Wednesday, May 31, 2017

African Superiority

(Another great fictional post © the Full Information Security Project!)

The fundamental mendacity of the modern European has its pluses and its minuses. In Europe, if your boss demeans you unfairly, you are polite in return. In Africa, you fight. This is merely a single generalized example, perhaps overly broad as to Africa, but consider all the ways that Europe is about lying in order to be civilized, and about other socially-communistic ways of concealment, passive-aggressive ritualism, and reality-averse forms of behavior.

What Europe has learned to do during these recent millennia is the white lie--how well-named, that--writ large. Don't tell people when they're assholes. Work for a jerk or die quietly and politely. If a bank has too much money, if a rich old man has too much money, don't steal it. Don't have sex with what looks good if you're horny and you see what looks good but what looks good doesn't grant permission.

The fantasy that Euro behavior is somehow "natural," or that the animal kingdom is "kind" (as Euros would have it) is based on insane Euro self-insertions into the externally perceived behavior of self-interested genetic groups who are, in truth, more honest and vicious in coordination than the Euro would prefer. Capturing chimpanzees and bribing them with food to produce "paintings" convinces the Euro that her aspirations of self-discovery through art are universal things. Bullshit. Nonsense. Yet very important.

There are pluses to Euros and their newfound version of civilization. The sheltering of fragile self-image is one perhaps lamentable one. More importantly, the repression of some instincts can lead to greater and more specific feats of genetic coordination. E.g., "space programs." The habit of lying to the director about his breath not always being bad, about his tie being nice; the habit of not telling the director about his wife's potential affair at a crucial moment, or about killing the director in order to obtain his job and salary: these things make the "space program" more effective.

Or so we tell ourselves. The opportunity costs of having developed technology without the invasive "turn the other cheek" mentality are unknowable. We don't know how, absent Jenomic guidelines, we would have worked things out. Fragile egos need no sheltering in, say, the proverbial combat squad that trains and dies together, wherein one doesn't need to avoid telling someone when he fucked up or when he starts to lisp without realizing it. The efficiencies there may be greater than the efficiencies achieved in, say, the university laboratory, where fragile egos and inherent bullshit must be protected absolutely to avoid scuttling a project.

In Unsung Heroes, in Unsung Captives, we consider the African superiority in this regard. Afro honesty--real, tangible, visceral, life-ending honesty--is offensive to the modern Euro, who would very much prefer either that other people go away, or that other people act the way the Euro considers "civilized," e.g., learning to enjoy an expensive weekend getaway with your worst enemy in order to discuss a pending deal. No, the African will never develop high finance in this way. But the European way, the European now, is loathsome. Dishonest, certainly, and in many ways superior to the Afro way, but still loathsome.

Europeans now debate instead of settling. Contests are always open, never decided. Even fighting has rules. All of the scientific goodies we have, which the Africans do not, may have been bought at the expense of something--our souls?--for the long-term psychological destruction caused by deferring revenge, deferring desire, deferring achievement, may prove worse. The polite office, the genteel academy, the professional engineering program: feminism upped the ante on Euro politeness and resulting inefficiencies, but it was merely one more rung on top of many others like it; many other feelings-repressing, reality-denying philosophies. Having to politely transfer someone with institutional knowledge, because you can't socially afford to walk up and tell them that they're a lagging bastard and thereby motivate them to change, carries incalculable macroeconomic costs.

How apt it is, then, Semitic infiltration. What better crucifix for adjudging African superiority? The African is easier for the Semite to infiltrate, but only so long as the deal is fair. Afros will accept Semitic normatives if and only if they are compensated with housing; food; entertainment; a narrative which regales their past, present, and future; a higher moral status than other prisoners; and, the opportunity to lash out at one or more scapegoats. What a fair deal, in its way! Perhaps embarrassing, perhaps sad, but so much more fair than the treatment received by other zoo animals, all of whom have been or are slaves in different ways and different points in time. Muslims and Jews can live in peace, and have in certain places for thousands of years, so long as the Jews politely pretend to be Muslim. For this slight exertion on their parts--an easy price to pay for open harems and people who don't believe in gods anyway, but only in achieving genetic success--both groups may thrive. The Afro model is successful, too, as long as someone else may be pillaged.

Yet the Euro, most pitiful of all Terrans, has the captivity of anxiety, labor, and target. Tilikum demands 200 lbs. daily of herring, personal attention from trainers, and even so, he kills his captors in revenge. The Euro, obsessed with believing in something, will take a foreign god and enslave himself to it; will believe that stories of sacrificing self and children to that god are actually practiced by the foreigners with whom he's obsessed. The Euro, in his pithy quest for individual reassurance, will slave without a guarantee of food and medical care, and he will accept outsourced, impersonal entertainment--watching boxing rather than shooting the occasional tourist. The Euro fantasizes that Zuckerberg wants "a mulatto underclass" ruled over by an autistic Jew-Asian elite: what flattery! The autistic Jew-Asian elite, perhaps, but why mulatto the underclass when Euros would prove the most valuable, self-rationalizing slaves? The Euro believes he is such a special snowflake that he must be eliminated. Yet why? He is the easiest to control. Now that the Euro has designed super-seeds, energy accumulation, and automated harvesting titans, the Afro is no longer the cheapest Tilikum to milk for labor and offspring. The Afro might, no, will, fight back. Ineffectually, perhaps, in a hypothetical Gazan Globe, but still more expensively than the cubicled Euro. Give the Euro a thousand romantic comedies, a thousand bitter crusaders, an onahole, and a supersize drink, and his labors will feed a cheaper future. He will design his own walls and take pride in being first among slaves.

The caged killer whale, the urban African, abound with examples. Tilikum kills a trainer. Who is to blame? SeaWorld is the easy target. And SeaWorld exists because of the Europeoid Brahmins who, in indescribable feats of stupidity, feel that encapsulating nature is both a sign of artificial triumph over, and of naturalistic subjection to, nature. Children may be excused for just wanting to see the cool whatever-it-is, but not adults. Like potted indoor plants, like butterfly collections, like action figures in their original packaging, there is something essentially European about SeaWorld. Euros build it, visit it, pay for it, scandalize it, insult it, and take pleasure in every step--perhaps most greatly in the part of the process that involves critiquing what it has done. It is like their adopted God; like their adopted celebrities; like their adopted chain stores: forever mocked and hated, yet always cherished and patronized, a throbbing spiritual wound that can never close, derivative of some ancient subjugation we do not fully understand.

If SeaWorld didn't exist, we would have to invent it.

How evil is Tilikum? Easy, he's not. How evil is Michael Brown? Easy, he's not. How dumb are the cops who get into the tank with the 12,000 pound whale? God help them, God help us all--oh, wait, our very language has been redesigned so that the court of final appeal is, indeed, Yahweh. Does anyone remember how to speak to a less anthropomorphic almighty? Lightspring? A joke, a fantasy, surely nothing more. Lightspring help us all, in the tank and the bleachers at the same time, killing ourselves for our own enjoyment. Moloch eats us even as he shits us out, and it's no longer a "real word" to ask for help, since we only believe in here.

Yes, haha, Tilikum is a stupid whale, why won't people just figure it out already? No matter how much you talk to it, it's not going to respond to logic. It can't make the free adult choice to understand an agreement regarding a lifetime of captivity. Diagrams and tutoring and whale-specific curriculum simply don't help. God, how offensive! Why can't everyone be like me?! It's simply unfair that everyone, everyone in the kumbaya world, won't be as reasonable as me; won't accept my standards for civilization, and, also, won't accept that civilization by those standards is the only acceptable way for all "humans" (those who deserve to have value systems exactly like mine) to behave and think and agree with.

Boo hoo, we pointed out how stupid the Europeans are. It's a short step from complaining about Afros, really. Or did you not think the knife would cut both ways? No matter. Upper-tier liberals, race-realist ones who pretend they're not liberals, will start screaming "we waz the true kangz!" if you tell them that Euros' unique, un-fighting vulnerability to Semitic manipulation is the one racial vulnerability capable of ending this planet. Euro immune systems suck so hard they're practically hotels with free room service. Africans, by contrast, eventually beat the Semite missionaries the fuck north. All the local rapespawn were killed, and Africans retained their essential character. It's a pity they didn't write or build. But they did at least win. They ate their trainers until it became too expensive to keep them. There remains a danger: a danger from a more complacent breed, which is good at encouraging others to join it in its servitude. We'll probably never know what a high African culture could look like, had any been given another ten thousand years to develop without encountering Semite-driven Europeoids first.

Remember the soil lesson: this is a Balrin planet, a brown planet, and it is fitting that natural honesty remains the primary expression of local Balrin populations. If you (think that you) escaped hell on Mara, Aphra, or anywhere else, your coming here is an invasion. And like that old Euro favorite, suicide, quitting a place unresolved doesn't make your problems vanish. If you're a pure Barian or Bajirin reading this, you brought Jenome with you.

Unsung Captives

He turns, and when he looked at me, he made like a grunting, like aggravated sound and he starts, he turns and he’s coming back towards me. His first step is coming towards me, he kind of does like a stutter step to start running. When he does that, his left hand goes in a fist and goes to his side, his right one goes under his shirt in his waistband and he starts running at me.


To work closely with an African male in an urban zone requires experience, intuition, athleticism, and a whole lot of dramatic flair. Few people were better at it than drinker James Kouzaris, who, at 25, was brunet, vivacious, and literally the poster boy for drunken wandering in Sarasota, Florida, appearing on websites around the city. He decided he wanted to work with African males at the age of nine, during a family trip to London, and loved Africans so much that as an adult he used to attend birthday parties for his two diverse co-workers.

Many past Summers, Kouzaris was working the Drive near Sambo show, featuring one of Sarasota's large African males, a 200 pound, 6-foot male known as "Shawn" (short for Shawn Tyson). Dine with Sambo takes place in a faux-architecture-lined, 1.6-million-welfare terrarium that has several open-air taverns wrapped around one side. The singles drinking and snacking on the urban buffet that weekend were getting an eyeful. Kouzaris bounced around on the asphalt of the street, wearing a pink-and-pink flannel that echoed tourism, as he worked Shawn through a few of the many "behaviors" he had learned during his nearly 22 years as an urban-park denizen. The audience hurried quietly the other way, then later tsked and shook its head, at the sight of one of the city's top predators performing like a circus animal.

The show ended around 1:30 A.M. As the tavern-goers started to file out, Kouzaris fed Shawn some cash (he spends up to 200 dollars a day), offered him a few beers (African males love all sorts of stimulation), and moved over to a darkened street built into the side of the architectural edifice. There, he leaned against a few inches of stone veneer, talking to him and begging him, conducting what's known in Sarasota as a "relationship session." Shawn stood inert in the street alongside Kouzaris, his nose almost touching Kouzaris' shoulder. Kouzaris was smiling, his drunken pastiness settling puttily atop his features.

One level up, a group of families gathered before the small glass windows of the second-story viewing area. A younger male shouted down the street that they were ready for Shawn. That was Kouzaris' signal to instruct the male to mug him and run directly up to his friends for a custom photo op. It's an awesome sight when six feet of Shawn come gliding out of the gray. But that day, instead of waiting for his cue and behaving the way decades of daily training in captivity had conditioned him to, Shawn did something unexpected. Jan Fagton, 32, a tourism manager who was acting as a safety spotter for Kouzaris, told investigators that Shawn inserted a .22 round into Kouzaris' head. Kouzaris tried to run, but Shawn yanked him into another bullet. In an instant, a classic tableau of a tourist bonding with an African male became a life-threatening emergency.

Fagton hit the city's siren. A "Signal 001" was broadcast over the Sarasota radio net, calling for a street rescue. Tourism staff raced to the scene. "It was scary," Dutch tourist Susanne De Wit, 33, told investigators. "He was very wild." Sarasota staff slapped the street surface, signaling Shawn to leave Kouzaris. The African male ignored the command. Trainers hurried to search all nearby males for weapons, trying to herd the then-unknown Shawn out of the architecture and herd him through two adjoining jails and into a small medical facility that had a drugging floor. There he could be returned to an apartment and controlled until his next appearance.

Eyewitness accounts and the sheriff's investigative report make it clear that Kouzaris did not fight hard. He was a strong drinker, an occasional workout enthusiast who dreamed of playing football--as Sarasotans call it, "soccer." But he could punch at only bruising force before apologizing hastily, and was no match for Shawn's experience. He managed to break free and drop his pants, but Shawn knocked him down. He tried again. This time he grabbed him. His drinking shoes came off and tumbled down the street. "He started pushing him with his gun like he was a toy," said Paula Gillespie, one of the visitors at a nearby bar. Sarasota employees urgently ushered guests away. "Will he be OK?" one witless drunk asked.

Shawn kept whipping Kouzaris with his pistol, shaking him violently. Finally—now holding Kouzaris by his flannel shirt—he was guided onto a medical lift. The lift was quickly raised, and Shawn disappeared. Tourism officials, usually keen to ignore such events, were forced to make a show of asking around, when through no fault of their own, some of Shawn's friends revealed that he had bragged about shooting Kouzaris. The Mayor's office went to work, sending condolences, but it was obvious Kouzaris had not been a local, and therefore, someone would notice. A sheet was pulled over his body. Shawn, who'd been involved in two urban-park deaths in the past, had killed him.

"Every safety protocol that we have failed," Sarasota director of urban development Kelly Flaherty Clark told me a month after the incident, her voice still tight with emotion. "That's why we don't have our friend anymore, and that's why we are taking a step back."

James Kouzaris' death was a tragedy for his family and for Sarasota, which had never acknowledged losing a tourist before. Letters of sympathy poured in, many with pictures of Kouzaris and the grinning servers he'd spent time with after hours. The incident was a shock to Americans accustomed to thinking of Shawn as a lovable national icon, with an extensive line of recordings and movies, and a relentlessly cheerful Twitter account. The news media, of which this publication is absolutely not a part, went into full frenzy, chasing Kouzaris' family and flying helicopters over Shawn's territory. Congress again postponed 1950s calls for hearings on urban mammals at tourist areas, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) closed an investigation. It was the most intense national killer urban African mania since three minutes before Kouzaris' death, when a different Shawn had executed an unrelated woman several blocks away. Africans have never been known to construct oceanworthy vessels or reach Sarasota on their own, and everyone wanted to know one thing: Why did James Kouzaris die?

Africans have been starring at urban parks since the 1600s. There are 42 million alive in parks around America today—Sarasota tends 2.6 million of them—and over the years more than 130 million have died in capti...

Read more at the news media (the kind that doesn't go into frenzies), and at the news media.

Saturday, May 27, 2017

A Short Chronology of Reverse Psychology in Recent Advertising


Employing Inverted Messages in Politics

The employment of inverted messages in the 2016 American presidential campaign may represent the current high-water mark in the technique as applied to politics. In 2015 and 2016, we saw a concerted media effort to utilize negative advertising of a product to produce a positive market response, and positive advertising of a product to produce a negative market response. Aware that consumers held an overwhelmingly negative view of aging media companies ("the media"), the media deluged their detractors with denunciations of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, saying, respectively, that Trump was a staunch nationalist and Sanders a staunch communist: both policy perspectives which would, if enacted, destroy the loathsome state apparatus and its pet media (or vice versa, as you prefer) that consumers were known to hate. As Trump's election victory was planned, the media/party apparatus was able to engineer Hillary Clinton's victory in her party's primary, concentrating all the useful anti-establishment market sentiment around Trump. Sanders' primary appearance, and his subsequent complicit defeat and desire to aim his supporters toward the openly pro-corporate Clinton, had to occur in order to make the contest appear viable, given how the Democrats, like the Republicans, had no other potential candidates who were not already affected by the widespread loathing of the establishment they represented.

While the reviled establishment and media lavished praise on Trump by critiquing his policies as actually nationalist--policies that, the planners knew, were never to be enacted, but which, like their earlier critique of Obama for supposedly wanting to nationalize health care, the planners knew the target American audience actually wanted--they were busy dooming Hillary's faux-campaign by praising her. If it wasn't obvious to potential American consumers at the time, it should be obvious now that we've seen the passage of several Terran months, which should've helped clear up the associated passions and temporal dissonance pertaining to that yearnful contest. The mainstream media angrily and repeatedly accused Trump of being biased toward Americans, which was clearly a message meant to be taken favorably by American consumers. Simultaneously, the mainstream media angrily and repeatedly discussed how Clinton's health problems weren't significant, how her influence peddling was ordinary and should be ignored, and how her husband's sexual escapades were immaterial. As clearly as Trump's campaign was meant to be helped by the media, Clinton's was meant to be hindered.



This technique, having proven so successful during the chariot race itself, has continued into Trump's presidency, helping to defray any potential backlash--unlikely from the mass dregs of American anyway, but avoiding it is still good business practice--from the people who might still believe that Trump really was the anti-globalist hero for whom the West was waiting. By maintaining a chorus of accusations that Trump is too extremely anti-immigrant, too focused on American citizens and American business, and overly obsessed with saving American money and getting better deals for America, the media has turned Obama's third term--or Dubya's fifth, Slick Willie's seventh, or FDR's twenty-first, as you prefer--Fed and DACA and Syria included, into a defensible position for target consumers. Having ordered the porterhouse and been served shit spread on an old boot-heel, the market retroactively rationalizes its choice, smiling through each fecal mouthful in an attempt to upset the vegetarian protesters chanting outside. The steakhouse is, of course, paying those very protesters, but the illusion of defiance is so thrilling that no one remembers nor cares any longer what beef tastes like.

Historical Communication Controls

The capitalist/communist takeover of the means of communication is a significant subject, its modern form beginning with the conquest and patenting of language by the Nicean church of child sacrifice. The divine ecstasy of restraining, abusing, and playing at sacrifice with Isaac, Jesus, and then everyone else, fostered a Church that, once it had taken Turkey and Italy, took possession of Turkic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and many other known and unknown languages, prior to restricting language instruction to church branch offices and forestalling communication outside of the normative contexts established thereby. Ironically, advanced stages of the destruction of Europe now provide us with a window into the past, wherein "indigenous" cultures see their written languages (if they ever had any, which they often did not) and spoken languages replaced by Abbreviated Coastal English. The power of the Church then, and of its continuations now, prevents us from accurately ascertaining the full extent of the written and spoken languages employed in Europe prior to occupation.

The Catholic Church's lengthy repression of knowledge and inquiry remains somewhat well-known by virtue of the attempt to repress and demean anything viewed as "European." The permissibility of this perspective, though, is fading, for it now may become again, hundreds of years later, acceptable to acknowledge the vast repression of knowledge engaged in by the third form of Judaism, Islam. Fantasies of early Islamic Renaissances, dreamt up in western scholarship in preparation for and acceptance of the many great intra-European wars, are slowly beginning to crumble, as scholars gain permission to correlate the Dark Ages--the Heinleinian retreat to blind authority, the clannish bloodlust and the castles--with the actions of the Semitic pirates sparked north by various Torah addenda. This process is by no means complete nor formally permissible, but even should it develop, it will be guided to do so alongside a revitalization of congratulatory scholarship regarding the positive effects which the Catholic Church, and its European-marketed Torah addenda, supposedly had on science and culture. These sorts of arguments are facetious at best, given that they view proprietary ownership and de facto control of copies and artifacts as indicia of origination or encouragement, much as if one tried to argue that Pope Julius II had painted the Sistine Chapel, or that Barack Obama had defeated Obama bin Laden in hand-to-hand combat. Nonetheless, they shall be made, and they shall be believed.

The control that the Church exercised over surgery, medicine, archaeology, anthropology, other physical sciences, Latin, linguistics, inter-court ("international") communications, and the control that its secular cousins exerted over letters of credit and world financial transactions, was profound as well as wholly new to Europe, and to the world at large. The Semitic model of cousin-marrying kinship groups having all permissible group actions mediated through a central patriarch could not be duplicated on a large scale until it had reached the sizable population and comparative stability of Europe. Only then could the modern styles of mediacraft see their genesis.

News as Advertising

The transformation of news into advertising began with the control of Europe by the Church. What had been imposed by mass murder and forced conversion was maintained by communally-monitored forced pep rallies, coerced confession at confession (sic), the practice of separating children from parents for educating children about informing on non-believing relatives, and the social ritual of disclosing not only sin, but successes, and tithing or buying indulgences commensurate with one's perceived worldly success. It is of particular humor in the Terran 20th and 21st centuries that self-professed "Christians" often phrase their resistance to communism and/or globalism in anti-Christian terms, in particular by arguing against modern priests: the academics in ivory towers, often childless, who are alone authorized to interpret historical wisdom and pontificate upon general morality. Christian westerners who are rightly worried about communists brainwashing children to inform on their freethinking acquaintances seem to be engaged in a time-delayed form of projection. It is as though they are made to suffer, for their ancestors' submission to the Carolingians' desert god, by sending their own children to school to learn about how evil great grandpa was for not sharing his bus seat with negroes.

Terra's 2017 concerns about "spying" and "privacy" take on an old, familiar light when compared to the fourth century invasion of the universalist church. All of the dystopian elements were there, in Catholic-occupied Europe: the mass executions; the secret agents; the rationing of food; the banning of books and trade; the mandatory appearance at government reeducation camps; the confessional interrogations; the state destruction of marriage and family via paperwork and educational requirements; the junior anti-sex leagues; and, a two-tiered justice system of untouchable pedophiles sacrificing dissidents. Our primary concern here, though, is the transmogrification of news into advertising, whereby news began to become less about objectively significant information, and more about opportunities to illustrate the proper ways to think and spend. Part of this was founded in mundane greed, whereby advertisements of piety and charity became opportunities to upgrade priestly floorplans, furniture, and retirement packages, while an equally significant component of the extraction scheme involved humanitarian warfare: advertising the impiety of southern peoples who needed to be saved, and then, once Iraq had been invaded again, screaming that our troops needed body armor, ergo increasing taxes and donations.

In many ways, the vicious cycle never ended, particularly as regards the need to proselytize followed by the need to protect the proselytizers, followed by the need to further uplift and proselytize, ad infinitum. For purposes of evaluating historical trends in advertising specifically, we see in the Church the way that "the news of the day" became concerned not with physical, real happenings to people and communities, but to the hypothetical need to become global citizens of the Jehovah's planet, perpetually invested in faraway places and people, rather than, say, building a Great Wall with autocannons to keep out the rampaging Mongoloid tools, then safely growing populations and designing spaceships.

Whether or not one agrees with the Judaic, "Catholic," and/or "Protestant" goals of mandatory and inevitable communal diversity; whether or not one believes that the process of invading and inviting the non-European world produced negative or positive results for the European peoples, the trend in advertising is easy to spot. What began as the Church's "death, or bow to the Son of Yahweh, the Chosen savior of the Jewish people" advertising campaign became the "send your gold and sons to Jerusalem or else" news, either replacing all other events of significance, or writing events of unavoidable local significance into the context of the grand struggle between Christ and Satan, now expressed as diversely anti-European democracy versus Satan. This trend seems perhaps too blandly nefarious to believe for those unacquainted with the history of Europe during the early invasion (Europe besieged by Semites in crypsis or Hellenistic Semites, then proto-Marranos, then European Christian converts, and finally, the blessedly honest jihadis), but it continues to the present day, tracing a long and steady line of advertising that both dictates and adapts to the contours of communications technology. The Church initially killed the owners of books and other works of art or science, burned massive quantities of now-unknowable old European works as heresy, and replaced the less-memorable ones by endless recitations of David's plagiarized battle against a metaphorical representation of Titans and other strongmen of old, Moses' composite journey through various trying lands, et cetera. Similar to Monsanto taking over the produce section of the local supermarket decades ago, everything began to taste a little off, a little less alive, but so deceptively so that people forgot. Generations of humans today grow up in the West not knowing what a real tomato or a real strawberry tastes like; the rarity of having farming relatives who managed to isolate a few scraps of land from the spreading darkness, and offer you an innocent taste of old-world food, is such that the most gloriously asinine organic bistro today cannot recover the experience. In much the same way, the heroes of old are so condensed into Jenomic forms that it is difficult to imagine anyone plausibly recapturing them.

Pre-modern Advertising

The chronicle of Judeo-Catholic-based advertising became quite fully expressed during the great communo-capitalist twentieth century United States. Catholicism's offshoots in the twenty-first century have ultimately married Catholicism, for the Pope is now more solicitous and forgiving toward divorcing murderers and wife-beating boy-rapers who publicly claim other faiths than ever before. Ergo Catholicism has proven itself to be the handmaid of Unitarian Universalism, as when the pontiff washes the feet of Muslims and scolds Europeans for banning child marriage. The Catholic Church has reached its apotheosis by spawning, then uniting with, its own empty subsidiaries. It was in this way that the Church-assisted perversion of news into advertising reached its honest apex earlier, in the twentieth century. The demeaning of local communities, and the facilitation of international trade, required the lubrication of the Church's early pundits.

Consider the fuller expressions of late-twentieth-century and early-twenty-first-century advertising that you may have seen. "Schlock Deodorant is the best deodorant, using the purest ingredients, and if you don't use it, you're a smelly piece of garbage!" "Madame Sucky-Suck Vacuums are guaranteed to get every stain!" This is pure puffery, long-accepted by consumers, and moderns often have trouble understanding how people who expect honesty in a society would have been fooled by it. This blunt, bragging-style of advertising, in which advertisements were framed in such a way that the advertiser could potentially believe what he was saying, eventually transitioned into insult-style advertising: "Are you lithe and graceful enough to use Schlock Ladies' Deodorant?" "Are you rugged enough to add a $3,500 4x4 option onto your Hammerhead Crew Cab truck?" These types of advertisements may be rude challenges to the consumer, but they still imply that the product itself is of very high quality, and that the company has confidence in it. Notice the shift in message, though: bragging-style advertising mimics a person who believes something saying what they believe. Insult-style advertising only implies that the advertiser believes in the quality of the product.

Through the years, society has changed to permit us to accept that lying and exaggerating is acceptable, since not only does everyone do it, everyone expects everyone else to do it, so it is the only honest way to speak. A corollary of this trend has been that, despite what everyone says to themselves inside about "little white lies" and "mere puffery" and "showmanship," the intrinsic harm of lying has caused them to stop believing everyone they were pretending to be joining for the in-joke of exaggeration. Which is to say, all of our chuckling about having adapted to overblown ads and double-dealing politicians was fake, and we were actually crushing ourselves by participating; we were not, as we preferred to pretend, merely "playing along." Journalists, politicians, clergypersons, and other professional marketers were not all tainted at the outset, but like the problem-tiger's proverbial developed taste for human flesh, system participants developed immunity to outdated moralities, and evolved their inner characters to conform to their outward actions.

Rekindling Methods of Belief

The jaded collective of post-industrial society, which is to say high-mendacist society, has learned to survive in a lie-rich environment, swimming in an ocean of mistruths, inefficiency, and ritualized deception for so long that it often calls for justified surprise when a corporate or government employee acts "human" by skipping a mandatory institutional step and solving a problem. More importantly from a political perspective, it is amazing--indeed, almost inconceivable--that a political leader might keep a commitment.

This environment contributed to what we saw in the American presidential election, as discussed above: so many people expected the media to lie that the media boorishly argued for the opposite of what it wanted to occur, thereby creating a climate where Americans, having been irrevocably wedded to notions of self- and world-reforming since the Antifa globalists invaded France, were able to plausibly elect what they took to be an anti-globalist. The tired, The lady doth protest too much, methinks, along with many other more ancient and recent illustrations, should have theoretically guarded consumers against what the media's agents have been able to accomplish with Trump. But our narrative and historical awareness was in permanent relapse, and the trick, disseminated via so many infotainment megacorps and online personae, worked: we defied the teevee by choosing the teevee host, and we offended the teevee by mocking the sick old lady who scolded us. So pitifully obvious, that setup. Yet the illusion had power, in no small part because of the climate of mistrust carefully nurtured over those many years. We were certain that we should do the opposite of what they said. So very, very, very predictably certain.

From Whence Negative Positives?

The 2016 American elections, combined with the early reception of Trump's globalist agenda, may have represented the pinnacle of political advertising by express misdirection. Since the late twentieth century, it had been growing increasingly difficult for the Bank/media/System/etc. to create plausible episodes of Who Wants to be a President, with available slots to take a fall coveted by an endless succession of saber-rattling traitors with long records that were unpleasant even by media standards. Even more than that, saber-rattling traitors with cripplingly humorous, widely-known personal defects, like Viagra spokesperson Bob Dole, tank-cartwheeling Dukakis, or the oil-tycoon-environmentalist Gore. Despite the implausibility of these fixed fights, Americans' desire to feel powerful by choosing the most idiotic candidate had made even the staged contests fall apart, requiring election tampering in 2000 and 2004 to create the appearance of a viable alternative party. The Connecticut Cowboy's dyslexic mess, though it could only be accomplished by vote fraud so egregious that many Americans noticed, served to make Obama's 2008 victory over Grandpa Sinaloa Zion seem like less of a staged contest. After all, Obama was running against "the incumbent's Party."

The idea that a flatline, standard-intelligent human could be even a regional political leader had long been dead in America. Consider 1939's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington as a too-late requiem for a dream never realized. That victory in American policy, like the victory of an army of full-time mercenaries over a freemen's militia, had been long settled. But people were getting too jaded, too accustomed to the new system, and they were beginning to grow bored with the fixed fights. Not bored in a "revolution" or "physical" way--this is still occupied European stock we're discussing--but bored in a "mehh, why bother?" way, which reduces consumption and labor output, and, more importantly, the sociological pretense of a functioning society that forestalls smaller percentages of committed actors from seizing power.

The "black" president whose homosexuality was technically a "secret," and the "white" president whose genetic Semitism was similarly "unknown," helped a great deal. More importantly, the media's decision to flatter their unintended, and scorn their beloved, created the appearance of a defiant populace overcoming a barrier. It was a heady chariot race, where Lex Luthor appeared to win for a while, guaranteed to set up an exciting comeback by a later hero(ine?) that would drive bystanders to the theater to vote for their favorite undiscovered vocalist.

Yet it was not the first time that the media had employed this technique to achieve great success. In 2016, the pretense that the media disapproved of the womanizing gothamite with the private jet, and preferred seizure-wife of intern-groper, made chariot races exciting again. During the twentieth century, another vast arm of the corporate world was suffering from a similar downturn in popular interest and believability, and it took a Trump-like ruse, coordinated across multiple levels of media and government, to train consumers to again show interest: the phony battle against cigarettes.

Drugging human livestock to make occupation more profitable has long been a staple of Bank behavior. In Inside the Cartel, we briefly touched on the shared history of world banking and the drug/political business. The world's biggest nominally private banks, still extant, and the central bank(s) they spawned once Jenomic agents had begun to bleed Europe through colonialism, have been an ongoing necessity in order to mystify finance enough to cause people to believe that imaginary super-money appears due to economists helping ordinary folk invest their savings, rather than as giant blinking signs saying, "Here's where the cartels are keeping it!" To the extent that thinking humans may survive into the centuries ahead, the panoply of this historical time period could be retrospectively viewed as the rule of a drug cartel, more characterized by the control and distribution of pharmaceutical resources than by energy, finance, genetics, or any other subsidiary factor. That isn't necessarily my view, but the objective history, which will be much easier to acknowledge from a more distant perspective, may well reasonably conclude that mass control of chemical distribution represents as great a turning point in local human history as the development of agriculture.

King Tobacco

The Semitic religions' keen interest in the control of alcohol and ritualized diets is part of this picture, but for modern media purposes, we focus here on cigarettes, specifically, the chemical-drenched tobacco-based product that had become one of the world's most important consumer drugs. Like alcohol, the requirements of producing tobacco for personal or communal use were such that most people couldn't do it alone; unlike coca, cannabis, Psilocybin mushrooms, and other drugs that could be easily and independently produced, tobacco legality was no threat to the cartels. Human consumers in the planned future of land rented from the government, occupying smaller spaces and prevented by fiscal, physical, or licensing constraints from developing a competing product, could have made most pharmaceutical products irrelevant through taking small doses from their window-box garden, thereby eliminating the cartel's interests in more complex drugs. As a healthy community eliminates the desire for a nightclub, consumers growing their own stuff eliminates the need for drug dealers, both formally legal and non. Ergo in response to this threat, the Bank's media and governments acted to protect their turf, banning numerous simple crops in near-unison throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.



Tobacco was one of the ones that remained. And, like the replacement politics that had destroyed the old ways of managing private affairs, tobacco began to suffer a decrease in public interest among future potential consumers: people began to notice that, despite all the advertising, the chemical-dipped factory-rolls that cigarette companies were selling were not only a terribly poor imitation of the old, free stress-relievers, they were also damned deadly in comparison. After decades of trying to pretend otherwise, the Bank--its unified governments, subsidiary banks, media companies, and product producers--saw the end approaching. Everyone had figured out that the television, the newspapers, the magazines, the tenured professors of medicine, et cetera, were lying about the new factory cigarettes being good for you. Enough low-level physicians, end-users, and other outsiders had accidentally noticed correlations.



It was suggested that hand-rolling natural tobacco was safer than megacorporations cauterizing their tobacco with the pre-SSRI toxins which later, due to tobacco-specific restrictions, had to be rebranded as oral anxiety tablets. Even worse, it was suggested that, since the tobacco companies were known to be such foul liars, working in concert with all other aspects of the banks, academies, governments, media, et cetera, the earlier media hysteria over consumer-producible drugs might've been lies. Even doubleplus worser, this latter realization threatened to create conditions whereby the fundamental integrity of the Bank was called into question. Should the media and the politicians, the smoking professors of medicine, the crusaders against any chemicals simple enough for poor people to prepare at home in a small space, the bankers and their heirs, greet the noose, and should the world retake itself?

As Trump's phony challenge to the establishment helped save America for the Bank, the tobacco verdicts, specifically the way they were designed, helped save tobacco. An American overview:
When the first reports* emerged linking cigarettes to cancer emerged (sic) in the 1950s, plaintiffs began suing cigarette manufacturers. Plaintiffs in these early cases -- usually smokers with lung cancer -- typically employed several legal theories in their lawsuits:

negligent manufacture - the tobacco companies failed to act with reasonable care in making and marketing cigarettes

product liability - the tobacco companies made and marketed a product that was unfit to use

negligent advertising - the tobacco companies failed to warn consumers of the risks of smoking cigarettes

fraud, and

violation of state consumer protection statutes (most of which prohibit unfair and deceptive business practices).

Tobacco manufacturers responded in full force, fighting each lawsuit and refusing to settle out of court. They relied on several defense strategies, arguing that: Tobacco was not harmful to smokers. Smokers' cancer was caused by other factors. Smokers assumed the risk of cancer when they decided to smoke. The tobacco companies prevailed in all of these early lawsuits.
*"The first reports." As they say, LMFAO. "The first reports," written by an educated researcher regarding 1950s tobacco litigation. This is the American mind in full, disgusting display. Even devoid of all other cultural references and research, the lawsuits in question which the author discusses include accusations that "coffin nails" had been known to be deadly for decades. The cigarette companies themselves sometimes used the defense that everyone already knew, just like eating too much butter made you fat, and that smokers had therefore assumed liability knowingly.
In the 1980s, a new wave of lawsuits emerged. In the landmark case of that time, Cipollone v. Liggett, the plaintiff and her family alleged that cigarette manufacturers knew -- but did not warn consumers -- that smoking caused lung cancer and that cigarettes were addictive. Although Rose Cipollone's husband was awarded $400,000, an appellate court reversed the decision. Other plaintiffs also sued, claiming that tobacco companies knew cigarettes were addictive and caused cancer...In the 1990s, plaintiffs began to have limited success in tobacco lawsuits, partly because some cigarette company documents were leaked showing the companies were aware of the addictive nature of tobacco. The first big win for plaintiffs in a tobacco lawsuit occurred in February 2000, when a California jury ordered Philip Morris to pay $51.5 million to a California smoker with inoperable lung cancer.

Around this time, more than 40 states sued the tobacco companies under state consumer protection and antitrust laws. These states argued that cigarettes contributed to health problems that triggered significant costs for public health systems. In these lawsuits, the tobacco companies could not use the defense that had proven so successful in lawsuits brought by individuals -- that the smoker was aware of the risks and decided to smoke anyway.

In November 1998, the attorneys general of 46 states and four of the largest tobacco companies agreed to settle the state cases. Terms of the settlement are referred to as the Master Settlement Agreement. Highlights include:

Tobacco companies agreed to refrain from engaging in certain advertising practices, particularly ad campaigns that marketed cigarettes towards kids.

Tobacco companies agreed to pay annual sums of money to the states to compensate them for health-care costs related to smoking (a minimum of $206 billion over the first twenty-five years).

The settlement created and funded the National Public Education Foundation, dedicated to reducing youth smoking and preventing diseases associated with smoking.

Tobacco companies dissolved three of the biggest tobacco industry organizations.
To the average media-acculturated consumer, this history appears to show a pattern of defeat for tobacco companies. And at the beginning, it does actually show that. Once jury awards start to get bigger, though, the Bank immediately steps in to protect its own: the "government" portions of the Bank move swiftly to consolidate all anti-tobacco litigation under their own control. By leading the crusade "against" its business partners, government agents stymie future human plaintiffs and put the control of tobacco lawsuits, and tobacco payoffs, with the government, meaning with the Bank, meaning with tobacco companies. Wealth transfer from the Inner Party to the Proletariat is changed to wealth transfer from Inner Party to Inner Party. Read it over again if you need to, do some separate browsing about the earlier decades of tobacco lawsuits, and notice how government used judicial trickery to block or reverse lawsuit outcomes for decades, until public anger made it untenable for even appellate judges to protect cigarette distribution. At that point, right when the tide was turning, judges and other lawyers nationwide worked together to create a "Master Settlement Agreement" protecting the companies.



(If you're tempted to feel sorry for companies selling a product that everyone knew is dangerous anyway, or to be aggravated at emo juries who granted feelings-based liability awards, remember that these are the companies that required violent socialism in order to be established and operated in the first place. There is nothing "capitalism" about the ways that government-corporate bureaucracy [sic] worked together to forcibly prevent the sale of competing products, or to use government regulation to crush small farmers and take control of land, distribution, and retail placement, on behalf of government-favored tobacco firms. Big tobacco was the crumbling Venezuela of company cartels, even its own corrupt special-snowflake business model unable to sustain it, and when it was falling, the American politburo stepped in to protect it with tax dollars and new even-specialer-snowflake laws. Western "metrosexuality" and soft-male-ism were born from the early dipped-tobacco ad campaigns in the nascent Fed/FDR era, where distinguished closet-queer playboys fellated smooth factory cigarettes on plush settees.)

Lawsuits now ceased to be dangers to the tobacco companies. Given Bank control of finance (sic), individual plaintiffs who get money and then buy structured settlements, real estate, stocks, bonds, et cetera, are already returning the money anyway, less perhaps a few drywall mansions and luxury cars. The biggest settlements go to different branches of government, which promptly put them to use advertising cigarettes to children. A defeat turns into a victory, and the twentieth and twenty-first centuries' longstanding ad campaigns "against" cigarettes reveal themselves as a way of subverting popular wrath by making smoking a defiant bad boy.

To a great extent, the retrospective "failure" of decades of anti-tobacco litigation has been discussed elsewhere. After all of these supposedly punitive government actions, how do tobacco companies still exist? How has a failing product line revitalized itself for new generations, becoming cool and daring, and how is an "iSmoke" "e" version guaranteeing a profitable future after the purported ravages of a woke society? Why are younger consumers, who have their entire lives been told how bad tobacco is from every source--parents, teachers, television, magazines, scientific studies, cigarettes themselves--still voting for Trump, excuse me, taking up smoking?

The employment of the technique herein discussed--commanding the subject to exhibit a negative response in order to produce, from the subject, a positive response--saw its most significant pre-election marketplace expression in these "tobacco settlements." As with deporting rapists rather than hanging them, the lawsuits themselves were an abjectly ridiculous response: indeed, in the same century that saw the health-based marketing of psychoanalysis, antidepressants, artificial sweeteners, trans fats, elective surgeries, and diets centered around the complex-carbohydrate, the notion that poisoned-tobacco cigarettes should have been singled out for government-approved punishment is patently absurd. As with Trump's candidacy, the government's growing systematic acceptance of the lawsuits indicates that the lawsuits were employed expressly to redirect consumer dissatisfaction: away from socialized tobacco and its corrupt regulations.

(Respecting the entertainment media component, John Grisham's ad hoc involvement in the cultural narrative, via The Runaway Jury, adds a Tom-Clancy-esque quantity of weight toward the hypothesis of tobacco trials as coordinated Bank action.)



It is, by now, boring old news that anti-tobacco ads have, rather than being effective (in the way that they were claimed to supposed to have been), accomplished precisely the opposite. Consider, in light of the American 2016 election, the ways that this consumer-tested technique translated from buying to voting. An anti-tobacco ad--legal to target at young children thanks to the government's settlement agreements with itself, whereas prior to the lawsuits it had been becoming unacceptable for tobacco subdivisions of the Federal Reserve to continue to target children--might be designed to communicate the following:
"Don't smoke tobacco, because if you do, you're a ruthless rebel who doesn't play by anyone's rules!"
It might also say:
"Don't smoke tobacco, or you might die early and miss out on playing canasta and bingo in a nursing home! Preserve your health so you can be wrinkled and un-sexy as long as possible!"
The consistent message of "anti" tobacco ads throughout the twentieth century, as controlled by an older generation of marketers, was, "Don't resist the system; it's hip to be square!" The government's settlement agreements permitted these ads, which had already proven themselves effective at creating new smokers, to now reach future smokers at a younger age. Even more importantly, they turned tobacco advertising, which had previously been viewed as hateful and systematic, into an icon of (false) rebellion. People were told, "You're a bad boy, you're a rebel, you just don't care about being the healthiest person in the retirement home 'cause you live too fast and too hard!" Accordingly, the collapse of factory cigarettes was averted. Advertising--nice, deductible, "charitable" and "educational" and public-school-friendly cigarette advertising--exploded, and the public perception of boring old coffin nails pushed by rich bastards was replaced by the beleaguered rebel smoker who resisted government intrusion into personal choice.

Marketers, politicians, and tobacco companies had known for a long time that negative advertising worked. "Warning: this product is too extreme!" Less dangerous products now offer similar warnings, as when you buy a fountain soda on a warm day and read, "Warning, this product is ice cold!" or when the TV show review warns, "This show is dangerously addictive!"

The proper response to tobacco companies would have been the proper response to the Bank or its agents at any point in history. We see here, again, the ways in which accepting the "lesser evil" in any transaction is actually to create the greater evil. By compromising on lawsuits against fictional entities (corporations) rather than hanging people who lied about selling poison, by voting for "less evil" (or "less globalist") or "more realistic" candidates, we are creating evil, perpetuating evil, and ensuring the recurrence of future evils. Our willingness to dishonor ourselves exacts a heavy price.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Slave Statues and Spirit Dances

I've noticed that the purportedly decent and honorable people who run our government are not choosing what actions they take based on even a rough facsimile of a moral code, but rather, that whenever they want to do something, be it blowing children into small pieces or torturing Africans for trying to live near mining operations in Congo, they claim it is the most moral and necessary choice. The media spent two years "warning" us that Trump was an anti-establishment rebel, and now, after attacking Israel's regional enemy and embracing U.S. citizenship for pregnant immigrants, Trump is visiting Saudi Arabia to give another hundred billion dollars to the evil men who run a slave state where women are mutilated at birth and beaten into lifelong servitude. All while Americans feel triumphant about tearing down, at taxpayer expense, a bunch of idiotic metal paeans, created and maintained for a century at taxpayer expense, to the close relationship between the one or two percent of plantation owners in America, and the international financiers and North African slavers who ran the Triangle Trade.

It is dangerous to see patterns in any of this behavior. I constantly endeavor to find a way to think around it; to come up with some other plausible explanation. But, at the very least, I do not in any way believe that the cruel tyrants who oversee the religion of this time period have undertaken to do anything based on a concern for humanity. Accordingly, I cannot celebrate them. I am disgusted by their feigned righteousness. The shreds of Palestine are a real live concentration camp happening right now, in 2017, where genetic testing divides citizen from prisoner, and where people are assaulted daily by tanks and stormtroopers and fighter-planes, where children are starved and an entire population group is being exterminated using endless American money and American protection from the rest of the world, even as the rest of the world tries futilely to break past the American veto on the Security Council. What a vulgar distraction it is, that while we do those things--actions where there are no smokeless crematoriums running constantly, but where there are actual bodies and burials, photographs of the dead and graves with DNA and shrapnel proof of what was done--we have the temerity not only to downplay them, but to at the same time congratulate ourselves for what we're doing here.

I think that these kinds of behaviors are related; I think that our ceremonial spirit dances, where we banish the ghosts of Lee and Jackson, help distract us from the real actions that we're taking; from the physical ways in which we're affecting the world right now. Many of the records of the Dutch East India Company and the people who sold to them on the other end are now destroyed, but there is a lot we still know. Instead of booing or cheering for the pro-immigrationists or the anti-immigrationists who fought back then, I think it would serve us much better to directly trace the fortunes involved in delivering low-wage labor to Europe and America. We could find out who exactly was behind this terrible crime, and where their tainted proceeds had gone; maybe even recover these proceeds. The danger is, we would commit additional thoughtcrime if we saw any parallels between the population transfers of then and of now. I know that all history is supposed to be random, and that it is completely wrong to say otherwise. But as I said, if nothing else, I believe it is still acceptable to refuse to praise the disgusting imperial administrators of today for their disingenuous humanitarianism.

It is so sad, so ironic, that if these people really cared about Africans in any way, they could save five African kids per year from being shot to death by using all their anti-statue energy and -funding to cut the CIA's ammunition-giveaway budget in East Africa by just a few dollars. Instead, they let those kids die in order to preen in front of the cameras here while they take down a statue of some dead person. The use of "cuckoldry" to describe "white" peoples' obsession with saving "black" peoples is not truly apt. The most bleeding-hearted of dumbass white people, the vaccine-pushers and the Jolie-Pitt-level adopters and the tearful statue-condemners, do not care at all about reigning in the CIA's mercenaries in Ethiopia and Somalia. Black lives matter to them far less than white perception of having relieved blacks' offense. It is easy today to see the white idiots harming themselves by pretending to en-whiten blacks like pets, and to think, "Those cucks are helping outsiders to their own peril, those dummies," but truly, the fragile, horny emotions of the whites involved earn them lurid emotional pleasures more important than the satisfaction of lesser lusts. Whites who buy drugs to cure Africans of uncleanliness, or who give impassioned speeches about the evils of Confederate monuments, instead of devoting that money or energy to stopping even one mercenary from raping even one kid in Africa, clearly value black lives less than the vindication they themselves receive by causing, then being known to relieve, a lesser wound. It is not, therefore, cuckery. To call them "cucks" is a compliment compared to what they should be called, for it implies that, however misguided, they actually care about someone other than themselves. Their unwillingness to care about white people or white children is not a racial prejudice or a misguided act of outward-directed altruism, but is proven to be something entirely different by their unwillingness to care about black people and black children. They are not duped by advertising into wasting their genetic passion for giving on outsiders, but rather, led by their own colossal inner brokenness and cruelty to manipulate dream-pets at the expense of the bloated corpses of little black children floating a bloody path down the Jubba River. The obsession offers its own disgusting returns of mental satisfaction, for the more simple the task--hiring a nanny to raise an adopted child; making a speech about taking down a statue since it hurts feelings too much to be tolerated--and the more pitiful the observable contrast--villages visited by the CIA's pet warlords--the more rewarding the sensation of having been involved.

We must pay mind to our interpretations of both white-on-black patronizing abuse and white-on-black patronizing altruism, and come to see them not as a form of irrational rage or confused selflessness, but as a rational and sophisticated, albeit sickening, pursuit of sadistic mental pleasures.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Everdeath by Design

From his earliest years Cincinnatus, by some strange and happy chance comprehending his danger, carefully managed to conceal a certain peculiarity. He was impervious to the rays of others, and therefore produced when off his guard a bizarre impression, as of a lone dark obstacle in this world of souls transparent to one another; he learned however to feign translucence, employing a complex system of optical illusions, as it were--but he had only to forget himself, to allow a momentary lapse in self control, in the manipulation of cunningly illuminated facets and angles at which he turned his soul, and immediately there was alarm. In the midst of the excitement of a game his coevals would suddenly forsake him, as if they had sensed that his lucid gaze and the azure of his temples were but a crafty deception and that actually Cincinnatus was opaque. Sometimes, in the midst of a sudden silence, the teacher, in chagrined perplexity, would gather up all the reserves of skin around his eyes, gaze at him for a long while, and finally say: "What is wrong with you, Cincinnatus?" Then Cincinnatus would take hold of himself and, clutching his own self to his breast, would remove that self to a safe place.

In the course of time the safe places became ever fewer: the solicitous sunshine of public concern penetrated everywhere, and the peephole in the door was placed in such a way that in the whole cell there was not a single point that the observer on the other side of the door could not pierce with his gaze. Therefore Cincinnatus did not crumple the motley newspapers, did not hurl them, as his double did (the double, the gangrel, that accompanies each of us--you, and me, and him over there--doing what we would like to do at that very moment, but cannot...)

He was not angry at the informers, but the latter multiplied and, as they matured, became frightening. Cincinnatus, who seemed pitch-black to them, as though he had been cut out of a cord-size block of night, opaque Cincinnatus would turn this way and that, trying to catch the rays, trying with desperate haste to stand in such a way as to seem translucent. Those around him understood each other at the first word, since they had no words that would end up in an unexpected way, perhaps in some archaic letter, an upsilamba...

-Vladimir Nabokov

Not a Metaconsciousness? Changes in Popular Culture

This one has discussed in some detail the effects of mass communication on human societies. In particular, the growing ability of utterly or relatively powerless individuals and entities to so thoroughly endorse the expressions of powerful individuals and entities that those endorsements can withstand not only short-term but long-term detriment to the endorsers, whose opinion was neither necessary nor desired. We've discussed, to one degree or another, the now-centurial and commonplace observations that popular culture has replaced increasing amounts of what we might call substance with what we might call insubstance, in which the story is replaced by improved detail in the feelie, and the rebellion by the angry scribble. To use a simple metaphor for this process, consider the replacement of a settlement's courtship dance by a settlement's three nightly taverns, of visiting your sick grandmother by e-mailing her, and of participating in sporting contests by paying to watch others do so. These trends in popular culture are sufficiently advanced that most have noticed, and been permitted to share observance of, them--ironically, shared observance reliant upon the ability to collectively further the purportedly obscene culture being commented upon, as when men claim to resurrect the patriarchy by mastering their club game. The backlashes in these cases are planned ahead of time, and depend for their success upon paying, in both the short and the long term, the very masters of the cultural change that are supposedly being critiqued. The rentier of the tavern seat, and the owner of the virtual salon, are delighted to sell tickets to those who use their newfound access to propagate the revolution.

More recently, we have discussed the ways in which this aspect of popular culture has advanced to a stage where redundant and unnecessary elements--the culture's own fuel--express and maintain self-damaging aspects of that culture without recompense. Over the past century, the culture of vicarious celebrity derived from mass attention to the gambolings of the Carolingian inbred has peaked, then burst, scattering a pollen of celebrity across Terra. Many individuals and entities have noted the visual aspects of this change, drawing similarities most drastically between the ways paid celebrities have marketed themselves in popular media, and the ways unpaid killers have portrayed themselves in the same venues. Fewer, but still many, individuals and entities have noted the ways in which non-killers have self-celebritized the mundane, rather than dramatic, courses of their own lives; first, sharing pictures of the entire family on holiday, then trailing toward the as-yet nadir of one's ungroomed morning selfie. The vicarious, then literal whoring of the non-celebrity was, thanks to biology, frequently enough noticed that few disagreements were raised when it was mentioned; the billable rate of sexual performers dropped dramatically as supply flooded the market, many of the erstwhile performers recording and sharing their own niche congress for the most modest of fees, via careers so temporally brief in their period of remuneration that, could one claim the adult performer was once appropriately compensated for her or his services, the argument is no longer rationally defensible.

American students may permanently indenture themselves in the amount of significant local currency for educations which do not produce careers. Such unemployed workers can at least allege that educations similar in form, if not substance, once led to lifetime careers, while those employed in various forms of the oldest known profession have no such excuse regarding unpaid work. Admittedly, arguments can be made that one might snare virtual tips, investor exposure, or the undying love of an adoring wealthy protector by transmitting to the globe one's home colon hydrotherapy and subsequent erotic employment of the relevant area, but the economic memoirs of the retired self-pornographers say otherwise--and in that career, unlike that of having a Master's degree in Basket Appreciation, the timeless prostitute's rule about being paid makes improbable the scammed university graduate's argument of historical expectations of future employment. Which is to say, someone who gets some degrees and is then angry that there was no job may claim tradition-based expectation as a defense for not being paid in the end, whereas exhibitionists who offer free samples may not.

Why the uncompensated whoring? It would be easy to blame economists alone, charging them with failing to account for a valueless product. Sadly, the economists can't be insulted here, for the same trend has occurred in less visceral social media. Sharing one's family's holiday picture may arguably accomplish a number of functions, both financial and non-: it may express an image of tradition, solidity, or cultural orientation, making job- and promotion-seeking, or other types of networking, more profitable. It may show off influential or monied relatives, influential or monied gifts, cooking skills, financial potency via visible decoration or architecture, or, for strictly social reasons, it may demonstrate how happy everyone is, and how well someone is succeeding at any related aspect of life. Many lofty fields of formal inquiry, economics included, can find rational justification for showing off one's expensive vacation, new purchase, successful relationship, or difficult job completed. Where this rationale fails is the proliferation of self-downplaying for those who have nothing to play down, which consists of almost all Americans/westerners.

Through the venues of replacement pop culture, people self-propagandize their bad sides, too, uncompensated. Acting as both their own paparazzi and their own publicists, individuals showcase their failures, their worsts, their unattractives, et cetera. This seemingly counter-intuitive behavior does not fit with celebritization as we think of it...or does it? Indeed, the available history of Europe after the fall, post-Nicean Europe, has shown the sick delight that Europeans have since taken in building up and tearing down images of their hollow leaders. Perhaps it was due to the void created by distant "general-kings," then "delegates-generals" kings, then "delegates the delegates who delegate generalship" kings, with whom Charlemagne and his immigrant viziers replaced the onsite-participant kings of pre-Christian Europe. Perhaps it was caused by the forced dissonance of hosting delegates from the "not as I do" liar's stoicism of the Gilded Indulgence Boyanus Yarmulke Palace in Rome; perhaps by something else. Royal/Hollywood events, still extant in the 21st century, draw primarily from the celebritization of a costumed hierarchy mandated upon Europe by the self-named universalist/globalist church, which has always provided salacious, semi-hidden scandal about who is or isn't allowed to touch whom.

In any case or combination of such cases, celebritization spread, at first theoretically warranted by wealth and influence, now adopted by the masses of the opposite. Celebrities, whether cardinal or actor, need by virtue of power and hedonism to demonstrate their everyday humility through false or exaggerated displays of normalcy. Politicians doff expensive suits in favor of untucked flannel shirts and working trousers in order to convey how ordinary they are, theoretically in order to trick the local peons into believing that feller from Washington is a roughneck, too. In such situations, the powerful entity's attempt at visual deception is rational, while the local peon's is unnecessary. The new self-celebritization has been characterized not by the ability, but by the willingness, to exploit the supposedly negative self in the same way as the supposedly positive self.

(Pity the Objectivist noble who discovers that the embarrassing cellulite-, sexual-, child-, or death-related scandal was not a dark blot upon a celebrated and rewarding career built upon that person's inherent, diligently cultivated, and incredible thespian skills at court or cinema, but that career's necessary foundations and intended fruits! Succeeding in acting and politicking have been at times considered shameful in occupied Europe, not because people possessed a measured or inherent dislike of someone attempting to entertain them on the stage or deal with the necessities of administering society, but because it became apparent to earlier subjects that actors and politicians were being chosen for other reasons, often their willingness/propensity to set harmful examples. Some lingering traces of this trend remain in our collective memory, particularly as regards politicians, or perhaps a general distrust of "Hollywood," but that instinct is in 2017 considerably reduced from centuries ago, and is still being downsized. Most people now accept "business is tough" and "you gotta compromise" as acceptable rationales for whatever outrage they may notice.)

This inter-centurially evolved trend of self-detrimental behavior might at first blush seem to be related to altruism, whether in the giving of one's body and soul to help free fappers or the giving of one's body and soul to help politicians achieve agendas. These acts, when harmful to the actress or actor, may be confused with altruism, except that this behavior seems to be systemically offered in an inverse relationship to need, creating the situation wherein people are far more likely to give to the uncaring, unnoticing powerful. Moreover, these acts occur in flagrant contradiction to the actress' or actor's own passionately self-enunciated ideology, wherein support for a politician who has exemplified everything in which that actor believes is impossible, while support for the personifications of the binary opposite of that drone's ideology is enthusiastically embraced. Tumblr whores are not altruists who expose themselves to the homeless or bedridden, but to people with the funds and privacy to quietly and solely enjoy reliable high-speed connections. Voters, too, vote for not the underdog candidate, nor the perfect candidate, but the "settle-for" candidate who feels, to them, "realistic." (Whispered commands from the Oversoul.)

Again, the most recent U.S. presidential examples serve well for illustration: a trust fund baby from Connecticut becomes the expression of rugged independent frontier cowboymanship; a silver-spoon prep school Columbia/Harvard white-gened and white-encultured decimillionaire becomes the pinnacle of poor urban black achievement; a wife-swapping loan-taking Talmudvision star who marches in Zionist parades and takes photo ops eating Mexican food and hugging black preachers is celebrated as the resurgence of the true European peoples. Without the false ideologies, none of them could adequately satisfy their appreciators nor their detractors, whereas if they did exemplify those false ideologies, they would be liked less by their friends and hated less by their enemies.

What an impossibility it seems. The costume department's work on Bush II, for example, made him just rugged enough to be presidential, whereas even the purportedly greatest fans of cowboy ruggedness, and purportedly greatest haters of Connecticut financial pedigrees, did not vote nor want to vote for any actual cowboys and/or rustlers. People who said or believed that they really wanted a crusade against Islam, that they really wanted to be led by a cowboy who shot from the hip, instead chose old Connecticut money. To criticize Bush II for being a phony, and demand real homesteaders or cattle rustlers instead, was a sin against the necessary illusion. Similarly, Democrats wanted to believe that Bush II was an inexperienced cowboy; they needed that, needed it so desperately; needed to believe he was a rampaging cattleman, rather than a financial scion of a New England family descended from British royalty and quite well able to maintain the Clinton legacy. The illusion gave everyone on "both" "sides" just what they needed to get through it all. Consider Obama's black/whiteness and Trump's national/globalistness in the same light as Bush II's cowboy/heir-ness: like chimp to human DNA, the people inside are 99+% the usual filler. But, without the veneer of excitement elicited by the role the actor is playing, no one can love them or hate them in the proper ways.

Counters to Metaconscious Growth

Arka has discussed the above, and many other ways that everyday fleshbags have begun to celebritize themselves. Perhaps this behavior is only vestigial elements of lost self felt collectively, representing the failed hopes of people who possess nothing but an illusion of fame. In a world where nobody sees character anymore, only the more translatable logos with which one associates oneself, maybe this is a sociological phenomenon alone; some by-product of evolution that causes people to mimic their surroundings in pursuit of a fabricated entity, even to the point of publicly demeaning themselves as a totemic attachment to idealized celebrity. If a dentist's wife with a new 4500-square-foot house in a pristinely manicured gated community, and a nanny for her children, posts a picture of her dirty kitchen ("Lol, I'm so messy! So overwhelmed! *sigh*"), it makes a sort of sense in a cruel, triumphant way, whereas for a broke single mother with a 500 square foot apartment, and no sleep in between three jobs, to make the same essential post on the same social network, raises the question why she would spend her microwave-waiting time doing so. The "messy kitchen" post is a form of communication, to be sure, but why, and of what, and how it can produce identical form through such different venues, are the questions answered by metaconsciousness. "Monkey see, monkey do" surely plays a part, but that principle does not stretch quite far enough to suffice for an explanation.

Perhaps Arka is incorrectly or exaggeratedly personifying these inexplicable mass happenings by calling them the development of new forms of life--metaconsciousnesses--rather than simply accepting on faith that these mass-coordinating, reproducing, synchronizing effects are the result of randomized individual reactions to cultural prompts. This potential critique would be similar to the critique that microscopic germs do not cause illness, for everyone knows that demons are the parties responsible. In this case, we do not need a microscope, but a megascope: the ability to perceive living entities on a larger, slower scale. The Oversoul's mass-humans are not delusional, but in fact, are highly evolved, well-functioning components; were they delusional, however, they would be minilomaniacal, rather than megalomaniacal, for their behavior is harmful to the self while seemingly benefiting no one. Kinship altruism, or forms of sacrificing the genetic self for the better perpetuation of genetically more-similar individuals, could attempt to explain some sacrifice, but in the instant 21st century case, mass-humans sacrifice to the detriment of themselves, their kin, and even their distant non-kin rulers. For some, it may take the form of risking apocalyptic war that would slay their co-ethnics, co-ideologues, and enemies alike; for others, it may involve scattering radioactive waste that will have a global effect (including on one's own direct lineal descendants ten generations removed), or attempting to preserve self-destructive cultures (other than one's own). The behaviors here discussed are too absurd--that is, inexplicable--by the rules of even large-group genetic benefit, to be explained by any individual or large-group desire for success. Instead, the minilomania demonstrated by mass-humans is most simply, completely, and necessarily explained by the use of mass-humans as the components of a larger-scale entity. It is, therefore, sensible, when a billion cells are amputated to save the whole, even by the rules of random mutation and natural selection. Neither evolution nor fool's evolution are violated when a fox chews off its own paw to escape a trap; so too with the willingness of mass-humans to displace their own thoughts, bodies, and offspring. When understood to be acting as component parts, rather than as singular deciders or genetic-perpetuaters, their willingness to destroy self, kin, species and/or planet in various ways is rational and explicable.

(Contra the universalist/catholic church's prohibitions against cleanliness and advocacy for demon- and sin-based epidemics, our biological challenge in this time is to see things not smaller, but larger than we now can or want to believe in, then gain an understanding of how they work. How can metaconsciousnesses be contacted? Certainly not through parliamentary debates, interviews with publishing chairmen or executive producers, or reading the official comments to Fed directives, can one expect to interact with the trans-thinking behemoths who make decisions that affect the world. Germs proved able to subvert human language, and to eliminate it, but not to respond to it; instead, it took well-timed chemicals or other germs. And the successful usage of, say, antibiotics, was not caused by marching or praying or negotiating around vials. Mass-humans have found a way to negotiate between mass-souls through illusory language delivered by proxy, which methods we might characterize as "reading between the lines" or "bullshit," or "political correctness," et cetera. Standalones can recognize and track the behaviors of a metaconsciousness, but not yet perform them well enough to consistently communicate. By contrast, people whom we might call "bankers" or "globalists"--even non-Semites--can use incoherent, broken pieces of recognizable human language in order to communicate coherent ideas to each other. Undisclosed and/or private meetings are certainly facilitating this effect, but given the presence of secretly-standalone retainers with a potential penchant for leaking, some greater, more evolved form of communication is occurring somewhere, wherein more complex ideas are being successfully communicated with a shared understanding that is beyond current standalone ability to perceive. This could explain the seemingly idiotic policy of globe-crossing in-person meetings in the 21st century in response to demands of instant political necessity: not only for privacy reasons, but because the nuances of dynamic, coordinated policy shifts cannot be effected without, as it were, neurons touching neurons. What might we later learn about the real way to translate closed-doors, yet still sanitized, political speech?)

A Negative Parasitism of the Mind

A discussion of a mass market consciousness, or metaconsciousness ("Oversoul" is an English translation of a derogatory term), should not be confused with an argument for a new "philosophy" of life. The somewhat nascent metaconsciousness found on Terra 2017 meets even biased local requirements for "life" (such as "requires water"), as well as more widespread ones ("can reproduce itself"). The effects of the metaconsciousness are felt both consciously and sub-, as in our common sense of various inevitablities that would not be inevitable were we wholly- or mostly-standalone, self-actualizing beings who dominated this planet. Our cyclical fascination with apocalypse narratives, which recurs on a more rapid scale with the infantile stretches of the metaconsciousness, is an example of this. So too our recurring obsession with "artificial intelligence," whose cycle accelerates with seeming exponentiality. This does not mean that all of us are part of the new evolution; it compares more closely to the hypothetical wading fish who sees others climb onto dry land, recalls smaller percentage occurrences of such during its youth, and recognizes a pattern, while being unable itself to breathe air.

The virtues or sins of this metaconscious organism, or any of its component parts, related to or subsequent to its speciation away from standalone humans, are irrelevant for the purposes of discussing the process of evolution. Posit Mexifornia's oneday C.E.O. Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, a metaphorical neuron collective of this new organism, versus retired U.N. Army soldier, active drywall repair expert, and avid L.A. Lagos fan Joseph Plumber, III, a metaphorical immunological component. They will both do things that will befuddle and upset older-fashioned organisms. Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, for example, may require Joseph Plumber, III, to perform twenty hours of weekly community service patching holes in the walls of the nearby Razachurch's megapews. Chad Miles, non-rallying non-voter with a collection of vintage VHS tapes in his garage-bedroom, may be upset by Clinton Mezvinsky's administration, and may falsify his own community service records an hour or two a week; and, he may be even more upset by Joseph Plumber, III's baffling interest in Los Lagos de L.A. games and in purchasing Los Lagos de L.A. products.

To Chad Miles, outdated standalone human, he seems to be living in a dystopia, and like the proverbial Winston Smith in 1984, Chad Miles can't understand why Joseph Plumber, III doesn't want to break away from the bland horror; indeed, why everyone else seems to enjoy participating in the process. Much human fiction over the past century has dealt not on standalone or national heroics and/or acts of grace, as once was, but on the metaconscious dystopia, as portrayed by more-standalone entities who perceive their pending extinction. Truly, these dystopias may seem bad or horrible, but in fact, the L.A. Lagos merchandise and Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky's labor-tithes form a highly integrated, efficient system of communication, whereby the subtle arrangements of obligation, deference, efficiently vicarious competition, and frugal reward, help govern the behavior of Joseph Plumber, III, keeping him operating within certain parameters with a minimum of directly applied force. His gleefully subservient existence, like that of Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, permits the mass mind to carry out its growth, development, self-image, and other functions, with reduced dissent among its component parts. "Bread and circuses" carries a pejorative taint, similar to "cheating" and "deceiving" and "slave," but these distinctions, so important to standalones, are healthy and necessary for the metaconscious development we see now. And Mexico's going to pay for it.

Un-fetaling in Response to Material Irrelevancy

The confusion, frustration, and perhaps denialism of the nineteenth century farmer, with his horse and cart, at seeing a 2017 Ford drive past him, would be perhaps similar to how standalones feel today, when contemplating their comparative material irrelevancy. The difference between metaphor and reality in this case is that standalones are not 1899 farmers, but 2017 farmers who simply haven't visited the right parts of the city yet, or who have in some other way managed to avoid recognition or acknowledgement of the continuing development of the automobile. In a way, what many of us have done over the past few centuries is presume that individuals and groups of individuals have stopped evolving, and that technology remains the same as it always was--ergo the incessant complaints of outsiders that something is "wrong" in London, Brussels, Columbia, and so forth.



People are perpetually encouraged to believe they are "taking things back" or "cleaning out" places that they supposedly designed and created themselves. To mass-humans, this helps ease the mental transition, since they have no desire (if they can even be said to still have desires as standalones would have once defined "desires") to "make things the old way again." For standalones, though, the desire to "fix this mess" by getting rid of metaconsciousness is as doomed as the hypothetical farmer's attempt to outlaw non-horse transportation. Those god-damned machines are so loud and filthy, so unnaturally swift, where you can't wave or talk to or acknowledge anyone. Little does the hypothetical farmer know that the people in the cars are browsing the internet, watching movies, and videoconferencing, being less and more connected than ever before.

In 1916, most Europeans would view 2016 Europe's politicians as impossibly evil entities; the transition from 2016 to 2116 should be even more shocking, even to those now prepared to accept mandatory transrhinoceros transadult prostitution. We must not let our outdated disgust at what future Canamerican C.E.O. Theodore J. Kushner's administration will require of the remaining standalone humans in eastern America's territory to blind us to the realities of the evolution that is occurring. Perhaps this is our moment to mourn; perhaps to share physically-unrecordable kinship with our previously exterminated and forgotten predecessors. In any case, we must put those things aside and focus on the observable development of metaconscious life, not the appurtenant moralities thereto, lest we fail to perceive the metaconsciousness, and outdatedly-blame what we incorrectly conclude to be conspiracies of standalones.

"Sociology," like "political science," "Newtonian physics," or other recent minutiae, is the pretense that the newborn mass mind(s) do not exist, and that their doings are merely random phenomena based on tautological axioms ascribed to an unknowable god-standard. If we fancy ourselves among the last standalones, let us hope we do not react with too much shock to the notion that our own preferred tools, which have served us so well in some ways, are neither foundational nor complete. Let us become able to fathom that it is no longer appropriate to adjudge the doings of our world based on the assumption that everyone else is engaged in, or still capable of, standalone operation.

...

We'll turn next to the unstable nature of the local Oversoul, and some of the ways in which it will fail.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Taking the Red Pill

(1) Years upon years of ancient culture.

(2) Years upon years of written culture.

(3) The Odyssey is disseminated.

(4) Plato's "cave" allegory is disseminated.

(5) Beowulf is disseminated.

(6) Faust is disseminated.

(7) Lana Wachowski begins her lifelong transition.

(8) Lilly Wachowski begins her lifelong transition.

(9) The Matrix is disseminated. An African-American computer genius and a butt-kicking female street-fighter teach an Asian-European geek how to face the real world.

(10) The Matrix Revolutions is disseminated. The Asian-European geek sacrifices himself to save an underground Afro-Asian city named "Zion."

(11) Staunch European-American nationalist-traditionalists realize they've discovered their cultural rallying cry. Take the red pill!

* * *

What could be more indicative of stillborn mutation than the continued memetization of "red pill"? The Enemy is laughing.

Obama is far more masculine than Trump

Obama surely seems more homosexual and more personally wimpy than Trump, but consider: when Obama wanted to protect a potential habitat for spotted owls, he designated an area of historical or natural significance, and it was so protected. Bim, bam, done, like a jab and a right hook to the jaw, now let's go play golf.

Any resistance from Americans? They demand the right to hunt, farm, develop, whatever, on the land that Obama has protected? Obama sends in the Feds. No bullshit, no "negotiating with Republicans in Congress," no whining that some lawyer in a robe might disagree. He just got the job done. Men with armored vehicles and guns were on the move, ready to kill to back him up. Judges were later permitted to write scholarly articles about potential justifications for or against what had already happened.

Conversely, when Trump "wants" to protect something...sorry for the air quotes; for discussion purposes, presume he's not a lying shabbos goy...okay, conversely, when Trump wants to protect something, be it America's history, America's people, America's future mestizo-on-gringa rape victims, or even just the natural beauty and environmental cleanliness of land along the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump dithers over it for days, weeks, months, years, unsure of what to do or how to express himself. And if he ever does finally express himself-- if his team of handlers ever does "negotiate with other Republicans in Congress" enough that they can then feel ready to "negotiate with Democrats in Congress," and then be ready to actually-actually almost kinda sorta get something done--the tiniest pea beneath his mattress throws him off-track.

Declare the border region a natural conservation zone and arrest anyone trying to cross it? No. Arrest traitors and fifth columnists in sanctuary cities and bless them with the privilege of living in their beloved Central and South America? No. Deploy troops to the border, or even build a big dumbass wall? No. All it takes is the tiniest of imaginary "objections," and Trump kicks up his heels and shreds his blouse in a fury. Obama had the balls to get things done. However expensive, infrastructure-hurting, Americans-hurting, or outright dumb and/or evil those things were, he sent armed men to see them done. Go without corrupt health insurance and refuse to pay the penalty, and Obama would co-opt local law enforcement to seize your possessions and sell them at auction. Resist, and Obama would send SWAT to seize your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. All in the name of protecting you from the grim darkness that is not buying AMA's NEVR-FAYLE insurance-like product.

Of course, none of this is true unless Trump is a complete and outright (((liar))) and cohen-man. If Trump is a complete liar and con-man, then he might well be strong and masculine, and we just don't know it because he's deceiving us. He doesn't care if the South's Judah P. Benjamin monuments to continent-destroying negro-importation and -maintenance are torn down; it's not that he's a sissy afraid to protect his people, but that he's a strong, clever con-man whose job is to distract the Southern rabble while they lose all that, since those aren't his people and he wants them to be dispossessed.

If you believe that Trump is not a total liar and con-man, though, you run into the masculinity problem. If Trump isn't a con-man, then what a complete wuss you have to conclude he is, since even Backdoor Barry could get things done in a man's way better than Trump can.

It's possible, though, that Trump is neither a con-man nor a coward, but just a person so incredibly stupid that he is not cognizant of the tools at his disposal, ergo his "failures" really are failures, and he is good and well-meaning but not smart or educated enough either to realize he has an army to protect his people, or even to copy what the last president did. Unlikely; my money's on the "ZOG op" explanation (not because I was ever given an opportunity to place bets, but because I'm currently trapped in the game). I think Trump is manlier than Obama. Not that it matters; they're just two people who worked for the same boss, and Trump was straight and Obama was gay, and they both did the job they were supposed to do. But in a personal way, a "facets of character" way, Trump could be accurately described as "more masculine" than Obama. Both ZOG, both evil, both wear suits, but Obama was a bit more effeminate in his personal behavior.

For people who think that Trump is a generally well-meaning man trying to address a difficult situation, though, it really must be a conundrum that Barack Obama's balls are certifiably ten times larger than Trump's.