authors sued or threatened Rowling's publisher for plagiarism, but whether their claims were pretty farfetched [some] or semi-plausible [some], massive money crushed all the cases like it was predetermined. The very best case for direct plagiarism, almost point-for-point, was in Yolen's relatively-failed [but paid-critically-hyped] book, and Yolen and her publisher not only showed no interest in going against her partner at the agency, she also cut off all future works in her stillborn series, redacted plot summaries of her book, and appended all advertising of her work with references to how original and great Harry Potter was. For political parallels, look to Al Gore's concession speech; for military parallels, to ISIS' choice of targets.)

We must consider Wizard's Hall as a failed dry-run for Harry Potter not because we're trying to point out that Rowling is a hack, or because the first front the media corps used for the narrative--the Jewish female "author"--was not an appealing enough image to sell sufficient copies in Europe and America, even receiving the same echo-chamber buildup that the initial Potter release would later receive. The important thing to note, now that there is a "Harry Potter"-branded stage play being released, is that the original Anglo-Semitic "secret world representing inborn shame over the Celts raped/murdered by Torah-Christian shabbos goys" plot fronted by Yolen included not only Henry/Harry's redheaded Scots-Irish subordinate best friend, but Henry/Harry's black African female friend. The "Hermione" of the first attempt at establishing the Harry Potter phenomenon was black--but, like the wealthy Jewish authoress rather than the "genuine English single mother" role played by Rowling, that proved too much for the first attempt at popularity. The African presence was dialed back, Hermione was recast as a white girl, and then, decades after the first Potter-titled version was tested out, Rowling "wrote" a play in which grown-up Hermione was portrayed as a black girl.

As Vader would put it, "The circle is now complete." Dostoevsky's Demons tried out one version of Anglo-wizard multikulti during the Gulf War, realized they'd gone too far, dialed it back to a complete straight WASP cast, released by a straight WASP woman, and achieved the success that was their original goal. Their small steps later in the narrative, to introduce background black characters, were so tentative because they were hesitant about repeating the mistake that had helped to kill the 1991 series. Only when enough years had gone by, and enough fans had built their personalities around the Potter philosophy, could Hermione become black again. Her personality did not merely not matter, to "Yolen" or "Rowling" or any of the other fronts, let alone to the media corporations creating the many and varied product-aids; rather, she never had a personality. It was a token, a thing used in furtherance of an agenda, before the late-90s children even had a chance to assume they were reading about a character.

Such an act is, besides being as anti-artistic as the rest of Potter, the foulest possible type of racism. Wanting to live in a segregated community, believing that blacks are low-IQ or violent or whatever, is one thing, but viewing such an identity as a malleable form of salesmanship with which to exploit shifting perceptions is the propertization of not only the literary character, but the real-world racial character of the people being so exploited. The mechanistically callous way that the U.S./U.K./Israeli alliance massacred millions of Arabs and Persians and black Africans in the 80s-2010s, in order to foster the mechanistic invasions and rapes of America and Europe in the 2010s, is mirrored, to the deepest and darkest roots of its antilife creed, in the primary international children's instructional text of the Potter Period.

Over the course of the twentieth century, many--perhaps beginning, in the most obvious and direct way, with Henry Ford--have made speculations or accusations that the collective mind which we have come to know as our corporate media has acted not for truth, art, or even profit, but in the service of omitting, massaging, lying, and even wholly fabricating what we now think of as "news," and serving a similarly obscene function as the gatekeepers of mass art. Illustration, cinema, literature, the stage, the symphony, and countless other venues large and small (down even to community theater via the funding powers of governmental nonprofit regulators and university censors) have all been speculated to be news-like--inasmuch as what we now call news still resembles what might have once been, on this planet, news--in that they have been accused of being created, not to inform or inspire, but to mislead and destroy. Actors were chosen to be attractive rather than to accurately portray characters, and noises/plots were chosen to titillate rather than improve. The once conspiratorial rumor that movie-houses and the like were merely out to "make a buck" is now broadly considered to be the resigned truth. As we progress through the evolution of those monstrosities, more and more we see that the profit motive, so innocuous and simple, is less important than the creation of false perceptions, and the misleading of successive generations of humanity.

The slanty-eyed Jap of the cartoon slur helps make plausible the lie about unprovoked sneak attacks, followed in mere decades by the Kunta-Kinte-esque narrative of the innocent Japanese Americans sent to camps during World War II. Not only are we to be lied to about how inhumanly horrible the Nips are, and how we must nuke their children to save ourselves an invasion because they're too irrational to surrender, we're also supposed to believe that, faced by the atomic horrors of the Churchill-Stalin-FDR alliance, recent immigrants would not have attempted to save their homeland by resisting the Allied tyrants. The implausibility of either lie is atrocious, yet even if you believe that FDR knew nothing, or that fresh immigrants suddenly became loyal to the globalist madmen intent on firebombing and occupying their ancestral home for the next century, witnessing the media's pollyannaish lies about Nip savagery almost immediately preceding the utterly innocent Japanese-Americans downtrodden by the irrational mob, your choler should rise. (Whether or not the percentage of Japanese-Americans who resisted is higher than it is officially believed to be is irrelevant; what is relevant is that it would have been morally correct for them, as for German-Americans or Russian-Americans or English-Americans, to resist the atomic banksters and their pre-NATO thugs.) This is a creature which knows no truth or honor from either end; it will insult all existence with a white James Bond and then a black James Bond, ever pure and innocent, feigning a heedless disregard for the possibility that its well-recorded trail of fecal bloodstains has been immediately washed away by this latest token.

Most of us have come to know that "Hollywood" chooses situations and/or actors for token reasons, now. It is equally acceptable, even popular, in both the La Raza and the Stormfront discussion groups to address the issue of how Hollywood has a fetish for tokenizing different ethnic groups by using their presumed identities to make a cheap point. Producers, after long denials of the payola and rigged game shows, have gone from admitting in interviews that they tokenize acting roles, to cheerfully announcing that they do so, albeit because it is necessary for diversity. In the Potter Period, through the abandoned blackface of Hermione and her subsequent re-blackening after the billions were made, we see the published proof of how unimportant those principles are, and how willing they are to stuff any identity into the proverbial cage until and if it will serve their lower ends. If life follows art, then the absence of art leaves life following Harry Potter.

Sunday, October 30, 2016

The Nigerian Wolfsangel

Anti-progressive Nazis arise in Nigeria:
President Goodluck Jonathan has disclosed that he does not own any bank account or property outside the country, adding that all his kids live and school on the shores of Nigeria.


Hate speech in the making? Anti-Algerianism? Racism against the Chinese? Oh, what mangled wonders the future holds! Rank-and-file La Raza members probably have no idea what the merchants are going to do to them once the invasion has been successfully prosecuted.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

The Coming Danger for Homosexuals

It's certainly possible that Obama only joined those gay bathhouses in the greater Chicagoland area by accident, and that his visits there were all accidental, and that he walked in the doors of each one, one after the other, and said, "Oh my, this is a gay orgy bathhouse!" And the people and the records saying that he was a regular at the bathhouses, and in the community, and the college parties, etc., could have all been forged by the same people who forged records about poor noble Dubya being AWOL during Vietnam. And the Jeff Gannon thing was just a cruel setup for Dubya, and the accidental "Michaels" that Obama slips in here and there are meaningless slips of the tongue that anyone might make, and the request that he go to D.C. alone could've been merely his attempt to save the family from stress, and whatever.

Hypothetically, though, what should be of concern to the LGBTQPZIYU community is that Obama and/or others like him haven't come out. Even if Obama is a straight Christian who has never had orgies in Chicago bathhouses, there are certainly many other highly placed people who are concealing themselves. The proportion of national sports and movie superstars coming out, and of their fans and funders still supporting them, far exceeds that of national politicians coming out, yet Congress and the White House and the Sanhedrin are all much more pro-gay than Major League Baseball; the schism in coming-out stories represents a clear concealment by the bureaucratic tools of the power elite. Science and culture are losing out by these people not being able to be open, and if even one of them is concealing something that large in such a superficially friendly climate, it indicates a number of highly damaging things for actual LGBTQPZIYU people.

Take Obama, for example. If he really is homosexual, but pretending not to be in order to obtain/retain political/historical power/legacy, while advocating for open homosexuality for everyone else, then it suggests a very dangerous future for homosexuals. After all, if their biggest executive supporter in world history up to this point is in fact closeted and closeted while advocating for them to publicly declare themselves, what does it say about (1) the likelihood of it to be safe to be out over future generations, and (2) the motivations for someone to be so grossly hypocritical?

Put your evil-hat on. What would be the best way to, in the long term, cull non-straight people? Just like the best way to cull guns from a populace of serfs: create a database of who has what. Unlike guns, though, thoughts and desires can be totally hidden from everyone else, even once Dianne Goldman Berman Feinstein's goons are authorized to spread your cheeks each morning in search of contraband. The best way to cull dissident ideas, e.g. anti-elite ideas, is to create a space where people feel free to express them, and to encourage them to do so under the belief that they have the freedom to do so and are anonymous. Finally, the ages-old human contempt for systematic assholes can be confirmed. Those individuals who think wrongly are prepared for culling, those who are docile and obedient are bred, with greatly reduced possibility of prior breeding mistakes where you couldn't tell which serfs were faking their enthusiasm for their labor and/or their masters.

The internet, for example, is like a dog park for master breeders who want to determine which bloodlines to eliminate in order to produce a future where androgynous content-browsers (with scraggly little chin-beards) genuinely enjoy the state in which they live. Out with the wolves, in with the golden retrievers who piss on the floor in ecstasy every time pitiful childless Owner returns from Starbucks to dispense hyper-processed food pellets. In a sense, merchants are a race of catladies: the Talmudic desire to control neutered subhuman breeds in a self-validating world is, in macro, the fetishization of humans as replacements for character flaws. The sickened European puts his Labrador in expensive little sweaters, while the sickened merchant wishes to do the same with higher species--perhaps boisterous cop-car tippers, perhaps pudgy dudes in "this is what a feminist..." shirts.

Returning to homosexuals, the sexual aspect is even more difficult to reveal, for like a dissident political opinion, it may be consciously concealed. It may also be unconsciously concealed. The germ theory of homosexuality is an interesting one, but like all psychological crap produced now, it presupposes the ability of the individual to accurately self-report and self-analyze; questions like "How often are you rude to another person each week?" and "When have you ever acted against someone without proper justification?" are as likely to get honest and/or truthful answers as potential employees discussing drug use or dishonesty. When you get into the full panoply of some weird genetic meat-bag's subconsciousness, and what it might or might not want to rub up against and why or why not, there's almost no way to produce large-scale accurate solutions/conclusions. People who think they're straight are as unlikely to understand the full extent of their own desires, the what and the why, as people who think they're not straight are likely to be able to understand what mundane and/or droll and/or terrible voids/things their own presumed desires represent and/or for what those substitute.

How, then, to, following Leviticus, cull all forms of the non-heterosexual phenomenon completely from the breeding stock, when it must be not only a coerced confession from the individual, but one she or he might not be able to make? Jews have tried, for thousands of years, to murder all homosexuals, following the Torah's commandments and vesting Christianity with the same sauce. The comparatively tiny proportion of the currently intense pro-homo propaganda stands in stark contrast to all that is Judaism, representing less than 100 years, yet, after 5,000 years of encouraging rabbinical child-rape while simultaneously encouraging murder of suspected adult homos inside targeted outsider populations. Thinking inter-generationally, thinking on the scale of millennia, how could homosexuals be utterly culled? The answer, of course, is similar to the internet, but with an element of social encouragement in order to tease out the subconscious: create an absolutely open society in which identification is not merely accepted, but forced out. Rub it in your face, use every trick possible to lure it out of developing children who, in a "state of nature," might never develop or realize it, and then, by culling everyone except those who so strongly resist that they persist in identifying as breeders only despite having BSDM pride parades marched past their cubicles at gunpoint, you've finally carried out Yaldabaoth's command to bloody and burn all faggots.

Elements of a Longer Game

In turbulent times of upheaval or transition low characters always come to the front everywhere. I am not speaking now of the so-called "advanced" people who are always in a hurry to be in advance of every one else (their absorbing anxiety) and who always have some more or less definite, though often very stupid, aim. No, I am speaking only of the riff-raff. In every period of transition this riff-raff, which exists in every society, rises to the surface, and is not only without any aim but has not even a symptom of an idea, and merely does its utmost to give expression to uneasiness and impatience. Moreover, this riff-raff almost always falls unconsciously under the control of the little group of "advanced people" who do act with a definite aim, and this little group can direct all this rabble as it pleases...
~Dostoevsky

From Tolstoy, the true successor of Peter, and from him only, proceeds Bolshevism...
~Spengler.

Levantine...investments...
~Taleb.

"Our" "resistance" has a "problem," air-quoted in the sense that it is not ours, it is not resistance, and it is actually a feature. And in this contradiction, we see the inherent flaw in the design of this material world, namely the shoddy outshining the supreme, something in which Yaldabaoth reveled and which Christ rejected.

The African is better attuned to Terra; he expects results in the forms of heads on pikes and gold in his pocket right now, and so however he may harm himself, his activism is always successful, never a lie, for it always produces tangible results. Even if those results quickly dissipate into future failures, like so many hypothetical careers dashed by incarceration, there are always real, recognizable, tangible rewards, in the form of social triumph, physical pleasure, or momentary validation. The African may be tricked out of his future, but not out of his present; he demands his marshmallow now, and is not, ergo, vulnerable to the horizon. If nothing else, a successful body count produces thousands of small rewards, thousands of vindications, which only look petty to the retrospective outsider, and which, like seeds in spring, produce a harvest of later small rewards. Vulgar triumph becomes communal mourning becomes welfare becomes vulgar triumph. There is no stealing that moment of satisfaction; no removing the African's immemorial Now, in which enemies are shamed and pleasures reveled.

If you think the African is a failure, you are wrong; he is so only inasmuch as you conceive of an alternately superior present for him in which he is robbed of his bacchanalian birthright, and which idle, speculatory nowness would have to be sacrificed to produce the hypothetical futureness that enchants you, but not him. You can't understand rap, and your belief that you now understand rock or jazz has already made them something else; they were already gone before you tried. Your fond hopes for and memories of them now are of different children from a different picture album. If you disagree, if you think you do understand, then you're right inasmuch as you admit that you are a conquistador and that merciless, authoritarian colonialism is good.

By contrast, the European, ever enchantable by whispers of the future, lives always at least some part in that very impossible notness, spared what is to him the terror of living only in Yaldabaoth's creation, yet bereft of the freedom to enjoy the successes designed into the apparent system of this material. The caveman who practices smashing things with the club will always steal the oxen from the caveman who spends his time tending oxen, even if the latter can foresee a future made easier by husbandry; the latter's vision can always be acquired after the generating skull has been smashed, ergo the cruel competition of this retarded creation was rejected by Christ, who promised success to those who meekly saw something beyond.

Our astounding stupidity in choice of demagogues--for example, MPC's collective fellatio of assorted mongrel-lords who exalt finance over sinew and blame Tolstoy for Marx--is a vulnerability integral to our futureness; our ability is of a vulner sort, for to be attuned to possibility to any degree is always at least a tiny percentile of inefficiency, proving fatal inside a merchant's dark dream of the arena that must revere it.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

The Utility of a Trump Loss

Posit the following:

1) The voting system in the U.S. is corrupt. Paper ballots are destroyed or falsified, party and extra-party operatives in each state's Secretary of State's/Recorder's office destroy or falsify ballots, non-citizens vote, felons vote, dead people vote, imaginary people vote onsite, imaginary people vote by mailing in ballots, imaginary people vote through computer systems only, the votes of people who actually vote are changed by party or extra-party officials, the votes of people who actually vote are changed by independent and/or foreign and/or corporate computer operatives, the votes of people who actually vote are changed through pre-design and/or accident and/or Microsoft-esque incompetency (which is to say, a combination of deliberate evil and mere stupidity), and the electoral process retroactively adjusts vote totals to its own layered preferences, whether party or extra-party or outsider, among other means of interference. The secret ballot in a roomful of noblemen who all know each other's families and lineages may have some utility, but the secret ballot in a more-universal franchise among a relatively docile and/or low-trust populace is at least as poor a planning vehicle as a more-universal franchise.

2) The media in the U.S. is corrupt. Polls are constructed and reported with egregious violations of statistics, polls are wholly fabricated, insubstantial sensationalism drives distractions in place of substantial news, some journalists are stupid, some journalists are ideological, some journalists think they are ideological, some media conglomerates push specific agenda(s) at any cost, some media is controlled by a self-interested permanent bureaucratic caste that controls its funding and message, some media is controlled by foreign governments that control its funding and message, and even the aspects of media which might otherwise attempt to be at least partly honest are not merely destroyed or deluged by a climate of falsity, they are unable to achieve true information to report due to salary- and socially-based restrictions which prevent the majority of the populace from being able to risk publicly or even privately revealing their true concerns and/or desires.

3) Donald Trump's mildly legalistic, universally-nationalistic (sic) policy platform holds vast popular appeal over a majority of Americans, and over a super-majority of American voters, and over an even higher super-majority of voters who already have or who actually will mail in actual voting forms and/or travel to polling places and cast actual votes. Not only because Hillary Clinton struggles to fill middle-school gymnasiums with paid supporters while Donald Trump's supporters risk life and limb to stand in line outside an overcrowded sports stadium, but because of the erratic flagrancy with which the aforementioned lügenpresse reports purported polls and other forms of popular opinion.

Now, granted, if you believe that any of the above three suppositions are incorrect, you will not see any value in what I propose here. If you believe that the United States' political process is sound, or if you trust the United States' and/or the world's major news media sources, or if you inexplicably believe (which can only be wholly due to trusting in aforementioned media's portrayal) that Hillary Clinton enjoys voter support equal to Donald Trump, you will find little use in what I say next. By all means, then, go watch the Electric Yahweh and trust that, although it tells you that Thor and James Bond are Africans, it's surely being honest about polling results.

If you do believe the above three suppositions, though, then you want Donald Trump to lose. Why?

Because, if Donald Trump wins, it means that the lügenpresse has been lying all this time in an effort to conceal the fact that Trump is actually their bagman. We know that the voting system and the media and the entire political and social process in the States is an enormous charade, and therefore, if Donald Trump wins, it means that they let him win. It means that they supplied the votes and counted the votes and weighed the outcomes and determined that it was acceptable that Donald Trump could be figurehead president. It means that the entire system of faux-outrage and pro-globalist squawking, begun since the earliest days of his campaign (in a mirror-image of the way the same groups began to exalt Obama for that very purpose), was designed expressly to create a plausibly anti-establishment product just so that you would think a revolution had been won by Trump's victory. His victory would mean that he is theirs, and that he is just another Blankfein-fellating sellout who sold his daughter and his soul in order to create a series of increasingly prominent spirit-draining television circuses, only the latest of which is a presidential campaign.

By contrast, if Donald Trump loses, it leaves intact the possibility that he might actually be a good man. Since we know he has the votes, even after the public phase of the nonsense, his loss means that the system had to engage the private phase of the nonsense--rigging the votes, rather than merely the pre-counting election process--which means that they might actually have been resisting him because some aspects of his platform were genuine.

Our certitude that the American government and media are corrupt means that a Trump victory through the voting ritual means they chose him. That might still be the case if they lose--if his campaign is being used to permit him to create a false resistance in the form of a new TV network, or if his faction is meant to negotiate the surrender to Sino-Russia after Clinton loses World War III--but if they count the votes for Trump, it means he was theirs.

I suppose there's a small saving possibility, in that they might allow voters to elect him, then pull a Hinckley, blame our lack of funding for government mental health ID programs, and use Pence and the anti-assassination backlash to not confiscate guns, but to mandate some kind of mandatory pacifant injection. Hell, they might even use a Muslim this time, to make it all seem more plausible than the last completely random lone white shooters with No Government Assistance Whatsoever, and to bring the new western right on board with the pacifant. Or maybe they'll allow Trump's squishy pseudo-nationalism in order to ensure Israel retains its bodyguard if the plan to take China from the inside (through deploying Sino-Semitic haafu) is identified and scuttled before some noxious little goblin is pretending to be Chinese while conducting the Beijing philharmonic.

All wackier speculation aside, though, you gotta brace yourself for the fact that, if Trump wins, they chose him to win. For better or for worse is not for us to know, not yet. But the entire foundation of everything his supporters are saying rests upon decades, if not generations, of the fraudulence that is American media and politics--and it is sadly telling of our capacity for comprehension and resistance to that very system that we could feel that redeeming a U.S.G.-issued "vote" for something could be a U.S.G.-altering action.

If they engineer Trump's loss, it means that there's a billionaire with some level of international support whom they view as an actual problem. The breadth of the fraud they'd have to engineer might well be exposed in a way comprehensible to people who don't normally care about or understand the way the U.S.G. reports the votes that decorate its elections--it might even be enough to produce change instead of Obamachange. Them crushing him leaves alive the hope that he's a genuine political force who might challenge the unfairness of his rigged loss, and cause an actual restructuring of power. All those rally attendees and discarded vets might become fedgov occupiers under a Trump banner. The Sanhedrin's verdict on the issue might be ignored, the black robes repossessed and sanitized, and the judges deported or tried. If they anoint Trump, though, you don't even have that hope anymore.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Consistently Outperforming the Market

r/K selection theory and eugenics rear their flattering masks again. You know it's right, because every pick they've sent me has been right for the past seventeen weeks running.

Take a group of 100 lazy turds and assign them to picking something: horse races, homecoming queens, large-cap stocks...whatever. At the end of twenty races/proms/quarters, there might not be one asshole who's always right, so do better next time. Following the principle that if you want to get something done right, do it yourself: make an XY graph of football matches or bond funds and assign your 100 lazy turds--no, no, that's outdated...fire all the lazy turds, come up with 97 fictitious personas, hire three of your cousin's nephew's in-laws, and assign all 100 of those people to carefully staggered sections of the total possible contenders in the different horse races et cetera. At the end of the period, not only is some asshole always right, a majority of assholes are always above-average.

All the old scams are on the internet, and amazingly, they still work. Maybe college was all about putting off adulthood and not education? Or about living vicariously through your children's tinderized dorms? In the "stolen luxury goods available ridiculously cheap" scam, you have the inside man putting up real money to motivate buyers, and to sell timeshares, you have the attractive couple in their fifties (and in aloha shirts) who are there to buy their second since they had so much fun with their first. We know all that, we can read all about that on Wikipedia, but somehow, Mestizox Beale and Jewlo Yiannopocock are putting out the purportedly bestselling book pushing the purportedly racist alt-right agenda.

All they want us to do is to destroy the Ottomans for them yet again. They do it every so often and we're so gullible we keep trying to kick the football. I know I can't stop you now anymore than I could last time, but what else am I going to type about?

Playing God isn't a bad idea because we're afraid of science; it's a bad idea because we're not godlike. We possess the faculty to slightly adapt our forebears' technology into a better computer chip, but not the faculty to predict which chip will be the best in the future. In Philip K. Dick's future, Deckard stops his flying car to make payphone calls to the office. Even more outrageously erroneous, major institutions gave a damn about stopping androids, which was off the mark well before 1968.

How many fecal petits millionnaires out there are wondering why they can't pick as well as--oh, who's the current Iacocca? something-something snackbar?--and how many are in enough on the game to not get down on themselves and enjoy their fewer Forbes mentions as mere Manhattan managing directors? How many believe that they themselves personally actually do make sub-par choices, and ascribe the difference in outcome to some Calvinist super-will that mapped out the course beforehand?

Okay, so we want all of our kids to be disease-free, damn good looking, either athletic-ly muscular or slender-ly hourglassed. So their cells vigorously resist current diseases, which is great, but future diseases turn out to not be diseases, but pre-emptive adaptations to diseases we don't understand yet, so only the ugly non-mutated survive. In 25,000 BC, given gene-labs, we would've created the biggest, hairiest, most fanged cave-dudes ever, and been pleased that our eugenically perfect children were successfully hunting mammoth by hand, not having to resort to wussy spears. Certain early peoples might've bred a sub-race of catamites that would be with us today, and 1980s scientists might've adjusted the hair genome to produce the perfect hairdo naturally. Pick your poison--do you know which of (what you would consider) our best accomplishments today derived out of mutations that would've once been considered detrimental? How about bookishness, reluctance to fight to the death over a social slight, or an unnatural interest in adding and subtracting abstract figures? Once the Dry Age hits, all of our 6'4" Ken Dolls will die, outlasted by the 5'0" children of the poor, whose ugly hunchedness gave them the erratic metabolisms and caloric humps they needed to survive. Actually, second thought--better exterminate all of the non-evolved ahead of time, so that once our Actions As Collective God kill us all, no one can later prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the un-treated would've fared any better.

Genetic Conflicts and New Evolution

The Mongoloids have already corrupted or destroyed most, if not all, of the DNA of the first human burial sites in America. It's possible that, a thousand years from now, there really will be no evidence that the Mongoloids raped or wiped out anyone when they arrived. There might even be a new form of science proving that Mongoloids originally evolved in the Americas, arising out of primordial swamps to become genuine "aboriginal peoples" who never once immigrated.

This will come into conflict with Africoid and Europeoid interests, because Afros will want to be both from Africa and from Europe, while Euros will have to be from nowhere, since being from anywhere would cause dissonance with aboriginal peoples policy platforms, which assign ownership based upon NuScience's hierarchy of propertization, therefore giving Euros any birthplace is impossible.

The NuScience platform on evolution will have to be something along the lines of the following: Mongols arose naturally from primordial soup somewhere in East and Central Asia, while Afros arose naturally from primordial soup somewhere in Africa. These races built great civilizations, but these civilizations were destroyed from within by a genetically-diseased pallid subgroup. With incredible restraint and empathy, the Afros and Mongols permitted the diseased ones to depart without recrimination, whereupon they made their way west from Asia and north from Africa, settled in Europe, mixed together, and established colonialism, trying to invade the descendants of those who had taken pity on their ancestors.

That narrative will work well for the future. It explains traces of ancient Euro civilization in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Current anthropological finds show that Euro DNA was associated with settlements and megaliths in all of those places prior to partial or complete subsumption into a Mongol or Afro mass, after which civilizations either decayed to mud (Africa, some of Asia) or remained in a holding pattern (Persia and northeast Asia). NuScience can show that this is because the Euro virus stole all the technology from the ancient civilizations they abandoned, and the resulting exploitation caused aboriginal Africans and aboriginal Americans to forget written language and the wheel, while Europe became a success due to the legacy of thievery. We now hold the Egyptian megaliths to have been built by a Nubo-Semitic coalition, the American megaliths by a Mongol and partial Euro coalition, the Chinese megaliths by an Indo-Han coalition, and the European megaliths by pure Euros. NuScience can later script this such that the original work (and any DNA evidence still then understood and/or retained by whoever's alive then) was done by the aboriginal civilization (either Mongol or Afro), with evidence of Euro parasites present but not responsible, before the expulsion to Europe, where the Euro work was merely duplicating pre-existing African architecture like so many Einstein awards. Pyramid megaliths in the Americas that predate "Nubo-Semitic" work in Africa can be ascribed to the copying of pre-Egyptian megaliths in sub-Saharan Africa, evidence for which can be inferred, like so many Higgs bosons, from the absence of the Congo pyramids, which proves not only the superiority of their construction, but the envy in which the fleeing Euros held them, since they had to destroy them out of spite before they left.

NuScience in that form will certainly not last forever, since it will make itself irrelevant once it's believed. What should be more interesting to those of us here in 2016 is that, in, say, 4016, it's quite plausible that all available records from past civilizations will verify NuScience's conclusions. The foundations of later biology and geology, including what will then be considered primary historical sources on the organization of society and the appearance of pivotal figures, will be the preserved remains of, if not NuScience, then one of dozens of other similar narratives accepted with a degree of trust by their finders, similar to the ways in which we now approach Homer or Tacitus. Our tendency has been to believe that which is corroborated, but after seeing Stalin build monuments to invisible gods reinforced by the testimony of millions, it is not inconceivable that the children of 4016 could be at least half in error; it is, rather, inconceivable that we, right now, are even half correct.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Blogging, Territory, and Power

This one started this blog to pursue ideas. My first posts weren't actually "posts" in the sense that we now consider that term--the finest of the mean being polished essays expressing a clear argument, the mode being a vindicated linkerpretation--but postulates, suggestions, responses, encouragements, that this one had posted elsewhere. Someone would seem to want to discuss philosophy, and this one, like a foolish child in public school, thought that the point was to discuss philosophy, and therefore did so, only to discover that wasn't actually the point; the point was to reaffirm perceived internet group coherence, and the ideas were mere window dressing. If you didn't care about establishing perceived internet group coherence, or if you cared about it only secondarily relative to learning or truth (e.g., you were as insufferable as this one), you were like the guy who wears his underwater watch to the Game of Thrones royal ticketed costume dinner at the comic-con: mood spoiled, fun over. The difference being, the ticketed costume dinner at the comic book convention actually has stated policies about underwater watches and other such mood-ruining technology (with exceptions made for the television they watch old episodes on), whereas many of the blogs are theoretically about "exploring ideas," or somesuch nonsense. And unlike a university, many blogs were supposed to be honest about that.

It never really worked out. Relatively rarely, people had weird personal real-life problems and abruptly stopped blogging forever with one of those emotional posts about how it was all over now, or sometimes they suddenly deleted their blog on their pastor's advice, or changed religions, or got really into hiking, and all the posts started including pictures of them at some trailhead and reviews for Zone bars--but, for the most part, the pure pursuit of ideas proved itself anathema. Racists didn't want to talk sociology, and sociologists didn't want to talk races. What people call "the alt right" now wasn't able to spread until certain mediators took it upon themselves to help. Quite recently, approaching race issues with, "Well, what about...?" would result in almost a 100% chance of being called a faggot (by nationalists) or a repressed faggot (by Republicrats), whereas now in late 2016 you can at least get the average blog-dweller on either side to respond with something about crime statistics (nationalists) or institutional racism (Republicrats).

This one has previously discussed blogging as homily. Even that comparison does blogging too much credit, since "homily" often connotes an element of the sacred, whereas blogging, even of the religious type, retains a garish snootiness less churchy and more akin to the regulars at the local bar snickering at the couple whose car broke down and needs to know if there's a bathroom while they wait for the tow truck. (Obviously, this post was written before everybody had cell bathrooms. I mean, talk about dated.)

I didn't want a blog. Everyone else having a blog seemed so great. This one could read things whenever, talk about all the ideas people thought were different ideas, and so much could be learned and shared. But like I said, it didn't seem to work that way. People were weirdly territorial about their free internet blogs. They deleted things they didn't like, and then people would e-mail this one asking why she hadn't responded, or I'd think of something I forgot to mention and be unable to edit or add to it because it would be gone. So I started posting notes and responses on a blog, and swiftly learned that people don't like you to link things on their blogs, since they don't want other people to stop reading their blog and read your blog instead. They'd say, "You people telling lies about Congress being full of corrupt murderers need to take it elsewhere" and then they'd delete any references that allowed other people to find where that elsewhere was. I always forget how this place is--how sickly and covetous people are about things like that--and it was initially a sort of surprise all over again, wondering why someone wouldn't want to test their ideas to help them grow. Ah, the internet infancy, like the infancy of unified spoken language in multi-family communities, so seemingly hopeful, yet felled again by Big Man inner affirmation! What would Jean-Baptiste say?

In theory, no one wants to be accused of being a censor, except everyone actually wants to be accused of being a censor--just a good censor. An effective censor. Under the guise of stopping spam, fostering community, or some other University of California-esque policy, everyone deletes what the majority disagrees with, and more importantly, deletes almost any links elsewhere. Even agreeable links had to go, if they went to someone else's blog. This revolting little amateur competition for time occurs, where people want to have more readers, so they try to brand themselves as an ideal place to go to discuss Topic Of Interest, and they try to get comments on their site, but not comments that consist of links to somewhere else. People only have so many minutes a day to read blogs, and if you want to be among their first stops for Views X, you don't want them to notice that someone else had the link first, or pointed out the obvious inconsistency in the video first, or reacted more appropriately than you to the poll. We make fun of video games, then rush to see who can get more thousands of followers by virtue of being the first one to retweet a funny picture next to the latest Times. Except for those parasites who actually are making money by filtering the news to the untermensch, it's like an unpaid reality TV show about MMORPGs.

Some degree of linking was inevitable, and people who wanted/want to retain and/or grow readers formed informal networks where they would prop each other up, share readers/comments, and use the resulting synergy to create higher walls to outsiders. Two "moderators" saying that someone sucks, or that it was proper to delete whatever, is more plausible than one. I'm not talking about the financial pyramid schemes here--they're getting a certain kind of reward for what they're doing--but about the actual private citizens, ad-less or with minimal ads that don't make them much money, who just want attention because it's pleasing to have someone pay attention.

Jealousy--in the older, less-Orwellian sense of "jealousy," not the current perversion synonymous with "envy"--worry, and avarice play strange parts here. Problems attend censorship, kin to those spawned by the needy sort of selfishness, and the bloggers anxious to retain the veritable microphone learned to self-censor. Their audience sought the comfort and community of assured ideology and lack of turbulence, therefore whatever traces of an investigative nature remained in the censorious landlord had to be stifled. New and upsetting ideas had to be kept to a minimum, lest readers miss out on their dose of community and go elsewhere. In the pursuit of attention, like the pursuit of profit, "successful" bloggers have become successful in the Hollywood fashion, repeating themselves ad nauseam to a putrescent sort of acclaim. Most blogs repeat their primary message with slight adjustments for the topic of the time: any identifiable sub-group of belief-holders can take a news website and find something that proves why they were right, then share it with their audience, who is gratified to (1) not have to read the news website themselves, and (2) not feel alone in their scornful interpretation of the news. The blog-leader's responsibility is to skim the news each day, and post links which prove that cops are excessively violent, or banks are excessively corrupt, or certain politicians are indeed liars, and so forth. However correct each new "post" might be, the "author" has become a self-censoring brand, and with each new affirmation of faith in the prior idea, the impetus against change grows larger, for the betrayal of one's followers would be that much more profound.

You can't actually teach people how to avoid all pyramid schemes; they need the emotional strength, not just the analytical ability, or they'll only avoid the ones for which they don't feel a need. It's like true art versus commercial art. Battling for readers, viewers, attention-providers. Being nameless in conjunction with fame is ultimately unsatisfying to those trapped by themselves, and popularity, even of the supposedly organic internet kind, brings temptations of celebritizing the now-popular self, focusing increasing amounts of attention on the person that is the brand that is the person. Pseudonyms drop like bras in the new starlet's first nude scene; man replaces message. Yet this is itself not the greater tragedy, for the earlier tragedy, that of message replacing exploration, is the greater. Along that course, exploration never existing at all, but only pursuit of messaging a man to a point where he is noticed, is still worse, though we can give some of them the benefit of the doubt and assume that, once, they might have possessed a spark of interest in learning rather than affirming.

The irrelevancy of me, the irrelevancy of where--the dead satyr inside the golden bell. Loosed weathervanes orbiting silent moons in the blackness between barren stars while grass grows downward from a dripping galaxy of sea urchins wrapped in glitter tape.

The Great Debt we Owe to Christianity

It is often lamented today, particularly in more "liberal" and/or "progressive" circles, that Christianity has, and has had, such a great influence on western civilization. People cling to their "guns and Bibles," and vote a certain way, and so forth. Actually, though, the entire progressive, liberal tradition of western civilization has a great deal to be thankful for--everything, in fact. Imagine how dark and terrible the world would be without Christianity.

Imagine Rome--a Rome without Christianity. Before Hellenic Judaism and Judaic forms of Jew-Christ worship entered Rome, Rome was suffering under the rule of the primitive pagans: traditional western paganisms of various colors, including Arians, Gnostics, and Zoroastrians. These were the vengeful tyrants who had conquered all of Europe, turning it into a series of semi-independent, racially homogeneous tribes and kingdoms, developing such backward practices as racism, sexism, nationalism, horticulture and agriculture, animal husbandry and animal eugenics, aqueducts, and architecture. Refusing to share "their" land with "outsiders," these rural oafs would never have opened the Roman Empire up to cooperation with the Turkish Empire, nor have called such a union an "Eastern Roman Empire," nor have brought millions of Afro-Semitic slaves north into Rome to do the jobs the Romans wouldn't do and enrich the Italian peninsula, its architecture and culture, with diverse influence--nor have brought these same gifts into the Germanic forests, the Celtic hills, or the plains of the Norse. Without Christianity, the ignorant, backward pagans would never have recognized that the one true culture which was always and must always be the true foundation and destiny of humanity--the light unto the nations that we now call "Israel"--must become a vital part of European affairs. The amazing cosmopolitan perspectives afforded by Judaic Christianity, and its founding peoples, allowed Rome to break past its foolish isolationism, and begin enriching the other northern lands to which it was a gateway.

Without this new form of Christianity, the Romans would never have partnered with the Turks at Nicea, and destroyed so many old and bigoted heresies, replacing them with the universalist Jewish-Christian God who helped the European Romans understand the need to embrace the Turkish Romans as their loyal brothers, and the Khazaran Romans as their wise, loving, and disciplining fathers.

Imagine the horrors if the Roman Empire had not crumbled! If the mercenary legions had not brutalized the peoples of the Gaulish forests and the Celtic hills, and if the bigoted Imperial seat hadn't passed into the hands of Saul of Tarsis' new enlightened Church! All of European history would have been different: Europe would have remained a retro-Nazi community of independent tribes, free to clear land and build settlements and telescopes, investigating the very orientations of the stars centuries before the papacy permitted it! The gifts of international finance, and the replacement of vulgar "warrior kings" who knew their subjects personally, by a network of cousin-marrying rulers never glimpsed by their people, and responsible only to machinations of gold and incestuous blood far away, might never have happened! The people of Europe could have well been charting the stars and navigating the globe for hundreds of years, rather than investing their treasure in the wise business of bringing Christian civilization and Christian charity to the horrible Aryan bigots who controlled India before the arrival of European traders acting under the behest of wise kings and financiers.

Progressives now even dare insult Christians for having had a part in slavery, and in driving onto reservations the Siberio-Mongoloids who had out-competed the original seafaring settlers of what we now call North America. Just imagine the conquest of the Americas, and what it would have looked like without Christianity! Imagine Europeans, with metal alloys and firearms, sailing to America and discovering stick-wielding sacrificial cultures who thought they were the descendants of the "sky gods" from whom they had seized ancient pyramids. Without Christianity, the Europeans would have exterminated these Native peoples, driven them into the sea, rather than intermarrying with them to produce a massive mestizo population, and driving the survivors onto reservations to be subsidized! Without Christianity, America and Canada would suffer the loss of reservation diversity, and lose the ability to atone for their ancestors' sins by endlessly supporting the Siberio-Mongoloids.

Just imagine it...instead of a bunch of repressed homosexual priests taking European gold and building children's schools in the New World, it would have been a Viking strike from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and all of North and South America today might be white! Christian charity, and the extremely important drive to teach people that Jesus was the son of Yahweh, was all that could keep the Natives alive.

Even bigger, imagine helpful Middle Eastern slave traders bringing African slaves to settle in America. Without "Old Testament" support for slavery, and without close ties between the slave traders and the royal joint-stock companies funding the humanitarian Christian work in the New World, American settlers might have refused to accept this massive population transfer. They might have seized the slavers' ships, and killed the first few boatloads of Africans, or let them run free among the soon-to-be-destroyed Indians, or even returned them to Africa! Christianity was pivotal in encouraging a bigoted society to become less bigoted (although not yet perfect, by any measure!) to accept these Africans and teach them the blessings of Christianity and international civilization.

In Asia, western missionaries would have had no part in having Asian societies destroyed in order to build missions, send generations of young white women as chaste nuns to minister to Asians, and fighting lengthy wars to convert swathes of Mongoloids to the worship of Jesus Christ the One True Son of Yahweh. European-Asian relations could have been entirely different. Christianity helped motivate many generations of soldiers to fight and die breaking into marketplaces in China and Japan, rather than building things in Europe.

Really, can you imagine it? Without gentling the west through Judaic Christianity, that most enlightened source of all anti-pagan religions, would have left the rest of the world prey to the backward bigots of Ukko and Wotan. Yes, the badly organized and monarchically-hampered wars and colonialism in Africa and the New World were terrible, but imagine how bad things could have been without Torah-based Christianity to help preserve the bright future that led to the European wars of religion and succession, the world wars, and the United Nations. Instead of a two-thousand-year wave of missionaries and conversions and helpful immigration, the New World and Africa could have fallen prey to the raid on Lindisfarne writ large.

In 1016, the world could have been wholly made up of European and east Asian peoples. These disgusting racists would have spent the next thousand years using their resources for their own despicably selfish purposes, instead of promoting the idea of Yahweh to all men (and women!). By 2016, it would be lore that, long ago, our ancestors had killed off the ancient evil races of goblins and orcs, just as their forefathers had done with the cave bear. Racist archaeologists would use bigoted biometric reconstructive data to tell us entirely inappropriate things about the nature of goblins and orcs, and most of us would not even view it as a wrong that the vile races of old had been unable to live among us, anymore than most of us now worry about the morality of killing wolves near preschools.

Distracted by space travel, glittering mass transit, nigh-nonexistent violent crime, and a snooty highbrow culture we can only imagine, those alternate versions of our current selves would not even know the massive debt that they owed to the One True Christianity established by Yahweh the creator of the Chosen people and the chosen religion--the debt owed to the universalist message of conversion, penitence, bodily fluids, forgiveness, and redemption. We owe that kind of Christianity a debt that we can never possibly repay.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Pro Sports Ethics and the Nature of Rules

Imagine a future where Terrans have genetic engineering a little better than now, but still have professional sports. How many bad movies, how many Mockingbirds and Philadelphias and Caitlyns, will have to be churned out to reconcile the muck?

Say that every year the U.S. Department of Education subsidizes the creation of five top tier wide receivers for the NFL. They're all 5'10" to 6'2", they weigh 200-230 lbs., they run the 40 in 4.2-4.8 seconds, they average 8.4 profitable league years, and they cost X dollars in feeding, divorces/hookers, supercars/hummer-limos, and lawsuits, while generating Y dollars in TV, ticket, jersey-mugs, and ad revenue. Their parent(s) and/or (more likely) society bears the invisible costs of creating them, then of treating them when they're older, and the Department of Education subsidizes their professional training at a cost of Z dollars (disregarding the astronomically larger cost of a feigned educational regime for non-top-tier athletes and non-athlete non-professionals that disguises the robbing of the actual capital investors).

Now imagine the future where Amgen can generate its own top-tier wide receiver. Maybe the parents take out a loan and buy it specially, maybe Amgen clones and/or adopts the child and owns it directly, maybe the university or the team or the league or the DoE gives the loan and/or owns/adopts the child as security. Either way, for a cost of (Z - $100K) + X, Amgen produces the same crop of wide receivers. Consistent drafts, reliable insurance, the same excitement, etc.

Go to the next step and imagine (Z) + (X - $60M): Amgen engineers, yearly, grow five custom wide receivers. They're all 7'3", they weigh 375 lbs., they run the 40 in 3.1-3.6 seconds, they average 20 profitable league years, and off the field they're mild-mannered ascetics who contribute their earnings to "helping the disadvantaged" (probably through the furtherance of genen, but let's not go into that now). How interesting is any sport, at this point? Amgen's aging linesmen can outrun the best organic 22YO wide receivers, and Amgen's most accidentally sissified quarterbacks can knock down three farmboys at once. There's no incentive to do anything else, financially, so to maintain the dumbass illusion that professional sports offers, you have to bring in NASCAR-like restrictions, where the horsepower and torque are strictly regulated.

You'd start out by saying, "Naturally born only," but transsexuality has already destroyed that. If a man can take estrogen and compete as a woman, it's bigoted to deny a woman the right to take testosterone and compete as a man, so why can't an infant engineered to generate its own internal HGH, without supplements of any kind beyond insemination, also compete? If any given league bans "engineering," they'll have to define engineering in such a way as to allow transsexuals to still compete, so all Amgen has to do is create a 7'4" 400 lb. musclebound sprinter with XX chromosomes (or with a cosmetic vagina, just enough to pass the initial and/or yearly tests) and it's in. Un-women goliaths with chromosomes that just barely pass league tests would dominate at all sports, until engineering "for purposes other than post-birth reassignment of one's sexual identity based upon a genuine psychiatrist verified desire for the player to become a member of the opposite sex" becomes illegal. And there are innumerable ways to cheat that sort of requirement, but assume pro sports settles into some kind of stasis where everyone knows the year's big star isn't really a woman, but s/he is still allowed to compete because (A) money, and (B) enough yahoos believe the teevee that it's actually a woman.

The latter is arguably not futurism in 2016 anyway, but let's return to expressly avowed futurism: why shouldn't men-women and/or Amgen goliaths be able to compete in the same leagues? How many people love football/soccer but can't play it because they don't have the lungs, the legs, etc.? If someone always wanted to be a pilot but lacked the eyes, and can get eyes put in to help meet the challenges of the dangerous pilot shortage of 2040, why can't someone who always wanted to be an NBA center go in for resequencing and come out 6'10" with a great vertical and improved reach? We don't believe in God, so why do we have to accept that some people will never have a 2K deadlift which unfairly prejudices them from defensive line? It would be heartless not to give the Champ stem-cell-grown gray matter to overcome his early dementia caused from blows to the head, and after his heroic recovery, it would be equally heartless and fiscally traumatic to not let him return to the ring--and once he does that, why can't a less-able younger boxer purchase pre-trained white matter to help him climb through the professional ranks?

Like this one said above, can you imagine all the heart-rending bad movies and TV shows they'll put out about the trials of How Gary Got His Game Back or how Rudy managed to be the only non-genhanced player on the team, or about a minor league player who reconnects with his son after the divorce by finally overcoming his currently-minor social substance problem and then scoring the winning play? How many movies, how many dissertations, how many multi-billion-dollar (in 2016 dollars) government initiatives, how many congressional hearings examining the legal percentage limit of code modifications and their sportsmanship implications? If Amgen gave you more than God would've otherwise given you, how is God not acting through Amgen, and how is that not what He gave you, when you weren't the one operating the sequencer when you were designed? How many lives have to be ruined by prejudice against the 8'1" titans who dominate the UFC and who are unemployable once rules are introduced to prevent them making a living by fighting? What's the difference between my competitor's steel alloy pistons and your competitor's genetically engineered biceps, and why does it matter who wins when the guy who hacked into the league's computer system and named himself the winner, even though he didn't actually "compete" or "show up" in the traditional sense, is titled champion of the world?

What we should come to realize at some point during all those things is that the winner of sporting events is the enactor of the event itself, the setter of rules and regulations, with the power to encourage and/or trick and/or disillusion enough people into caring. "The house always wins" holds true here. The games were a celebration of the gods, not the athletes, and the ways in which athletes were chosen, groomed, and permitted to perform, were an exaltation of the force that had summoned and permitted it all. People who organize and agree-upon and play and witness exalt themselves are being as territorial (and as satisfied) as songbirds, whereas people who build the casino and let others play inside are exercising a higher level of dominion. This isn't meant to enter into the trite, "fans are stupid, play yourself," territory, but rather to recognize the true nature of a ruled competition. Merely holding it signifies the ability to control territory; establishing rules for arbitrating disputes, then arbitrating them, when people really care and are paying attention, is an expression of authority via lesser jurisprudence.

The nature of who plays and how they play, then, tells us something of significance about the hosting powers. Not so much that "violence is exalted" because sports can be violent, or "winner takes all" because there is a strictly twofold competition (win/lose), but in the technological sense. We've seen how already-hypocritical rules become more hypocritical, more absurdly irrational, the more technology makes the arbitrariness of simplistic decisions increasingly obvious even to the more distorted points of light among us.

We get a higher utility from this than thinking of "pro sports" as mere bread and circuses. They're like technological exhibitions, a World's Fair of our primitive biotech, where we present the clumsy results of prior eugenics and rulecrafting and collectively marvel at them.

And what do they teach us, these sports? Analyze the inmate's drawings at the asylum after "art hour." In our sports, our hypocrisy of "competition" is atrocious. We prohibit certain kinds and quantities of steroids for certain kinds and quantities of purposes, and we take weight limits as necessary to boxing but irrelevant to rugby. NASCAR limits engines, concurrently with Terrans limiting their true technological advancement in favor of entertaining trinkets. In our power-reducing regulations, we see mirrored Terran abstinence with regards technology. The rise of professional sports occurs with the fall of true technology: our space programs and disease-curing, so to speak, die out alongside our more restrictive competition. No one wants to watch women's baseball, because they're not really the best in the world--the men are--yet we're shocked when some savvy ballplayers rig games mentally, either through "cheating" or "drugs." We're delighted at a player who can obviously outrun or out-pass another player, but indignant at the thought that a 5'5" goaltender might become viable if he got to load up on drugs for a few years of effective professional play. It's a strange form of worship, where we revere a combination of God-given and man-given nature, reflecting our mass agnosticism; our collective uncertainty over whether or not anything has a purpose. We don't know whether our achievements are our own or God's. We're ragingly bored with what God made alone, and we invest vast resources in the nuances of creating professional competitions that maintain the illusion of "natural ability" via intensive medicines and interventions and knee replacements. Yet we stop ourselves, trembling with fear, at the thought of going beyond some arbitrary boundary, as though we're aware that we're not yet the gods we want to be. We empower ourselves by denying some of our abilities and exalting others, lying all the while that some unspoken consensus creates a fairness that is entirely different from the state of nature, yet also the purest possible representation of it, vicariously through our living totems of sport.

Our collective fright at technology is disturbing, and our sports show that we're not actually the technophiles we pretend to be. We're afraid of generating better energy, traveling farther and faster, and living longer, and we confuse our timid forays into the ramshackle predecessors of more advanced technologies with excessive, not defective, passion for greater things. Clamoring for "smaller" smartphones and "cleaner" energy disguises the truth: that we're not really the selfish idealists we pretend to be, but self-limiting cowards combing our dolly's hair at thirty, bereft of an emotional framework that tells us why we compete or what we're competing for. And so we don't actually try: we mime playing, as we mime regulating or cheering or caring or ignoring, pretending to invent by refining alone.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Corporate Personhood

I'm a bitter night nurse who thinks she's smarter than the doctors. I'm a frenzied bookkeeper who deserves an accountant's salary. I'm an unknown artist who thinks Jack and posting makes my despair beautiful.

A touch of personality enlivens your blog. It drives clicks. People want to know the you behind the story. But don't go too far or it's mom rock. Everybody wants to read about your opinions until they get too personal.

I think I'm smarter than the doctors because I always show the new residents where the extra gloves are. I didn't get my certification because I was too busy either having kids or partying or wasting my life on a man who left me with nothing. I never made it to the Gagosian because those bastards have no heart, man.

Hillary wants to tax estates at 65% instead of 40%. Outrageous. 40% they deserve, but 65% is too much. But it's only for over like eleven million bucks. Like Buffett, the message is to tax my income and not my holdings. Funny. A hundred years ago we wanted to break up "monopolies." Before that it was royal lineages. After that it was mere financial "estates." Now it's "corporate personhood." How long until they break up the great charities, the great governments? The real wealth is hidden in governments and, to a lesser extent, in charities. Governments set aside the bulk of the world's land as non-usable, prohibiting people from living on it or turning it into wonderful resources. We shiver at the thought of Exxon harming the caribou, but not at the thought of D.C. harming the Paki snow leopard. Going all soft over the caribou, as opposed to a Paki toddler, is one thing, but aren't snow leopard kittens or red deer yearlings cute, too?

We've talked before about the use of "states" as un-productive entities, meant to extract value from human labor while preventing the use of planetary resources, and we've talked about charities as a pseudo-privatized version of that same wealth, and we've talked about how states use "nature" as a means of controlling land speculation for future developers. Now Hillary wants to tax the mini-elites at 65%, while hiding the uber-elites' perpetual wealth inside private foundations. And that worthless sterile fuck Scott Adams is made indignant by the thought that he, too, might have to fake a charitable infrastructure in order to live vicariously through his cut of the Universal Uclick scheme. Watch out, Scott, you might have to pretend to be curing malaria. Choose something more up your alley, like improving working conditions in China. God, the next thirty years of that turd's life are going to make for miserable bystanding, as UU's media partners spin a Dilbertian hagiography of a simple man who set out to become wealthy and then turned to workers' rights philanthropy. If he never runs for president, at least we won't have to find out exactly how much he skims. Someday they're going to need to create a non-Israeli tax haven for all the Angloid partners and pirates who can't hack the Holy land's DNA requirements, but who still need a way to maintain plausible imperial citizenships while avoiding tax without having to establish some damn "charity."

Internet, then blogging, then Facebook, then Twitter, what can possibly be more brief? How long until we're all searching for standalone letters of the alphabet, and cheering at their insight? I think it was Confucius who said brevity is the price of wit.

Imagine the cumulative effect this has on the mass mind. We no longer need to act out, gesticulate, or merely verbally perform our thoughts. We don't have to write or polish. The instant something occurs to us, we can dump it into the internet, and it's "published." And in so doing, we've shot our load; we've stolen our own thunder; we've prevented ourselves from distilling and refining our ideas into a more mature form. If we tweet a cool idea we had, then later expound upon it in an essay, it's already lost some of its spirit. The readers already know the punchline; there's nothing more to be said but to flatter ourselves in the redundant details. How many great theories, how many epic novels, have we lost, because someone posted a snippet of an idea on the internet, then got the satisfaction of having shared it, and never needed to polish it up, first, or spend years developing it? Pick some great old deceased author you like, if there are any, and ask yourself, how many of their books would never have been written, if they could have swiftly unloaded the burden of a great idea to an appreciative audience without having to dip a quill for months on end? Take the proverbial Poe and presume he Facebooked one day, "So hypocritical how elites party during strife what if that came to visit them in disguise?" And that quickly, he relaxes. Need fulfilled. The Masque of the Red Death never has any need to be written, because he's made his point. You bought a cat so you don't need a child.

People whine about corporate personhood. I want corporations to have personhood. The first time Shell kills someone through negligence, instead of paying a fine, it goes to jail for two years for plea-bargained manslaughter. Every single operation is shut down for two years while it's in jail. Bam, it's nearly dead. For two years, every sign comes down and every property is leased out to their competitors. Let them have the vote, let them have free speech, and sign them up for the draft. The second time they kill someone through negligence, the first time they falsely claim a deduction, it's hard time for ten years. All the way dead. Please god, let corporations get personhood. Let the S&P 500 get 500 votes spread worthlessly across the states in which they claim primary residence, and let me have the right to "stand my ground" when Adobe tries to repossess last year's Photoshop.

To save us from the despair of unrefined workwomanship, maybe a wine-like subculture will develop, where people appreciate the effort and unobtainability of refined thoughts. But it's already ruined because it's now been compared to wine. Okay, pick a different metaphor.

Maybe this is all for the better, actually. Maybe there never was any need to mull things over for years before you finally crafted and presented them. After all, Rothko, right? Simplicity is the essence. Forty-year-old parents in Winnie-the-Pooh pajamas. If you combine your twitter with your blog with your end-product, you can talk about the same idea from seven different angles at once. You're so constantly published that you're never actually published. If women can be men and whites can be blacks, then no one can be anything--you figured that out, right? Well then, when the world's a stage, there are no more actors.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

If you gaze

The future will vindicate. Why talk when no one listens? Because you're enduring for history. You're bearing witness and paying heed and offering testimony for the future. This is why Dostoevsky and Tolstoy were able to stop the Bolsheviks, by describing in utter detail the subversive plan years before it was put into effect. Sure, no one listened at the time, but the transhistorical message they so painstakingly laid down, though treated as mere entertainment at the time of its writing, kept the demons out of not only Russia, but Venezuela. It's easy to ignore current commentators, due to the temporal distortion of them writing about things in which they have a vested interest (sullied by desire for attention), but you can trust people who screamed into the void many years ago.

The future will cleanse. Even the full historical backing of being directly vindicated by history--being proven right as a tracker and predictor of international politics, in the grandest sense--was nothing for them. We still read the tale of the foolish count who cucked himself for the noxious sort of ideas given shelter in Parisian circles, and we see the suffering he endured thereby, and how his eagerness to discard his serfs and become one of them failed his fathers' fathers and put his pudgy ass in prison camp; and, we read of the dark spirits and those they possessed, and of the ways they work and of the empty, clumsy narcissism of their fêtes and suicides. And somehow we have proven that the future void is no more responsive than the current void. Neither monastic solitude nor minor infamy nor worldwide translations and academic regard for constant centuries can save us from our generalized inability to want to understand.

Inside the West, Tolkien wrote the history of the second half of the twenty-first century--albeit dressing it up with a victory to soften the blow--and was yet simultaneously himself an advocate for the rule of the Uruk-hai and the peevishly dour fallen wizards who had, by then, already taken the Shire. The Mirror's future was that of his distant descendants, and even while writing of its horrors, he encouraged his son to fight for the enemy. How even more ironic, how damning, compared to the prophetic heights of Dostoevsky, that Tolkien could himself lament the dire consequences of which he was, at that very moment, encouraging his posterity to pursue! The Western soul is oft considered less tragic and melancholy than the Eastern, but that is only because time has not yet thrown more of its light upon the recent West.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Annuities and Bathrooms

We're so clever, some of us, that we understand how the media can make transsexual bathroom rights a plausible issue. We believe they've laid out this multi-decade plan to destroy the underpinnings of society by attacking the family, and yet we laugh at the idea that Trump might be Whiter-Obama. Apparently, we think that "the cultural marxists" are multi-generationally brilliant enough to have laid out a hundred-year-plan beginning with feminism, and yet they couldn't possibly be smart enough to have Jews publicly donate to Hillary in order to convince us that Trump is a reliable lifeboat.

2008, the American political left: Obama is only sucking up to Israel to get elected. Once he's elected, he's going to be an anti-Zionist leader who finally puts a stop to Israeli plundering of our nation and expensive war crimes against the Arab world.

2016, the American political right: Trump is only sucking up to Israel to get elected. Once he's elected, he's going to be an anti-Zionist leader who finally puts a stop to Israeli plundering of our nation and expensive war crimes against the Arab world.

Make up your mind--are these people competent, or incompetent? Are they foresighted, or not foresighted? Are they capable of controlling a narrative, or are they not?

Right now, "the right" is so clever for understanding that Dubya was a SOG JOG ZOG tool, but how long ago was it that "the right" was drooling over the chance to bomb Arabistan on behalf of our heroic anti-terrorist allies Israel? The degenerate sissies on the left said, "No," although maybe for the wrong reasons, but now that there's a plausible, theoretically antiwar candidate for the first time in America, soytits milkbeard leftist bastards are suddenly against him, having forgotten about the benighted Palestinians in favor of your local heroin dealer. And the self-professedly high-T truck-people are suddenly proclaiming that they never were for Dubya and his neocowboy neocohen crap. And of course, God bless Ronald Reagan, who armed the mujahideen and used Iraq to wound anti-Zionist Iran, maybe irrevocably, and who gave unprecedented power to MS13 and Sinaloa and laid the foundations for the drive that Clinton would expand, with NAFTA, toward the current stage of the invasion. It's only right now, it's never then, like a few nearly-honest Willie Horton ads can somehow make up for 8 years of affirmative action and reparations welfare.

Season your tea with the thought that annuities and advanced directives are similarly correlated. Fifty years ago, it was nearly evil and/or unthinkable (not really, but in the American lala land in which we're supposed to live) to contemplate "pulling the plug" on a sick person. Terri Schiavo became the new Trayvon Martin, suddenly highlighted by the sensationalist media--plucked, like Trayvon, out of the thousands upon thousands of situations like hers, where someone's family fought over the brain-dead, just as Trayvon was plucked out of the thousands upon thousands of Mestizo v. African street battles. The mainstreaming of the issue created an upsurge in people getting advanced healthcare directives, wherein they would get taken off life support rather than stay in comas. And everyone's sorta cool with that.

Imagine that the reason it worked out that way was not because of a new moral perspective on the part of the masses, but because people who sold annuities which provided lifetime monthly income ran up against medical technology which allowed a corpse to be kept technically alive in perpetuity. Prior to that technology existing, people ran out after a while, but in the presence of more powerful machinery, coma wards could fill up with people who'd been brain-dead for decades, but whose blood was being cycled, hearts forcibly beat, cells forcibly fed, bodies turned in bed, et cetera. Suddenly, the right to die.

You've gotta strike a balance, of course, because you can't have elderly people checking out at 72 when they're ready to be done, without having them first dump their net worth into 24-hour monitoring for a few years. That's a net parasite gain. But you also can't let them be broke and comatose, yet kept minimally alive on Medicaid, while a cleverly-planned annuity pays somewhere else. That could, if the payments were going to kids or other heirs, be a net loss to the parasites, therefore immoral, therefore massive news push to make a seemingly innocuous human interest story, well-coordinated with AMA requirements nationwide simultaneously, get people to conclude that they need advanced directives, ergo now the hospital pushes you to get one before your surgery.

Contemplating competency means contemplating a competency so competent that it can anticipate your awareness of its competency, and develop the necessary countermeasures. There are all sorts of reasons why hospitals make money keeping people alive, ergo why they shouldn't theoretically want people to get advanced directives, but at the same time, there's a higher calling, namely that the people who own and control and benefit from the hospitals also own the companies that sell annuities and set many other relevant policies, so Terri Schiavo became the new Mike Brown when she did, and hundreds of millions of people changed their attitude about long-term health care, while believing that they were doing so of their own volition, because the people behind the narrative determined that they'd achieve a profit massaging opinion in a certain way. Their foresight is as mundane as it is powerful. Annuities and life insurance and banking "regulations" and religious counseling changed worldwide in coordination with general awareness and effectiveness of new life-prolonging technologies, almost like the enemy is one and the same wherever you go.

Saturday, October 1, 2016

Another Panem Et

No, you idiots, sportsball isn't the bread and circuses, the election is the bread and circuses! The draft, the pre-game wrap-up, the courtside commentary, the timeouts, the concessions, the unfair referee, the championship, the post-game assessment, the sex scandal, the battle between league ownership and wildcard newcomer players, the spring training, the random predictions, the online fantasy version of it all...what are you all doing, out there, sneering at the sportsball apes while gobbling up the even-more-foppish version of the same thing? At least the Romans had bloody slaves; at least the Boomers have maid-raping dindus; what the hell do you have? The droll verbal battle of sexagenarian v. septuagenarian, where you're proud of the tactical decision to be insincere and/or terribly wrong in order to appeal to a hypothetical undecided moron who, truth be told, knows at least as much about the underlying realities of world power as you do?