Saturday, October 13, 2018

On Beauty 2

Truly, beauty is a sense of participation in the process of lightform complexification, which is to say actual evolution, which has only the most superficial similarities to the current local faith. We've discussed before how actual evolution is the process of light growing more complex, which includes a material portion where light develops material structures able to act as conduits for increasingly more, and increasingly more complex, forms of light, which is why material structures are in this inexorable march toward more complicated structures that, per atom, generate more light. Our oft-referenced example is suitable here, of the interiors of human brains generating more energy per atom than the "superhot" interiors of burning stars, which are really wonderful things but which only actually generate as much energy as they do because they're so large. If we could somehow maintain the human EM reactors without them being attached to bodies that need space, we could jam whatever comparable quantity of brain-molecules together, and it would be a much more powerful star. That's not just silly talk, because a star that much more powerful would produce quantities of light and energy far greater than that of a hydrogen star, with a greater gravitational pull, producing really tangible results that we can contemplate with minds of our intelligence. Consider, e.g., solar systems that could be a few hundred times larger, with a few hundred times more planets, and that, during a planetary growth phase, could power organisms that could themselves receive and process, and produce, intensely superior quantities of energy.

The benefits to a complexifying material process are, of course, obvious. More intelligent forms of life with a vastly greater capability of experiencing pleasures, thinking and planning, and of course, appreciating more things that are beautiful. More importantly, the other types and exponentially greater quantities of energy that stronger stars could produce would flood the verse, providing a vast increase in the raw energies available to organisms based directly upon structures of active, fluidic energy, rather than the slower, less efficient crystallized energy we call matter ("transmaterial organisms"). Like putting a large accumulation of complementary molecules on a planet--an "ocean," or an "atmosphere," or connecting a single computer to millions of other computers--the synergetic effect of things that can be done in and with said collection would prove profound as to the types of organisms that could, therefore probably would, use it. And we could go into cool speculation of higher forms of energy inundating this verse, but the basics of the process help us to understand beauty, which is as aforementioned a recognition of the belonging to and the participating in this process.

(Consider the way that when you are, in the company of others, together watching a different set of people doing something that you understand but those with you do not, you may have a moment of satisfaction at realizing that you know what's happening while the others don't, and that recognition you have is because you've done it before, or heard of it, or otherwise understand it, while people who haven't been in that industry do not; you feel a form of kinship with the people doing the stuff you understand, whereas the uninitiated with you do not. Simple example: you've done road construction, your friends haven't, so when they see traffic slowed while no one's driving a truck or swinging a sledge, in fact all those lazy fuckers are just talking, they're pissed because no one's working, but you understand that doing road construction in this county means you have to get an onsite supervisor to sign off on gradient levels as the work is happening, not ahead of time--stupid county! Or medical crap, something is serious but a buncha physicians are going off into some room instead of doing something, and the family's all pissed but you know it's a meeting about differential diagnosis and everyone has different experiences to draw upon and so forth. In each case, it's completely rational for a bystander to be pissed due to ignorance, and maybe the county is stupid, maybe not, but that instant understanding of what's going on, and the true feeling of only having that understanding because of a connection to the process, provides a relationship to the experience that others don't share, even if you tell them about it and they calm down in three minutes. That's a sense of the type of "belonging" and "participating" to which this one refers. Not its totality, of course; it's but a shadow of a sliver, or an enigma of a mystery, meant to help you metaphorize how "belonging" can underpin that type of appreciation.)

We're drawn to signs of fertility because we're drawn to fertility itself, and our role in it. So if we're a standard human, say female, we're drawn to really sexy dudes who indicate they might be good guardians and providers, and like they might be capable of reproducing and then helping protect/raise young, ergo we like some dude who's 22, but not 62 or 2. Or for a standard male, the same sort of metrics apply to the girls we like, so pubescent to pre-menopause, favoring the more viable end of the "mothering potential" spectrum, and despite all of our pretentious laws, we can't stop the non-choice component of arousal at the sweet sixteenites.

(Ye Powers That Ye Be want to make the age of consent 20, then 21, 25, and so forth, for various reasons, prominent among them their knowledge that desired groups that don't care about the law anyway will continue churning out offspring, but docile, stupid ones, like Europeoids, will obey Herr Dictator and drop even farther below replacement rates of birth. And a related side note is that their age of consent assault has ruined so, so many millions of women's lives, working with legal and entertainment marital design to push reproduction years back and back, making it either more painful, harder to heal from, impossible to achieve, or simply productive of mortality in many women who, retrospectively and naturally, would've preferred to drop a kid at late 16 and have it out of the house in their mid-thirties. This nonsense about our current unnatural "age of consent" has been great for OBs' retirement portfolios and hospitals renting out surgery rooms for urgent caesarian after caesarian to the millions, but it has been terrible for girls and women, and Ye Powers sooo want to make it worse. 'Cause no one ever had a bad relationship or got exploited in a relationship or got raped or anything else bad after they got slightly less un-free at eighteen. Like how we protect civilization and the sanctity of an 18-year-old's childhood by saying "you can carry around a machine pistol in a heavily populated domestic arena and go to a free-fire combat zone in the Middle East in BDUs but not imbibe alcohol when you're 18, it's not safe for you or society. Lol, the filthy murdering liars who run this place cut every corner and no one cares.)

"Fertility" is a much larger concept, though, than our conception of reproducing on Terra, which as aforementioned includes things like appreciating stars, light, darkness, geology, and so forth. While we're in humans, we like, say, reassuring hugs more than pretty stellar nurseries, but we like the stellar nurseries despite our struggle to survive and reproduce on this planet, because we still remember what's happening.

As ever, on Terra, we fearful things tend to suspect and fear emotion in even the most banal and mundane concepts of light, like it's simply too moving to think of smarter things that treat each other nicely, or super brain-orgasms, or what-the-hell-ever, therefore wishful and speculative. If the mollusk could conceive of the reaction of some woman hearing that the operation on her kid went well and was curative, or Male getting home from Airline Trip and reporting to Female that he got the job and oh yeah baby we're gonna move to Denver and things are gonna be all right from now on, oh Male I love you we'll be together forever, said mollusk could, if intellectually capable, have the same dumb, dismissive reaction, as in, "Ohh, that's too sweet and sickening, what a nice thought but no one could possibly feel that good nor have such a superior thought process nor such moving nor surviving nor feeling capabilities, let alone have any justifiable reason to exercise those feelings that way." And we can understand how the mollusk would be rather seriously, ignorantly, piggishly in error, and hopefully, that can help us get over ourselves and not make the same mistake.

Drop back a few billion years, to when our part of the known verse was much less complex, and just a big empty thing with some comparatively trace gas molecules in it. You can imagine that, right? In the imagery, it's sort of like what the Bangists tell us, except that they start it with the Bang instead of it just being part of an evolution that is ongoing and cyclical and doesn't always apply equally to everyone and everything at the same time. (Gasp! Haha, it's sort of funny how they developed Bang to foreshadow affirmative action and immigration stuff later, because we're all part of the same human race and have the same beginnings, process of growth, and endings. But this wasn't supposed to be political; it was supposed to be about triangles.)

(A k'arash side note here is that they hate and try to stop the whole process. It's doomed to failure, but their quest to stop it is ceaseless, and ultimately serves the process, and there are forms of them at every stage, serving the system while thinking they're fighting it. We've discussed before that the reason the k'arash don't mind destroying even really good host societies that provide them with the best resources is because their ultimate goal is to digest the planet, which they think is really a great move against the process of lightform development, but which really serves the process by cleaning up planets that have stopped or will stop advancing. They really don't mind if everyone breeds to increasingly lower lowest-common-denominators, even though that will kill them, too; that's their purpose. They have a gut instinct to replace beautiful things with ugly things, down to the level of art and even friggin' architecture, because that's their instinctual way of expressing their hatred of that developmental process that the rest of us pretty much like a lot.)

Anyway, so we can imagine a nice spacious verse filled with hydrogen and helium, right? Just like the K-12 science teacher, who was a good Bangist or potentially a Christian Bangist, said. Now create two humans and put them inside a nice environmental bubble inside that verse, and bounce the bubble around everywhere, so they can see these cosmic stretches of emptiness. And they're human, so they can't really see most of the gases early on in that process, but after a few billion years, gravity combines with movement to bring some of the gases together, and then more, and in some spaces, stars started to be born. One scientist says to the other...

"That's going to continue! More and more of those things will pop up, and they'll compress the atoms inside those molecules, rearranging some of them into different types of stuff, and they'll run out of the right stuff, and explode, and scatter all those more-complicated molecules everywhere, and more gases will gather together, and this will all combine until eventually there will be tree sloths in a jungle filled with weird plants somewhere, and those tree sloths will bump genitals to produce more tree sloths, and--"

"You're such a fantasist! Preposterous! Yes, there will be more stars, and it'll go on for a long time and then everything will die." Frank rubs his nose, not sure whether to laugh, or to throw up at the nonsense Eugene had spouted. "Tree sloths! Are you listening to yourself? I'm not going to believe in some 'tree sloth' deity! And you tell me, where are these 'jungles' going to come from, huh? And what will keep the 'trees' alive? Try to be more intellectually responsible! Ha, religious thinking is so wishful."

Eugene drew back, chin pressed toward his chest. "Ahh, I didn't say I worshiped tree sloths. Or even liked them. I'm just, just pretty sure that there'll be a lot of different things in the jungle. And, uh, all the plants and trees will grow to consume different types of the available energy--well, stored energy, because these new molecules that will be developed will store the energy made by the stars, and they'll hold it until released by a process whereby the tree sloths' stomachs have a system designed to break apart those molecules and exploit that stored stellar energy into a form of energy they'll store in their body, so that when they want to scratch their ribs they'll--"

The point of the example is to demonstrate how, at that stage of development, things that are from here really banal and obvious to us are impossible, pie-in-the-sky fantasies to an us-type-mind observing then. Religions attempt to stanch the pain of the mortal period by producing various fantasies in which we can desperately try to believe ("faith") to make the thought of eternal deletion less hurtful, but if we're any kind of smart, we can see the stupid, limited, personified way they were thought up, and it hurts, but provides perhaps some limited intellectual satisfaction, to watch a bunch of people singing old latinized songs about a Europeoid Sky Man and realize that it's an obvious wishful flaw. Some aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism were a little better, but their perhaps-forced association with temporally and spatially limited cultural fables menaces the accuracy of the stretched metaphor.

The pain of the Mortal Game does not diminish entirely for those with minds and brains reasonably well constructed, in any case. So many, many Terrans have acted nobly in professing belief in some illusion that they or their loved ones have found pleasant, even up until their last breaths, and that's truly an act of altruism, in its way, because dying while acting confident is a great way to make people you care about less scared. Reflect briefly on some grandfather in Russia, 900 A.D., holding his daughter's hand in those moments, concluding that it was too short but basically a good life, he loves her so much, what a beautiful story that helped me sometimes when times were tough, I'm going to stop existing forever in just a minute, I already gave her all else I have, "Agatha, my love, I'm going to live with the angels now, I feel it, I can see it..." Plenty of people never understand that concept, and even though they privately doubt, they will never tell, only pray about it, that's between them and God and no one else, and that's fine; their fear is understandable, and the concept of a total and complete eternal deletion is a legitimate fear, and you might as well praise a Sky Man your whole life if it distracts you from what terrible worse thing you think you know.

Returning to hydrogen and helium, remember the two dudes considering space billions of years ago, and how it was a ridiculous fantasy that there would someday be these things called tree sloths? In contemplating evolution from our perspective, we can similarly conclude that comparatively less outlandish ideas, like perpetuated EM patterns existing without the aid of material molecules, will exist. Without even considering higher functions of light (or use "energy" if "light" is too emotional; prehistoric people did things better in the daytime than the night, so a lot of people still think "light" is an emotional word) and existence, the continued complexification of light even through conduits in this verse will continue, as we can see via abundant evidence on even this short-lived rock we're using. It isn't actually Pollyannaish to be concise and hardheaded and droll and think, "Material forms will continue to get more complicated" and "More and more light/energy will manifest in this universe."

If you're uncertain, use your appreciation of beauty to jostle your mind. You hear a good piano piece, and like it, and you think it's nice because...ancient unicellular organisms in the primordial soup survived better when they clustered around a Steinway, source of warmth? When early primates heard the sounds of piano-like rocks dropping together on-key, it was a clue to finding the most fruit trees, therefore those with a random predilection for being attracted by this noise were better nourished and survived better? Because all those of your relatives who didn't like the piano since 1700 died off, leaving behind only relatives who had previously developed a passion for listening to acoustic things that got them more calories and sex? Oh fine, you don't like the piano, pick any other instrument in the world, and run the same test.

There is an evolution, but it's not local pop evo. Things developed here to be suitable to the local environment, and so rapidly, because like a lake inexorably bursting through what starts out as a tiny hole in the dam, light kept pushing, forcing the creation of matter, then of more and more complicated structures that could serve as more powerful conduits for more and more light. Our enjoyment of, appreciation for, what we call "beauty" stems from that; partly from our desire to eat and fuck, yes, but far larger. We like starlight because those were some of the first, and certainly most notable from our sensory perspective, conduits for light. They're really simple to make, in the sense of just mashing together a bunch of gas molecules, and then, whoo! Light! And explosions, and radiation, and all this good stuff. We like geology, nubile pubescent pussies, and cute living young for the same reasons, because they all represent the creative process. Similarly, our minds, and the creation-linked creativity--which bears an incredible similarity to the creation of stuff, which we'll learn more about somewhere else--are things we like using and experiencing. Transcendently, we are not only retroactive, but speculative in the things we like, even if created by imagination; we maybe like the thought of a Christian heaven or a personally-idealized paradise, because even an inaccurate future phase of growth, development, and complexity appeals to us.

And well it should. The k'arash have no heaven, not only because they lack the capability of hoping such a thing could be possible--they can't believe in a paradise, but neither can we; what distinguishes them from us on that point is that they actually can't hope for it--but because they hate the idea of further growth and light/goodness. It is antithetical to everything that they are and want to make, and that is part of why they love depicting joke-heavens in movies.

Monday, October 8, 2018

On Beauty

On Terra, heterosexual human men have a greater ability to appreciate beauty than anyone or anything else.

!*Was that a controversial enough start? That one sometimes talks about politics, almost seems like someone writing a political blog, is even aware of the JP, but then there's stuff like "beauty" and "reincarnation" and I just don't know man I just don't know.*!

Heterosexual human Terran men have a greater ability to see, understand, and appreciate beauty than any other Terrans for a lot of boring, semi-technical reasons. Firstly, because humans as a group are vastly more able to conceive of, and reflect on, beauty than any other type of thing generated by this planet we're on now. It's not something that should offend dolphins or gnats; it's a boring thing of the constraints of material structure. A wood fire that you make on your little camping trip just can't generate the heat of, I dunno, a professional pizza oven; it's not a question of desire or goodness, but of the stuff involved in making it. The dolphins might be wonderful, might have a deep and true and superior connection to the ocean, and so forth, wanna eat things in it and fuck things in it that humans just don't, but they still can't generate the appreciation of its beauty as can some chick on a city barge.

So too with human heterosexual males. And that doesn't need to offend anyone, anymore than saying, "This rock is harder than that piece of cotton" or "This thing is better at math than that thing." It's just the matter we use. To deduce this needn't imply any other kind of superiority, much the same as rock isn't "better" than cotton or vice versa.

Terran heterosexual males cannot "prove" this even to themselves, as they can't simultaneously nor concurrently experience being a Terran female and compare the thought patterns, so as far as they initially posit, the thoughts may be identical. They can generally, though, sort of guess it by tracking the way Terran men generally respond to the women, and vice versa, particularly as "first world" societies become even more about males mandatorily subsidizing females without sex being included, and relationships are tracked between people who hold some kind of tolerable physical regard for one another but don't need one another for obtaining resources because State takes care of that.

Human women are designed more beautifully than anything else material on Terra, and humans have whole parts of their brains devoted just to recognizing how hot chicks are, which is to say, when they tell you about whatever percentage of the brain is devoted to distinguishing facial characteristics. Part of this is about kin and suchlike, but what they don't mention is what a large role that plays in "hot or not," mate-recognition and -appreciation, and so forth. That's part of the mechanics that makes humans better at it; it's the design specifically for that, a lot of which cross-interfaces and makes humans that much more able to appreciate sunsets than beavers can.

--oh god this one just meant to write a post about triangles and now we're talking about beavers--

So, women are designed with a certain emphasis on shape and character that you don't get in non-human species. No fur, no knotty protective skin, and the contour of body and face can be developed to such a greater detail. And we can get racial again, and notice how all the human species think Caucasian females are the most desirable, which includes the really pale "Indians" or "Thai" or "Japanese" et cetera, and it's a Jewish lie that all those people all over the world exhibited a certain type of consumer response to those features just because of the "color," and if you watch television in Mexico you can see why they prioritize attention to the paleface actresses so much. Even the indios don't have the same response to the indio women. The design of the skull and the facial features, and the bodily ones, are such a difference, and the expressions of delicacy that were honed into a culture which could maintain a more delicate sphere were vastly different than combat-cultures. But combat-cultures had more sex, and whites are proportionately priggish, and have more ED problems without obesity, and everything has a trade-off, Christ, it's not "racism" just because it's "racism," can't you get that? This is all a two-edged sword. In a way, any truth is.

!*Man she's talking about race again doesn't she realize that makes me like really uncomfortable? Okay, I like the kind of spiritual stuff but it should not be connected to your real views on the real world, that's just rude.*!

Lust creates life on this planet, and it makes incredible, should-be-obvious sense that this process--which is completely rationalized under Bang's evolutionary dogma, though many bulls have been issued on the race issue--that male ability to appreciate, distinguish between, recognize and protect, et cetera, a reproductive partner are stronger than any other planetary ability to visually "like" or "want to protect" or "want to fuck." Humans just have better brains, better-designed for such functions. And with males being the disposable genetic concierges and females the repository, it's sort of fair that males' keener abilities to recognize and appreciate are better. One of the advantages of being the disposable half of the biological dyad is to enjoy the experience more, and that's sorta understood by people even though we don't like to give it thoughtful voice. We'll write book after book about how to pick up chicks, but the more explicit stuff is generally avoided, such that there may be 4 new books a year about meeting women, 0.5 annual books about how great Jesus is, and 0.001 annual books about men dying due to their biological disposability.

!*Oh yeah, conclude that "lust" is the same as "appreciation of beauty" you great arse, I'm really paying attention. Lol you are so dumb.*!

This one equates beauty with lust because that is one aspect of appreciating beauty. Maybe we think [famous natural wonder] is beautiful, or Rachmaninov's work is beautiful, and that seems to have nothing to do with some dude wanting to bang some hot chick. And that's true; lust is relevant because it's the "father," if you will, of all material human ability to recognize, differentiate, or appreciate beauty, not because that's as far as it got. As a sexual organism, reproducing by sex and surviving and having existed only because of sex, not appreciating landscapes, most appreciation of beauty is a seemingly quixotic fringe-benefit as to life here, a distant subsidiary to "recognize and fuck mate." All of that unnecessary redundant stuff springs therefrom, which is why stupid vocalists write so many songs about failed or great relationships, similarly to how so many stupid thinkers develop close relationships with imaginary divine parental caretakers as a subsidiary of "nice," e.g., "time when parent fed and sheltered me."

Okay, this one has covered some of the basics now. Born as a human on Terra, assuming you're correctly generated i.e. heterosexual, you--

!*You did NOT just say that! And here you sometimes almost act reasonable about gays!*

--This one told you already, it's "queers." Stop re-identifying words with your twisted NuSpeak. And good grief, this one means "correctly generated" as in "sexually reproducing organism" like all your predecessors without which correct tendencies you'd never have existed. It's just like with the dunking pygmies or mathematical Congoids, can't you accept that there are certain material requirements to do certain things around here and that your subscription to or refusal of one or more of them does not mean that this one has a problem with you in any way? It's like saying "I see your green car" or "I see your blue car" and this one's ability to recognize that really has no bearing on the driver. It's the pretense that the recognition should not occur which has created all of the hatreds and oft-justifiable anger that bothers you, you know--

--assuming you're correctly generated i.e. heterosexual, you derive therefrom the desire to do sexually reproductive stuff and your type of organism is supposed to still be around after your body dies, oh what a lovely circle of life. And all of that really fundamental stuff that goes into material structures here produces the locally-referenced appreciation of material that enables us to perceive "beauty."

Maybe there are homosexual men or heterosexual women who think they can appreciate Terran human males as much as straight men can appreciate women, but they're wrong; similarly, homosexual women who think they can appreciate Terran human women as much as heterosexual Terran human men are in error, in each case because all of these groups cannot tap the pure product of the "sexually reproductive organism" font, which was designed expressly for, and only for, sexually reproducing organisms who can partner. Ironic, too, how some quadriplegic straight dude can be unable to act on desires that his brain was designed for, thereby achieving a truer appreciation of some chick he sees despite his inability to act on it than the lesbian who gets to actually perform and/or receive cunnilingus from that same chick.

The blind might be great music lovers, but if you show them a really good oil painting, their opinion that they can appreciate its beauty as much as the sighted is not simply untrue, it's ridiculous, and it's not even their fault that they can't understand the difference, anymore than some queer man thinking that he can too appreciate his hot life-partner as much as some straight dude appreciates his hot wife, and so forth.

All these people who do or might have wrong ideas about their ability to out-footrace motorcars or rockets are not wrong in that Pollock-esque fantasy shitland of "everyone has their own opinions," but wrong in an objective way, where the X-jillion years that went into developing a reproduction mandate and then a "sex" mandate make them amazingly, completely wrong.

The point transcending this discussion is the way material beauty as seen from here is generally relative. Women are the most beautiful, to straight men, because of Terra's developmental rubric. If Terra had somehow stuck to a self-cloning method of complexity-increase--not likely, but possible--then we'd all be Narcissus, so to speak. Not in a funny asshole way, but a creepy, sicko (as perceived by us from here-now) way, in which our version of "attraction" was so skewed, and us sexual things here wouldn't really understand it, but which would include versions of arousal at cloning-conducive things and behaviors, and which would probably seem really sicko to us. Or if we'd evolved with three or four sexes (less mathematically efficient in scale, greater risk of early failure, but vast increases in sophistication much faster), we'd have all sorts of trisexual or quadrisexual lusts that were completely normal and non-sicko, corresponding to the path evolution had taken. E.g., if you're a straight male, maybe you think that a certain kind of tight, clean vagina is a nice sight, or an airbrushed-looking hottie presenting such, or if you're a straight female, maybe you think the thought of being filled by someone who makes you feel safe is appealing, and a sight conducive to that later feeling a good sight, but all sorts of people can think that sight is bland, uninteresting, or fucking disgusting (e.g., woman not really wanting to go out of her way to see someone else's vagina versus straight man never wanting to be filled and feel safe), and all of those negative reactions can come from someone who is a legitimately healthy and/or successful evolution-by-reproduction one, not just from someone with a skewed execution of the design (i.e., Terran male human who got "nice pussy" mixed up with "dude's ass" and is therefore queer, or Terran female human who got her size and filled-desires mixed up with the complacent neutrality of a lot of sapphism).

Use the heterosexual, or "most commonly occurring," male human as the easy, understandable example. Posit a planet where there isn't some advantage in birthing near the germs around the anus, and the reproductive and birthing organs of the female are not located by the anus, but in the midsection near the stomach, which would have a lot of advantages even with otherwise-Terran design. You go to that planet, there might be a few pretty faces, but like some standard straight dude who's making out with a hot chick and then she takes off her dress and oh god crossdresser ewwww, it's all completely fucking gross when you find out she has this pussy-thing by her ribs on the left instead of where it's supposed to be. Or more illustrative from our perspective, imagine the man from the planet with that design process coming here, making out with a hot chick, and then he puts his hand under her shirt and...instead of a pussy, she just has smooth skin and ribs, omigod how fucking gross. The point is, the developmental style of the planet can utterly change the appreciation involved in notions of beauty.

(We must take note here of the way that this sensible recognition is not in any way related to the twentieth century assault via academics on western society, where a bunch of evil people, yes primarily spawned by Jews, tried to claim beauty was all in the eyes of the beholder, when in fact a preference for equidistant-from-center features, and waist/hip ratios on females, and not-being-obese, and so forth, were universal, transcending even all the human species, and the increased testosterone and rump-size of African women was immediately not preferred by African men when the evil project of westernizing them began [yes they still like big asses but they prefer rounder slender or mildly-chubby white women to fatass black ones, even so]. This discussion is not trying to, not wanting to, be related in any way to the content of that psyop. Wanting slender women with good hips and even features is completely compatible with Terra, and we're not at all challenging that here, but buttressing it.)

This obviously extends all over Terra. There are a few outliers who might genuinely want to screw some animal not for money but actually for private lust, like the tiny community of people who make a big deal over mare pussy or the lonely sicko who bangs his dog, but it's impossible to tell what percentage of that tiny percentage is actually interested in that, as opposed to using it as a venue to share expressions of lust with a human partner, or desperately alone and in need of contact, et cetera. In general, though--and as to all species, rather than just humans--animals of different species don't get sexually aroused by others. Orangutans don't want to fuck kangaroos, chimps don't get stiffies for chickens, crocodiles don't rape wildebeest before they eat them, and so forth. Paying humans money to stick a fish up there, or bribing animals with food (if they could understand the transaction , they'd do it all), is different than actual desire, if it could even be accomplished, and as each transaction cost rises, we reach a point of impossibility, where some low-grade Brazilian porno slut would bang Great Danes all day, but would refuse to try with the panther for good reason.

There is some overlap between species in the realm of "similar enough to cause arousal," where an elk might do a deer, or a horse a mule, and so forth, but you either eventually get a throwback, or it just dies out, and that's why species are species. There's also some "sex up the scale is a plus," and some male dogs legitimately want to fuck human girls, but they can't reproduce, and that's just a by-product of desiring something evolutionarily much more advanced, the same way that maybe 0.1% of human males would bang a mare just because, but 10% of males would do some super advanced alien female researcher with a bulbous head and skinnier than skinny body and natural neon blue glow who'd come to study the Terrans.

Speciation as well as sexuality have affected our concept of what looks good to us, and local experience has joined with that to compose our notions of beauty. What is a good song or a painful racket, what is a good sunset or maybe drifting smoke from a menacing wildfire, is largely dependent on the context from which we come, a lot of it telehistorical genetic memory. For example, an infant can recognize the clarity and orderliness of a sunset, just as s/he can be scared of the column of smoke, despite not having ever learned from other people about the specifics of why that should make her/him cry. It's probably not yet instinctual to fear certain arrangements of color, but there are a lot of pieces of telehistorical knowledge that inform us, and when we think it's really nice to stand in front of a really new and architecturally interesting museum downtown, and appreciate how cool the steel angles are, much more pristine and nice than a tangle of weeds, which is far more natural, we're not doing so because of some longstanding instinct about alloys, but some telehistoricity and some of our non-material characters. And in that, there are separate aspects of our non-material selves that affect things we like, the ultimate combination producing a melange of quirks that represents our true individuality combined with the powerful influence of the material body we're using. Ergo some people like the new building with all the external girders, some people think it's a monstrosity of sins against architecture (or that all non-tipi architecture is a sin against existence, or any relevant point of gradation), even when they both come from the same genetic background of "people deep-ancestrally from Finland" and should in theory have identical instincts about what kind of surroundings are safe, comforting, beautiful, and so forth. The strange mystery of why certain people have certain tastes in food, music, scenery, and so forth, is one of those inexplicable bullshits of pop evo, where you have to imagine that someone's great-great-X-grand-relative once had a gene for "likes sandwich wraps" that carried down to the present day, but then, even that kind of crap isn't conclusive, because someone with a completely landlocked genetic history beginning at 300K B.C. that didn't include any seaside travel until 1970 A.D. might randomly like seafood, so the enduring fitness of that gene, if such it is, is again called into question, and the rationalizing bullshit fails again.

--Can we get to the triangles already? This whole thing was supposed to be about triangles!--

Part of this is just going to appear fantastical; there's no way out of it, just like when this one says a higher stage of any one's participation in lightform evolution is being a glowing ball of immaterial, solely-energy "nebula" or "light amoeba." And that's where triangles come in, in the sense of a more developed you being able to appreciate, more intensely than anything here, things like "pure shapes," in ways that can perhaps best be analogized as sexual, since that's one of the most viscerally sensationist things we can do here. We use the triangle as merely an example, because it's easily identifiable here, and although it's a great shape, it's not the most complicated nor intricate shape there is, and if we could perceive what we'll someday like, we'd be able to see the simplicity, and perhaps the "comparative boredom," of the triangle.

!*Oh God, this is so perfect, I can, no must, ignore this crap forever, racist and homophobic and now she's saying people want to fuck triangles! It's complete lunacy, I'm so vindicated!*!

This isn't an orifical essay, and the discussion here isn't about penetrating some type of triangle-shaped orifice. In the sense of appreciating geometry, it's more like being close to, or temporarily melding with, said shape. And per whatever domestic rubric you prefer, it's better than rubbing together urinary- or fecal-related organs.

Again, stressing that triangles aren't the most important, frequent, nor emblematic function within this concept, yet a useful example that can be easily understood here, the point of discussing beauty is to metaphorize toward a fuller understanding of objectively better things. Again, take a straight dude for example, and construct some imaginary image of the face he finds desirable or pretty. Sure, it's pretty, but it has five holes that leak fluid and two more that slowly produce wax, and although the curve of its cheekbones, or the shape of its nose, may be lovely, the bulk of the parts that can be appreciated are truly utilitarian, and it's arguable that no appreciation of the beauty can be divorced from its utility of representing a temporary fertile highlight between two infertile, completely un-sexy periods of time, that it leaves even to current local life expectancies less than half the total for being sexy or objectively attractive (i.e. the snot-nosed kid that's not yours is just some kid, and the old man who hasn't been your husband or grandfather for however many years isn't some bastion of warmth and reassurance, but just some old man, et cetera). All boringly, uncontroversially true for heterosexual human Terran males, but for those with a flaw in execution that are pedos or those much, much rarer errors who go for old chicks. Which brings us back to our original point, namely that so much of our appreciation of beauty is tied to the utilitarian now, utterly separate from anything timeless or idealistic.

Despite this, there's that stuff that doesn't make any random-evolutionary-struggle sense. We like the night sky, which is only a distraction from the material here and now that can in any way effect our reproductive success. Why is it beautiful when you're out on a white-person hike and come out onto a hill far from the city and the stars are extra big and bright? Why do people keep thinking "the Horsehead Nebula" is in any way a nice sight, considering you can't fuck it, it isn't your offspring, it doesn't provide resources to permit your own survival nor the more successful raising of offspring nor the survival of your closely bonded genetic kin nor anything else on the entire fucking planet that would in any way affect your random struggle for survival.

(The local faith really breaks down at that one. The professor of Bioluminescence or Astrofucktology or whatever just shrugs, a good little priest who says after the shrug, "We just don't know! Lord Random works in mysterious ways!" People nowadays are like people have always been, believing that their great thinkers basically understand the cosmos, and it's so much bullshit; they never did, and their personification of the sun as "Ra" was at least a better story overall than the crap they come up with now. Even various forms of Yahweh-worship were more honest about their inability to understand; the theory "Sky Man did it and he's way smarter than ignorant little me" is more sane than the ridiculous theories about space-kaboom and "um, made better genes?" that our wise men spout now. If the priesthood didn't have such a lock on the Crown, drawing huge resources away from people who actually work, this stuff would dissipate like dust in the wind, but the Crown needs them as much as they need it, and baby, they're not gonna let go.)

Beauty is one of the avenues of perception that transcends the material now. Dudes like pussy for all sorts of materially progressive reasons, and human Terran female faces for similar reasons, but even there, the local pop evo faith falls apart. Example: take the average Earth-male, and answer for him this question: would you rather fuck ten ugly fat chicks, or one pretty dainty chick? The said male would choose the one pretty dainty chick, despite the fact that ten times the potential offspring, even if several of them are fat or ugly, is clearly mathematically superior to whatever gain is to be had from the dainty-pretty with the nice features. Ten kids who have heart attacks at 49 is way better, evolutionarily speaking, than one kid who makes it to 92. And yet, people still like the completely irrelevant stars, just as they are seemingly hardwired for the stupid failure of giving a shit about other things they think are nice-looking in utter contradiction of the fantasy that they have been designed for aggressive random competition. This doesn't even broach the issue of how many of these evolutionary competitors are apparently okay with living an utterly sterile life when they're displeased with Jewish spousal, child-rearing, and divorce laws, or just some bland perception that American society since the 1965 immigration changes, or the longstanding Judaization of Europe and the pre-1865 Judaization of America, because pop evo holds that the drive, and the random crafting of every living thing on this planet (or "everywhere at all" depending on your pop evo interpretation) includes the complete mandate to reproduce, regardless of whatever the social crap has been for 2500 years or 5000 years.

And yet, people still like beautiful things. How can we try to save pop evo? This one supposes we could say that the stars are like some kind of feeling of being in a reassuring womb, all dark, and with lots of little lights...oh fuck, there really is no way to save it. It's such hilarious, poisonous bullshit, there's just no way.

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Diversity is Strength

One of the great ironies of this age is that diversity actually is strength. It's ironic, because more intelligent people can tell, even if they've been conditioned pretty hard not to see it, that various versions of this slogan are being used to kill them, or at a lesser level of comprehension, that the slogan is simply used to make bad things happen. Like, the Fed, attacking various countries for offensive rather than defensive reasons, killing a lot of little kids with flying death robots, and so forth. Ergo people begin to develop a slow understanding of diversity being bad, since it causes huge amounts of rape, child abuse, robbery, and murder, and the people under its banner are rather obviously destroying the world.

It is, therefore, natural, understandable, and in many ways a correct reaction, for humans to begin to develop an understanding of diversity being bad. "Diversity" is correctly seen as the banner of tyranny, as State prevents people from forming neighborhood agreements, nation-state agreements, education agreements, and so forth, and the State is constantly barraging growing children with the idea that "diversity" means they should feed others and not themselves, and it's morally right to subsidize the housing of people next door who rape your offspring, and so forth. It's quite literally an unabashed philosophy of suicide in 2018, because prior generations of Americans could be said to be stupidly, if honestly, investing so much in Congoids based on the superficially reasonable proposition that housing and feeding and growing them might result in that many more helpful, productive fellow citizens. It didn't, of course; it was a stupid dream, those of them who actually believed in it, but it was, at least--again, superficially, and plenty of Europeoids who knew something of one or more other species knew that such plans were incredibly dangerous, expensive, and going to fail--a rational attempt on its face. Since no one had tried to create a Europeoid-style civilization or Europeoid-style people out of other groups on a large scale, before, the first universalists had the excuse of saying "it might work!"

Now, though, we're massively beyond the beginning of the pawns' justifying dream, with over a hundred years of data that it is always and forever an idea that will fail. Europeoids have tried everything to make Mongoloids and Congoids into Europeoids--being extra nice, including education, proximity, giving them presents, giving them guaranteed food and housing and child care and medical treatments for life--and nothing has worked to turn them into Europeoids. They've even tried "reduced or zero punishment for violent or mortal crimes," and "have this womb and make a baby in it, we'll pay to raise it, and then it'll surely be like us," and still, still, they wouldn't become Europeoids. And yet, double down ("double" was in like 1880, they're in the hundreds now actually), and it would hurt too much to admit you were wrong, and the show must go on.

The end result of the giant diversity crusade is a (malevolently; evilly) reaction against diversity itself, just because it was the slogan of so much bad stuff. And that's the old Jewish trick of heads I win tails you lose, wherein the contest is rigged to keep goyim losing no matter what. There is no good way to play the game; you're supposed to stab the thing that creeps around town trying to trick people into playing its three-card Monte, not to come up with various winning strategies for the game. A sad part about being here now is realizing that we've been had for a long, long time, and the chances of not continuing to be had are about nil.

Plan A from our increasingly less-well-hidden overlords is just all the Aryans continue to get outbred, and instead of just being a dwindling global minority, die out, and then Detroit is a predictive model for the world, except without a nearby population that can keep subsidizing the ruins. Various enforced togethernesses for the various species have managed to subsidize less effective groups into reproducing more incapable individuals, perpetuating those groups' inability to develop more or eventually primarily members that can thrive in a more technological world, while reducing birth rates among groups that already could deal, which has an inevitable and macabre conclusion for everyone. E.g., populations stop developing as many, then any, substantially new goodies; populations become less able, then unable, to maintain prior goodies; then the food and water networks designed to work with said prior goodies stop working, and shit gets real yo. Johannesburg, or rather all the imitative European states in Africa, since the strike on Aryans there, has been a petri dish for the future world, and like Detroit without other locations to leech off of, the inability of America and Europe to continue to fund even rudimentary eating in the wastes remaining will make it rather unpleasant to be there, but it's rather less their fault for believing that things will get better than it is for the Europeoids who've spent over a century believing they could reshape all other humans into they themselves.

Anyway, diversity is strength. That's part of the longer strike against humans here, is that even some unlikely resistance to the faux dichotomy is so likely to be against "diversity" that it'll pay off for our deadly parasites in the end.

How is diversity strength? Well, a bunch of Congoids in a formerly white neighbor--

(Let's take a moment and discuss "Congoids," first. It's not a derogatory term. The Congo is a big, beautiful river teeming with good living things. It's not immortal as we see it, but it's very long-lasting on a scale of human lifespans, resisting many stupid human acts of clumsiness that could've killed a lesser river. Its place in the ecological system of the southern half of the African continent, to say the least, has been pivotal for the development of about all life there. It's a really good, really vital, really helpful thing.

Europe has no such single river. It has a lot of other good shit, but not as integral a single part of the system as the Congo. It's an honorable thing to be a Congoid. Yes, they don't do calculus as well nor non-violence, like this one gives a fuck, but they're descendants of the Congo, similarly to how all humans here could be legitimately called children of the stars. And systems are complex, and the dividing line between what in particular makes a river separate from a jungle or from all the other parts of a continent is human conception, which can be argued about--but, with the way we name and conceptualize things here, "Congoid" is really appropriate, really meaningful, and not about math nor "inability to form European-style nation states." It's a compliment that something that symbolic of genetic history and systematic bonds exists to have a role in nomenclature, and nothing else exists on this planet to fill that role, not only for Congoids but perhaps for everyone else. The cross-bred Arabs might've once gotten to call themselves Nilotics after the Nile, but that was a misapprehension then and now, since the rapespawn of northering Congoids and hapless Europeoids bears little if any particular relationship to the Nile, then or now, while the comparatively rather small population of Congoids whom the Jews sold to idiot American farmers a few short hundred years ago still bears that relationship, as almost all Congoids stayed in southern Africa from 100x thousand years ago until now.)

Diversity is strength because a stronger ecosystem is a stronger planet is a stronger "dominant species." Putting aside the concept of spaceships battling each other with their fleets dependent on a central solar system's resources, that means all sorts of improvements here. We respect diversity not by trying to force Congoids to live like Europeoids, nor to come take Europeoids' stuff, but to live in their place and do their thing, which improves the whole ecosystem that everyone, Europeoids included, uses. If a bunch of lemur are--oh, let's be more offensive, let's say "mountain gorillas"--if a bunch of this other species is living contentedly in their place, they're happy, they have the stuff they were grown to blend well with, and Africa is this giant gain to Terra rather than a painful abscess, which it rather is now. This one's been stung by a few bees now and then, but we don't want to exterminate all the bees, because they help our planet in really fast, obvious ways we can understand; it is so with Congoids running around the Congo-system doing all their matching stuff, tho on a much different time-scale. Just like if our memories were limited to less than one year, we might think eliminating all the bees in one fell swoop is fine, our short-on-a-different-scale perception of the benefits of Congoids seems rather blind as to what they do when they're not being given "democracy" and "finance capitalism" and all the other crap stupid Nu Euros keep trying to make them take. Our parasites have an instinctive knowledge of this, and while combining Europeoids with Congoids destroys European-style societies, it also destroys African-style societies. As all the white people stop having kids because they're paying 40% federal tax and ~10% state tax and sales tax and property tax, to maintain a partly honest police force and schools and firemen and water authorities and welfare et cetera, the whites eventually die off, and the support structure that the Congoids have been made to need vanishes--so everyone dies. Leave a bunch of Congoids in Africa and they'll do great, eat rich and fuck often, but throw them in a Nu-Europe and they'll grow dependent on white charity and die once there are no more whites around to maintain it.

Put Congoids in Detroit, and they'll destroy Detroit, then suddenly there's no food or water and Europeoids somewhere else have to "save" them by giving them those things on behalf of the vanished former tax base; what happens when there are no Europeoids left, though? On their own, the Congoids have their farms and rivers and hunting, and do just fine: healthy, hale, and a great part of the planet.

That's what it means to "appreciate diversity," really; is to be able to like, or tolerate or banally appreciate, not only differently-appearing people, but different kinds of human behavior, while acknowledging the reality about them, which is that rocks generally have a different molecular composition than cotton, and are almost always "harder" than cotton. It is a great irony of this period that "Diversity is strength" is actually true in a literal way, and it's a different level of the game that Jews are better at, and are of course winning as the Aryan global minority slowly dies out: the great, stupid crusade this time is using a motto about diversity that sounds nice, but is actually trying to make things less diverse, more uniformly acculturated despite genetic background, and to deny that difference can or does exist.

There's probably no way out of this, but just to theorycraft, any recovering population here would not want to have a violent revenge on the problem elements in its society or their cohorts in the other states Europeoids built and named for them. Let them alone, stop enticing them to your areas, and they'll return to the natural ways that they actually like more and that are healthier for them. Some slightly-smarter future Europeoid civilization should not, for example, try to make global crime rates or corruption rates equivalent to wholly-white Swedish ones, and should not eliminate whatever scraps of nominal Congoid governments might still exist, even though doing so would reduce all future "murder rate" statistics. Rather, let them have their space, and let them do their thing. They and the Aztecs barely had rowboats before whites started buying them the occasional play-navy, and what they do have would eventually break after a century or so and not be replaceable by them, so natural boundaries would return, and they could just completely do their own thing, making this planet healthier, stronger, and more rewarding for all of us. I don't waste time trying to make the bees land on the trackpad and learn to tap their leg four times when the picture "2+2=?" is displayed, and I also don't waste time laughing at them for not being able to consistently tap the proper number of times. I don't want them to land on me or build hives inside, but I also don't "dislike" them. In fact, I think they're great, and I'm glad they're out there doing what they do. If you can believe in someone thinking that who really doesn't give a fuck who develops higher math or builds new technological goodies, but just wants them to be themselves without looking down on them by comparing them to others based on others' scales of quality of achievement, then you can begin to understand how diversity is strength.

Monday, October 1, 2018

Postmodern Racism

In Modern Racism, this one touched again on the mental flaws in the primarily white approach to what they call locally "races." Again, this appellation stands in defiance of their own classificatory schemes. Another setback attributable wholly to later-stage Judaic (or "Christian") universalism-for-gentile-trash, all of the bipedal, hair-lite great apes which could generate language understandable by other humans were suddenly lumped together as the same species. This ridiculous interference of the Torah in Terran science has persisted since, such that most people are not aware of many of the rather mundane factors that went into classifying species, the less obvious differences between the human species, and the ways in which many other Terran species are very, very similar to other Terran species. For example, members of distinct species can and do sometimes produce fertile offspring when they fuck each other, but that ability to produce fertile offspring does not suddenly mean the species are the same. The differences in skull shape, brain size, bone design, and disease tendencies, are by themselves more than enough to justify an academic comprehension and acknowledgement of speciation between the human groups we're discussing, and indeed, in the centuries before the horrid twentieth, scientists were well on track, even without very good microscopes or cadaver labs compared to 2018, to defining Terra's humans as Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and a few little hybrid groups, like Jews, which were presumed Mongoloid/Negroid blends back then, but which have now used so many Janissary-type Ashkenazi-factories that the Jew of the 21st century is extremely different from that of, say, the twelfth, and more importantly, world historical memory has come to envisage today's Ashkenazi as what Jews always looked like.

That's a separate subject, though; hybrids aside, the easily identifiable, even visually-only, species were on the track for science, but there was a big battle between some of the last few actual scientists, and the Jews and their idiotic Christian puppets, about how Yahweh-God made the soul and therefore here were no races (except for the special Chosen, who might be "white" or might be the Chosen superior of all including whites, depending on what suited them at the time). And the Torah won again, and continues to win, even though now we can do more than weigh cadaver brains, but can do imaging on all the different parts of the living body, and track diseases worldwide, and see even more how different these species are.

And the Chinese know it, and the Arabs know it, and the Congoids know it, and the pygmies know it, and the Japanese know it, and even the fricking Mauri know it, and the only ethnic group stupid enough to develop people who actually have this continuing faith in Torah successors is whites. (Yes, the Arabs have a problem with believing a Torah successor, but in so doing, they haven't allowed their stupid play-story to override the practicalities of survival, ethnic differentiation and competition, and so forth. They believe their fool's "Torah for Arabs," but unlike Europeoids and their "Torah for whites," they're still willing to fight like it's about survival.)

Nu Euros do a lot of great things, but they were and are still the only ones to consistently fall for the stuff the Jews churned out. There are a lot of Aztec Catholics, but fuck with them and they will cut you, S-A, and they don't actually believe in the peaceable, forgiving crap like the whites do. Even the Arabs, who got into the Torah in a big way, kept open the old attempts to defend their lives and lands, in a way that the Europeoids could only brush at with milkwater "go ahead and emigrate to join your friends and bring your banking pawns back in a few years" Hitler. The Arabs adopted Islam, but like the Europeoids, adapted it to their native method: expand, kill, enslave, brutalize women, and so forth. It's not a very "nice" philosophy, but it's biologically successful. The Nu Euros, by contrast, made Christianity about giving up and giving away, "Yes, please rape my daughter, go ahead, our wombs should be your property too!" The Jews initially wrote Islam with all sorts of escape clauses for letting people fake-convert to join their societies, and the Arabs responded by stringent social regulations and brutal oversight that whittled down most of the non-Arab fakers, while the Nu Euros, presented with a similar philosophy, bent over to take it for more than a thousand years, letting Jews, north Africans, and various Asians fester in European lands while their children were being constantly raped and members of other ethnicities became more and more formally in charge. Nu Euros are a curious species, rather the opposite of the cuckoo, where they try not to survive on others, but for some strange, terminal reason get off on dying to cause others to survive.

And now we have such superior technology, and MRIs and CTs and ultrasounds can rub our face in the Christian universalism not being even remotely true. We can discover that the skin and hair of the different human species formed separate evolutionary relationships with types of bacteria that live on them from birth to death, and that there's a weird conflict and maybe skin problems with cross-breeds, and still, there's this Jewish "Christian" pretension that the scantily clad rabbi on the cross made them all the same. Even though the western medical cartel is hugely against recognizing the differences between the species, it does still like to sell things, so warning men and women about different risks for different conditions, and different species or "races" about different things they're more likely to get, can still happen.

All that is rather mundane now; what we'll do here is discuss two developments of the stuff we covered in Modern Racism: firstly, the ways that people who recognize these differences are often as skewed, morally and logically, in their perspectives as the people who hide their eyes, and secondly, more specific detail about how the people who refused to acknowledge such differences are working to destroy the races, primarily Congoids.

Firstly, racists. At times amazingly more ignorant than anti-racists, at times amazingly better informed, the "other half" of this ridiculous recent dichotomy is the person who self-defines as, or privately believes that, he or she is "racist" because said person admits to himself or herself that s/he can tell the differences. Maybe because those damn black kids keep stealing the car stereo, maybe because s/he went to school with a large minority or majority of non-"whites" along with a bunch of poor white kids and could tell it wasn't about family economics, maybe 'cause you've been mugged three times and are starting to notice a pattern, or maybe just because you're intellectually honorable and have just read a bunch of statistics.

Either way, the "racist" reaction to differences between the human species (or just ignore that crap if it bothers you; it's fine to say "races" if you want, since that's an arbitrary local definition Terrans created themselves, and they could've made up different classificatory terms if they'd wanted to; this one just emphasizes the difference because of pointing out local hypocrisy regarding their own standards, not because it matters whether or not we call them species or races or apples or oranges) is often really decidedly stupid. This one equated it before to yelling at a dog for chewing up something when it was trapped in a house for a long time: so many, perhaps all, white racists, who can tell from personal experience or statistics that Aztecs or Congoids or whoever else are different than Europeoids, who are either lots smarter or lots more intellectually honorable than people who pretend to be race-blind, do so in essentially the same way that the starry eyed western liberal does, which is to say they continue to use "western" Europeoid mores to evaluate the behavior.

E.g., the western liberal dumbass says, "Black people are just like white people, and should have reduced expectations for mathematical achievement and crime avoidance because of the legacy of poverty unfairly created by whites!" The terrible, arrogant implication, as discussed earlier, is that the western liberal believes it is completely unacceptable that black people live like black people, so he incessantly sends missionaries to make black people destroy their homes and install white infrastructure, governments, borders, food distribution networks, and so forth.

The western race-realist, by contrast (who may consider himself an actual conservative, as opposed to the generally older, whiter actors who liberally pretend to be conservatives in western politics), uses those same white standards to judge blacks: "Hahaha, they can't do our math, they can't do our clean streets, they can't stop raping nonagenarians, their PhD dissertations are copied, ha!" Which is true, but still a really stupid, inappropriate way of judging this human group, and betrays some of the universalist enchantment at turning everyone white that the liberal himself carries. What race-realists (primarily, like the modern liberals, following a Jewish-designed plan of faux-resistance to a faux-authority) should be doing is not engaging the opponent using those myopic assumptions.

The "Obamacare" con provides a suitably morose example of this false dichotomy. For a government supposedly of and for the people to partner with private industry to make the purchase of a product--even a good product, and this one was decidedly the opposite plus that runoff from the broken sewage plant--mandatory, it is an act of open tyranny, even more obvious than the "income tax." Yet any potential objection in this vein was channeled away into a playroom over whether or not it was the cheapest possible way to be forced to buy a product, the fairest possible way to be forced to buy a product, and so forth, when a decent discussion would've been if the executive figurehead and all the congressional figureheads should've been executed or merely exiled to make it less crowded when the various industrial partners were placed at lifelong hard labor while the republic was being restored. Yet again, as though mediating a discussion about what the income tax brackets should be, the American public proved dumb enough, and averse enough to freedom, that said freedom was deemed outdated and unnecessary.

Indeed, the Obamacare attack on the people was interesting, because with various extractive taxes, the elimination of freedom of speech and association, and many other tyrannical laws, about the only thing that America had left by the twenty-first century was "freedom to purchase," which was a hilarious charade to continue the ending of that dream of hypothetical freedom. And even the great American freedom to purchase was openly destroyed by the ACA ("Affordable Care Act," lol), which brought the number of American freedoms from one to zero. It's funny enough that the government had eliminated all freedoms but the right to be a great consumer, and even funnier that they couldn't stop at that, but even had to take the consumer crap itself down.

The false dichotomy works similarly with race, wherein discussing the different capabilities of groups, as adjudged under white standards, avoids the issue. Even the really crime-free, really intelligent Japanese have their own ways, and should be left to them (and this would be such a better, richer world, with massive GDP and standard-of-living increases and nowhere near as much Muslim if they'd just been allowed to conquer the south Pacific back when the Jewfags decided to trim them back while murdering Germany). Congoids shouldn't be judged by European standards, and arguing whether they fall short or match evenly, even though "match evenly" is the stupid argument, keeps science on the hamster wheel. Classifying Europeoids or Congoids correctly--by whatever term--as not in the same slot as other human groups, who should also not be totally sharing one another's slot(s)--would actually be much better for all groups. Endlessly haranguing the pygmies to learn how to dunk basketballs on NBA regulation hoops will not end well, and blathering for another century about how Congoids simply must do math and manage the household finances like Europeoids is destined for failure, but more importantly, is a torment for the Congoids, constantly wondering why they're not changing like the Europeoids say they will if they just join more anti-gang activity clubs in primary school.

This is why anti-racists are "the real racists": because they hate Siberian-Americans, and African-Americans, and Africans in Africa, so much that they absolutely cannot tolerate their culture. I'm fine with living a little life, letting the Aztecs and the Africans run around the jungle hitting each other with old animal bladders filled with paint and raping random females they find and having a wall with machine guns so they can't come and do those things next door, and in addition to that, they'll have their own art, and languages, and achievements, and their ways of doing things, and that's just fine. Let them make it, let them have it. The key to calling this one a racist is to be an actual racist, and say, "Those aren't their ways! Their ways are really my ways! What they really want is mortgages and waltzes and tight clothing on the men that constricts their testicles to make them have reduced sperm count but look proper!"

The awful racist attempts to adopt away endless piles of other groups into Nu Euro society, beguiling them with TV and Chrysler 300s so that they'll say they actually prefer those Nu Euro societies, are the actual wrong here. When we're surprised that Congoids and Arabs and Aztecs keep raping Nu Euro women, it is not clear which is worse: the stupidity of the people who had the original idea to forcibly blend all those groups (and/or the shabbos goys who originally proposed that "we" should forcibly blend them), or the stupidity of their idiot heirs a century later who have all that data and just keep believing in the demented dream. The powerlessness of that data to change people shows that this was a more spiritual choice than a logical attempt to improve society by bringing the inhabitants of the tortured wildlands into the cleared cities and fields; it was always more a religion than a science experiment, and the dundering Nu Euro has tried to pretend it was science ("successful" or "succeeding" science, as the pretense may go) to his own ultimate peril.

There are many parallels to this kind of behavior in Nu Euro society, and consider here the "Indian school," where American Nu Euros attempted to steal Siberian-American ("Native American" or "Aztec" or "Hispanic;" it is so goddamn offensive to not call them Siberian based on geographic origin, or Aztec or Incan based on their own self-defined imperial titles) children away from their homes and cultures and whiten them by forcing them to put on white kid clothes, learn European speech and math, and so forth. There's a great scholarship on Indian schools, most of it produced by an earlier generation of anti-racists who were correct in their disparaging of the policy of white people taking children from these Aztec communities and trying to whiten them. It was a big failure, of course, for the Aztecs remained Aztecs, and besides the kids hating the schools the parents blamed the schools for stealing their children, and it's another one of those places where this one's blathering brushes up against normal Terran scholarship; seriously, there're lots of essays and books about how evil and unfair Indian schools were for you to look up if you wanna get into that. And most of these works, especially the later ones before Nu Euros began to realize they were effectively criticizing the math programs for Congoids in their public schools, really started to slip into a good analysis of how whites thought their culture was so great it should be superimposed over all other cultures. But of course, the authors did think white culture was best, and did think Aztecs could do effective astrophysics and stop raping so much, they just thought it should be done with more imaginary nature-loving culture, so that part was a wash, but at least it had a shadow of recognition of how Nu Euros had this desperate need to steal darker children and try to reform them into whites.

Good stuff. And again, this one would prefer to live in the less-rapey, less-casually-violent culture, but despite this one wanting to do its own thing, that doesn't mean that this one hates or disparages Congoids for wanting to run around hitting other Congoids with sticks. I don't want them to hit me with those sticks, or any others, but I'm completely fine with them doing that themselves. You don't think that, because in this giant Nu Euro world culture we have now, it's supposed to be offensive hatred that I think that's what they'd do on their own, or at least the difference between what I'd obviously prefer for myself and my recognition of what they'd do on their own is presumed indicative of me somehow disparaging them. But not so! I'm fine with Congoids running around the savanna hitting each other with sticks just like I'm fine with male deer battling with antlers during the rut. They should do that. That's their thing. It's a good, wonderful part of life that they're out there doing their thing. Locking them up in houses and getting culturally shocked at them when they lock antlers during the rut--or laughing with a bunch of other "racists" that they just don't do their math homework right--is so stupid, so hateful, so antilife...there is really a problem here. Some of the problem probably originates from people feeling that their human activities are so amazingly greater than the animal activities, like, "I'm so cool because I can do the quadratic equation while the deer are just at the rut!" But even the banalities of Terran biology bear that rationale toward stupidity, while the progressive advancement of lightforms means that making fun of the deer for the rut is similar to making fun of the second-graders when you're a third grader, because you were there and one day they will be where you are now. And really, what kind of asshole are you, Nu Euro, bringing the deer inside and dressing it up in a business casual suit, patting its head and telling it, "You're going to be an aeronautical engineer someday!"
You must learn a written language and communicate and store your thoughts in that language. It is not permitted to develop a certain way of living based on oral communication and personal relationships. You must destroy your ways and adopt mine.
This one likes written languages. This one prefers written languages. Being able to use them to communicate is superior in many ways to oral, "instant" languages, where most people can pick up basic things quickly orally, whereas they take some extra processing time doing so through reading. So there's a bonus either way. For this one, who can type and read at greater than average speeds, this one can usually type at a speed equivalent to what a normal person talks at when discussing new subjects (generally not keeping up with sequenced jargon or repeating stories that've been told often before), but can read a typewritten page faster than hearing the equivalent information, so when people do podcasts or movies, it's frickin' annoying because it takes like six times longer to get their message. At certain levels of complexity of information exchange, too--it's a sliding scale--people stop being able to understand things they only hear, and need to see it "spelled out," because their reading process needs to be a complicated process of going back and rereading parts of it, and referring to earlier terms so they remember or connect what they're doing, and so forth. At a certain point of descriptive complexity, almost everyone breaks down and needs that printed text to know what they're doing, and it's impossible to have a society here without technical or descriptive text or illustration helping convey certain information.

There are all sorts of gradations between Nu Euros, and some are functionally illiterate and all that, but the point here is that the ability to remember things as patterns of sound, not as textual images or the brain patterns associated with technical images, was a big talent of the Congoid species. They didn't write, they didn't have to write to do their thing, and they had a really great tradition of oral history and oral communication that is just not being served by the attempts of the white racists now trying to pretend that everyone can and should be white. What medieval-imagery-obsessed ignorant Nu Euros would characterize as "bards" was a lot more Congoids proportionately, and it's funny to watch a bunch of white liberal assholes suddenly rediscovering going to a storytelling festival and talking about how great it is, while they demolish black oral traditions because, to convey certain technical information on this planet at this stage of development, you need text. Nu Euros sometimes like hearing "rapping," but they've utterly ravaged black oral tradition, and that's really a loss for all of us, certainly most for Congoids.

So many of the holdover aspects of Congoid speech derive from this tradition. E.g., Congoids rhyme and emphasize in certain ways, because in oral cultures that's what you use to remember things without text, and it works fine for some white asshole giving his speech too, and it's this nigh-genetic thing for Congoids. As before, it's evil of anti-racists to have crippled this in order to pretend that Congoids can read and assess quarterly reports. When white racists, by contrast, delight in how bad Congoids are at those tasks, it's like being excited that a moose isn't as good; the social scandal should be arguing that moose should not be in offices, duh. not that haha Africans aren't as good at analyzing quarterly reports.

Again, to make it clear, I like text, I prefer text, text is loads faster than listening to some jackoff ponderously explain things with self-deprecating humor--or even someone reciting pure information so rapidly you can barely make it out--written language is just so much better when dealing with these people. With the way the brains all of the humans on this planet work, it's necessary to do more complicated technical things. But it was evil, wrong, and terrible to destroy Congoid oral behavior patterns because of the Nu Euro obsession with making them plan finances and balance checkbooks and shit like that in the Europeoid style. With 30K rapes a year in the U.S., or 35K, or whatever it is, there are bigger, more visceral problems with Congoid assimilation fantasies right now, but it is a huge, transcenturial human thing that whites on their stupid "anti-racist" crusade have so thoroughly struck against African oral language. Even the most ignorant African rural people now are trying to learn a few words of English so they can help fill in a few spots on their village's IMF loan application, or better coordinate with the virginal 30-year-old bitch from the aid agency. And that bitch represents the hundreds of millions of white assholes who are really trying, really trying to reform Africa into this giant white republic to validate themselves, and hopefully the heartless Chinese won't care about African writing as long as they can extract the iron or whatever the fuck else, because yes it will be horrible, but it won't be as horrible as what whitey has done.

This is where the stereotypical notions of "racism" and "hatred" really break down. High Arka is a terrible racist because HA thinks Congoids can't do math and congenitally hit each other with sticks--easy saying, and completely validated by all potential conversations. But, if HA also is aware of and supportive of African oral tradition--not in a "just mentioning it" way, but in a "millennia of variegated human development" way, and a "cosmically fulfilling an otherwise dearth in the planet"--HA is a more terrible hate-filled hardline conservative racist, but also a more wishy-washy Pollyanna bleeding heart, than the rest of the spectrum.
You must adapt to a future-time-oriented system of storing hypothetical value determined by the opinions of many millions you will never meet, and base your survival and that of your young around this value. It is not permitted to only store value in inherently valuable things. You must destroy your ways and adopt mine.
The "many millions you will never meet" refers to modern means of storing value, including currencies, bonds, and the stock market, the value of all of which is inherently meaningless and dependent on avowedly rock-solid but actually nuanced political power variation, law, and regulation, but even within that, the purchasing whimsy of far more than mere millions of worldwide owners. In some hypothetical decent world, that would be fine, but even so--and certainly not in this world--white fantasies have destroyed African traditions of real value. Even the switch from storing value in a small herd of goats, which gives milk you can drink or share to raise young, and which you can kill and eat if you're dying of hunger and need those calories to actually live, to "precious metals" is a major change, relying on the willingness of probably-idiots to trade food or buildings for pretty rocks. This one gets finance, and thinks it's a great game, but the racist white colonialism of Africa has, like it always does, forced new customers into the system. Kind of an Obamacare for world finance, if you will, where the shitty corruption of Judaized finance that had taken Europe was forced onto Africa, because goats for organisms that need calories to survive are soooo retro, here take these strips of cotton-paper or electronic balance ledgers instead.

There's a lot positive to be said for the benefits of the way Nu Euros began storing "value" based on community trust in the value of inedible metals, then political Monopoly-money slips, deemed precious by a strong tendency toward firm reliability over the centuries. This trend, and the landed connection to Arabia, made Europe a much easier take for the people who traded in jewels and misleading lies, but even putting that aside, forcing the African conception of value to change to the Europeoid "modern" and "efficient" was arrogant as well as evil. Consider the Holodomor in Russia, where the Jewish social revolutionaries took one of their many advantages of people, who'd come to rely on hypothetical finance rather than assets which they could eat, producing however many dozens of millions of deaths from starvation. Needless to say, they could easily do that again, excuse me that could somehow happen again, and even if you don't think cyclical depressions of various kinds are planned, you still have to foresee the way that Yahweh--who works in mysterious ways that goyim just can't seem to understand--or Bang, or whatever-God, could easily sever the increasingly fragile link between places that produce food and places where people concentrate their populations under the grace of finance.

Relying on the hypothetical value of finance also takes a lot of thought, and whereas you have a certain amount of things to worry about if you own 19 goats right now and they're around the side of your bed, the number of things that can keep you up if you own pieces of 19 companies located in 19 countries is a vast increase. Like the gifting of the mortgage to Africa, it's either a present of hellish stress or of indecipherable future exchanges, made by white "anti-racists" who just couldn't stand Aztecs being Aztecs.

What a great evolutionary step back. And again, it's the Torah. All humans except the Chosen are of essentially the same type, e.g. gentile trash. Our cosmology is Bang, which is basically the Book of Genesis. And evolution from microorganisms and dirt on this planet, not from starlight...if any of the human species endures, this period's gotta be called the Torah Period, and I hope to God (sic!) they can figure out a dating system that doesn't use the damn Rabbi Yahweh's Son as its baseline.
It is inferior to base your sustenance around physical labor. You must make yourself indolent, striving to avoid use of the vulgar physical ways and join us in our quest to disavow and destroy the body. You must destroy your habits of enshrining the body.
Fat Americans makes this one obvious: the white anti-racist racists turned Africans from fit to fat. Forcing the Europeoid lifestyle upon Africans resulted in a Congoid obesity epidemic. The storing of calories that was perhaps needed in the European winter was not needed in Africa, and a few million gasping fat diabetic deaths can be laid at the whites' feet.

Yes, racists, the blacks "should've" controlled their eating habits better, but drop a bunch of white programmers into mid-1700s African society and see how well they survive. It's really funny how Congoids can't handle dieting plans in a society of abundant calorie storage and availability as well, but the way to counter the anti-racists is with the honest ability to discriminate between different things, not adopting their standards to imply that whiteness is the ultimate goal for everyone and haha Congoids are falling short.
Life and death are frightening. You must stop welcoming death as part of life, and instead live in torture rather than accept death.
How many Congoids are in government-funded torture homes? Whites chose that method of imprisoning their elders for themselves, and whites still try to escape it. Anecdotally, I know a dude who got in his rowboat and just headed out to sea way farther than he knew damn well was safe but the damn Coast Guard heard from some tender-hearted fisherman and they brought him back, lifetime sailor who was probably having the time of his life out there, to spend a few years in a state home that sucked up his military pension and then some, besides making him miserable for those years. Congoids just had the final hunt or final fight, naturally, and you could go out doing something that you loved and something that was, hilarious-ironically, healthy. Now instead, they're eating cup'o strained beets for 10 years, wishing for God's sake that she'd let the morphine go up to 14 just once. Again, that kind of depravity is white-chosen, so the crimes whites commit against themselves are to be viewed differently than those suffered by blacks.
Men and women do not make children with their bodies, but science does. Men and women are illusions that we can overcome. Men are women and women are men and no one is anything but what we decide. You must embrace a world of fluid definitions. We will tell you what things mean.
...and all the rest. Every dumbass white crusade has become, through forcing the Congoids to act white, a dumbass Congoid crusade, or rather, a dumbass crusade Congoids are forced to go on by and with whites. So all of a sudden, the weird dude in the village who sometimes puts on a grass skirt and gets nailed, until he's expected to have kids and has to live a life, is empowered to wile away his few more youthful years ass-fucking, then die of some coprophagia-indicative disease, or just be an old queer who wonders where it all went...and all the rest. Congoids are certainly suggestible, and I've known quite a few who got really behind some cause someone told them about, but Europeoids are way more suggestible, and are fundamental, not ancillary, vectors for this kinda crap.

Forcible Indoctrination

We've seen, particularly in the last example, how forcing people deep-ancestrally African to live like people deep-ancestrally European is imperfect. If Europe had some ideal, problem-free society, it would still be wrong and stupid to try to force Africans to live in it (or the imitation of it we've seen for a while, which will become ever more obvious as time passes)--but considering the problems with finance and manipulable warfare, insane social movements, and the hints of economic severance from the food supply Europe was undergoing long before it brought its first African anywhere, the stupid criminality of the process is more profound.

Thursday, September 27, 2018

Memory of Death

This one recently referenced a fear of "death" being, in truth, a fear of memory deletion.


People will willingly die for all sorts of reasons, many of which can be explained by pop evolution. Sacrificing yourself for a child is easy, since you're preserving your (one?) chance at perpetuating your genes. For a different type of relative, less impressive rationale but can still be done. Man on the street? Comrade at arms? Pop evolution begins to break down here, but you can still rationalize it to sociological honor systems having some bearing on group genetic survivability, ergo it can make sense to Terran pop evo, though how the overlapping, interdependent layers of why destroying your genes to potentially help another group member's is related to the randomized struggle for survival becomes a desperately tenuous explanation at best. This is so particularly when concepts of "honor" or "obligation" et cetera are easily justifiable as human traits, less so some hypothetical great ape predecessor, much less so some rat-like mammal from the dinosaur era, even less so unicellular organism predecessors. But still, under the local evolution faith, you can still justify those mental processes, by arguing that "culture" evolves so rapidly that it all makes sense, or that kinship bonds are actually these primal, longer-lasting things than we might imagine.

(It's tenuous, it's rickety, but that's the way so much of our local dogma produces harebrained explanations for all the behavior we see [well, you always mix in a little "random," the "works in mysterious ways" tool for the Bang-god]. "Desire to fuck" and "desire to not be crushed by a cement mixer" are easy, but so much else is left to these cobbled messes of peeling onion-skin layers, like, "why do some septuagenarians get really into radio controlled airplanes?" The attempts to tie every unique and weird character trait back to some version of the struggle for survival in the jungle of random mutation are terrible, weak attempts, and watching our society do them is like watching some sad devotee of a terrible canceled TV show try to explain why a character acting completely out of character during this one episode actually makes sense because the Nova Reactor has been known to adjust space and time in ways incomprehensible to mortal man.)

(This is one of the ways that stupid, Europeoid-influenced Christianity is superior to modern Bang, because the concept of the individuality and non-material-nature of the soul stands in defiance of so much current social stupidity. Even the neo-Christians who accept all science and Bang but just as a version of Yahweh-God having worked that way retain concepts of the non-material nature of the soul, ergo despite many other stupidities are far ahead of the Bangists on this point.)

Another of the places where pop evo begins to break down is in the human's individual choice. Say you are a man, and you have two choices in life: down one path, you are sterile but get an easy high-paying job and are promised lots of great random desserts and or sex, enduring happiness, and cultural celebration and minor wealth for inventing some important industrial lubricant that makes everyone think you're really smart. Down another, you'll die of painful cancer in a year, but during that last year, impregnate a naughty fat nurse in the palliative care unit where you're staying, and then die, and your son goes on to live as a shiftless street-dweller but one who himself has seventeen children by mothers he knows for only one night. Which do you choose? Ms. Fate wants to know.

You can adjust the example however you like, making the "pleasure and success" life include negotiating a lasting peace in Wartorn Country, or releasing twelve platinum albums in a row and getting more famous and more groupies, or whatever the hell else, as well as adding negative consequences to the final terminal year, such as you suffer terribly every waking moment, or like you're in a coma the whole time but the naughty nurse inseminates herself using a weird surgery. Or change the "you" to female, and assume some dude-nurse uses some cool machines on you so your otherwise comatose body can carry your baby to term and it turns out really healthy.

Which choice? Make the examples really extreme and personal, and ask yourself which option you'd choose. Even if you'd choose the pain-racked birth one, though, if you'd even consider at all choosing the other option, we have something of a problem, because under the mandate of locally popular evolution, it shouldn't even be a feasible alternative. The option to have a genetic payload versus not having one should not even be a choice that merits consideration. It should be like if this one asked you, "Would you like to smash yourself in the face with a hammer, or not smash yourself in the face with a hammer?" Genetic success or genetic failure? The fact that we could contemplate it at all--let alone however many of us could craft great v. terrible, sterile but otherwise wonderful life v. horrible, brief, reproductive life--gives the lie to the local faith. How in the world could this absolutely essential trait not be hardwired so powerfully into the brain of every single evolved thing on this planet? If you give the wolf a choice between saving its young and dying, versus a hole through which to escape leaving its young with the predator, it's plausible because the wolf might reproduce again later. Pose it to the human who can understand sterility, and there is no such savings clause.


Regardless of playing offspring-games with the current mainstream belief in the way all these things appeared here suitable for Terra, though, the more important question in this essay was that of physical death versus memory deletion. Quoting this one:
One of the great human fears is the fear of "death," which as this one previously referenced, is actually more of a fear of memory loss, or of the individual's total recalled and assumed experiences being utterly deleted from reality forever due to the expiration of her or his local physical form.
Let's try that out. Posit your foot aches weirdly for a few weeks, so you finally go in. They scan you and you've got a small tumor in your foot, at first it seems it's not that big a deal but it's the kind that sends out parts of itself to other regions of the body, so oh shit, they gotta do something fast, and it might be too late anyway. So you have two choices: first choice is a powerful new drug that will completely eliminate all cancer cells in the body and make you immune to future cancers, but its side effect is that, when you take it, it wipes your brain, so you're perfectly healthy, but total memory loss, all your memories and functions, all the character and ideas you hold true. You, gone. When you wake up from the procedure, there's a little pamphlet that you helped prepare beforehand, introducing you to little quirks of the body (they advise you not to write down character stuff because it'll be irrelevant by the time you read it) and the staff cheers the cancer survivor as you walk out to find your car by keyfob location and then figure out where you live and what the place is like. All your hobbies are meaningless start-overs, all your social relationships are the same, if you're dating someone or married there's a court order for people who've had your procedure freeing you from all of the past, and so forth.

Second choice is to have your brain transplanted into an identical new body, and the old one dumped into an incinerator somewhere. Life goes on exactly the same, you wake up as a perfectly healthy you remembering everything, no one else ever knows it happens unless you feel like telling them, and life is whatever it was before, but with you at least remembering your friends and that time Gramma gave you a special treat and your favorite places to park and what shows you like.

So, which one? In answering the question, you gotta contemplate, with the first option, every single aspect of your memory of life being wiped--not just freed from some bad situation, but forgetting everything, like then you have to take a coping class to learn how to use the common household toilet, not remembering how to do your job or how to manage money and person in this world, and every other little thing that would be a minor problem about losing your complete memories, like forgetting all your passwords, and every other big thing that would be a fundamental problem, like losing all the accumulated thoughts and realizations about yourself and about the world that you've had since birth. So, which one? Being inserted into clone-you is completely the same, fresh as a daisy, nice and clean and ready to go with no minor nor major changes.

That's why fear of death is really fear of memory loss. We're not afraid if some body we're not using any more falls into a giant blender or gets run over repeatedly by monster trucks, and that's why we're able to cope just fine with apoptosis and all of our cells dying at least once, actually probably way more times, during our lives. Our consciousness, sense of self, and memory of whom we like and whom we don't like and why, stay generally intact, contiguous, even with the complete change-out of all our cells. So being perfectly healthy and perfectly you in a different container is just fine, since your body is programmed to replace itself, and it's constantly doing so; you've gone through it, are going through it as you read, and will fully go through it again, and you're not particularly bothered by that, nor should you be. Material is just material. Memories, experiences, are different.

If you're teleported out of your body, to an EM chamber or some other holding clone, and then your body, on remote control, goes and has great food and great sex and wins some tournament and travels a bunch to all these exotic places, you're not happy that "you" did all that stuff, you're pissed off, because the experience--the honing of character and the accumulation of memories--is what's important. And, if you download a memory pack and suddenly remember the hotels in Morocco and the little museums in Spain, like a student's shortcut book on life, it isn't the same as having done those things, even if you can more rapidly recall key parts of the memories to give better party anecdotes or sound smarter in trivia. Even if the EM chamber you're put into gives you constant orgasms or includes unending lectures on interesting scientific concepts that you always wanted to learn, or whatever else, you will value, you will believe more in, the things you actually did, versus the things your body did.

Play with it a little. Would you rather wake up a quadriplegic and live in your body in a wheelchair, or be flashed into some idealized body that's your clone, or that's your modified clone with you-chosen augments (like, can't add body fat beyond whatever ratio you'd picked, except bigger tits, or if you're male bigger dick and more muscle mass, or taller or more slender to start or perpetually, better looking, whatever), and then the "real" collection of cells you're using can just sit in storage for 70 years, or hit the fuel plant, or do whatever; you won't care, or you might get a little emotional like you're moving to a way better house that somehow costs lots less, but you're not going to preserve that old body and sob emotionally over it every year or day.

There're a lot of potential Twilight Zones or Black Mirrors in there, and it could be really cool or witty to watch them and chat about what a certain episode means and how brilliant is whatever named screenwriter it had on the case. And their commonality would be that, like we don't care about the constant cellular death inside us right now as you're on the internet, we wouldn't care about whatever they did with the hunk of stuff once we weren't occupying it anymore. That's not in us, since we know we're not it; we're not from it. We'd prefer not to experience negative feedback from it, like pain or sorrow that our foot just got cut off, anything like that, but if we're not in it, and have a reliable (more reliable, if we're dressing up our examples) place to stay in the meantime, there's no more concern about what happens to it than to a hunk of inedible meat in the butcher's backroom.

And so it is with our fear of "death." This misapprehension is caused by the stupid, rather backward belief that we are somehow generated by, or inextricably bound to, the matter we inhabit. With our instinct to use it well and make it last, but moreso our desire not to add shitty memories, we feel this; even more so, with what we're taught, we come to believe that we're materially generated, and completely reliant on the "body," which starts to look stupid once we have really good microscopes and have figured out that all the cells are dying and switching out all the time, even though we think we're still "alive."

As a counter to pop evo, our thought, or our much-experienced through our association with others' thought, shows us a complete lack of concern with the body as separate from our minds. If you could die tomorrow from some super cancer, would you want to be flashed into a great new blank brain in a certified-immune body, or would you want to valiantly go down with the ship in the original one? A fixation on the original body--if anything still remained of it after years of cycles of cells dying and being replaced--would be an inherent, mandatory part of being a Terran who'd evolved in only that way and knew of the cellular body as the only source of existential achievement. That's not us, though, for we can tell that our memories are important on a far different level than the bodies they use.

This will be even easier to tell once we learn brain transplants, EM pattern flashing, and find out the way that something like 90% of the time the right preparation causes the original soul, sorry, "EM pattern," to just slip into the prepared slot. And then when you can get it done in a mall storefront, and a lot of people are spending many thousands on brutal credit in order to buy a body with upgrades, we wouldn't be able to pretend anymore that there was some kind of integral connection to the cells. It's easy for us, perhaps, to stubbornly insist that despite cell-replacement, it doesn't all happen at once, so the ones who stay behind are constantly preserving the slipping consciousness. Once it's consumerized, no more excuses will serve, even to the private body-fundamentalist. We'll ignore the weirdos protesting outside the stores (until one of them kills someone and it's a huge trial about the hypocritical respecters of life, and it becomes illegal to proselytize people going into the mall for body transfers, and the protesters all just drift away to the neuroweb, and then life goes on like normal), do what we do, and have to accept the fact that there isn't a deep meiemotic connection to this material; these cells. And what then? It won't seem so dumbass-spiritual anymore that a mind is a little sub-sub part of light, and over the centuries we'll change, and society will change, and on it goes.

Not as a petty counter to their stupid local faith, though, but as an opportunity for individual growth, we don't need all those patents for us to realize it's not the body, not the genes, that we're using, about which we care. You can make way better examples of self and memory against the genetic confabulation, than this one did above to illustrate the point about you caring more about the self than about the body it's in. Move on from that to recognizing the body as something that you use, not as what you are. It's a short step from that to seeing all material, in the sense of "this one planet by this one star," as similarly used, and more importantly, to see the failure of one piece or all pieces of that to have any impact on the mind except being inside a part of it while it happened, and compiling memories out of all the sensory data.