Saturday, May 26, 2018

Verse 6

"6" is a guess because who knows how much we've referred to this in ways that could be considered part of a series.

Reality is infinite and eternal, and perhaps it is best approached from a local perspective in the manner of dispelling a notion of beginnings and endings. The verse is omnipresent in the sense that it was and will always be here, and dismissing incorrect local versions of starts and finishes, and not dismissing cause and effect as notions entirely but understanding that by their nature of happening within eternity they are themselves eternal, for each effect can be explained only through a large number of causes, like unto infinity from our perspective, which themselves stretch backward often through infinite time and defy our notion of neatly packaged definitions of cause and effect, ergo it's more a matter to us of feeling cause and effect than identifying it or knowing it like some equation we really intelligently finished on, say, a sheet of paper. Because an infinite set of causes, in some philosophical ways, is like the butterfly effect times infinity, and there's no way to reasonably argue that any of them was more influential than any other, ergo the "cause" as to the "effect," so you see how it gets rather impossible to use those words with a straight face in infinite time; there has to be an agreed upon set of artificial rules and parameters in shared employ for those words to mean anything. Not because this is necessarily the best verbiage, but the most effective for those of us with a Terran background right now.

(Re cause and effect, imagine someone punches you in the nose [cause] so your nose hurts [effect]. But he did it because he was feeling extra irritated that day because he got fired. And the boss made the decision then because he was stressed about money because his girlfriend reminded him about the required diamond because she saw a special on gems that she only saw because her girlfriend casually mentioned it during a conversation at the mall because light glinted off the jewelry counter as they walked by because Jake diligently fixed the lights before opening changing the angle slightly and he felt limber since he finally used that totally gay coupon for a massage place where only the dudes work and he only gave in because last night there was some TV program about brotherhood of men and it was bullshit because I guess it got to Jake and the scheduler only used it because that rich dude backed out of funding the thing on local fire department management scandals which he only did because...cause, cause, cause. It goes back a long way and it's all a cause and to figure out why your nose hurts takes a lot more than the understanding of just the "most proximate cause" and gets philosophical when you consider that people are filled with all sorts of potential and maybe the cause of a cause is actually more important to possibility than the most proximate cause, because of course if someone says something sarcastic to Jerry about making rent there will be an episode of yelling or violence that day, and of course if Wanda has a bad time at work due to Francis' elbow acting up again and making her snippy then she's going to make a cutting remark about Jerry's fiscal prowess.)

(Which ties in to conversation and connection. Like, if I say, "Where you from?" you might reply "Sigma 6K" and it might be technically true, but it's more meaningful to our conversation if you just say "Albuquerque," because my question there was "where were you born most recently as a human?" rather than "where did your molecules first take existential shape in the form in which I see them now?" Any number of other assholes could provide any number of other confusing but technically true answers, but it's the same way as a lot of common kinds of interactions, including conversation, where an unspoken, nebulous trust is required for the binding to work, as easy to spoil as it is to create. And logically, you can prove neither that the question was asked nor answered, because existence could itself be an illusion or they could be spontaneously channeling different languages which meant different things, et cetera times infinity, and it takes a level of trust and intuition to understand what is probably happening and react accordingly. The "kill him" line, "You know what has to be done," is indecipherable to those who don't really know what's being discussed, even with an advanced English textbook at hand.)

In that context, selfishly as to our right now, we can conceive of an uncertainty of and over an unknowable creator who in many ways doesn't matter. Reality may be, in this way, likened to the leftover scraps from the divine clockmaker's workshop, in the sense of anthropomorphized takes or appeals to any such clockmaker being wholly irrelevant to material organization in our vicinity for a time span of, say, a thousand years, therefore being to a spurty little human "totally irrelevant." Ergo existential qualms about "who created us" are not merely untimely but irrelevant. (Not to be facetious or to cleverly hint at some super entity I'm not going to talk about, but really, to say it's not relevant, it's not only so temporally distant a question but so irrelevant in other ways that it's just stupid to ponder in the sense of answers not mattering even if they are reached and the search being way less fruitful than other things..)

One of the properties of this reality is complexification, or the tendency of growing more complicated material structures, easily fractalized through a life, not only due to the increasing ability of the human to understand what it might call complexity, but to its increasing ability to expose itself to such complexity. We are, in short, dwelling inside a clockwork that is not very responsive to our desires, does not have nor show a human face to our concerns whatever they may be, and which is even now making our forms and concerns irrelevant as time continues as it always has, using us for the only objectively useful thing we can accomplish, namely creating and accumulating memories. It is a separate matter of debate of whether or not this process of cycling through more and more lives for any given memory condenser is itself part of a larger cycle, although fractally it probably is, although great arguments could be made that it is not and this is not really the place to understand them but it doesn't really change the mundane physics nor even some of the metaphysics of each time. So as to being worried about the meaning of life, we're concerned neither with a creator nor the implications of being part of a cyclically greater creation.

So, stuff bumps around the verse, and there might be a "uni" verse, and within that stuff, the things that are as complicated as us perform the function of having experiences that can and will be somewhat remembered. Those memories are, usually within a century, sucked up into that planet's stores and eventually, when that planet is destroyed, sucked up to some bigger storehouse, I'll just say "Axom" because of force of habit from where I was not many trips ago, but for God's sake the name isn't important here so much as it's sentimental to me, oh good grief I'm afraid to google it because in the way I anglicized it it might be some superconductor firm in Tennessee. The point is, there are other places to store more memories than the inhabitants of a single planet can accumulate or the planet itself can hold. Anyway, the great metaphysical quandary of our lives isn't so much a quandary as a rather rote natural function which is gathering memories, and this human part of it is more complex than ones before ergo can seem an apex to the novice, which of course is everyone because we're still here aren't we?

What metaphysical quandaries can we expose with this information? More important, especially on Terra, is whether it is accurate or not, and for the evidence of that we should not care about the ravings of some nut on the internet who claims to remember something from before, since there are people on the internet and in meatspace who say that about having met Gabriel or received a new message from God or some other like revelation, and it's cool that they're willing to act whatever to lend a spice of "maybe..." to whatever they say which may or may not be interesting. More important, more relevant to these suspicious minds (and they should be suspicious, given our current surroundings) are the things we can do independently, not concerned with any particular prophet nor groups of prophets, because self-evident things don't need that kind of crap, and it's sort of offensive to imagine any divine force choosing to channel such an important message through such a limited vessel and leaving everyone else out of the game unless they buy something. And there are no divine forces, except there are, beyond all conception, only they're outclassed by other things in the cycle and they have far more important things to do than affect here with some kind of foreshadowing of something that will happen anyway and will be mundane and predictable when it does. And this doesn't mean they're really cool or divine or worthy of some unique variety of respect, because you'll do it too; it's more of an explanation of why nobody shows up to hold your hand through any of this; not because no one likes you, but because it's inevitable anyway. And because there are other time-consuming, really enjoyable, really important things to do later, ergo we do not tend to see (as this one metaphorized before) many adults wanting to go to preschools to grab them all by the shoulders and scream "It's gonna get better!" about some or other complaint of limitation on the preschool life as it appears from adulthood.

Let's try to be more illustrative. What is life? Easy; simply; a process whereby light, developed to a certain level of complexity and having gained the ability to remember some of what has happened to it, forms and stores memories as what may be likened to an "energy source" for activities which we don't here understand. And what is death? A probably mandatory dump of the said energy source, designed to happen so that entities afflicted with life at this level of development can't, through the best of intentions, lock up the said memories forever, rendering them unusable for a long enough period of time. (Think the time you made the winning touchdown. Endlessly referenced in other memories, but the full intensity of living it is probably locked up in your head in full detail until that self is no more. ergo the cyclical "memory dump," or mandatory transfer protocol if you prefer more technical sounding language. If you stayed in our current mortal form forever, or for a thousand years, or whatever, that full memory would be locked up in your goop-brain, not in easily accessible storage). And what happens to us after death is the same as what happens to energy or material when it is rearranged; we pool wherever we're pulled, break apart again, reform again, and our matter goes somewhere, our energy somewhere, and our mind, or "soul," somewhere else, usually to be more involved with the memories as sort of a curator to our emotional selves here but actually more like something pulled by gravity into contacting something else. And maybe that's being a k'arash janitor and plopped into some new planet with the desire to destroy everything there, and maybe it's a new chance to generate new memories while not being interfered with by the old ones, so that all the stereotypical fears and assumptions and wonderings can be done all over again, but differently, increasing the quality, the complexity, of the final product. And that, despite the many pleasures incumbent upon the way, is why this isn't a paradise fantasy; it promises scary and sad things in proportion with the good ones, which may sound unimportant now but does not feel unimportant later. Ergo combining memory of the hottest person ever with desire for greatest sex or closest and truest connection ever, etc., produces results that feel good, but this is a chemistry that can and does mix the bad things, too, which sounds funny until you're actually facing, say, greatest childhood fear mixed with adult sensation of losing something really important and dealing with the consequences for a thousand years, and all the end result is cool but the process is not always enjoyable.

And we can tell this in part by the way material has evolved here, to the best of our ability, starting with, shall we say, "rocks," and ending (how temporally arrogant, but this one's just using local terms) with "humans" who are much more dynamic and efficient and energy-conduiting than, say, the cores of stars. Think beyond our extremely limited temporal perception of life, here; it is, in the short term more productive of light and energy, to create two stars (dammit, kind of an in joke it's so frustrating but seriously in a good-natured way still there are SO MANY of those idiots who make two stars and for a bunch of millennia they're parading around with the superior results and then a while later they're nowhere to be seen omigod it's so annoying how they do that) instead of one star surrounded by a bunch of smaller crap, but in a long enough time period the surrounding of smaller crap ends up producing a vast net gain in total energy output using the same starter materials (personal annoyance or minor strife with some idiot whose done humanity and yet does two stars like a complete moron I mean I like stars but come ON people). Because, for example, some of the smaller crap often becomes planets which might become habitats for some kind of life which might produce some kind of memories, or even conventionally, which might develop machines that mine other local planets, or that reproduces exponentially, or whatever, and in the long run, more energy is produced than just yet another star. The inexorable, complementary way that we can see how this process happened, independently among separated organisms whose genes weren't in cell phone contact yet working together in the tiniest and most intimate of ways (mentioning bees and flowers again), even just with Terran tech, and how it doesn't reverse itself (except for really stupid people being born, haha, seriously it's never reversed), can help us understand some of this picture on our own, without believing any yahoo we happen to find on this planet, including on the internet. And understanding the way evolution has worked, for so long, can help us understand how we came to be, and why we came to be, as though improved memory-generating and -storing entities were the goal of this place--and the coordination with which it happens, through seemingly independent organisms, helps us understand that there is some greater program which all those things are following, not a Random god nor a Firmament god, but something else that tries to generate this powerful and sophisticated and relatively rare energy source which we call memory. And that can make us feel good, the idea that after these bodies die, we can revisit those memories and develop new forms and make what we might call "better" memories and fulfill a function that we might call "higher," and our ability to subscribe to part of this "generate memory energy" feed can help us feel existentially fulfilled in many states, including having some weird kind of incredibly fulfilling nebulaic sex with one or sixteen partners who can also feel that feed and whom we feel closer to than as humans we can imagine, partly but not all as a result of the relatedness caused by our shared subscription to the corporate imperative of "dear staff, accumulate memories." And in a way, this can be likened to some cheap metaphysical contention of heaven, since experience after being a human can be so much, perhaps exponentially, better, and capacity to create and store memories much more so, so that promising reunions with loved ones or the creation/discovery of new loved ones or the attainment of more "enjoyable" experiences is a paradisical promise that, from here, seems rather substantially similar in structure to all other paradisical promises.

Part of this process of learning about reality involves dropping our versions of fear here, given that fear is primally and primarily caused by notions of being cut off the feed of "grow more complex and make memories," which corresponds perfectly with the desire to not die which we usually feel here. A seeming irony in the Terran sense might be that it's not "all about you" nor even all about some kind of arch nobility, but that encouraging you to complexify and go build better memories is sort of like encouraging a factory worker to do better on line 4 today, so really, promising someone great love in paradise is kind of like slapping them on the back and encouraging them to get those boxes loaded and shipped, which may or may not taint the experience of developing those top notch memories of having sex on the beach if you think about it too much. And the human experience is really good at making that not matter, even if you suspect; this one, for example, really doesn't want to die despite being delusionally aware of the process, so you still eat and sleep and seek other pleasurable memories. In the sense of the shipping-company worker, our desire to build those memories is strong and true and individually-focused enough that, although we're generating and delivering for others, we really don't mind working all day and shipping all that stuff; it's not, in some ways, a hard labor or an unfair one, particularly in the case of "would you like to move on (die), or gather some more memories?" Ergo even if it's been really terrible here, once the big dude is choking the hell out of us, we're awfully vindicated and pleased when we find the gun and unexpectedly finish him off and can breathe again (and yes dammit I know how dumb and easy to escape the murder choke is it's just an example for some threatening situation that people can identify with). The escape from any other near-death experience you'd prefer to think of, and a glimpse of the fear inside you whatever you philosophically believe about death, serves as a suitable example.

The reduction of paradise to purpose need not be its destruction, neither the paradise nor the purpose, and the sense of being an existential laborer about whom all is not, needn't crush the intensity of the experience itself, in part because it can't--experience remains experience, and how intense or truthful it feels is a necessary component of building the memory in the first place--and in more thoughtful part, because the memory of contemplating events as they happen is so, shall we say, hardwired into anything conscious (designed as a memory generator), impossible to destroy even if you wanted to. E.g., it's possible to destroy someone's neurological function to remember while still having it be conscious, but even if the memories aren't stored onsite, the experience can still drift up to large local storage in the form of Terra. So it's no particular nuisance or great trouble if someone doesn't believe all its experiences are just memory condensation; it's like someone who works on an oil rig disagreeng with corporate policies while still doing his job perfectly well, or rather, like an oil well disbelieving in its own spew.

On a separate subject, maybe, props to Buddhism and Hindusim, the fable- and founder- and deity-free parts, as having a pretty accurate existential portrayal, in the sense of positing reincarnation and then a "salvation" from it, which--again, without accounting for any human-interest deity- or founder-stories--can be likened to simple and accurate, in the sense that they discuss, in so many words, the importance of refining the memory-storage process with a foreshortened sense of its completion. Buddhism's recognition that desire for different memories causes suffering is, in a way, true, and some versions of it, and Hinduism, recognize the ability of former memory accumulations to influence later accumulation processes, and compared to much more crude religions, like, "This is Thugmo. He kicks ass and likes pretty flowers. Therefore, do what he says and he will not kick your ass and will let you hang out by his flowers next Tuesday," these are much more accurate, or if you prefer, "character motivating," systems of belief. It perhaps assists some conscious entities to, Buddhistly, not desire more desirable things, because they still develop their memories, and remembering the satisfaction of not worrying about stuff is just as much a useful memory as remembering picking up your new Ferrari. Various "end states" of memory-gathering, present as paradises in both religions, serve as a reflection of becoming a better memory-gatherer, and perhaps being someone who gets off more on building stars out of memories rather than being less capable and on remembering doing some hottie. Which is still a fine memory; not to demean any part of the process. Because that, ultimately is what cause and effect are all about; you're "from" some place much different than you're from now, and it probably isn't a Bang joke yet, but it would be essentially accurate for an astrophysics professor now to claim he was from "the Big Bang," or an anthropomorphic deist to claim he was "from god," rather than from Albuquerque, even if considering the question's shared context the person should have just answered "Albuquerque," but wasn't answering incorrectly if either religion were true--yet wasn't addressing the question that was really asked by the Terran trying to talk to him.

Gosh, it feels so wrong writing like this without throwing in some Schopenhauer quotes, some lesser-known or otherwise-forgotten but still meaningful passages, either for appearing intelligent, as though that matters here, or appearing part of some tradition regarding "investigations into the nature of reality." And people's desire to do that, or perhaps only the Nu Euro's desire to do that, speaks to a desire to belong in a transcendent fashion, because we know that no one here is listening, so we cite people from last year or last century or longer, to imply a relationship, not only to reassure our audience that we've done good, but to reassure ourselves that we, too, have a role to fill, but one in a hall of honored statues. Merely statues, yes, but still at least in the hall.

Friday, May 25, 2018

Trans Potter

In I Wish I Could Use Magic, title in reference to the Rowling persona's now dated twitter quote about Brexit, this one noted:
[Rowling's] craftwork is distinguished from other human works in that it was created as a malleable expression of extemporaneous desire, rather than an artistic statement, and her ongoing involvement with it is meant to make "it"--not only it itself, but the phenomenon caused for and caused by and generated by and generated for it--something that not only can, but must, mean anything it is meant to mean at the time it is cited. Ironically, Potter itself is rather a Mirror of Erised--a creation that, like Rowling's amazingly WASPy, male-dominated original cast of professors and, more importantly, chauvi-WASPy fictionally-historic figures--reveals the endless flexibility and, ultimately, falsity and meaninglessness of her work. Because it was created without the ability to stand alone, and constantly reconfigured whenever social convenience deemed it necessary, Potter has become a wreck in the style of a post-Talmudic Judea or post-Nicean Christianity, where so many ultimately authoritative sources have internally conflicted with the muddled and re-presented source materials that it takes a constant exercise in faith (and attention-paying) to know what is right to believe at what time. Since Rowling is God of Potter, her continued presence in recasting the kraftwerk to satisfy ego and handlers makes, for believers, the original text impossible to translate without the benefit of her input, like when Muhammad issued new revelations about his share of booty from any given battle.
Continuing on with the aging and political preferences of her targets, Rowling turned an invasion of Dementors into an excuse to celebrate rather than despair, because a few years had gone by, becoming pro-rapist and denigrating the Anglo cast of her own country after writing (in the spirit of the original post, continuing the trend of not using air quotes) a wholly-Anglo story designed with the purloined tropes and borrowed situations from that history. In a way, we must thank God that she was too lazy to be utilized for ongoing novels, or the revelations that this or that faculty member or student was mixed race or trans would now overwhelm us, yet the original text, being sacred to the stupid, is oblivious to anything not straight and Anglo. It would prove quite interesting for readers now to celebrate Snape's coming out party or Dumbledore's tearful confession to the cafeteria that "he" was always a woman but age was making it impossible to keep up the deception would they please to forgive him--and then that jerk Malfoy would lead the petition for a new headmaster with the support of some obvious asshole from the school board while Harry would heroically lead the faction of students who supported Dumbledore and gave him a French kiss in front of everyone to indicate acceptance. And the discovery of Voldemort's secret Nazi lair decorated with posters of Hitler giving speeches would be a shock to everyone, and people would celebrate it as a great historical commentary and learning opportunity for young readers.

This mandate which would have been imposed on Rowling if she were duplicating her work now will become more pressing as the speed at which issues must be forced into childrens' brains has to increase in order to keep pace with reality. Since she's finished her series, she's no doubt provided by insinuation a lot of people who were attracted by the elite Anglo environment she provided but wanted to prove they could embrace rapists too, and she's certainly been effective, but the work she would've had to do if writing nowadays would be much more intense. Writing before the mass immigration to Britain even began, she showed her complete ignorance and lack of concern about the rest of the world, but has since proven that she would've, if she'd written now, been completely okay with an African Hermione and replacing her student body with a more colorful blend. How, then, will this kind of propaganda evolve? It must be so fast that, like Potter, it can suggest the issues of self-hatred and suicide, but must be flexible enough to introduce newer issues as it goes along, such as Dumbledore's sex-change and revelations that Cedric Diggory (character) was half-black.

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Drug Store

The idea of the drug store--of the place where medicines that can save lives are locked up with police protection, near you yet apart from you, because otherwise a mob of your fellow citizens would suddenly take hundreds of the most powerful anti diarrheics and give themselves constipation--is, along with many other brazen lies, a seemingly baffling, an intriguing, an offensive component of life here. Like so many other things, from traffic design to traffic regulation, the nuance of the drug store's existence is indicia of occupation by a hostile military which is not only rude and cruel in an offensive way, going far beyond the rudeness that might be effective in a regime for which "chocolate as a controlled substance" is the practice, but in a laughable way, where concern that their antics might be noticed is nil; where the population is so stupid, so subjugated, that there is no need to try to thoroughly dress up moneymaking schemes for the transient guards anymore, because the rabble is just too stupid to care.

Drawing their history from the time when it was vital government policy to ensure that the cocaine reaching the population was of purest quality, the drug stores originated as a drug "cartel," much the same as the embarrassing and costly pornography units now in action in Japan. If you're not familiar with that part of the mocking lunacy of governments of now, it involves government funded "censors" whose job it is to enforce the concealment of drawn genitalia, as opposed to real genitalia. It's ridiculous not only for its own sake, because the process of affecting the final drawing produces laughable results, quite common in ratio: because the drawing might be about a demoness giving a kneeling handjob to some type of herbological devil with a ten foot cock possessing a 1 or 2 foot width, surrounded by thirteen other succubi who are diddling each other and eating baby sandwiches and using guns to please the other women, and the censor's job is to use government funds to ensure that the central demoness' labia lines are sufficiently blurred, and nothing more. Accusations that the "yakuza" control the censorship process and skim a small percentage share from each work have been made, but whether or not it is an organization of some kind of popular acclaim, or just a bunch of greedy old men, are unconfirmed. What is important is that the "stupidity" of the process, the rather insane redirection of tax funds to the process, and the apparent ability of everyday citizens to accept its ongoing existence, indicate something about the people there. More humorously still, the prohibition doesn't exist similarly for actual porn, so the censored picture of the demoness can be distributed next to an uncensored picture of an orphaned teenage woman showing her (actual, real) vulva to the camera without any interference, and if the seeming contradiction is ever realized, it is not realized so fully that anyone demands beheaded legislators or changes to the current law.

The European (some) and American (all) protections for the drug cartels are far stronger and, if it matters, more life threatening and profitable, than the Japanese "drawn human genitals" inanity. The way the "purest cocaine" ruse was extended into what the drug stores use now is, contra the soda counter where purest cocaine etc. could've once been sipped, the drug store is not the preferred situs for gathering, but the holders of a monopoly more dire, often mandatory for the average citizen including those who wouldn't bother with supposed pleasure-drugs. The purveyors of the finest cigarettes and cocaine suddenly, amazingly became guardians of public health by keeping medicines behind armored bulwarks unless you had a proper piece of paper signed unrecognizably by some AMA-affiliate licensee who had bought, for a quarter million dollars and years of unreimbursed busywork, that level of access.

The system of denying medicine to people without doctors' prescriptions was immensely profitable, like, tens of billions of dollars a year profitable. Consider, first, the actual prescription process: medicine as a profession includes so many drugs that even specialists in a field need to use computers to look them up, and if you can meet and not contradict the requirement printed there, and you've shown your insurance card and made your co-pay, the doctor may issue you a prescription permitting you access to one small part of the walled pharmacy. And who is the doctor? The efficacy of a medical education worldwide now relies on the shadowing of a "real" doctor to learn how to pretend to pay attention, how to actually pay attention enough to know what search terms to enter into the handheld computer, and how to say, "We need to get you into a specialist" unless you are the lucky specialist with a much higher salary who has to know what search terms to use on the handheld, but who may, if overtaxed, say "I want another opinion on this" and refer someone to another specialist, provisioning notes to ensure he's already done the searches and knows the state of disagreement in the field and which of three FDA-approved routes of treatment exist and which he is going to pick.

And any person, of course, could use those handhelds, or just the normal public internet, to find all those drugs and their listing of adverse reactions to watch for and side effects and recommended or guaranteed mortal doses and so forth. And the con sold to citizens around the time cocaine and cigarettes were being promoted less to them because it had become, as opposed to government desires, widely known that such things were dangerous and should be avoided (cigarettes held on, but cocaine was looking to do really well in creating anticitizens potent enough to justify the super-profit of America's "anti drug" paramilitaries, while its regulated chem-dipped tobacco may perhaps prove more sustainably profitable in the end.

The con at the beginning went that serious old white men who really knew the drugs would guard against their incorrect usage, and besides the somewhat mortal change in who doctors ethnically and chronologically were, it turned out that smart old white men could misunderstand the handhelds and give someone a killing combination anyway, ergo pharmacies' computers double-check their work of necessity and prevent, automatically, doctors from actually influencing the process. And the said senior honkies couldn't keep up with all of the fields, and so they used things they knew instead of things that the new graduating class knew to be ten times more effective. But, putting that aside, the drug cartel's system was deadly anyway, because if you needed something right now, you couldn't get it without a partner physician's paid approval, and there were substantial economic deterrents to visiting them, and even if you could or would pay the "pricey room" fee for a fast prescription, they might not have the proper specialist on staff there, so you can die waiting,

The implausibility of regulated substances has more than crossed the line at modern cartel outlets, having moved far beyond painkillers, and indeed, beyond anything that could conceivably produce a pleasurable reaction. The joke of "needs physician oversight" is particularly false, beyond hilariously false, in many realms, including the use of police protection and suburban armor to keep people from getting relief from a minor infection with some antibiotic they've used before, even when the FDA's own website sets suggested dosage and limits. The rhetoric of "preventing people from getting dangerous stuff" has evolved over the years to the point of unbelievable rationalizations about market share and profit margins, where someone has to pay the medical industry for permission to take more of the cholesterol drug they've been taking with zero abuse potential (or, of course, actualization) for 20 years. And the doctor, depending on whom they shadowed and when during their unpaid internship, may or may not know what the drug is, but that's okay because it's all accessible through the less-than-google system to which she subscribes, maybe as a solo or maybe through her associated physician network/hospital. Really, it's hilarious how westerners are unaware that their specialist is just googling their cure, as compared to PCPs who can just tell their assistants to refer out to one of the linked specialists over and over. Not to demean doctor salaries themselves, because listening to the irrelevant crap and pretending to care about some remedy that might or might not do anything is a tough enough job, and surgery is hard, and sometimes you have to hustle in the ER, but the entire underpinning of drug access keeps the whole circus running, and there are people, literally, who take the irrevocable step toward death while waiting for some part of the access ritual to be satisfied. And considering the impotent and abuse-impossible things behind the wall, American and European tolerance of keeping all the stuff--not just the stuff that can give you pleasure in exchange for an earlier death or a less-functional life (protecting people from making the choice to take extra narcotics when their back still fucking hurts was and is one of the big lies for prohibiting massively cheaper drugs outside of the pharmacy cartels, as though people won't take more then they're prescribed when it hurts at two AM and like you need someone with twenty years of unpaid education to tell you you're allowed to take the pill after that pickup fell on you during a tire-changing accident)--behind cops and walls, the price-gouging, deathly cruel nature of the beast is obvious.

Like, say, taxes, the seeming stupidity of pharmaceutical laws, combined with the fact that they'll kill you to enforce them, are a dead giveaway of the military occupation. And the bland acceptance of people subjected to those laws are the same. Without censure or conspiracy, the average citizen subject to the laws of pharmacies can know that, if they want to, they can get over-the-counter sleeping pills and take thirty-six of them, or get prescription strength and take merely one, and that putting a certain set of them behind an armored curtain will not change the relevant outcomes. The claim that guns are regulated because they can hurt people is more plausible, since access to a gun greatly increases the ease with which one may commit murder; yet, the pharmacy sham is ridiculous to the extreme, like people would buy antibiotics and take them for pleasure without the requirement of a prescription to get past the suburban fortress and get access to something that cannot get you anything like "high."

The difference between taxes and pharmacy laws deals with death in more direct, personal ways. We all need money to survive, and when the government steals some of it, there is no way to calculate how many people starve or cheat when they would never otherwise (not on the taxes themselves, where everyone does while voting impotently for taxers but at transactions in non-tax life) commit suicide or just give up leading to a later death, but the situation is different with pharmacies, where people don't have the option to respond. So, trying to hold out another month before visiting the ER for a scrip, and as with taxes, there's no way, despite our massive arrogance as expressed in our ridiculous rules, of knowing how many people passed a non-reversible point in their condition while driving to the pharmacy, saving up for the co-pay, or waiting for the right specialist to repeat to them what they already know from Google. The medical industry, or if you prefer profession, has been trying so desperately to stop patients and former patients from sharing their diagnoses and treatments on the internet, but it's a battle they can't win, even with the assistance of their governmental cronies; if people can report on their family's vacation whereabouts to the FBI via Facebook without warrants, and if people can share consumer reviews for products and drive purchases in a way normal ads can't, then some big business will not permit the drug cartels to repress speech about doctors and conditions. Powerful the drug cartels are, but not that powerful, and the income from linked bereavement ads alone is enough to buy away their legislation.

And that's something that physicians need to consider: some of them have started integrating their consultations with "common misconceptions about your condition," but for the moral ones who won't completely take the party line, the entire process of educating young doctors and preparing them to talk to patients needs to begin accepting that most diagnosis can be done by even an idiot with his own computer, and meeting with them, talking to them, has to change, or the profession will become truly irrelevant, in its quest to bolster these last few years of drugs people needed a week ago being kept inaccessible inside suburban forts. There are still many good things about human physicians, including the ability to intuit and draw out symptoms the patient didn't think were important or that were embarrassing et cetera, and those things will be lost with the profession once the drug cartels lose faith in their little degrees accomplices and start charging co-pays for a meeting with a knowledgeable pharmacy touchscreen to learn about someone's condition instead.

A Man on the Inside

Given what we know about old news, or even just what we've personally seen about new news, we must gain (in order to grow) the intelligence, and the confidence, to not believe their biggest job of all, which comprises so much apparent historical study that it's a discipline in itself to even have an educated opinion on but a single small part of their story. This is why, say, someone is an expert on British history, then reveals himself to be utterly unaware of things that were supposedly pivotal, and then it turns out he's a specialist only on the Hanoverian lines, and only within a certain period--and when the microscope is close enough, you can find out that the supposed genius is utterly unaware of important thing X or Y that highlights someone else's career, or so unaware of it that he can carry on an intelligent conversation about it, but will actually be constantly analogizing the situation to his own thing and deflecting it from the specifics he doesn't know enough. And that kind of thing happens in normal current news, too; for example, you're not allowed to claim a historical perspective on something that happened merely 30 years ago, and while you're allowed to use metaphor to justify some current to-be popular cultural agenda by claiming a similarity between then and now (the best way to become a media-recognized expert), you are not permitted much other latitude. In particular, you're not much permitted to discuss incidents which, according to the media at the time, did not happen, much as if someone tried to draw an intelligent conclusion about America's first "Persian Gulf War" by alleging conversations between aides that must have happened in the early 1990s, regarding how far the first Bush administrator would go, and how far the second Bush administrator would then go, because no newspapers or whistleblowers reported it.

The identity of Muhammad is a similar faux-puzzle, where the sudden appearance of yet another Torah-based religion in the early hundreds A.D. has been pronounced an independent act of the Arabs, much like George H.W. Bush suddenly decided he possessed a humanitarian need to murder a lot of Iraqis on behalf of his constituents. Because the U.S. was still thought of as "White" then, some investigation was done into the White portions of the lies that assisted in justifying the invasion, and incubator-girl and April Gillespie's nuanced opinions on the rightness of attacking Kuwait stand out in some vile relief therefrom. Nonetheless, lacking global transportation at the time, the existence and doings of Muhammad--which were attended by the murder of many, many eyewitnesses--remains a forcibly stable mistruth.

Why goys would suddenly create another blighted religion at that point in time is a given; there are some of them doing so right now probably, and it's something they've always done, with more or less global success based on how willing they are to originate it in the Torah. Fractally, without waiting for the impossibility of someone showing up to doom her- or him-self by confessing "I lied and I did it in exactly this way and I'm sorry for what I've done," which we didn't get from the Persian Gulf White House either, and would be foolish to either expect or deny the unknown possibility of, we can determine in general ways who thought what and how they did it and what they were basically like, in ways that reduce all other history to childish fancies about the sources people chose to leave intact or publish.

Return to the U.S. invasions of Iraq, which tell an undeniable story. Never was Iraq possessed of the capacity to threaten the nationhood of America, so "self defense" was never available as a believable rationalization. Punishing the leader of Iraq for attempting to enact a non-dollar oil-trading market, then murdering him and replacing his leadership with a media-pliable democracy, runs as the only consistent, plausible possibility, particularly given the human rights scenarios in all other nearby countries, like when the U.S. travels to one particular African nation for professed humanitarian reasons. Since these people plan their stuff, it's fractal to conclude that they coordinated Iraq 1 and 2 at the same time, as well as the profitable practice for the USAF and Navy to enforce the "no fly" zones during the periods when the war was supposed to be not happening. Which means that, at some point, some important and powerful dude in a suit, possibly but not necessarily in the American executive mansion, had to talk to some other important and powerful dude in a suit about how Iraq would be kept neutered until it was time to actually be formal about taking it. And we know, thanks to our "vote for Obama to save the browns!" operable media spigot during the later years of Bush 2, that Cheney and some other dudes edited the allocation of oilfields later on, but we don't know for certain the names and faces of the evil men who helped background-plan the war in 1990 or earlier, and we can never, because they never confessed and never will. So responsible pop history can never mention them, until some permissible "damn whitey" pivotal moment in 2050, when some scandal is suitable for clinching an election.

That's an example of using fractals in history: of being able to say, without their compliance, that some of those dirty men who hung around Poppy Bush did a thing for which the first Bush administration should be held liable. Of course the bad people will never help you get the complete evidence against them, and of course those ludicrous stories of why it happened aren't real, and if these people had counterparts in older history, their globe-whistleblower risk becomes nil, and fractals become more important.

Ergo the Jewish Muhammad, or more genetically put, Muhammad the Jew. Not to allege that Muhammad actually believed any of his predecessors' or his own lifetime's shit, but to clarify that, genetically, Muhammad was and could only have been a Jew.

Let's discuss the evidence against, first. Here it follows: the people who believed in his sky-god religion after him say he was an Arab. That, sadly, is it.

The evidence for Muhammad being a Jew is so compelling that it leaves no ground for an alternative explanation, except for the assumptions that have dominated the field since then. Consider that he used the Torah to found his career, and that in creating a religion with a supposedly Arab character, he adopted the Jewish myth and a stated political preference for allowing Jews to endure as Jews in his future Islamic paradise, provided they paid a modest tax (hint: since the normal prescription for non-Muslims was death, the tax is a much better, very privileged alternative). Unbeknowst to many, Arabia at the time was rife with religions, often monotheist, which were as ethnically Arab as Judaism was ethnically Jewish in a genetic sense. In contrast to almost all of them (perhaps all, but you'd have to become an expert on religions in Arabia at the time, which is impossible with current records and those records likely obtainable for the next five thousand years or ever), like Christianity to clannish, defensive, practical European paganism, Islam was massively better for Jews, and the way in which it took over Arabia, like Christianity took over Europe, was a process whereby a lot of local genes with a lot of much older and nobler traditions, demonstrates a shared project. Indeed, it was only a few decades after those incredibly treasonous, unspeakably foul, Arabs, Europeans, and very smart Jews, assembled in Nicea to construct the Christianity that would do such a fine job bringing the Torah to Europe. The close historical concurrence of the solidification of the Yahweh myth, the European-targeted one, and the Arabia-targeted one, along with the Jewish and faux-Arab leadership at each grand council, and the identity of the person who was above all in having the ear of God--a Jew Rabbi Christ and, err, we're calling him "Muhammad" this time--make their own strong suggestion of the prophet-for-Arabia's identity.

Thanks to Muslims today who actually believe, as opposed to the European Christians who are proud to continually turn the other cheek at the affront to their Nicean beliefs that modern society constantly, mockingly offers, most of us in the west now know of the incredible disinclination of Muhammad and his handlers to have Muhammad's image rendered. Given the rest of Islamic theology, this requirement is not only seemingly random or nonsensical, but entirely out of place. If Muhammad had been rendered, and people had been meeting him in person rather than hearing his words from a horde of Arab, Arab-appearing, and Jewish handlers, Muhammad's historical image may have settled the question for worshipers later on.

(Do not let the future world, nor even his own people during life, know what the prophet really looked like. Their breeding for crypsis was not as effective then as now--the modern Saudi monarchs parade in the open; an accurate image of the historical Muhammad is more like the above than the Disney-Aladdin-esque cartoons Geller had her goys draw.)

An accurate rendering of Jesus of the time, including the historical one who was crucified for trying to start some minor rebellion for minority rights in some minor province of Rome, might have changed the European willingness to worship, ergo the use of subsidiary gentiles to render lots of glorious images of that poor Europeoid rabbi who taught everyone to invite anyone who wanted to come, and forgive them if they took advantage of some of the female toddlers. In the case of Muhammad, he was not Yahweh personified, but merely a messenger who must be thought of as an Arab; indeed, Arabs have the longest racial familiarity with the Jewish merchant's lies, and it's arguable that the Jews have tried harder to murder them than anyone else. Considering Europe and America, the Jews have certainly tried very hard to destroy Europeoids, but their assault on Europe didn't really begin in earnest until Nicea, whereas Arabs have had to deal with them for much longer. The Jews as a people would, arguably, have all white people in another Gaza strip, if they could, and it may only be more situational, their hatred of Arabs, but their embrace of Muslim rapefugees for Europe is only a convenience; they would create more nefarious hells for Arabs than Saudi Judea if they had no more use for them. Indeed, with about 2,300 years of murdering Arabs, and perhaps less than 1,700 murdering Europeoids, if there were a prize for "most likely to be killed by Jews," Arabs would have it. The need to personally inoculate Arabs with Islam, rather than trust some clunky double-agent, makes it more likely they made the prophet an actual Jew; in Europe, it could be Jews describing the famous Rabbi to a bunch of gullible white people (Europeoids being substantially more welcoming of outsiders, and less aware of their shared traits as an identifiable, than Arabs), and the rabbi could still be embraced, but in Arabia, among people who even then had hundreds of years more experience being sold a hoof instead of a whole goat, and had developed more of a racial consciousness for dealing with other groups and with one group in particular, inserting someone who was fully invested in the idea of deleting all local religions and replacing them with the Torah's lying history was a must.

The prophet's predilection for raping the very young children of his host people is a troubling classification, for while it has long been a Jewish trait to rape children, that tradition is also somewhat Arabic--though more homosexual than heterosexual in that regard. Which is to say, Europe has a preference for "child protection" which grew out of its Grecian and Arabian interest in raping little boys, which in Judea became a desire for rape that was more, though not completely, heterosexually inclined. And yet, the seemingly practical Jewish prohibition against buggery, prevalent in the Torah, had to be upheld. Given the Arab character, particularly at the time, it is more likely that an Arab kingpin would be surrounded with little boys who satisfied his every earthly desire. The Qur'an does include many glowing descriptions of the oiled little boys who will attend sexually to the true believer in Allah's heaven, but also, like they didn't even edit it (they always make plausible deniability in their religions, so you can go back and forth over the centuries about it being pro-this or anti-that) at all, there are thinly veiled references about how much homosexuals suck. As with Catholic leaders released on the children of Europe, this produced in Arabia a child rape epidemic and a condemnation of any sustainable, private, consensual adult homosexual activity, the traces of which we still see today. Ergo Muhammad's raping nine-year-old girls, rather than boys, makes him more appear an Arab than a Jew. This would seem to be the one detail of his life which cuts in favor of him being an Arab rather than a Jew; more likely, he was simply a proto-Weinstein type of Jewish man, who felt that nine was just right and enjoyed female children more than male. Of course, anyone with more information to present on the subject would've been Vince Fostered, 500s style, and history would not know his name nor accusations, but like everything regarding Muhammad, scholarship would embarrass itself for trying to claim anything in a period where so many were murdered and someone's record guarded with such caution and such violence.

Muhammad's rumored appearance, of being a light-skinned Arab with reddish hair, makes it likely that he was a failed Ashkenazi--too dark to integrate well in Europe or the Catholic Church, but smart and competent and able to head a cell by himself. In a way, his accomplishment was far greater than that of many of the Jews working at Nicea, because he managed to produce not only his Torah-based religion, but the prohibition of death against anyone who drew his Jewish features, making his scheme immortal rather than perishing as soon as every Arab in the world privately looked at the sketches and figured out who had urged them to die for Yahweh/Allah. A simple Occam's razor or cui bono answers the question of this individual and period far better than any of the other nonexistent and presumptive hearsay about Muhammad having claimed to have been once surrounded by bloodthirsty armed guards later in life. Like some European tyrant's claim to be Odin personified, it is thoroughly un-scholarly and not at all appropriate to believe Muhammad or his thugs about who he was. In the sense of cui bono, Islam had a Catholic-like effect on Arabia, destroying what science remained outside of warfare, and it kept Arabs distracted with idiotic trifles for centuries while the Jews' useful idiots in Europe and America took over the world and began doing anything tangible Israel told it to. And as a result, the old war over control of Arabia concluded with Jewish victory, and now it's simply a matter of emptying out Arabia and the victory will be total. The thousand years plus that Jewish financiers encouraged Europeans to spend their own blood and treasure massacring Arabs, culminating in the beginning of another massacre in Palestine, was certainly not good, even even if some of the Arab survivors get their rocks off and improve their living standards for a few decades by raping their way through Europe, Islam's net effect on the region, and on the people, has been a massive loss, just as everywhere else the Torah has touched a non-Jewish people. The idea that this perpetuation of the Torah and provisioning of survival for Jews originated from an anti-Jewish Arab, or any Arab at all, is preposterous and offensive. Like pretending the cancer of Christianity originated with Europeans who really wanted to invite the rest of the world to take their lands and then turn the other cheek, the scourge of the Arabs, which encouraged the race down the path of abandoning, rather than beautifying, home, and to inspire new enemies to continually slay them, is implausible. No, it is very hard for the Nu Euro to admit that Christianity is not home-grown, but a Jewish poison, and it will be equally hard, if not equally impossible, for Arabs to do the same with their own sequels to the Torah.

Friday, May 18, 2018

Merely Potent

The merely potent god might be a lord worthy of serving. Posit a god who's not a or the creator, and who thus isn't responsible for all this, but who came up with some way of retaining souls in the best paradise he could throw together rather than letting them go to the rather earth-like hell otherwise waiting for them. And due to some formula we can't understand, his prohibitions against or mandates for certain things are somehow necessary to create his army, and maybe keeping that army in top shape per this rubric is the only way to keep hell's soccer moms and municipal board members from mobbing and tearing down the gilded fences of the one good place anywhere. This isn't available to any creator god or gods endowed with omnipotence, who are necessarily evil for having made this.

So, a more just, compelling tale, on the whole. God as rebel against Satan the Creator. That story could explain so much ridiculous theology, such as why God would create otherwise-perfect people who might be tempted by the most beautiful angel ever while suffering on Earth with nothing but faith to staunch the flow: because Satan is actually the one who set up this advantageous system, and only God can resist him through the attainment of top-quality souls. You can't pray for a loved one to enter Heaven because Satan is a jerk, and so forth. The traditional role of rebel angel, far more attractive than "decrepit sadist-creator," actually belongs to God and not the many literary Satans over the years, and Satan's evil sadistic test of requiring God to pass through his creation in mortal form in order to prove something by being torture-killed suddenly makes sense, and we can understand why God would be willing to do it, given that Satan is a known asshole and God's proving that he could endure all the shit without being tempted by any easy way out of it would make a big existential point to the evil creator.

It would be an example to all other beings divine and mortal, too, who could witness how God exceeded the parameters of the evil creator's test and was beyond them. This bonus is not available to the evil omnipotent creator god himself, who put himself through the phony test where he already knew what the result would be, but it is available to the rebel, merely potent but not omnipotent god who hopes to resist evil-creator by the force of his accumulation of good souls.

This version of the divine comedy is, like a paradise lost, indicative of the ways in which Europe's notions of a preferred religion morphed the cruel Jewish tale into a better, more thoughtful, and more humane creator-story. And we find that in all Christianity--the Jews' deceit about drowned millions and firestormed thousands and tortured rabbi-sons--the plot was always vulgar and disgusting and unwanted, but the nuance that Europeans added to the story over the years changed what was ultimately presented to the people, and ultimately remembered as the founding story. (This one can and does scorn Christianity, the plague from Judeo-Arabia imposed upon the mostly-vanished people of Europe, but within that horrible franchise, a lot of well-meaning goys, from relatively independent priests to novelists of the Milton or Dostoyevsky type, completely altered the way sheep thought about the relationship between god and man, producing a European offshoot of much higher quality, and, in a vacuum, almost of high quality itself. The Europeanized side stories are often okay, good tales, and it's terrible where they came from in both a historical and literary sense, and that Judaization of Europe should neither be forgotten nor condoned, yet the little snippets of ignorant side-artists can be celebrated for the proposed worldviews they offered to make the disgusting less disgusting. Yet, the original stockholders of the thing that had grown wholly beyond what it had originally pretended to be were still there, claiming credit for characters and situations that were far beyond anything they had even tried to create. It would be kind of like if Jews created some banal hero-character, gentile investigators into the character's past revealed a vulgar and not very well-thought-out dearth of essence, and gentile authors were ultimately paid by Jews to create something more thoughtful which could be attributed by publishers to the original Jewish liars/creators.

We saw that in Superman, of course, and with Professor X* and many of the X-men, but far more important is how it happened in Christianity, which we can witness at a somewhat delayed pace through the formal public perspectives of various popes of the Catholic Church. Jews came up with the idea of a firmament and punished any gentiles who questioned it, pressure grew, and eventually the pope doesn't argue that telescopes or space shuttles are lies anymore, he just acts like that never happened and keeps collecting donations in the name of truth.

(*Comicky side note: the relatively unknown comic character "Lucifer" put Professor X in a wheelchair, as described in the really early, more specifically Jewish-directed issues of X-men. It's cute how they always pretend that they hate Christianity, but how they love using those themes for their goy customers.

Anecdotal side note: this one was once talking with a Jewish woman about various junk, and for some reason, I foolishly brought up the Mashiach test. If you don't know it, that's the supposed test where someone proves they're the Mashiach, or Jewish savior, by doing three major things during his life, like get anointed with some oil and subjugate the whole world to the Jews and re-establish the Sanhedrin and kick some dude's ass in war, and there have been various debates about whose ass should be kicked and when, and whether or not courts had to be established in certain ways, and stuff like that. Anyway, there's been for years some debate, largely sparked by Christians who want to convert Jews, about whether or not Jesus had satisfied these requirements and was actually the Jewish Mashiach and should therefore be worshiped by all Jews, and I'd just read something about how Jesus really had kicked some historical guy's ass at the right time and how it might apply to Jewish perspectives on the Mashiach, so I asked the female if she thought that meant Jesus had really been the Mashiach, and her mood completely shifted, and she gave me that really incredibly patronizing smirk-smile that Jews do when people try to convert them to Christianity, like, "Oh, you actually ate that shit up?" where they understand that they created this ridiculous story and a lot of gentiles fell for it, and they condescend to you like they sold you and your friends mud pies and you're actually eating them and trying to get them to join you in a feast but no thank you that's not for me. Because, duh, it's a pie made of mud, and you're the dumbass who not only bought it but is eating it, and of course I will not be joining you. Anyway, it was particularly weird because I wasn't a Christian and wasn't trying to convert her, but asking the question made her assume I was, and I've seen Christian acquaintances try to convert Jews before with some clever argument about Jesus being a rabbi or how great compassion for all people was, and it was funny and sad that I got the exact same look from her in California that I've seen people get in Florida and the east coast from Jews for mentioning Christianity, and I really wasn't trying to convert her, okay, let's talk about something else instead. Really, some of them will eat the mud pies for a purpose, but for someone without that assignment they do not want to eat the mud pies.)

And this demonstrates a sad piece of the history of Arabia and of Europe, and of their shared history, namely that it couldn't have gone the way it did without these really wishful Euros, so desperate for a lie of an origin, were able to make that lie pretty, and thereby become part of the subjugation of many people to that lie. The same thing happened with Bang; an incredibly desperate, stupid, wishful goy tried to save the creator story to which he'd grown very attached by retconning in detail how it had happened--and his audience of billions took up the charge and developed the story further.

(The goy schmoozing with Einstein up there is Georges LemaƮtre, the Catholic priest/scientist who imagined Genesis as including a "Bang" of sudden creation that many other smart goys have devoted their lives to detailing.)

Because of publisher power, all of the cities and countrysides, and distribution networks in those cities and countrysides, and companies managing those presses, were owned by Jews, so while the Bible (as it has been edited from time to time) is the most-printed book on Earth, and Superman far more famous than whatever other nameless heroes were never printed, no one gave or gives a shit about the initially compelling narratives that were never permitted to reach an audience. A reverence for the virginal mother character, and a focus on the passion and its really contrived meaning, and notions of foregiveness and sacrifice, were all added by Europeans trying to make the otherwise boring, disgusting, and incredibly sick bible-story more edible, and in comic books and many other media, the initial emptiness of the worthless stories were suddenly shown in fresh perspective by people who could not have initially added that perspective themselves. Euro creativity had to become part of each of the voids to make them palatable stories, and for centuries thereafter. And therefore the question, "Why?"

(So much of "narrative structure" is based on the necessities this style imposed on the process of creating for profit. You open with action, with some superhero kicking ass with profound abilities, and then you delved into backstory, where a different set of authors contributes the reasoning behind that character's abilities. And the instant preference in action movies for that style, and its effects on viewers' expectations and our short attention span and inability to see the preceding scenes first, is all related to that, kind of like a drug you're born addicted to but wouldn't have chosen otherwise. You see that now even in long novels, where some action is supposed to happen first, not a slow thoughtful scene of some kind. C'mon, punch his head off already! The awesome CG and impossible feats we expect to see at the beginning of an action movie are a prerequisite to us being able to give a damn about a scene that just shows two people talking.)

Part of it may be a question of feasibility and acceptance. Jews, in the case of most or all of the comic characters, and certainly God or Jesus, created implausible crap, and it was an intellectual challenge for goy underlings to try to make the story "more plausible" while only changing canon when and where permitted. And it is a challenge, and an opportunity to develop yourself and your art, and have your work reach people, when you take something designated to be a product reaching a large audience, and say, "Make this better." Many, many gentile artists have been handed some successful "pitch" by Jewish producers--not just Christianity, but a thousand awful pilots and scripts and projects--and struggled to add interesting situational and character quirks that later made some really boring, pointless, insubstantial premise into an interesting tale. And not only in writing--we see that constantly, as when some of the world's best sculptors end up doing silicone backgrounds for some "children's magical boarding school" movie, and spend their lives sculpting that and King Kong's ass fat rather than something else, and of course you take the job for King Kong's ass fat in all the sequels because you wanna eat, right? Another victim of the realism of a dying world/society. The architecture of an increasingly democratic world speaks for itself.

The inability of Jews to create the compelling narratives that served them so well, and of their need for genuine European expressions of philosophical desire to create what worked, does not speak to some objectively inferior quality of the Jews themselves, e.g. the inability to recognize or appreciate or create new beauty (not to have the potential for that distraction is a material boon), but rather, to the inherent treachery and exploitability of the Europeoid himself, whose failure to recognize the power of creativity has doomed him. (Ask yourself the name of the person, and their identity as Jew or Gentile, who portrayed the world's finest and/or most well-known rendition of David. Nu Euros have been the whores of creation, with commensurate effects on creation itself, since they've spent thousands of years giving it away for free behind the tavern and it's no surprise the town's birth rates have dropped.)

Just like handing nuclear bombs and conventional cruise missiles and fighter jets to Israel, providing the Jews of the twentieth century with backstories for all of their boring, repetitive costumed heroes, and adding complexity and heart to the battle between Satan and Yahweh which wasn't really even there at all in the Torah, much less the complex and assumed interplay between sin and forgiveness that had to be read into the New Testament, gave these drab characters a flesh they would not have otherwise, and made them effective against so many other Nu Euros.

Nicea was like a primitive industry convention in this regard, where Jesus' backstory and tripartite nature could sort of be formalized so that later issues could stay linked, like when someone is going to be commissioned to do a Sabretooth (X-men) side series while someone else is going to that same month continue the main series' plotline with references to his and Logan's career before they became affiliated with the X-universe. It's like a flash-based puzzle game, to give Europeans some bullshit and challenge them to clean it up, especially when you own the results and you aren't so stupid as to make gospel, to personally believe in, the dreck they've created.

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Ending His Reign of Terror

Not for ourselves, but positing the existence of the Jewish (or "Christian" or "Islam" derivations thereof) God, a death sentence is the only apt prescription. Whatever trifling misfortunes we experience unaddressed, unredressed, unavenged, are nothing compared to what has already happened, or will happen, in His shithouse of horrors.

Take yourself out of the real world, where light develops in complexity through a process of refinement that in large part operates as experimentation to produce more complex forms, and place yourself into the Jewish myth of the -300s B.C., or the Jewish/Europeoid/Turkish one of the 300s A.D. or the Jewish/Arab one of 500-600 A.D. and imagine a reality where, in some way, a genocidal Jewish God, or a surrendering European one led by a wise Rabbi, or a horny Arab one who was primped by a mysteriously light skinned person from the north who claimed he was an Arab and killed anyone who disagreed and liked diddling underage Arab girls, was all powerful and created all reality as described in the Torah and then governed it as described in a successor thereto. Imagine that's real. The exclusively Jewish one is the easiest, because it confesses to be the enemy and delighted murderer of all non-Jews and any Jews who turn aside from the goal of Jewish genetic domination, and the ideal proper course of action for any non-Jew contemplating this God is obvious.

With much better marketed Gods, such as the beguiling plagiarized seducers of Europe and Arabia, the contemplation becomes more difficult, because He was donating money to the orphanage on Brown Street before He went over to Green Street and barred the doors and lit all those fires. So He can be presented well. Let's use that God, those realities, to discuss this issue.

The disguised Jewish God, who provided niceness in return for earning His favor, has a number of core metaphysical problems that should make His destruction deemed necessary. His ability to create perfection, and His choice not to create it, but instead to create a festering sinhole and put people into it, and knowingly create both people for whom His favor shall be earned, and for whom His favor shall not be earned, is inherently problematic, and speaks to His inherently terrible nature. But it is more complex than that.

Three year old kid. Just beginning to conceive of being alive and loving its parents and its home and the nice lady across the way and having a social role someday (a "job") that will bring it survival and rewards for working for others. And it gets leukemia and suffers terribly for X years and knows that everything will be hopeless and destroyed and it will always be a burden and a drawback to everyone it loves and to human existence itself and then it finally dies after seeing its guardians and lots of its people's society fighting to put off its death a little longer. This is an evil god. For that one act, He is the worst thing in all envisioned creation. There is no way to believe in Him and not exonerate Him for His shit reality and the terrible place it is. His theoretical ability to make a reality a thousand times, an infinity times, better cannot save Him. Nor His habit of creating that youthful leukemia scenario, say, a hundred thousand times or claiming He couldn't have that soul join Him to play the harp in heaven unless He did it that way or that a timeless being couldn't give the kid at least 62 years before claiming it. Or just a kid run over by a truck, or just liver cancer instead, or just some heart problem that's supposedly rare and no one cares to hear about.

That is an evil thing. That's a problem with associating any kind of deity with this world; it makes it, and has always made it, necessarily evil. Any purported explanation of this verse we find ourselves in which assumes some kind of omnipotent consciousness associated therewith tars the said consciousness with responsibility for all that happens here, from beginning to end. An omnipotent being who isn't also our creator and just decides "Stay away, let them do whatever" might not be particularly selfless, but can't be said to be responsible for this wreck, while one who is our creator bears responsibility for this. We've continually tried to resolve this paradox in a number of ways:

1) Claiming that our rewards later will be so great it's worth the suffering now.

2) Claiming that the experience of suffering here helps us grow better in ways we wouldn't otherwise.

...and that's really it. The problem is omnipotence; an omnipotent God could, of course, create everyone at max levels of goodness or understanding, and it would take a cruel god to have all those good things develop through suffering rather than His work. Is losing your infant to a careless driver on the way home from the hospital better than something He could do; is spending 4 years writhing from cervical cancer better than Him auto-teaching you beforehand all the things you need to know? Because He could, you know; omnipotence is, well, omnipotence.

Similarly, couldn't He teach you to appreciate cool breezes, choir concerts, or endless consecutive orgasms from a well operating frame without first having you experience the opposite? The ability of omnipotence gives rise to endless troubles, including our theoretical inability to understand why the infant with leukemia might not actually be a better way to do it. But how could a truly omnipotent God not make it happen just by Willing it?

The omnipotent God clearly could. That is omnipotence. So what is happening must be by His Will, therefore, if any such God exists, He is capricious as well as, more importantly, evil, because He uses His omnipotence to torture people in amazing, varied, and creative ways, rather than creating a paradise of countless trillions of souls right now, where everyone is perfectly suited for and perfectly deserving of that paradise. The idea that torturing us "tests" us or "perfects" us (or simply "betters" like they often do here) is similarly flawed, because an omnipotent being would be able to create that same perfection or improvement from the start, built into the human design, rather than requiring time-consuming, suffering-heavy tests in order to achieve the same result. The philosophies of people who conceived of characteristics of an all-powerful God were sloppy in their speculation, and quite anthropomorphic in ways they're not often thought of being, for it is so seventeenth century, if you will, to imagine an omnipotent God as a mere craftsman who has to put His stuff through various tests and trials to make it better. Is He so dumb He couldn't do it right the first time? Shudder at the heresy, oh ye of little faith.

It is extremely sad, not only because of leukemia-child and the many similar millions like it, including "killed by barbarian while father gone on hunt", but because there are endless millions of people with Stockholm Syndrome for various imaginary captors, who are reputed all-powerful but still in need of using juvenile leukemia to achieve their ends, like anything with total universal power could be exempted from knowing that's not the complete best way to do things. And it's sadder than extremely sad to see that exist on yet another planet, because to believe that, you have to forestall your ability to conceive of so many things--omnipotence, pleasure, pain, eternity, good, bad. I remember showing up here and everything seemed cool for a while and then figuring out He was here, too, and then realizing it was happening again, oh yeah, more k'arash, you wanted to be a scholar didn't you? So anyway, the collective capacity for even sub-rational thought around here is embarrassing, to have participated in this, where you can't instantly see the deadfall trap built into the lie of total divine power. If we all lived in a perfect joy-garden and spent some time speculating about what all-powerful but rather drab-minded creature had put us there, the question would make sense, but omnipotence is really sticking out here as rank. The Jewish Gods we worship here are the superlative evil; the definitive evil; the indicia-of-rotting-planet evil. In a way, Terrans' acceptance of the Jewish-derived religions could demonstrate their inability to keep growing or thriving, rather like a failed test or sufficiently bad scores indicating that the place must be removed. A sane citizenry would not include so many people who believed in this crap, especially after witnessing the creation and failure to market-test well of prior versions, whereas the negative prognosis for swallowing it and asking for more is clear evidence that this shouldn't go on.

I like the theory that God is, as He must be if extant, not totally evil, but impartially cruel, and a great believer in heroism and craftiness. And so He creates this void of terrible suffering and puts a bunch of souls in it and sees how long it takes for them to build spaceships and fly above the universe and kill Him for the unspeakable crimes that He has committed, and then, only then, does He know that a few people, at least, have the intelligence and wherewithal to challenge the shit He put them through. Everyone else who worshiped Him is a shameful, laughable joke, and then He reveals His true self and invites His would-be killers to come to some Nordic paradise where they're constantly honorable and little kids don't get leukemia, no one does, and it at least makes sense, finally, He was trying to see how long it would take a species to try for the revenge they truly deserved.

And I like the angelfall theory, too, where angels rebelled against God for being a controlling hyper asshole and so He made them live again as humans and gave them each a chance to worship Him and follow His rules beyond reason and once they died He either tortured them forever or let them back into paradise because they'd proved their inherent quality as sufficiently ass-loving ass-kissers and so it was okay to stop torturing some of them.

Now, however amusing these little tales may be, they each suffer from the "God is an asshole" problem as well as the "God is not omniscient" problem. And since the Judeo-Arabian god Allah is sort of designed as an asshole who doesn't care anyway, it would take a lot more intelligence and compassion to begin conceiving of Him as having any real problems, and until then, He's just some dude who kicks asses and takes names and there isn't any inherent problem with the theory, and in that, Judaism really wins because it satisfied low expectations for a people who wouldn't have it any other way and, numerically, that's been working out great, maybe better than any other project.

I like the theory that soul essence was distributed by an evil, lonely God at the beginning of creation, and that He wants it all back, and that it's a decision we must all make at some point, whether we'll cease existing and refund everything we've been given, or whether we'll recognize that He is an insane jerk and resist Him, and thereby win our existences without His nasty touch. And I like the thought that maybe apparent people who are here and say give up and let Him have it back are merely sick and tormented or better, whether they're lesser tools, human dopplegangers created by Him later just to influence us and make His struggle to get back His coveted soul-essence easier.

A mildly deficient, thoroughly retarded, dead, insane, or evil by any standard we can contemplate God could have been the creator of this place, and if not very bright or foresighted, could have been responsible for the actuality and equivalence of leukemia-infants ("LIs"). The only kind of omniscient, omnipotent one that comports with this reality, though, is an evil one, ergo LI and its legions of trillions of the unfairly treated and also thoroughly young. Not just literarily evil for effect, but totally evil in every way in which we can contemplate; evil in the "tortures children for no discernible purpose" way; as evil as we can imagine. We can even use his own priests to make it sexual, like, "Rapes a four-year-old boy and threatens to hurt the victim if he tells his parents." The status of "priest" is in this case irrelevant, because the omnipotent God built however many hundred thousand or million such cases into His reality, thus far. These are things that occur whether or not all parishioners and/or fellow citizens are the Good Samaritan, thereby the omnipotence and omniscience destroys that idiot God's excuse that He just didn't know or that he couldn't save that victim. His delight in torturing adults or older children would be sick and wrong and evil too, but the fact the leukemia child does and can exist means that if LI exists, God must Himself be evil.

(God, that God is such a banker. Like it would be okay to create a single LI in exchange for 20 trillion slightly happier sinless adults. They really can't understand "priceless." Or, for that matter, "unforgivable.")

Evil as we lesser minds define it, of course. If we're not committed in the slightest to our moral principles, we may excuse the evil God by saying it was necessary for Him to create Xx hundred thousand LIs, because otherwise Heaven wouldn't be quite as nice. More likely than the evil God creating people whose most basic elements of mindset would judge poorly His use of cruel morality as a single-use testing ground for worshiping Him, though, is a God who wants to truly test the morals of His created playthings, and has created this edifice and these ideas so that a truly independent, heroic people would try to put an end to His reign of terror. As this one said before, posit a spaceship that can go beyond the dimensionality of this universe, and kill the evil thing He is, proving that we're good enough to stop living in this Hell. It's a tough charge, but if He wanted to make something good, then pretending He wants to be worshiped if you don't revere His creation of LIs, that's really a good acid test to find out which ones are worth keeping, rather than ones which'll just kiss His ass in exchange for immortality while worshiping Him for creating LIs. Who is more selfish and who is more giving: the people willing to cheer His endless stream of LIs stretching into the future, or the people willing to risk His displeasure to stop it? This model works with a god who's really powerful but not omnipotent, and is at least plausible, in the sense that if you're extremely long-lived but not immortal, and want to ensure good and responsible conscious beings take over someday instead of leaving reality in the hands of pro-LI suck-ups, the ones who'd act to end your tyranny might be the only kind worth providing any continuation for, whereas the willingness to revere horrible behavior would let you know which ones didn't come out right and should be utterly destroyed before they have a chance to influence a worse reality with their mangled, horrible version of compassion. A god who knew He didn't have forever and wanted to leave reality in the hands of only the good might well provide for an existential test each time to see who was worth being part of the next phase of creation, while knowing exactly who was accepting and revering enough of evil to be purged. And the kid-diddling habits of the imams and priests of the world support this hypothesis. So even not having been anywhere else, and only remembering this planet, you've created a rather compelling existential narrative, which you can almost certainly verify yourself by attending some third-tier nursing school and touring the LI wards for a good perspective on God's works.

The verdict was long ago, long before the first ten thousand LIs, in on a potential God. God must either be:

1) Totally evil yet still all-powerful;

2) Totally evil yet not all-powerful;

3) Somewhat good, but all powerful, and dangerously stupid;

4) Somewhat good, but not all powerful;

5) Random to us, but indescipherably possessing some character which is so alien to us as to be, for any and all of our purposes, evil.

Consider (1). Because this God creates LIs in huge numbers (and leukemia toddlers and leukemia preteens and leukemia old men who just don't deserve it even if they're less visually appealing/appalling victims), God is evil. In the purest totality of our souls, we can recognize that the creation and/or population of this world is a vile, disgusting, evil act, as is the failure to employ omnipotence to rescue people from it a second after, or any number of years after, it is created. This is why modern Jews, Christians, and Muslims of any kind are worshiping a sadistic murdering tyrant with a foul interest even in his most faithful, e.g. Job.

Jews have an excuse with their version of this God. Although He certainly torments them, though less so than other peoples, perhaps He does it under the rubric of necessary preparation for becoming His lesser embodiments of the amazing genome with which they've been charged. He really is making them better by living here, in the sense of "better" being "more able to cruelly dominate and defeat others not possessed of the sacred chosen genome." Muslims and Christians do not have this awful save, but Jews do, and under the unaugmented Torah, their religion is disgusting and evil as to gentiles, but at least internally coherent.

Consider now (2). God is totally evil, so He creates and populates a broken shit-world where things like LIs can happen, but He doesn't take a personal delight in carrying out each one, since He's not all-powerful, and has to rely for His kicks upon the existential rubric He created long ago. This is still a dangerous, evil entity out there, with whom we should deal someday if we can, but while He can be charged with negligence for each LI, He can't be charged with first-degree evil in each case.

Consider (3), the retarded God, perhaps the most compelling of the possibilities. Whereas all other presumptions of an omnipotent deity require the full acceptance of responsibilities for disgusting and comprehensively evil traits on the part of God, this one presumes He is too stupid to know what He is doing, like a retarded child who keeps riding his bike over pet turtles he has acquired, but without the capacity for understanding their pain or deaths. This is an internally consistent God, and could explain His erratic character changes in the Bible (actually caused by combining the work of different authors with imperfect editing on the overall propaganda), where He leads people on and then kills them or rewards them seemingly at random.

A stupid God would at least be internally consistent. All of the LIs, little murder victims, and people stubbing their toes at really the wrong time could be the explicable work of someone trying His very best to create some sort of test for deservedness for paradise, and if God were an idiot, His inability to conceive of a better way to do things with total power would make sense--He wouldn't even know to make Himself more intelligent, given that He wouldn't perceive any problems or anything better He could do.

Indeed, the stupid God seems to be the only way to save the omnipotent deity theory from a simpleton or highly intelligent human's supposition that if there were an all-powerful God, He must be the most evil thing imaginable.

For number (4), a less-stupid God may also be possible under this rubric. Not hilariously stupid, though dangerously so, the God who sort of understands things but can only imagine the "reality as testing" way of hashing things out, rather than the "create perfect things" way, is at least internally consistent. His creations can imagine a lot of better ways, and He makes lots of LIs, but He's so stupid--rather the perfect Christian--that He thinks the poignancy of the LIs' suffering makes the whole picture of the testing-world, and the Heaven reward itself, better. Like the really stupid God, the really dangerously stupid but not quite as stupid "well meaning test" God is internally plausible, explaining why there can be LIs and omnipotence without an evil creator. God-believers will no doubt be offended by the notion that their deity is not really smart, but facing the choice between "intentionally creates LIs" and "sort of well meaning, lets LIs happen but doesn't fully understand the context of it all" at least offers an out to not having to conclude that, logically the creator is evil. Lennie Small as God is awful, but easier to stomach than "God who makes little kids get leukemia before they can even use words other than 'Mama it hurts inside!'"

Getting off on torturing Job after he'd had a chance to grow up and learn about God and the whole cosmic soul-bargain was one thing; scathing the infants is quite different. Using LIs as an example of why God must be evil can seem, perhaps, inadequate, provided one is unfamiliar with the experiences through which a child with terminal cancer, a human being with terminal cancer, any conscious being with terminal cancer, must pass, and how even getting served the best-ever ice cream sundae by your own devoted bikini-babe in Heaven afterwards is nice, it just can't cut it, not even remotely, and it's a disgustingly evil promise that a deity could make in an ignorant attempt to make the suffering, physical and mental, "worth it." Even the faith of believing, "At least it'll get better once I suffer exceedingly for another six months and then finally leave my mourning family behind for another fifty years by dying," is a cheap and ignorant excuse, and even if the dumbest faithful manages to make it through that agreeing that it's okay (as opposed to Hell or Void), it was a situation created by an evil and cruel being, and having to be put through the ritual of making that decision, even if, in Heaven, all your ancestors are waiting with the bikini babe outside the best church service ever, does not look well as far as formerly faithful approaching it for the first time. We presumably will never know how many people tested their faith against these types of dilemmas near the ends of their lives and found it wanting, though when the priest tries so hard you don't want him to feel like a failure and he walks away thinking he really did some good; what he will do when he realizes how intense the pain can be, and that it's not just the feeling of the organs going out but the existential pain of the illusions not seeming so compelling any more, no one will know because it is just rude for him to, has he the strength to communicate coherently then, take away their pretty story just because he's having a bad day.

Will man ever try to kill god? It would be an interesting tale. Under Bang, people will just eventually decide there is no God other than Randomness, but they may better anthropomorphize a more appealing concept in the years ahead. And given the state of creation, sending the military to kill Him, or threaten Him to create a better reality or else, seems like a plausibly responsible governmental act, assuming that He would just make it fail if He were omnipotent. And there's always private spacefaring, too. Like, say, the eccentric billionaire in 2318 who's mad at God for killing his wife, and so who funds a private spacecraft filled with mercenaries to get out there and kill the bastard.

Humorously, sadly, the result would be a total waste, since they could drive from one end of the verse to another, and up and down and so forth, and easily spend centuries finding nothing before they finally came back to report to the financier "There's nothing out there." And maybe the one futuristic marine that everyone liked died fighting some alien race in an emotional side story that saved our planet but promises possibility for a sequel and maybe the team had some spiritual and/or poltergeist moments on the way that make them wonder if they found God in all their spirits or something unsatisfying like that. And after that failure, maybe they develop some inane machine that purports to transcend dimensionality, and then there are centuries of research on how to explore the dimension, and at some exotic future time, still no one's found God, ergo His reign of terror cannot be ended, and the serious scientist nobody liked at the beginning lectures them about how stupid they were for trying, and then a portal to hell opens up right there in the subcommittee room and the doubting scientist is sucked in and it gives us a clue how to find our way there and then a giant red Lucifer reveals he killed god long ago and haha you dumb fucks thought this was His creation He was going to have you all live in ecstasy and I gave little kids cancer all the time and you actually thought this was still His plan? Oh, I wish I'd left Him alive just so He could see how you all thought this was His idea nothing would hurt Him more, buwahaha!