Thursday, October 26, 2017

Last Instants

Whatever the next broken myth, the more pressing issue for the ("heathen") observer is not being confined to it, whatever it may be.

It is, shall we say, prima facie ridiculous that apoptosis would exist at all, let alone predominate, let alone completely saturate the field (or "nearly" under current time-span-bias-based observational technology), under a system of the randomized selection of reproducing genes. Even allowing for the possibility that Earth represents the only mathematically permitted one-in-a-googol-googol-googol chance for randomized evolution to have even begun, adding in the implausibility of selection for apoptosis turns the utterly ridiculous, already several degrees beyond several degrees beyond farce, et cetera, many more googol-googol-googol et cetera degrees beyond plausibility. Already far more impossible (sic) than the risen Jewish dead vicariously ghost-giving a pro-Roman-integration private command for gold storage to a Jewish pseudo-prophet, the notion of randomized creation becomes more laughable than any religion yet. Ergo the modern's proper skepticism.

And yet, consensus itself exerts a powerful pull. This one often catches itself casually believing in randomness, more often than in any given earlier god. Like a ball bearing slipping into a rut, a star seeking a star, belief tends to coagulate; materially unavoidable, often born of a difference in beliefs and the profundity thereof, here misunderstood. Nonetheless, different languages may be spoken without necessarily misunderstanding any one.

(We sell each other "belief" like it is the only product you'll ever need, to the exclusion of all other products. We're terrified at the thought that we might hold contradicting beliefs at different times [life stages? years? nanoseconds?]. Constructing our evolving beliefs, sic, is an act of narcissistic self-building, in which we participate for our own imaginary benefit. In fact, silly examples and evil briefly aside, two beliefs at two times can [perhaps far more rarely than expressed now, ergo the difficult and esoteric nature of this aside] be honest and good, like unto two loves at two times being each good and/or pure, or leg day being different than back day.)

Take heart in thinking of reactions to purported beliefs past. Were there really scary or funny, local-ish people who passed the time by dancing (feasting, screwing, et cetera) in the woods, or did some people suspect that, say, half-satyrs, were only ways of conceptualizing the culture and/or the world?

(In a way, a belief in transposed reality can be educational for the holder. Again, dicey territory here, yet it can be a learning experience to believe the untrue, wherein what we might call "private" belief can be an invigorating mental exercise rather than an inquisitorial terror. Believing in the people of the woods for a moment or a lifetime, therefore, can be an act of shadow-memory, as necessary on a developmental scale as admitting that you should've been more careful with that tumbler. To say this is not to disregard any given associated stupidities, either with the broken vessel or lives in false passion, but to acknowledge their potential systemic utility.)

What commonalities bind tomorrow's thinker to yesterday's privately-doubting yet publicly-reveling thinker? Impressed by the achievements of our age, the refinement of our genes and/or minds, it can be difficult to conceive of the rejection of social norms today in the same light as those of ages past, even those few ages which we allow ourselves to acknowledge. There again comes the coagulation of thought, in the pull--so strong--to believe it impossible that today's masses could be as uninspired as yesterday's. (After all, the dumb people have surely been voted off the island by now.)

Apoptosis is an insight into the systemic nature of lightform expansion, whereby we see that death and decay are beneficial, ergo some of the concepts with which we associate individuality are a hindrance to refinement and expansion, ergo they are forestalled. As lightforms, as humans, we're built like cells--like all life--to decay and die, not because the decay or death produces an individual benefit (as we would define it), but because it produces a systemic one (again, as we would define it). Forced change prevents total frozen death, revealing a "plan" or "purpose" behind existence which randomness would otherwise swiftly dispel. The removal of any given form is, therefore, a sad joy. Ironic, that within our current framework, cancer cells are viewed as wrongful expansions for their property of forcing change upon the otherwise potentially changeless. They may someday save us from our own immortal stupidity. For even ("") this one, caught in the now, would press the button for perpetual material pleasure if I could. As it were, we learn through force to embrace the solution to our sin. A final lesson, if you will; dismiss it as worthless blogcrap now, and forget that you've packaged it away for the spaces between instants in the time of failing organs.

Some recognition of our failed material nature can be found in Europeanized Christianity, to be sure. We perceived, through even the misshapen provided lens, our genetic and molecular flaws, and our inability to correct them without an intervention we cannot self-generate. Not only our most private connections to the material, but our most private, most necessary, irrevocable doubts about the beyond. Our passion for sacrifice, whatever its form, expresses this inchoate acknowledgement; this incomplete applause for the best we can manage from here, that being our willingness to forsake this for that.

Sunday, October 22, 2017


Imagine with me a successful sexually reproducing organism. It's fit, hale, socially prominent, and more importantly, has had twenty million, or merely twenty, offspring. She or he moves through her or his environment with all the confidence of the absolute controller: powerful, unassailable, and in full command of available and as-yet-unspawned resources. The perfect culmination of evolutionary success, this organism is unassailable in every way and unbeatable in physical combat with other species or its own species. It is master of its environment, produces offspring at will, and its traits are all evolved to the point where their being passed on is their supra-dominant property, mandatory recreation by genetic dominance, ultimately loyal to their creator yet dominant over the full extent of the remaining environment, such that its offspring spread to the farthest points of the environment, developing responsive survivability traits in immediate harmony with said environment. This is the ultimate organism and it has genetically conquered, or is in the process of genetically conquering, all available environments.

We forgot one characteristic of this ultimately successful organism: all its cells are programmed to die. More importantly, its cells are all programmed to kill the organism itself within a certain time span, making impossible its continued reproduction or the reproduction of one in a million offspring immune to this trait.

Accordingly, the organism does not exist. This trait is so successful, per randomized evolution, that it dominates in all sexually reproducing organisms of any complexity, guaranteeing their death after a certain time period. Not a single one of these organisms freed from such constraint has ever evolved, nor evolved to be successful compared to all other organisms of its type or other types, because apoptosis--the mandatory cell-death affecting even the disorderly "cancer" cells that we so loathe--applies to all known systems on varying time scales, including randomized life.

Apoptosis is so fundamental to multicellular organisms that, per the random god, it must exist. Random mutations permitted no competitors to exist whose cells and selves do not self-destruct; no organisms that live forever. Such perpetual reproducers have been driven extinct by their dying competitors, quixotically out-competed at reproduction by those with a brief lifetime and/or a comparatively short reproductive cycle. Cells undergoing apoptosis, like organisms undergoing death, subscribe to an exclusive, invisible feed that tells subscribing cells and organisms when to grow old, slow function, and die, operating like DNA transcription pursuant to a set of essential commands which are the result of randomized testing and the out-competition of perpetual reproducers by dying maybe-reproducers, are so vital to success that nothing else persists.

What dreams to come, we may not know. We may rest assured that, whatever the temperament(s) of a hypothetical system designer(s) or administrator(s), it is not spawned from the complete, stolen, cruel, self-consuming demiurge and reality-plagiarism we now know of or speculate upon.

As Judaism, then Christianity and its other offshoots, grows less probable with each new discovery--of sources of plagiarism, abject self-serving error, and lies--future nigh-discerners, should they exist, may have to invent a successor belief system to randomized mutation. As natural selection's half-truths Christianeously surpassed Christianity, we will likely see some similar transition in the Terran future, wherein a new reformation of learned men corrects old dogma and replaces it with some higher systematic slavishness, which will, as ever, be found to both utterly refute and wholly embrace earlier beliefs.

Speculating on what form this might take could be humorous. Evolution retold with a planetary focus, wherein systemic coordination is explained by the individual planet rather than an interconnected system? Allah-guided, wherein a future god-entity suitable to a more space-focused society guides synchronized organ development? Civilizational collapse in tandem with reversion(s) to hybrid Judaisms with prophets believed to more closely approximate a potential future citizenry, who are acutely aware of current but not future technological artifacts?

Friday, October 20, 2017

Fiat Creationism

It is of course terrifically and terribly funny to deal with the consequences of those who are both confident in and ignorant of their inability to yet understand concepts pertaining to some form of a search for unity, not the least of whom is you or me. Simply put, we're discussing how all of our available major philosophy--perhaps all of our available philosophy--derives within the boundaries of our creation stories, and is therefore predetermined. Whether via strings or dimensional gates 13 or 80 billion years ago, or Yahweh/Allah five thousand or 80 billion years ago, we tend to view as plausible a set of ideas that claims as its justification/origins the following periods:

(1) During or immediately after the creation-event.


(2) During the past few thousand years.

If you believe in some form of the Jenomic God, this behavior is at least consistent, in that the Nicean diagnoses of the early times, as gauged by five of Yahweh's thousand-year days and the recorded lifespans of the Hebrew patriarchs, make the past few thousand years the only few thousand years, ergo the most important few. It is of sickening humor that modern "Bang" religions derive their essential time period of cultural interest from this same Jenomic time period, where they permit a billions-year cosmos, but extrapolate all their social prescriptions from the most recent few thousand years, as defined by the important Jenomic history they accept, and reserve speculation about the creation event to the highest of high priests, whose education grants them the ability to fictionalize responsible dogma.

Whether or not one has the willpower to contemplate for long this one's other tales, it should be of interest to committed Scientists that their period of culturally-acceptable evidence-gathering overlaps so closely with that of their hated founder, Yahweh. This is why Science begins to reject biology at a certain point: because the past few thousand years of dogma have prohibited certain heresies and enshrined others. The modern passion for creation-events has left all that Terrans can do limited things extrapolatable from an extremely limited set of un-challengeable proven assumptions.

Jenomic Technique: Mitochondrial Dogma

The reaction to criticism of dogmatic apocalyptica by the laity and the low clerisy is well understood in all modern ages, most pendently through limited historical memory of Christ's return, most viscously through living memory of what is now called climate change. The Terran's savaged memory makes him vulnerable to belief that everything is first ever, ergo any given apocalypse will be predicted, and predictions will have 100% accuracy when only the ones that behave correctly are accounted for. Ergo the modern is sure that the end of the world is nigh, and depending on his definition of world, change will always vindicate him, and make him salaciously pleased and eagerly confessive of his own physical prowess. Nu Euro interest in climactic apocalypses may be metaphorized to his interest in serial killers, crime dramas, extracting confessions, or confessing, whereby the ability to pretend to be so vicariously powerful as to have been capable of exciting such interest is an existential proving ground.

Mitochondrial Eve, admittedly-plagiarized from the occasionally non-admittedly-plagiarized Torahtic Eve, follows from a similar rejection of the idea that our development was potentially in a different primordial ooze. We would, then, be alone, if we were children of different mothers, provided we see nothing but material. Because seeing only materialism is something of a perquisite for winning here, far be it for this one to discourage you from winning by believing what you like; stretching farther, to deeper commonalities that transcend here, never pays off in the short run. So we face the existential conundrum again: why do so many viable planets develop humanoids? Is it from our own throbbingly powerful bias? In our fiction, perhaps--but not so in our reality, discover it though we might. Even in the laboratory of merely here, we see them developing independently on different continents, where it takes a great deal of imagination to conceive of how this might've been shared without contact. Thousands of futures will tell how some of us wish to process a deeper connection, and thereby reject, supersede, or succeed in, the material.

Mitochondrial Eve is a great example of the contiguous nature of Jenomic deception. We see again the implication that life cannot develop without being crowdsourced through a local, spatial, unitary presence, duplicated also in Yahweh and Big Bang worship. In it, we can express jointly our desire to feel less alone (every man a brother) and our conflicting desire to feel special (only here). In X thousand years it may become mundane to notice such, but why should you have to wait?

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Acting Solo

Through the most mundane of our means, we pursue the goal of collective existence. Our desire to listen to a piece of music, view a painting, or watch a movie or a show with a friend--or, in high modernity, to recommend it and know that our recommendation was followed--is an attempt to, through blended vicarious experience, share something. If Zeke is watching the same show as Adam simultaneously with Adam's first viewing, with a similar cultural and personal background, drawing upon a similar context of shows watched, and aware of similar or assumedly-identical personal anecdotes that make certain plot events more poignant or humorous, Zeke hopes that Adam will, contra indeterminacy, feel what he felt. Missed or fulfilled plans make us feel that we're ordinary (truly connected to everyone else by virtue of the experiment achieving no results), or one in a million (truly connected to a subgroup, perhaps more exclusively-membered, by virtue of the experiment achieving results), in our successes and failures, and therefore, successfully extant.

We pursue this siren song of connection in sundry and expensive ways, whether by sharing similar experiences, thoughts, or puzzles, and are alternately pleased and upset when we discover that the illusion has been properly perpetuated or admittedly disavowed. When a forty-minute rut or a forty-year marriage can be professed to have really meant the same thing or a different thing, respectively, we feel that it has been a mistake, a plan, or both--for ultimately positive or negative ends, depending on our perceived survivability and/or predilection for rationalizing.

Internet-metaphors are even more apt for beings of our current state (Terra 2017). What do we do on the internet? We share for good, share for bad, like and follow and block, and pursue "audience size" as a barometer for determinacy that may or may not reflect anything, yet which probably reflects our ability to accurately gauge whether or not anyone cares in the proper and true way as we would define that way. Whether or not we censor or champion proves statistically immaterial, for the facts as we know them will or will not appeal. Is it right to censor calls for violence against an occupation government? Whatever it is, it's neither bar against nor mandate for censorship.

As ever, there are creatures who do these things to be effective, rather than to discover anything true, and they will ever succeed in acing quizzes to which they already know the answers. Put them aside for now; we're discussing developing components, not completed ones.

We see some residual and/or growing awareness of this indeterminacy of interconnectedness in the ways that European Christianity, over time, revised its conception of Hell as deriving its primary punishment in the act of being separated from God--forever alone--rather than the material Jenomic revision of Zoroastrianism, wherein Hell was expressed as an inverted fantasy of sadism and masochism. Paradise was conceived of originally in purpose and togetherness, the kindred and offshoots of which--Nirvanas and the like--have become materially corrupted, and treated as the absence of suffering unfulfilled or inadequate material desires, or as the trans-fulfillment of desire, where you can eat mousse all day without getting fat, screw seventy virgins and seventy nubile boys all day, pray and reflect upon the perfect synchronicity of God's divine overmind in perfect synchronicity with God's divine overmind, or all of the above. Outside of such obviously perspective-influenced Terran fantasies, we see a common thread of togetherness, or at least non-alone-ness, in these dreams.

Redesign as you will. "If I'd been born in Virginia, 1820, would I independently arrive at the conclusion that...?" "If I'd been born in 8th century Arabia, would I still truly feel...?" "If He's really my perfect omnipotent all-loving buddy, would He really throw me into eternal lava if I'd choked on that straw at 29 before having a deathbed confession at 73?"

Let's Unpack That: Permitted Perspectives

Nu Euro academic voice: "What does 'perspective' mean to you?" Because imposing a question in a thoughtful tone means you've thought independently about it, come to the answer that there is no answer, but are a master of the dilemma, and therefore the apex of what can be understood here and now. When did all academic majors become "hospitality management"? Sometime during the twentieth century, probably. This is why so many academics end up employed on cruise liners. Despite the tax fasces, government firms can't afford to give them all anti-competing-firm sinecures, so private industry can step in and use them to kickstart discussions among older people who've only recently met.

This one said, "The powerful philosophies of our permitted perspective are all incorrect." Our self- and mass-permitted perspectives are extremely limited, consisting only of the handful of millennia we are considered reasonable to feel like we understand based on speculations which claim to be the progeny of such time periods. We place great stock in our conjured birth, whether via God's creation in personified or laboratorified form (Sotadic buttfuckery or Oparinesque work-camps, respectively), and we place an equally great faith in our understanding that all time since then can be dismissed, like a simplified abridged (sic) version we were too lazy to read anyway, based on our understanding of that glorious beginning. We do not know what happened before the Big Bang, and loudly declare our aversion to challenging our inability to know, yet we are highly confident that, since that illusory creation, none of the existential properties we have induced therefrom have changed. We are, therefore, quite confident in what our physical sciences, and then our social sciences, tell us about the next snippet of history upon which we are permitted to speculate, namely our rather personified version of the last few years before we ourselves were born. Be it by human-motivated demigods terraforming paradise into hardship, or by a void of matter designed but not-designed to create our pinnacled aspirations, we remain confident that, between "very long go" and "recently," one may generally understand what happened based upon one's belief in instantaneous but potentially enduring temporality. However we understand that, if we do, we may find that being able to fathom these concepts leaves us, nonetheless, with predicative assumptions about "thens" and "nows" that we cannot exactly dispel. Our base program, however designed, seems to include immutable self-references to aspects of order and process.

Friday, October 13, 2017

A Solo

The powerful philosophies of our permitted perspective are all incorrect.


As Terrans are fond of saying, via a metaphor that incurious Nu Euros are fond of believing they understand, "Let's unpack that." This is a common requirement in our communication, nearly as intentional as anything here may be considered to be, for one of the fundamental flaws and dilemmas of this place--its inherent sorrows, if you will--is in the contradiction given rise by the essence of our communication. To wit, "If you have to explain something, you know your audience is not intelligent enough to figure it out by themselves." Ergo you had to reach it yourself, or be handed it by another, whose process you could not have otherwise duplicated, therefore there is no sharing, no connection, except in pretense. We may be told things, come up with things ourselves and tell others, join teams which claim joint accomplishment and smudge over the actual moments of genesis, et cetera. The creation, whether depending on a string of indecipherable references which may or may not have references to others' personalities as they would wish to be remembered at that time, is always a solo act, ergo its realization is always, in some form, a curse, for to recognize the self is to recognize the self's definitional, fundamental, separateness and loneliness.

Like hunger or the need to breathe always return to the human, some element of lone-ness ("lonesomeness") is similarly mandated. This is so because part of the task with which we are presented here is to learn the values of forms of existence where rudimentary materialism and consciousness are better coordinated, and the means of incompletely attaining them through, solely, one or the other pathways, are appreciated for just rejection. We do not sit in meditation circles and collectively ideate, and conception via a randomized biological process that may or may not include components with which we prefer to identify is our only joint accomplishment--which, accordingly, is no accomplishment at all, better likened to falling down a flight of stairs while not spilling your glass of lemonade, then acting as though the charade had been planned. Any collection of our recessive or non-characteristic genes, as we would or would not choose to preference via association with our selves, might or might not be included at any time, including those in a partner which we could conceivably correctly identify as having been due to an attraction or desire for procreation, could or could not be involved in the final mix charged to an offspring, depending on our understanding of the process at any given level of technological or spiritual prowess. Which is to say, your unexpressed halves could mix with your partner's unexpressed halves, producing your antithesis, and any environment or group-kinship to the contrary is not necessarily related in any way to your choice or choices.

Here, we are always alone. We do not know what we will think, and to an extent, what we've thought. We do not know who we are or who we may be, what others think of us or whether others are; we obsess over these things, but never definitively, and many a pretty illusion has been illuded to the desperate contrary.

Physical science metaphors are currently popular and effective tools. Consider indeterminacy, or the (Heisenberg) uncertainty principle, which reminds us that, with all our available or collectively imagined technology and theory under current physical law, we cannot simultaneously know the exact position and velocity of a particle (know them both at the same time). Accelerate our ability to understand and/or subdivide time, and we become unable to know either, though our estimates may hold utility. Communication and consciousness operate similarly, and at certain stages of life, we may be in constant rebellion against this condition. We want to imagine that we know just what the celebrity meant when he said, in that interview, that he could never find the right person. We ourselves hope to "connect with" our acquaintances, "develop" our relationships, "grow together;" to "find someone" or that someone will "understand" us. We may personify this desire in a spiritual form, believing that nobody knows the troubles we've been through except a deity with a name our linguistic background allows us to pronounce, and we may fantasize that there is an all-knowing, all-remembering aspect to the deity, or to the divine script, which ensures that our precious memories are not lost, but at least once wholly understood.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Mercy Me

At what point did it grant an evolutionary benefit to forgive the organism that stole your food? After billions of years of the development of overpowering instincts--of hunger, resource recognition and acquisition, self-integrity, et cetera--when did the self-harming traits of cooperation and compliance so widely revered and/or observed in humans today (Terra 2017) become beneficial? We expand, again, on Components of Material Superiority, further demonstrating the material invalidity of "good" and the transmateriality implied by the recurrence of transmaterial "good" concepts in a material world.

The Potential Material Superiority of Mercy

Non-fitness-bolstering, non-selfish behavior is the literal bane of Jenomic evolution as it has been expressed until recent reformations (which are as yet incomplete). How often did food-stealers become, inside of a single lifetime--before the randomly-mutated forgivers could be betrayed a second time, and therefore starve--trusted allies who increased the survivability and reproducibility of those who'd developed the "forgiveness" trait? How immediately successful was forgiveness--extending a more arguably beneficial kinship-based forgiveness to genetic outsiders and/or non-kin--to the germ lines of people who would, as of that last random mutation, turn the other cheek? In order for forgiveness to have been so beneficial, it would have to have been not only beneficial to the forgiver, who could turn food-stealers into instant reliable allies, but it would have to've been more beneficial than concurrent mutations (or older, pre-existent coding) for those who killed food-stealers rather than forgiving them on the chance that they'd become germ-line promoters within a single lifetime. The benefit of an ally in a lifetime, if such could conceivably be produced, might indeed be profound, but is it so much more profound that fifty food stealers would compete versus forty forgivers and fifteen repentant food-stealers, then result in the forgivers surviving, let alone comparatively thriving? The coincidences begged by mercantile evolution for the rushed development of Earth-specific mutations look plausible compared to the development of any sort of mercy-derived trait being applied to non-offspring.

It is utterly ridiculous, not only in many more modern human fields, but particularly in mathematics, to contend that the combination of randomly-generated enduring forgivers with randomly-generated repentant food-stealers would (1) be created, (2) survive, (3) harmonize, and then (4) out-breed not only groups of unrepentant food-stealers, but also groups of vengeful food-horders unacquainted with the concept of letting food-stealers "just have" supplies vital to survival.

And yet, like honeybees developing alongside nectar-decisive flower populations and bats simultaneously mutating sonar-production and -analyzation components in different parts of the body, the world includes, and was for a long time superficially dominated by, just such groups: dreamy, pollyannaish forgivers who autogenocided their own terminal forgiveness.

We tend to fathom the possible utility of mercy-based traits using the toys currently possessed (surplus food, computers, or irons, depending on the age) when sufficient centuries of social cohesion have passed to permit a sustained division of labor, societal respect for parental mercy and authority, et cetera, wherein randomized forgiveness might retrospectively prove conducive to such development, technological or otherwise. Like the sudden advantage of painstakingly created Terran lungs, though, for forgiveness to have survived and spread to such a point where it would inundate a society sufficiently to allow for such reliabilities, it would've had to be (per Jenomic "randomized" material evolutionary rules) very quickly beneficial to individuals who had, in genetic isolation, randomly developed said trait. Ergo for forgiveness and social acceptance to be widespread, a tendency for forgiving food-stealers would have to translate into reproductive success over a small number of generations. Additionally, it would have to produce such an increased success rate that it could trump the success rate of people who had simultaneously evolved not forgiveness of food-stealers, but instead the behavior of setting deadlier traps around agricultural growth or storage areas. Either scenario is unlikely, but combined, the perceived evolutionary utility of forgiveness-traits moves beyond the ridiculous to the impossible. Randomized material evolution, therefore, proves itself again a competing religious faith rather than an evidentiary material science. To the familiar transmaterial tropes of virgin birth or ageless life we should add the presumption that, in a struggle for survival of the fittest, the willingness to forgive food-stealers is of competitive utility.

(Dress up as you like. Replace "food-stealers" with "food-poisoners" or "infant-slayers" or "arm-breakers" or any other individual or group with a mutated predilection for a behavior that would be harmful to others' chances of survival.)

Gay Germs

Greg Cochran's gay germ theory addresses a similar problem, attempting to counter the argument that non-reproductive sexual predilections might have evolutionary utility to groups if the non-reproducing entities ("gays") contributed to raising the offspring of the reproducers. Many modern commentators, Cochran included, have embraced the theory that a germ might cause homosexuality from a pro-material-evolution perspective, noting some of the internal contradictions always inherent in the material approach.

(Like creation from non-materialism or pre-materialism, materialism is always self contradictory; it is not difficult to find one or more of these scriptural errors in any material religion. "Allah moved on the waters, then created everything, then became really interested in foreskins" is a more internally consistent religion than randomized materialism, because it does not presuppose quite as many answers in ways that later contradict itself. Allah might be a human-like jerk or a pervert, in contrast to "randomization," which can be shown to be not merely temperamental, but explicitly contradict what it earlier said to be true. [Yes, this one knows Yahweh can show that about himself, too; the point is that the random god, bearing no human qualities, has no built-in excuses for grant-recipient error, ergo is more embarrassingly, indefensibly flawed than human-modeled Yallah can ever be.].)

In his case, Cochran points out that, for homosexuality to possess evolutionary utility, homosexuals would have to parent as many children as they would otherwise have in order to benefit the group as a whole. Posit two competing societies, each of 100 members, one of which has 50 gay siblings and the other of which has zero. If we remove the gays from reproduction, the remaining 50 reproducers have to have double the offspring to equal the output attributable to the hypothetical enemy group, which the gays should offset by helping watch the kids and thereby making it possible for the others to have more kids. That does not happen, in part because non-parent guardianship is not aggregately effective parenting, and in part because aggregate gays aren't that or at all interested in it; Cochran and his supporters mention these issues, but focus mainly on how, even if the gays are really into hanging out with their fair (let alone increased, as it would have to be) share of developing young for 10 years or 18 years or whatever, the gays' relatives would have to double their output to make up for the offspring sacrificed to gayvolution. And they haven't, and they don't, ergo Cochran cries germs.

Similar problems present themselves, though, in any of the traits otherwise preferred by material evolution. If gayness isn't beneficial to individual or social reproduction, yet persists, we may cry germ--what, then, causes a dying group's "pathological altruism"? Or, more locally put, "vulnerability to pseudo-Semites"? Few modern traits justify themselves under the rubric of today's popular material faiths, be they desire to forego children in favor of cooler cars or houses or lifestyles (social signaling, the expense of the actual genetic reproduction?), the desire to adopt foreigners (social signaling, but...again, at the cost of transmitting germ lines?), or the willingness to question one's history and challenge one's right to exist/reproduce at all or to exist as a non-slave.

(Again, yes, there is a lot of media assistance from Jenome to encourage Nu Euros to "not reproduce" et cetera, but is evolution really so weak it can be overcome by social conditioning? If you believe that, I have a proposal for you about you paying me seventy-four million to raise SAT scores in central Baltimore. Don't believe it? Then you see that the "nature" argument cuts both ways. Nu Euros are doomed. By your own rules, they can't be "I have a dreamed" out of it.)

Removing defiant non-producers has been a factor in most civilizations. As we discussed before, Europe never had gayness as an "issue" until after its conquest had begun, at which point gayness was employed as a way to control the new "aristocrats" and made mandatory for non-inheriting church sons and daughters rendered (primarily by Nu Euro society) "unmarriageable." Addressing the inundation of state homosexual art, including but not limited to the Christian, and its effects on greater than a millennium of students who feel a natural disinclination to learn about "high culture," is a separate, though fruitful, subject.

Degrees of Purity

This one posed the conundrum:
[A] nanosecond's question about degrees of purity in the instant cleanse is failure when you are competing against a true believer who would not suffer such hesitation...
We've seen, time and again, the material success gained in human societies by those organisms willing to, to some degree, betray their own. Consider a parasite infecting a group with a harmful philosophy and the group later (stupidly, embarrassingly later) recognizing the existence of the parasite enough to make it a matter of removal. If the parasite fosters the process of pretending to destroy itself by sacrificing some or many of its members in part of the area, its collective foresight helps it maintain a system devoted to its goals.

Such an act is "wrong" and "immoral" in the sense that betraying your kin, discovered by chance when it could've been you, might lead people (people with a belief in transmaterial "honor" et cetera) to attempt to protect and/or save the compromised individuals. Material mistake: if you don't abandon the slow, the race is lost. If you do abandon them in favor of your own endurance, you have become a "demon" in the sense of being amoral, but here successful.

Consider, e.g., how profitable Catholicism has been to the slow destruction of Europe, contrasted with Catholicism's recurrent role in leading various reforms of the European population and rulership. Contrasted with, say, 300 A.D. or 1,300 A.D. (what's a few thousand years between friends?), Catholicism has cyclically appeared to lead purges of Europe, distending overall resistance and regularly establishing and re-establishing lines of entitlement that were, however aggressive they might seem at the time, as much of a resistance to an overall agenda as U.S. presidents have offered. As well-disguised Catholics (successful Marranos) led the purge of less-well-disguised Catholics (identified Marranos, et al.), they could do so without hesitation, knowing that less-well-disguised Catholics were viable tools for saving the better-disguised. By contrast, Europe's original inhabitants were consumed with questions of intermarriage, faith, et cetera, which prevented any comprehensive action against earlier infiltration. The willingness to consider the merits and demerits of the desert god, in a reasonable and rhetorical way, proved fatal.

Today's "nationalist" faces the same conundrum: how much purity in one or the other direction is required in order to maintain certain qualities? It is long beyond the point where enforcing any such policies could be considered, yet even were such a point attainable, the nationalist argues, like potential DNC members--though perhaps with actual integrity and sufficient philosophical justification for said arguments--for various pragmatic concessions. It is rather foreordained that such a thing will not happen, but should it, questions about degrees of separation have proven part of failed survival before.

The instant's hesitation is certainly "right," given both the future's unwilling existence as a result of past choices (including e.g. "I didn't choose to be born 2.9% Probably Dangerous Subgroup!"), any age's inability to fully understand a self/material relationship (including, e.g., "My 3.5% of Probably Dangerous Subgroup is a Pangaean Irrelevancy that affects most people!"), as well as said inability to fully understand any form of current or future individual merit or demerit. As in the "environmental catastrophe" earlier described, the only victory to be had is effected by the soulless crushing of anyone who will, through their utter and probably unchosen sacrifice, achieve even a later success for the crusher.

The pattern is similar to the way the AMA has used medical schools to slowly adjust certain ethnic percentages in "medicine," and to leave profitable doctor shortages justified by the ridiculous pay-to-be-an-intern policies that it itself requires. By pretending to have concerns about service quality, the AMA leaves a significant portion of the American populace untrained and/or without prompt or reliable access to the state of the art. The system's unreliability makes the AMA appear to be an occasional champion of people who need to see a physician while concealing the AMA's grants of increasingly ineffectual pay-to-be-an-intern awards disguised as degrees and licenses. The AMA's virtual monopoly on training and history make it well-placed to create a tiered medical system where quality care is reserved for a select few and withheld from others.

Some day--perhaps many such somedays--those who designed the policies may have a sole grandchild traveling who undergoes an emergency that is bungled by some clown who cannot clearly speak the language or understand the literature. And that germ line will be gone. The system will provide endless personal setbacks for its creators and their progeny, even when they try to mathematically separate themselves from it.

No problem--like the Catholic Church executing some Moors and Marranos and forcing others to move away and change names before coming back, the ultimate result will pay off in the form of a church which dominates resistance of a sustainably ineffective kind. Because of the church, the sacrifices of so many of its own people will prove ultimately effective at destroying Europe and Europeans. And in their moments of death, the sacrificed will understand that, and understand that they would make the same choices of necessity were the roles reversed--just as those ordering the sacrifice, or helping enemies order or perform it, will know they are sacrificing for a larger gain.

This is what it means to be material, and this is why you cannot win. If you would be better, even against your better material judgment, you lose. If you would hesitate or feel later intellectual qualm about eliminating ten million 99.99% pure infants, you still have a trace of a "soul" and you have long lost this game.

The Forgotten Future

Imagine the ideal material victory. An organism is developed in secret which instantly kills all bad people on Earth. Good people then go on to build a clean, artistic paradise, colonize the solar system, groom young, conquer aging through soul transfers, and eventually, most planets are populated but not crowded, beautifully terraformed, and everyone is happy. When stars start to explode, the process is channeled into the completely safe generation of new stars, and when dimensionality crumbles, superstring tech unfolds the good masses into a fresh new reality which is shortly repopulated by immortal clones guiding the development of aesthetically pleasing planets.

There are, to be sure, a great quantity of true pleasures to be had in such a postulated material victory, not the least of which will be the reflections on evils of the past and how they were once and for all eliminated. "I," too, want to try it.

Even such a perfect cushioned corner as that--because it is such a cushioned corner--removes the benefits of a material life of this variety.

We may confer upon ourselves the retroactive ability to learn without pressure. "Oh, we would see something is missing from the material existence without Jenome to show us. Trust us, coach!" At later points of development, though, we would see how incomplete, how ineffectual, is learning the benefits of the transmaterial through hypothesis alone, rather than lived experience with material in an ultimate expression.

Resist, if you will. I will be the first to praise your unmaterial "humanity" and the moral superiority of your policies. There are many--for forgiving the food-stealers, believing the best of the slavers, and uplifting the child-killers on the credit of your own presumed moral superiority for having done so, does provide many potential material future benefits, including the potential quantities of improved offspring which would become unavailable if alternate choices were exercised.

The future may show the completed development of a "cooperative" evolution theory, similar to local beliefs about weapons or weather, wherein faith becomes focused not on the happenstance of things working out just so, but how it really was true all along that we benefited each other by co-evolving to cooperate.

Monday, October 2, 2017

Supporting the Troops

Having standards is not conducive to the, shall we say, natural mathematics governing material transactions.

Standards are bad because they presuppose a value to the individual, or to the group of individuals. Consider this one's recent material flaw in the Utility of Football post: posit that this one recognizes Nu Euro society as less expensive, less offensive, less risky, et cetera, than any other society now feasible on a large scale on modern Terra. Contrasted with a self-consuming Semitic society that burns out once it has nothing else to burn, a Mongoloid hegemon settling into tyrannized ritual based around overperceived past forms, or an African stasis of casual violence, et cetera, Nu Euros provide, despite their many extreme problems, the least painful environment of any Terran group. What remains of their sense of individuality might be frequently sufficient to limit conformists' revenge to a rotating cycle of social slights and percentile subsidizations--annoying, to be sure, but providing a less painful stay than the barren wastes, mob attacks, or un-self-aware reeducation camps of available alternatives.

Trapped here, therefore, it is stupid to complain about Nu Euros' sundry stupidities. We've seen this in all ("most") nationalisms, whereby Nu Euros themselves often fracture pragmatic material movements based on some level or another of standards, such that a "less capable" but unified Balrin group is able to triumph. Terran "Blacks" are, for example, able to demonstrate sufficiently tribal behavior that they will engage in concerted action on behalf of the very same stupid and violent males who represent their lowest theoretical and actual aspirations. E.g., Africoids might demand national policy favoring Africoids on behalf of a fatherless drug-user who has randomly killed three Africoid infants, one of whom might've otherwise, in a climate free of people like his killer, raised aggregate test scores and/or fostered a talented future with reduced violence and inherent technology. This behavior does not limit itself to within the confines of Nu Euro societies; we may perhaps more closely remember the actions taken on behalf of Martin Luther King or Freddy Gray, wherein Africans fought for group benefits on behalf of men who exemplified the opposite of their theoretical aspirations. E.g., to note details not particularly currently controversial, Gray the planned suing frequently shooting drug dealer, or King the philandering devotee of worshiping the slavers' god-child, for being abused and/or killed by a military empire no less. Besides devaluing the actually educated, stable members of some future society that might provide medicine or food or technology, these individuals took years, or lives, away from infants, whether by random gunshot or plausible recrimination or mass protest.

And yet, the collective response to rally around the social scion, irrespective of personal qualities, proved to be materially beneficial to the group. King further inculcated complaining for stuff rather than achieving stuff, which produced a certain kind of material (genetic) gain at the expense of another--say, selecting for agitating for tithes based on ancestral wrongs versus selecting for inventing devices or performing labor. Whether King or Gray were effective or not, chance will tell. A meritocratic future may eliminate people who adopted their acted passion for weakness and sloth, but more likely, an extractive future will, in the short term, vindicate them, proving that slothful wastrels are more efficient growers and reproducers in certain ages. Not only slothful modernity, but long millennia of history, have vindicated these perspectives, for hypothetical societies of isolated, hard-working Africans would, even had they been known to achieve commensurate reproductive or technological success since the 300s A.D., have been swarmed by interested outsiders in the modern European fashion, and be seeing similar effects. Indeed, the ancient destruction of more-proximate Terran Balrins ("blacks") by today's university-proven African may be at least as profound, archaeologically speaking, as that of pre-Christian Europeans. Ergo the Gray/King platform may really be more effective.

In a pre-robotic present or near future, we may see an even greater selection for Kings and Grays, as distracting laborers through the process of "freedom to work more" becomes, like feminism to the hapless female, a legitimately beneficial occupation for extractive overseers, who would as before provide substantial rewards, both pecuniary and historically, for the great distractors. Terra's 2017 Bank("s") may regularly evict Africans, who often do not view their encumbrance by "property taxes" with any better understanding than they do that of their historical slavery. As in 1765, 1865, or 1965, honest secession could have proven ultimately beneficial to the transmaterial character of the African; King may well have arrived at such a conclusion himself, had he not been executed by his handlers for crossing the Vietnam boundary. Of more material benefit, though, was to compromise principles real or imagined and stay, extracting as long as there was something to extract.

Within Nu Euro societies, of course, the Gray/King platform is hyper-effective, permitting growth and/or survival in pseudo-meritocratic environments which would otherwise eliminate or marginalize non-conforming groups. We mentioned earlier that, as regards Africans, the Gray/King method has not been recently adopted. It was the willingness of assuming tribal identity, whatever the cost, that has colored African politics from record-available history to the present, taking with it any dreamers who might've otherwise charted a different course. Ergo Africa. Millennia of petty warfare, fruitful loyalty to child-killers and mass-rapists, et cetera, produced strains that would survive, and do so by sticking together, being unwilling to critique traits--such as mass murder of cousins--which would, at first glance, seem to be material losses.

This returns us to Nu Euros and American football. One of the many material failures of Nu Euros is the ability to self-criticize and self-analyze, to self-harm, and to cast out insiders who have betrayed ideals beyond the group. We see corresponding differences in the modern African feminist's critiques of, say, Michael King's behavior toward women with Donald Trump's, based on their perception of each individual's group membership. And Nu Euros are hurt by this, because they are mostly willing to not only look down on the idiots who watch professional football, but imprison them for thoughtcrime, while most Africans advocate for the unrestrained action of the crack dealer whose stray gunshots killed one African infant and three miscellaneous African children (and thereby affected the lives of X others, et cetera). Whether or not the thoughtcrime in question is just or unjust is irrelevant; what is important here is the material effectiveness of the willingness to persecute members of one's own group. To win the material war, one has to be willing to protect, condone, and even embrace one's own group members, even as perceived by outsiders, and even when such theoretical members are harmful to one's own group. Ergo "Black Lives Matter" protects Africans who beat and kill African women and infants, at the expense of outgroup police officers who, on their own, would statistically eliminate killers while providing increased welfare to otherwise-surviving women and children.

(Imagine a hypothetical future where cornfed "White" cops investigate and shoot without fear of lawsuit, cutting down every "Black" male who is randomly shooting or raping or robbing from his kin, and the effects that would have, both genetically and socially, on Africans in America. Eliminating all such Whites would produce, of course, a South Africa filled with shot and starving and raped Black infants, while giving the Whites free rein would necessarily produce a segregation that would shortly favor Blacks who read, wrote, calculated, spoke, consent-sexed and random-gunshotted and time-managed better, producing the less-violent Black societies that should, in theory, be better for Blacks.)

Is, then, support for people who shoot at local enemies and kill a nearby community member, babies included, a foolish strategy? No--successful strategy. Protecting one's foulest improves group cohesiveness, reassuring every possible supporter that one is serious about material victory. African politics since before colonialism, and after resulting African introduction to Europe, have been defined in part by this principle, where people are willing to follow, worship, and/or vote for a leader who slaughters the most babies from his own village. In seeming defiance of "genetics" and "evolution," the result has been strongmen forging and reforging societies which have survived, waxed, waned, ad infinitum as it were, and may yet eat up societies which attempted to make villains of kinslayers.

It at first seems foolish to worship ones who rape and kill their own people. How many Afros did MLK roughhouse before he broke through to paid Nu Euros? How many rape-murders happened in the Middle East before the rapefugees arrived in Sweden? How many children never knew their fathers, mothers, relatives, or years past the fourth because of this or that warlord? A population greater than or less than a Microsoft-funded immuno-camp? However the math might have worked out in any given series of cases, the (material) social benefits are significantly higher than the costs. As Jenome has lectured us many times, having changeless flexibility in imagining the newfound existence of ever-present and well-classified tribes is necessary to win. You have to think not only double, but be able to go back to the first version without realizing you've been there before.

It is not only outside funding to Africa that motivates such successful behavior, for centuries of baby-killing embracing has caused Africa to thrive. Not comparatively as to Europe for some time periods, but successfully as to others. Nu Euros, feeling insulted when one of their own is merely rude, cast him out; their concern for some kind of honor, gentile-ness, or a "higher standard" causes them to ultimately fail against groups who work to free members who rape their own children or embarrass their own kind among materially superior others. We see, therefore, Semites embracing exposed spies, or protecting the boy-diddlers of Tel Aviv, from international scrutiny or fitting punishment, and thriving for it, whether domestically or via diaspora. This is not because it serves a higher truth, or even results in more healthy children and communities in the short term, but because it results in more successful genetics in the long term: group identity is coalesced in a way successful to the destruction of other groups. Long-term planning without scruples, even for the self, proves materially successful. Any planning for scruples, though, ruins the effect, for what is true today may be changed tomorrow, and be then fully and completely true, as was today's truth, therefore it has proven foolish to establish enduring standards of good, evil, right, wrong, et cetera. As Christians have been correctly, if with disgusting motive, reminded frequently for the past hundred years (c. 2017 Terra now), what people believe to be good or healthy then and now, here and there, has ever changed.

Nu Euro benevolence and forgiveness--as displayed in Hugo, Dickens, or Dumas--seems to create a "better man." And indeed it does, but it is a better terminal man, ultimately so convinced about the meaning of transmaterial goodness that material failure results. This one reminds us again of Components of Material Superiority, wherein we discussed the impossibility of good materially besting evil. Part of this rationale is what we've discussed here, wherein trying to improve one's own self (or one's own "racial stock") through the elimination of traits harmful to others (or "lowest-common-denominators" in society, such as by bogging child-rapists), whether moral or intellectual, is based on transmaterial ideals which will mandatorily fail here.

It's rather an unpleasant material catch. If Nu Euros suddenly became united in their support of sitting in front of the Talmudvision watching game shows and professional sports et cetera, they might take stupid, yet successful, actions in ultimate service to their group. They'd end up ceasing to produce as many, then any, non-televised deviants, and the result would be their destruction by one or more means. Alternatively, splitting themselves in the name of transmaterial ideals--"we should be better than the NFL"--will also result in their destruction. Play by the material rules, or lose. Take a corporate job or be homeless; refuse Fed-tied donations and starve, leaving only hypocrites behind, or be a hypocrite yourself.