Friday, March 30, 2018

Legs in Eggs

La vie est une tragédie pour celui qui sent, et une comédie pour celui qui pense.
Feelings are extremely harmful things to possess in the time of humanity. Like apoptosis, there are many other more plausible scenarios--genetically programmed characteristics--which could fulfill the same relationship to a positivity of growth or random evolutionary success as the pseudo-benefits supposedly fostered by building organisms with terminator cells or emotional worry about imagined conclusions.

The quote above, attributed posthumously to de La Bruyère, translates into English as "Life is a tragedy for those who feel, and a comedy for those who think." So true, and what a demented stew it becomes when one attempts to do both. The mouse can perhaps speculate on the existence of an owl--to the mouse, a force of complete and utter death and misery--when it contemplates running across the field at night, but the human's ability to imagine terrors for which it has no, nor will ever have, proximate evidence akin to a screech is many degrees more advanced a form of anxiety, and cannot be likened to a ritual which contributes to increased running speed or additional mental resources applied to noticing one's surroundings like the actions of the mouse hoping to feed where owls fly.

Feelings can be related to positive evolutionary results, though never justified in being created, randomly or purposefully, to achieve said results. (This is one of the many tacit understandings possessed by people then tricked into believing in, or hoping for, Christianity.) For example, postulate two enemy tribes of equal strength, able to achieve parity in numbers due to equally successful reproduction and resource-management strategies, identical knowledge of metallurgy, et cetera. They are going to fight tomorrow over access to additional farming territory, which for the victors, will mean a substantially larger population in a generation or two, and for the defeated, an unchanging society that eventually vanishes. Tribe 1 rests easily through the night, while some significant portion of Tribe 2's warriors speculates about the meaning of life, the meaning of death, the wishes of the Eagle God for the outcome of the battle, and so forth. Which tribe wins?

Modern Terran Bangism holds that the less rested tribe will win. Worrying about the outcome of the battle, rather than achieving necessary and sufficient mental or physical rest, is deemed advantageous due to the inexplicable performance increases experienced by the exhausted warrior. Those warriors' failures to resolve, but willingness to address regularly, various metaphysical conundrums, will--somehow, says the Bang religion--result in increased crop yields and offspring.

More humorous are Bangist conclusions about the effectiveness of only exhausting worry, rather than worry engaged in during other times. For an illustration, use the example above, and presume that both Tribe 1 and Tribe 2 worried about the process and outcome of the battle identically regarding the details and duration of their worry. Tribe 1 did its worrying over dinner, while Tribe 2 stayed up all night instead, worrying. Again, Bangism holds that the less rested tribe will win. Even if both sides had the same theoretical benefit of over-analyzing and worrying about impossible or unlikely scenarios related to the battle, which may have produced a preparatory benefit against tribes which did not think about the details, many modern survivors demonstrate that the trait "worries rather than rests" is far more evolutionarily successful in some groups than the trait "worries over dinner but sleeps without automental interruption." How ridiculous! After billions of years of competition, the duck-billed platypus may have proved the master of a certain evolutionary niche, but the idea that humans who mentally self-mutilate during attempted sleeping periods defeat or outlast those humans whose bodies choose sleep is quite illogical.

The beneficial results of stress or worrying are not always argued to be so ridiculous; it is postulated, for example, that the contrasting nighttime thought of the ancient European and the African were very beneficial to the former. If the European, for example, worries about the integrity of the shelter and/or food stores each night, fewer infants will freeze to death and fewer preserves will be forgotten about or stolen or lost to the weather, therefore the winter can be survived, whereas just thinking "Mmmm bed soft, bed warm," or "I hope I have great food/sex tomorrow" does not lend itself to such preservation. The tribe which can't think about necessary tasks, and which does not suffer such stresses, has too much spoiled food and too many exposed infants, and thus must retreat to the tropics. (Again, though, to random-mutation dogma, any such pro-evolutionary considerations must often interfere with mental and physical rest to be surviving traits. If someone merely spends spare time at other hours of the day being a conscientious survivor, it won't work. The prevalence of the trait "worries at unwanted times" in so many individuals today, particularly if they are ancestral members of a dominant human strain, demonstrates under Bangism how evolutionarily effective it was.)

Such entertaining ad-hoc rationalizations are, though, functionally useless, though they add a veneer of explanation to our retrospective view of how things might've happened. Of course, White people have existed in tropical climates before, and their pre-planning and worrying made their cultures similarly more successful compared to others; they could still build nicer things, and their having been massacred by people who could not of themselves survive winters does not prove that the Whites were developed by or for winters. Substantial evidence of long-lasting, successful White cultures achieving success in non-wintry environments proves that this fantasy of forgery by the ice is, however flattering, untrue. All of the theoretically positive functions of stress could be much more easily generated by an overpowering urge to check the food, check the doors, et cetera, without throwing into the mix worries about someone else's winters thirty seasons from now, metaphysical wonder or excessive thought on the nature of truth or beauty. Feelings are nice, to be sure, but they are not useful as traits for competitive mating. A desire to spend two decades producing the finest visual art may produce a net reproductive gain for a tiny percentage of people for a comparatively tiny slice of available human history during which that art can be monetized and/or socially appreciated/respected, but for a majority of people, a desire to devote large portions of time to being a rich and successful actor or sculptor, et cetera, is not rewarding in the evolutionary sense, consistently, over thousands of generations. How many novelists used their art for evolutionary gain before the printing press (let alone after)?

What many of us humans worry about or dwell upon is far in excess of what could theoretically provide a benefit. Indeed, as in the case of a tribe staying up all night exhausting itself before a contest of survival--or every or most such contests they ever face, if fretting pointlessly is their minds' molecularly generated way--the levels of thoughtfulness many of us have "achieved" are demonstrably not conducive to survival. Even in modern times, the office employee or assembly line worker who stays up worrying and then performs less than optimally, loses his job and moves to the street, serves as a good modern example about the failure of feeling. Nervousness at public speaking before the big industry conference and succeeding promotions; worrying about whether Mr. Johnson likes your quarterly report or not and thereby having weird sweaty hands when he wants to shake, or sleeping through your alarm and being an hour late; modern examples are easy to understand, but would be dwarfed by the ways in which caveman-examples or medieval-examples could show the harmful nature of feelings. A man who becomes ill and then spends his evenings worrying about death and getting his affairs in order, rather than faking affection for unattractive partners and trying to get a few kids implanted based on pretty lies, is far less reproductively successful than one who stays focused on the survival of the selfish gene. Indeed, adaptation to modern social mores and notions of proper behavior has proceeded at an incredibly fast pace, far exceeding the utterly absent adaptations for genetic survival which the age could reward.

Some people feel a need for existential validation, or spirituality, or other such things, the presence of which can be, ridiculously, explained as an evolutionary benefit which, despite its connection with suicide, life-destroying worry, or limited or eliminated reproduction, helps foster a need for community that then itself benefits the anxious, or some other flimsy pretext for explanation. Of course, the desire for community could be and has been mentally created without any of the negative things, but our attempted retrospective justifications try to tie everything we find into a potential benefit to save the core thesis, similar to attempts to explain why a good omnipotence would cause that school bus to crash--e.g., if a man has the overpowering desire to live near trusted allies, versus a man has metaphysical quandaries and is indirectly driven to seek social validation in them, we can pretend that both things are a benefit, or that one doesn't tend more toward deadly, and detrimental to survival and reproduction, consequences compared to the other, and is thus an evolutionary failing, particularly if others have only the first trait. How traits of anxiety could have won out, in the battle for survival, with the desire to compliment your friends and family more often, or give hugs every day to random people you meet, or to be extremely flattered when you are hugged or complimented, is one of the mysteries that abounds in Bang dogma (um, that dude who kidnapped those kids and tortured them to death exists because God has a plan--modern religion is really as stupid as older such dogma, despite our pretense that we have no such dogma. An interesting dissertation from some biology major's capstone endeavor, if it hasn't already been presented to some overjoyed committee, might be a horribly wishful description of why sleep-ruining anxiety is far more helpful than anxiety which causes people to recall or complete tasks earlier in the day). Similarly, a people determined to die with their honor intact rather than fight like rats to have more of a chance of reproducing, can be said to be an evolutionary benefit because it fosters some kind of honor-based society, but the numbers in favor of reproducing rats versus the nobly dying honorists strongly favor the rats...and yet, an affection for things like "honor" abounds. If honor randomly occurred during a competitive random evolution, the idea that it would out-reproduce a sneakier or more vigorous or longer-lasting sex drive is absurd. Men can and do father children at eighty, yet in their twenties or earlier, their cells are designed to start becoming less vigorous--the notion of an organism custom-designed to reproduce and materially thrive is embarrassingly false. For modern Bangists, it's hilarious and perhaps embarrassing to think that people once believed someone rose from the dead and performed healing just by wishing it, but the Bang-based justifications for human character are far more ridiculous. We have no proof that a Risen Rabbi really did bypass death and perform miracles, but we also have no proof that it didn't happen. Being sure it happened is a certain kind of stupid, but cannot compare, in quantity of "stupid," with a belief in directionless mutations--the very models that are used to support randomized mutations having a positive effect disprove it. There are thousands more to study; summon up the thought of any nervousness-related human mental trait which theoretically fosters a sense of community, then come up with ten superior traits, and wonder, "Why did the nervousness one triumph?" Any stupid trait could have been created under a random system, but how such a mental tendency could then outlast "longer fertile lifespan" or "sturdier biceps," or how "compulsion to miss sleep by repeatedly envisaging scenarios of yourself at work tomorrow" could defeat "compulsion to get plenty of sleep and do things faster and better tomorrow," is a question so absurd as to provide its own answer. Certainly some slow, infrequent thinkers might come up with an incredible strategy that saves their job only when thinking about it in the middle of a sleepless night, but this is the apex of hundreds of thousands of years of competitive development of the human organism? The required jests for believing Bangism are numerous.

Honor? Compassion? A sense of decency? Oh, your opponent makes a sad face when you knock him down, so you stab him in the neck and go home. Or you have a time-consuming conversation with him and accept his promise to not be mean again. Or he drops his sword and is disarmed through no fault of his own or the wind randomly blows him off his feet during your duel, so you stab him through the neck. Or you look proper, let him steady himself and recover his weapon, and then resume the duel so you can see who's really the best? Which is more likely to lead to a trouble-free future for you and your offspring? And yet, the recurring western obsession with alliances forged when people recognize honorable behavior. Because then you can forge a mightier alliance. Yes, but so mighty, this alliance, that it can overcome the hard realism of the alliances of everyone else who stabbed their enemy through the neck instead of handing the fallen weapon back? Even understanding that the vast majority of people who got doe-eyes and waited to be stabbed instead of stabbing are dead and unavailable to the future honorable alliances? Elements of paganism and monotheism both explain the existence of these things; competitive random evolution, no. How stupid must we be to contemplate the victories of the honorable non-stabbers, who then go unstabbed in turn so much that they out-fight and out-breed the "dishonorable"? There's a little bit of that naive, doe-eyed idealist, indeed, in the ability to believe that surrendering nicely really pays off in the toughest of fights. (Ironic that only in a world where Bangist evolution is false could people be so silly and soft-headed as to believe in Bangist evolution. A population of hard-headed realists, asked to contemplate the thriving of competitive compassion in a brutal arena of the species, would have more accurate answers.)

Conjecture the existence of a pre-newborn chick developing in an egg which chick can think in a language that you can understand. Being able to think, the chick wonders why life inside a tiny environment calls for those two protrusions on its lower half which keep getting bigger. To the chick who's only ever been sort-of extant in the egg, there's no non-metaphysical justification for it, anymore than for limbs on humans in the womb. Existential necessities are fully provided for, waste is removed, and there's really no reason for legs in eggs; it takes quite the flight of wishful fancy to imagine some "use" for such nonsensical things, which by definition do nothing but pointlessly exist, sometimes make you feel cramped, and take up space that could otherwise be used for stretching or sleeping or eating.

The existence of the worthless, obstructive, existentially harmful things in humans is similarly explained. Truth, justice, honor, decency, et cetera, are pleasant enough when they find rare bedfellows in this material, or some purpose for or validation of those things is imagined, but otherwise these things eminently hinder the process of acquiring assets or reproducing. The Bangist notions of a selfish world whereby people destroy each other, and other things, in order to attain temporary material supremacy, is as wrong as it is obscene, because these inexplicably present things some of us have--those who are more prepared to go somewhere better, versus the rotting yolks of those who want to stay in this forever--evince considerations beyond the seen. Indeed, the most boring and mundane, decidedly non-spiritual analysis of these things produces the materially necessary conclusion that, like infant legs, they have a purpose and a reason for existing that does not, cannot, depend upon achieving success here.

There are hopeful ancillaries to such thoughts, certainly, for existence being confined solely to this filthy stab wound where truth and honor are worthless, nigh-imaginary distractions from doing well is an awful thought if you're getting strong enough to ever go somewhere else. It hurts to be cramped against the walls, rather than free to bounce around enjoying the environment. The temptation is strong, particularly in a culture dominated by Bangism, to believe that the randomly produced traits of worrying about the lifetime future or the post-lifetime future is merely a curious variant meant to inspire you to better accumulate and leave more stuff to your genetic legacy, yet viewing the irrationality of "legs growing in the egg-as-world" through a sober, un-spiritual lens, we are forced to conclusions, however unpleasant (unpleasant as unbelievable, in a world that favors the patented lifespan, whether in the sense of one trip per person and no more, or this ride lasts forever but with better treats later) in a certain type of way.

This one can perhaps make transitions more palatable--believable, to the modern mind--by promising that the kinds of sensations we might here call something like "existential dread" are more profound elsewhere, in keeping with the same complexity variance protocols of developmental cycles which are also capable of similarly magnifying the size and quality of existential satisfaction and passable pleasure. To whit, enjoying a street vendor's hot dog here is comparable in difficulty of obtaining to what, elsewhere, might be enjoying a thousand years of a pristine love affair. I can drop all kinds of hints about transcendental nirvanae, but more appealing to the critical, oft-marketed-to Terran mind, which has been heavily inundated with stories of very suspicious, incomplete and culturally- and temporally-dependent paradises or ineternal hells, is more likely to view negatives as plausible, and from there move to considering the potential reality of positives. Ergo an existential dread of contemplating possibilities pertaining to why light shines or why perception is, and what unthinkably dark answers might lay beyond those curtains are, ironically, a better way to begin envisioning the positive aspects of an "afterlife" than trying to meta-conceive of super-hot otherworldly androgynes applying your sunscreen lotion (or whatever the hell else it is; crystallized local stuff or flights of faraway fancy, either can wrongly but hopefully serve).

The worthless appendages of having, or aspiring to, the understanding of qualities which have no material evolutionary purpose--in particular, those which recur in entities of questionable material utility: those entities which have theoretically "won" so far at the Terran breeding competition, e.g. exist now, despite the worthlessness, or, indeed, the negative utility of their traits--are clearly extant only as predecessors to something which we cannot here understand, e.g. some level of development of entities for which things like "morals" or "honor" are not mere amazingly over-represented by-products of randomness which harm survival chances but somehow keep occurring, but traits with a purpose, the purpose and use of which is something not found here. It is laughable or offensive to say this to the new generation of geocentric flat-earthers, who will not believe that there could be something or somewhere else beyond that which their technology at present can show them. Nonetheless, it is perhaps Galilean as we like to think of it to, at least inside what remains of the privacy of your mind, allow yourself to believe a little less and suspect a little more. Those legs have to grow if you ever want to get out of here.

The idea of morals as a testing element in God's cruel and confusing plan has many deep and grievous problems, particularly to the moral individual, but that theory is at least semi-plausible, in comparison to the "must've been good in competition" alternative theories offered by Bangism. Indeed, a homicidal, infantile tantrum-God may exist at the highest stage of all of this; that is, however stupid and terrible the clumsily delivered implication that such a being should be worshiped, the story that He exists and does actually have those plans and desires and contradictions in His holy books is far more sound a theory than that of Bangism, which is, so to speak, that the tornado hit the junkyard and turned it into a working 747.

Many philosophers and philosophies have played about this concept; Christianity certainly has its illusions, but admits an existential confusion in the inability to understand that something is meant to happen; the Hindu and Buddhist traditions of accepting or preparing for being detached from the world-as-womb are more directly on-point and less Terra-centric, and as preparatory exercises, they are certainly more honest and less anthrocentric than the childish analogies of perpetual humanish pleasures determined to be the rewards of any stage of growth.

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Sore Eye Uh-sis

Immune cells implicated in attacks of psoriasis, or other auto-immune conditions, are not often said to be nihilists, suicidal, or evil, though the same accusations could be, and have been, made toward humans involved in similar behavior as related to the community of bodies making up the society rather than the community of cells making up the body,

Consider psoriasis specifically, a condition describing the immune system's attempts to destroy the body's own skin, differing from other autoimmune diseases only by virtue of the targets selected. In this condition, the majority (or perhaps the totality) of all hosts are not born with the condition, but experience its development over a period of time, which may begin in early or late adulthood. Until the terrorists have struck, as it were, there is no way to diagnose; to forecast what will happen. Until such a point, sleeper agents move among all other normal people, unidentifiable to the equivalents of psychology or more accurate hypothetical forms of mind-reading; perhaps for decades, this ruse can continue. At some trigger point, activated by no one knows what, the immune system is activated for self destruction and its agents begin attacking bodily cells, in this case in the skin.

(And this isn't just some rather disgusting but less life threatening skin thing; this one will use "skin" for discussion purposes, but they have these things designed for attacking other parts of the body too, including more presumably vital loci such as the joints and brain, so the principle of the auto-destructive behavior is quite more intense than one would assume the mere "skin" to be.)

What this means is that, for twenty years, the immune system acts as we suppose it should: its cells travel randomly around the body, ignore everything that's supposed to be there, and if a foreign invader--say, a virus which may or may not bring disease--is found, the cells of the immune system spring into action and try to do things to it which will destroy it. Immunology is based on this principle, in that if a weakened form of a virus is introduced to the immune system before the real thing is encountered, the immune cells and their successors will adapt, pass along knowledge of the vulnerabilities of the disease targeted by the relevant vaccine, and become prepared to defeat the real thing if and when it arrives. Thus, smallpox isn't much of a problem in 2018 Terra compared to what it was years ago, and various "flu vaccines" can be annually sold to the televised, mass-circulation-embracing masses, who have a by-now instinctive understanding of how this process is supposed to work.

One particularly interesting thing about psoriasis, and the other autoimmune diseases of its type is that, like cancer, the disease cannot be shown to be "caught," nor genetic as we've been told about genetics. Diseases might appear for the first time in ten generations (that we can tell based on family history; it's arguably "a thousand generations" or "first ever" instead), and they might not appear at all or in the same way in identical twins, and they might appear after twenty or fifty years of otherwise-normal functioning, with no identifiable trigger for the appearance. Similar to cancer, autoimmune diseases are the perfect product for physicians freed from the expectation that anything shall be understood or cured ever again, providing a many-lifetimes stream of profitable, responsibility-less (because everything's a mystery, an identified "condition" can be, or can not be, simultaneously plausibly responsible for any degradation, improvement, deficiency, pain, or ecstasy experienced by the customer. For a certain ethnicity's perspective on the competencies of modern medicine as compared to those clownish idiots who would do or expect something better, one can witness Seinfeld's demonstrative skit about his unwise friend visiting a demonstrative quack and then having his life saved from example deadly alternative remedies by ambulances and hospitals.)

The immune system's ability to identify as hostiles the body's own cells is part of this post-Israel's-founding war conundrum. Since people are often born without psoriasis or breast cancer, but then develop those conditions later, we know that the body can be capable of hosting the potential for those conditions while being capable of not having the conditions activated constantly or ever. In the case of the autoimmune, we know that the body can run a well-functioning immune system for, say, thirty years, wherein the cells are able to instantly and flawlessly identify cells from the immune system's own body, containing identical core genetic information, and that those immune system cells are able to not attack those cells, while at the same time they can learn about smallpox and other vaccines, and attack invaders after someone gets cut by a dirty blade, et cetera. A foundational, utterly fundamental characteristic of the vast majority of the many people who've had cancer, or the tens of millions of documented American hosts of these many, many recent variations on autoimmune conditions also hailing from the glorious patsy-victors of the Israel Foundation War, designed to turn the immune system into the enemy of various bodily systems is that everything can be completely, 100% fine and normal up until that pivotal moment when the attacks begin. And then there's a gross and/or painful rash or you can't walk or you can't move your arm or you can't see or you can't cogitate ever again or something else, as an inherent part of the design and not due to any identifiable contaminant.

This normalcy in choosing victims shows us something important about the immune system, even one which later develops psoriasis, namely that, as aforementioned, its cells can discriminate between all other members of the body and all foreign objects. It can instantaneously pre-scan any cells it encounters and identify a cell as "Part of your body--don't attack" or "foreign object, summon pus," and like the as-yet majority of human immune systems, it can make those judgments accurately 100% of the time.

The pattern of attack for immune systems which then do develop these conditions is similarly instructive. Immune systems which develop psoriasis do not then attack every bodily cell, but only skin cells, and they attack them in certain areas, not just whenever bloodflow brings them close to any skin cell. The immune system's attacks are also unevenly spaced, in that the immune system may, though bereft of any actual infections to respond to, do nothing for six months, then overwhelmingly attack for two months, then suddenly stop doing anything for another six months. The attempted partial homicide by the immune system is not constant nor apparently rational, and the way in which this cell, designed to be part of the immune system, attacks the body is wholly dissimilar to how it responds to a genuine viral threat. Not only the targets and locations, but the entire manner of proceeding, including inexplicable lengthy furloughs granted to 100% of soldiers, are changed. Ergo there is some rather quizzical form of tactics and strategy employed here, wherein the immune system suddenly unlearns the restriction against attacking its own body, coupled with developing the trait of attacking only certain varieties of its own cells in certain locations. It's similar to a group of idiotic British military commanders who set out to destroy England by attacking Lincolnshire and only Lincolnshire. For forty years. Without ever once any messages reaching them that they should stop attacking their own cells. This corruption is systematic, too, because during the unending offensive against Lincolnshire, cells die and new ones are generated by the body, and their genetic coding now includes that same predilection for attacking the skin. The disease doesn't just change what a few idiots do, but how the body reproduces itself, such that all future immune systems of any date will be committed to this suicidal plan of attack, and eventually, all the immune cells that were alive when the attacks began have been replaced by brand new ones who carry on the trend without needing assistance from, or merely imitating, any of the originators. There must necessarily be, then, some intelligence agency which directs the malfeasant cells, having told them how to operate perfectly well for 1 month or fifty years previously, and then suddenly all the printouts on the desks were changed, and no one can ever again find the source of, nor change, those printouts.

It is a great sorrow that, as with cancer, today's "researchers" have not identified the factors that go into telling cells what to do, whether for self destruction or isolationist perpetuation. Someone should've long ago discovered the locations and details of those intelligence offices telling cells what to do, for agenda of extreme commercial potential exist alongside the ability to adjust the reproduction of immune cells. There is clearly some location in the body from whence cells receive their malformed orders "Attack your own skin cells now, no matter the cost!" to activate progression of the disease, and it is likely that, even if we were not smart enough to reprogram the data or replace it with our own standardized orders, if we were at least smart enough to wipe any data that's changed since age 6 (say, before the onset of one patient's symptoms) and restore, we could also flip other levers such as turning off the ones that cause males to stop growing hair or turn on aging protocol or direct fat storage or adjust erectile function. In most cases, one would not need to be intelligent enough to write new protocol, but merely to copy and paste whatever the individual had prior to the occurrence of undesirable functions, such as using copies of the age 16 protocol to address many aging-related concerns, or finding some congenitally skinny person's caloric details and using them to cure obesity.

It was very difficult to develop the first vaccines, in the sense that researchers would've had to find a microscopic organism inside a comparatively vast human body, usually to identify that elements of that organism were diffused so widely in that body that they could be found by a blood test of something less than 100% of the patient's blood, identify that the organism was not an as-yet unknown component of the body itself, determine that the organism could be in some way weakened, and then introduce the weakened organism to the body so as to inspire the body's immune system to learn how to kill it. Currently, autoimmune diseases can completely co-opt the immune system and change how it reproduces itself, and no one out of all the humans seems bright enough to figure out how the immune cells get their commands, what things look like before and after the command goes out to attack the body's own cells, let alone how to give the immune system better orders.

As before mentioned, even the basest, most selfish, most astronomically fungible, most theoretically capitalistic desires are related to such bodily understanding. No more can the head of the aging male be instructed to stop deferring hair growth, or a newborn human's cells be told to skip the caramelizing or "aging" process, creating a human that reaches maturity and then doesn't start trying to destroy itself, than can the automorbid tendencies of many humans to kill themselves by growing tumor cells, or attacking their own bodies in other ways, be adjusted. The stupidity of the age, to research ways to "deal with" such a deathly set of processes rather than forestall or undo it/them, is rather profound, considering that modern societies include medicine developed by the human group which figured out how to present neutered viruses to its own realized genomic components in order to cause adaptation--duplicable, repeatable adaptation--in those components and negate the negative effects of, say, smallpox. One wonders, again, at whether today's "researchers" have the capability of being as intelligent as those of old, and if humanity missed its chance to have great minds address bodily components, rather than developing smallpox support groups and more effective skin lotions to treat the inevitable sores.

As with global temperatures, humans may be experiencing a waning of intelligence, of willpower, and of inquiry. Sadly amusing to see the profusion of so-called "research centers" which have accomplished nothing in a century, and to see entire generations of physicians graduate and then retire who haven't once gotten to cure something.

Cancer does not "directly" kill people, but kills them only by existing, taking up space, where a tumor can grow so large that it interferes with vital processes, but does not create little viruses, or develop its competing immune system, to destroy enemies/hosts with whom it has broken, or never had, ties. Auto-immune diseases are unverifiably different, in that the immune system's broken directions are so stupid that they seem designed more for torturing victims than for killing them--that, or the rewritten immune system is not stupidly designed, but expressly designed for torture. Many types of immune-sponsored attack can kill people, some even people who are in bed, and the hapless coroners can plausibly ascribe the death to many related conditions which are not directly attributable to the autoimmune, even though cancer is always blamed for death when someone has it and then an inoperable tumor merely happens to be "in the way" of lungs respirating air or kidneys cleaning blood or heart beating. Psoriasis, unlike necrotizing fasciitis, somehow fails to achieve a comparative level of damage to the intended target, despite being nourished and encouraged by the host body itself. Instead--again, like something intended to torture rather than to execute--it eats skin piecemeal, concentrates on certain types and areas of skin, and occasionally allows time for healing in-between attacks, almost as though it wants its victim to be alive and suffering longer, rather than simply dead. The suggestion of a malevolent consciousness behind the disease is not necessarily meant to suggest the evil biological designer-creation of this profitable new condition, but merely to identify its characteristics, perhaps in hopes that the next generation of wonder doofuses might cure something. (And no, I don't have psiorasis so far as I know, none of this is meant to be personal.)

As a civilization, we've greatly failed in the sense that revering doctors (and paying them more and giving them more freedom and social respect) rather than, say, having girls want to marry research scientists, encourages the more intelligent young people to pursue a career in handing out pharmacy slips and listening to people's stories, rather than in curing things. Indeed, the failure of modern research--like modern invention--may be a by-product of the corporate inspired signing over of invention rights and hagiography of the office drone who signs off on prescription refills and listens with heartfelt attention to someone's repetitive stories of symptoms heard a thousand times before, rather than who looks at things under microscopes and figures out how the body works. As medicine goes, we seem to be following a path that, were this race-car driving, involves celebrating the driver so much that--however important he is--the other team's engine is fifty years ahead of ours, and we don't care because it's so incredible how that driver can drive our old clunker. Some minor corrective legislation, like making void any contracts which strip the inventor of sole and exclusive control of the invention, might cure a lot of diseases very quickly, particularly if some researcher has a financially stupid heartfelt moment and gives a public speech releasing the formula for the anti-cancer pill into the public domain.

Perhaps this dearth is not mandatorily cyclical, but caused by us, as we've removed the profit motive from medical science. It helps investors to make medical school ridiculously expensive opportunities for unpaid years-long internships (amazingly, sic), but it does little for patients; similarly, structuring a society so as to motivate the more intelligent future workers into customer service roles in white coats benefiting more from charisma than intelligence, rather than in production design or production quality, may be the sole death knell of this sickly era.

Monday, March 26, 2018

Jewish Intelligence

Examinations of the genetic differences in intelligence between groups are a mixed blessing for Jews. In one way, such examinations are good things, because Jews excel at simplistic problem solving, where all "extraneous" factors--real, tangible things that affect real, tangible results--are removed, and where intelligence is simply a matter of solving puzzles or riddles (not to demean such things; solving puzzles or riddles can be difficult, and when matched to the proper framework, can be very useful). Particularly in light of their use in evaluating modern crime rates, I.Q. and time-preference tests can be the darlings of the future, and so continue to make it seem that the creators of modern conveniences are subordinate to Jews. Indeed, when you have no accomplishments, "test scores" can make you seem to be one of the accomplished folk.

While Jews are not inventive nor creative--indeed, their loud defense of their racial intelligence served, quixotically, alongside their equally loud anti-racism, oft-recycled these thousands of years--they can solve problems to which somebody else has already figured out the answer, removed all variables deemed irrelevant, and provided the format in which the answers are to be expressed. In this, they far exceed ancestral Africans, who are so steeped in variables that they are uncontrollable by ideatic planners, and somewhat exceed other groups. Ergo they are very good at entering established systems that involve transacting in understood variables, which variables are predetermined or user-defined, as in accountancy using mathematics, or law where their kin can redefine right and/or wrong to conform to a Jewish argument, or in medicine, where nothing is expected but that you insert your token and receive paid compassion from a computer which matches symptoms to diagnoses. They cannot build societies, but they can copy very well, and much the same with art or science, whereby little, probably obvious, improvements can be made to a thought or component, but nothing "groundbreaking" or truly new can be developed. Many a humorous stage play or movie has sprung from the ability of Jews to represent the inherent contradictions in the rules of a language or social ritual that they've found and become familiar with. Ergo they are blind to "opportunity cost" when it involves a cost they cannot see yet. The ability to perceive such costs is linked to the ability to imagine results that aren't just more of the same.

Our history is replete with--perhaps solely defined by--the creation of newness by Europeoids, which is often (sometimes more swiftly, sometimes less so) copied by other groups, including Jews, demonstrating that it is not preference, but ability, which determines their maximum civilizational agility. Jews and deep-ancestral-Africans, for example, prefer driving their wheeled cars with internal combustion engines on well maintained asphalt roads, rather than riding a donkey on a smoothed dirt road in which rocks of non-negligible size occasionally turn up, yet they were unable to even envision such concepts until Europeoids had spent quite a while inventing all the stages that led up to this fulfilled desire; not only were they unable to know themselves in the sense of knowing what they wanted, they were unable to know others in that same sense.

Given how Jews often make the rules that demonstrate them as so highly skilled--sitting on medical boards, appellate courts, lower courts, and reviewing pleas and letters as the representatives of taxing and other regulatory agencies--their decisions that their co-ethnics are "better" at performing before them are of little use in concluding that such superior results indicate superiority, rather than enforced racism. It's similar to how, during the "second" "world war," the Soviet military and government actually committed all of the ills for which history later indicted merely the German military and government: reality as defined "by the victors," as an objective-minded person might say. At the very least, disproportionate Jewish representation in European and American governments, and to which places America decides to send incredibly huge checks, seems based more on co-ethnicity and racism than it does on need or decency or any other conceivable factor, whether of justifiable government import or not.

Going by historical survival rates of surgical or other patients, Jewish physicians are slightly less competent than Europeoid ones--only slightly, but their resulting extreme over-representation on boards of inquiry and published professors in the medical profession seems to disavow any rumors of meritocracy, even when fellowships and other awards are also granted disproportionately to doctors of other preferred races despite a lack of any notable, or any at all, achievements. All of this discounts, of course, the decision of which students to test on what day to determine a random sampling of I.Q., for keeping the retarded kids from showing up to check "Jewish" in the "test-taker's identity" section of a test is an important part of creating attractive results; indeed, if one can select how one tests, and choose one's identity accordingly, ample opportunities exist to instruct individuals how to identify themselves to government computers. Taking away the test-taker's ability to be Jewish if he or she is mentally disabled is, as far as disability advocates go, disgusting, both from a special needs perspective and a Jewish one (though not really so if the individual has to help the tribe look better by failing as a nominal outsider when reviewers are watching).

The symphony of supposed Jewish intellectual achievement is as much of a farce as the claim that the U.S. just gave Israel $200 million because after a fair and open debate, that turned out to be the best way to use tax revenues to America's advantage.

Even so, even assuming the handcrafted faux-results are genuine, the history of the world, of science and civilization, would demonstrate that, whatever the I.Q. test is measuring, it's not the kind of intelligence that allows you to build wheels or sailing ships or heavy cannon, or big cities with operating sewers and relatively stable governments, or internal combustion engines or moon rockets (or the I.Q. tests are indeed measuring that, but the Jewish and Chinese data in this regard are extremely fabricated, given the dearth of amazing new discoveries attributed to those oh-so-smart groups over the past few thousand years, and yes I know that one Chinese dude picked up saltpeter once but the Jews didn't even get that). As mentioned previously, the corporate control of engineers' outputs suggests that future inventions, if any, can be credited to the manager of a team of engineers who have signed over their rights to "the team," like so many group assignments in public school carried through by a single member, in which case, 3,000 years from now, a bunch of miserable part-Europeoid engineers won't have invented much, but the few "new" things that are invented can be attributed to Sino-Jewish team leaders.

Why the blessing is mixed, though, is that, if people can understand how the different pieces of I.Q. are related to genes, they might eventually be able to understand how other things are tied to genes: things like a passion for cronyism, desire for the genocide of outsiders, a predilection for pure evil, ethnic favoritism, and empathy or lack thereof. An instant worldwide test of this, coupled with the death penalty, would eliminate most if not all persons of predominantly Jewish background, on the "FEELS EMPATHY? Y OR N" classification alone. And this is where it becomes dicey, because like the Voight-Kampff test, any such knowledge could expose the androids among us, not only making it impossible for them to pose as humans, but also, raise as options for additional discussion many of the traits which have thus far been helpful.

Since first contact, this has always been a fundamental "challenge" for Jews. "Separate...but also together!" has been their rallying cry for thousands of years, and like its modern version of Israel's immigration laws compared to those which Jews feel are appropriate for Europe, it can be downplayed, but never openly addressed. Cheaper science raises the foreboding possibility that Judaism could be wholly ended.

Being able to understand and manipulate genetics can make "blacks" less likely to carjack and mug, producing a net gain for them in a world more serious about punishing carjackings and muggings (once they've already occurred, but never before they have, since that would be racist), but if genes could also be adjusted to make their owner/host organisms sick by the thought of committing nepotism, or to cause individuals to be unable to take actions which would harm other people, those who didn't carjack, but who designed tax policy, would be at a serious disadvantage; perhaps a crippling one. Those who would carjack but are genetically prevented from doing so would have better lives, longer lifespans, better criminal records, and better job prospects, but those unable to participate in nepotism/cronyism would have worse. It's similar to the Jewish invasion of Europe; if the invasion had been contingent upon an injection that leaves one more empathetic and unable to commit nepotism, the Khazars would've simply vanished into Europe, becoming yet another unidentifiable, probably Christian, sub-group that had mixed wholly in with everything else over a couple thousand years.

Imagine what would happen to, say, Israel, if every person inside of it suddenly became mandatorily, scientifically emphathetic. All of a sudden, 100% of Israeli citizens, political leaders included, vote to return "Israeli" territory to Palestinians and to allow free trade and to bring racial marriage choice in line with the percentage of the nearby (or global) population.

Imagine some stereotypical White plantation culture running a stereotypical antebellum society in the American Deep South, raping pudgy black chicks and preventing them from pursuing their passion for astrophysics. Such DNA adjustments would, like they would actually do in Israel, utterly destroy the society of the plantation owners, disinclining them from repressing astrophysics and leaving them behind in the future society of black telescopes and launching pads. Similarly, genetic readjustments forcing Jews to be honest and forthright, and not racist, in their promotion of individuals and ideologies, would have similar effects on today's international society. Israel would blend with its surroundings and become a mixed Arab-Jewish and solely Arab nation, every other Jew in another nation would become unable to be nepotistic, and genetic science would thereby eliminate the Jews. The essential irony of realized genetic science would be, so very ironically, as its principles would have with the exploitative original nature of the people that shall dwell alone, cause them to cease existing. Indeed, the ancient Jewish laws of blood purity (for the Jew) and racial integration (for the host) were in a death struggle, and the prospect of applying any of the lies used to corrupt a people to physical behavior would have always ended the Jews. It is a very tricky time, now, as we approach the era where actualized science could, as a matter of mandatory public policy regarding birth, make nepotism--make Judaism--impossible. What would be so helpful to Jews in further strengthening their takeover of host nations would be a deathly pill if applied to them, integrating their traits into a minority of unfortunate characteristics for future affected individuals; like successfully converting a White nation into advocates for the colored peoples, the necessary conclusion of full BDS, or of sending the military to protect the Palestinians, would be as fatal for Jewry as it would ironically be helpful.

This is a difficult line which Jews have always walked while infiltrating nations through advocacy of inclusion while running private counsels to prevent the offspring of intermarriage from rising. Never before, though, have Jews faced a world where the gullible goys would have the technology, and the recent and stern Jewish backing, to universally enforce the universalist principles they've been taught to embrace.

Pending permissible future scientific development, then, the only way Jews could save themselves is to make genetic anti-nepotism illegal for Jews, file falsified genetic safety reports for allies, or to destroy it entirely. What will the farsighted group do in response to the potential for some laboratory developing some increasingly cheap and accessible therapy to make people, in their heart of hearts, universalist? Again, not "universalist" in the sense that the Jew demands of non-Jews, but truly universalist, in the sense of believing in it from the bottoms of their hearts? Retarding technology so things stay as they are is an option, either by disincentivizing anyone to ever develop such an understanding of manipulating genes, or having an operating network of evil-spy doctors curating the immunization-type records in countries of import, but absent that, they could be destroyed merely by curing nepotism. To protect the chosen people, that issue will have to be addressed.

Friday, March 23, 2018

Defeating Anti-Semitism Forever

This one has previously written about, and since employed, the one foolproof method of burying anti-Semitism, namely by associating that anti-Semitism with conclusions so ridiculous, yet so compelling, that they must necessarily draw all anti-Semites to them, thereby tarring anti-Semitism perpetually with associations with which it cannot survive. The memetification of "bad Hitler" and "ignorant redneck" have been effective, but as the decades pass, and people begin to compare I.Q. scores and lifetime crime rates of rural whites possessing poor parents with urban blacks possessing wealthy parents, it becomes difficult for good, decent, loyal genetic disavowers, devotees of universalism and blended societies, to hold together these universalist myths, and more and more people, more and more removed from stories of lampshades and soap and able to consider these stories in context, come to wonder if genetic differences may affect more than just exterior appearance, but interior functionality as well.

Specifically, this one has discussed how, in truth, the Jews, as we call them on Terra, are not merely a human race which gains its survival as a parasite on other human groups, having been evolved roughly three thousand years ago in response to Europe's technological boom giving such parasitism a potential for global reach, but that the Jews are in fact an extraplanetary strain of creatures meant to leech and ultimately destroy other human groups for purposes of planetary development. This ridiculous conclusion, and attempts to validate it, help anti-Semitism look more ridiculous than it already does, therefore this, such a very anti-Semitic essay, is penultimately pro-Semitic.

Problems With Anti-Semitism: Off of whom to feed next?

The single largest problem with today's Terran anti-Semitism is its nature of programmed destruction, in which the process of feeding off hosts is a process of destroying them, ergo destroying the ability for later generations of Jews to survive off the extracted labor of hosts. This can be most directly modeled in the relationship between Israel and the United States: Israel has survived since 1948 in ways most grisly, murdering Arabs and others by the million in order to create, out of nothing, a western-appearing territory in the Arabian deserts. Numerous wars have been fought in which Israel (using stuff the U.S. gave it to play with) exterminated the armed forces of nations who tried to resist being invaded, in each case possible because the United States, global superpower, had this inexplicable, unending will of protecting from all global intervention this one little strip of land created out of paper by the Founding of Israel War (the "world wars" as hosts and hosts' descendants may know them). The United States accomplished this through an endless succession of U.N. proclamations and vetoes, mocking the idea of universalist democracy, and of global muds numerically or humanitarily overcoming predominantly Whites. Britain and the United States also sacrificed many of their children, even before the "Civil Rights" era, in order to kill Arabs and let Jews practice using their new weapons, which had been given to them, and which were also responsible for victories in an endless succession of wars, both declared and not, and without which weapons the little theft would've been wiped out forever by a billion Muslims.

Truth be told, Israel has been so foul, and so honest and forthright in its foulness, in its extermination of gentiles in and about what it calls "Israel," that the most nominally anti-racist entity who doesn't consider Israel and every single one of its supporters a disgusting murderous parasite is far more racist than the Ku Klux Klan. Come on, folks, seriously; the Israeli Army has had official missions where they dropped booby-trapped toys in Arab areas so they could mutilate or kill the kids who tried to play with them, then exterminate their families and build new condos. Israel has been the foulest thing on this planet, and not associating that with expressed Judaism is so wishful it's genuinely stupid.

And yet, though this global interference continues on Israel's behalf, without which a billion Muslims could and would eat Israel alive, because they come from everywhere and aren't even from some one or ten cities that Israel could hit with American nukes to create deterrence, Israel is trying extremely hard (and accomplishing successfully) to turn America, its perpetual protector the global superpower, into Mexico. "Mexico," in the sense of a Hispanic/mestizo/black nation which cannot afford to send hundreds of millions each year to protect Israel's killers, to give them an endless supply of weapons with which to blow apart Palestinian babies, et cetera.

These goals don't seem to match. A poor, disempowered America is Jewishly good in the sense that it removes some of yet another of the Jews' perennial targets for vengeance, the Aryan, but is very bad for the Jews in the sense that as soon as the stupid Aryans stop funding the Jews' imperialism, the world's muddy others can eat the Jew alive, rape their women, kill any half-breed that is not enthusiastically Muslim enough, and turn every new condo development and government building in Israel into Mecca 2, filled with street-shitting honor killers who would just love it if a Jew were still alive so they could get their hands on him.

Japan, Australia, Niger, et cetera, have been for years voting for U.N. resolutions to sanction and "investigate" Israel (like the entire goyim population of the world, except some rabbi worshipers, they already knew, and the Israelis also understood what a monitored international investigation would have to conclude about the genocide in Palestine), and with voting rates of 2% against 90%+, Israel and the U.S. have been surviving democracy only inasmuch as the U.S. can keep bending the rules and forcing everyone else to condone violations of newfangled "human rights" and oldfangled violations of "fucking decency." Notions of racism fade into complete and utter irrelevance once Israel has proudly bombed its first Palestinian baby, and after the millionth one, even the extremely mentally retarded should be able to figure out that something is wrong. If you're a universalist, who believes in the value of every human irrespective of race, you have to be against Judaism; if you're a White nationalist, you see the Jewish desired future of the entire world in Gaza, and you have to be similarly against Israel.

Thus the conundrum for any resolution of the Jewish problem that attests that the Jewish agenda is Jewish survival or Jewish mastery or Jewish control or Jewish quality of life. Jews are, in well-thought-out matters of racial policy, willing to destroy America and western Europe, thereby giving control of most of the world to Muslim hordes who would destroy Israel and kill or enslave (and intellectually crush, if nothing else) any remaining Jews. Jews have gone to this phenomenal effort in the twentieth century to make the European democracies their slaves, and they achieved that, but they are destroying those slaves, and making themselves vulnerable to everyone from whom the European democracies were protecting Jews. It doesn't take hostility, not even ambivalence, but merely reduced vigilance on the part of Aryan-derived societies for all the Jews to be killed; yes, the Jews could use nukes to threaten away some of the larger Arab monarchies, and conventional force to keep a refugee horde away from their panic rooms, but that could only last for a few years, and then aforementioned Muslims would eat Israel alive, and kill the Jews remaining in the formerly-Aryan hideouts.

And the Jews aren't stupid, either, at least in these matters. They know who pays their bills; they know who keeps the rest of the world from ending their slaughter and abuse of the Arabs; they know who keeps fostering secondary residences for their prominent citizens: the United States, and, to some extent, allies on retainer in other NATO vetoers. And yet, they're trying to kill their very greatest, most essential allies. When the U.S. is a black lives matter mestizo nation, and Europe is a Caliphate, the money and the protection for Israel can still be bribed out of greedy little piggies, but that "money" would be worth as much as those countries' economies, and Israel couldn't protect itself. Why are the Jews trying to kill themselves?

A number of theories could explain this behavior, including rule via different forms of crypsis and genuine commitment to universalist ideals. For the latter, perhaps the dominant Jews for the past 80 years have believed that everyone is the same, and that once retirement accounts across the western world are pillaged and distributed to the mestizos and/or descendants of slaves, those Afro-mestizos will become as inventive and productive as the Aryan remnants they replaced, and the cash and tech annuities to Israel will continue. The ways that Jews have used immigration and gibs against the U.S. and Europe show that they probably don't actually believe in that stuff, though; particularly how few synagogues give millions in annual scholarships to aspiring African heart surgeons, or whom Jews choose for their own financial and bodily care needs, and what they understand about what will happen to a nation when diversity reaches it, they don't believe their own medicine.

More compelling is the ways that Jews can control variegated societies, particularly now that they're in control of police forces using Aryan-developed tech for monitoring and repressing. Consider Saudi Arabia, an "Arab" country run by an Arab dynasty, which is actually Jewish royals in crypsis, proving that the right clothes and languages can leave Jews reigning triumphant over Arab Muslims. An idiot would assume that no one could be so dishonest as to spend their entire life faking a religion just to be king, but in Saudi Arabia, we can see that many someones can. Or, of course, the U.S., where a mixed "European Jew" controls not only the executive branch, but others have been and continue to run the legislature and more personally run the judiciary. Chinese-Jew mixes, Russian-Jew mixes, et cetera, could craft a future where mischlinge control the ruins, and deception via DNA company can fool everyone into seeing only pure blood. So yes, Israel would be a sacrificial animal in traditional Jewish fashion, but that could be used as allowing the goyim to feel that they've done well, and the Jewish genes could continue dominating the world.

A possible explanation, but it runs into a number of problems: eliminating or intermixing with all the Aryans would result in a loss of all the creature comforts that pureblooded Aryans have invented and maintained for the past few thousand years of Terran history. Smartphones and open heart surgery that maybe buys you another few decades and all the other crap, Jews understand would not vanish, being duplicable and maintainable by mixed Europeoid-Asians once the creators were gone--Japanese team of network maintenance specialists, dynastied pale Chinese very competent surgeons, and so forth. But the new niceties would stop appearing, and the gaps between what a free clump of humans would take for granted in 2300, versus what would still be copy-able once a diversified world made all funding and innovation adjust accordingly, are discernible by Jews, who have watched all this stuff happen for three thousand years. So fine, maybe they think they have enough stuff already, and they can do without any new things, but...

But the global economy, the interconnected world, and so forth. While the Jews would more enjoy controlling a wasteland than achieving middling trading success in a technological paradise, a return to the -800 B.C. Middle East (Judea?) on a global scale would be an end anyway. Societies controlled by Jews in crypsis have been so successful in the past because they've had goy-run societies to alternately oppose and partner with, and mischlinge and mestizos and their equivalents occasionally do things like shoot randomly. Combined with the explosives whose existence was retroactively credited to the staunch racist/Zionist Einstein, the potential for one or many mischlinge to break the elders' global peace is profound. Saudi Arabia, to use just one example of realms controlled via crypsis, exists, like Israel, only because of regional stabilization which can only be provided by the money and massive armies of slaves far away. When the U.S. no longer exists to prop up and legitimize the faux-states, they would fall rather swiftly from within or without. And that would mean Neo Iran, or internal factions with Koranic reinterpretations, tearing the nasty old cryptos out of their nightdresses and changing governments. Besides the genetic harm of eliminating the former leader class and its allies (fictional ones including non-, no doubt), the prospect of keeping such a multifaceted rulership together over five years is an extremely dicey one, while doing so for the span of a single greedy human's life is sufficiently less likely, going on a statistical impossibility as time continues. Indeed, before taking Europe, the Jews had their chance at interbreeding with local royalty and ruling the known world, and they chose instead to blend into Europe and use proxy colonizers to get petty revenge on their old hosts, rather than craft a united and expanded Judea, under many faces or one, in a theoretical stability.

Significantly more likely is the oft-observed principle that Jews are destroyers, not builders; that their habit of disintegrating civilizations is not, as we might wishfully assume based on templates of our selves, with the end goal of creating a sustainable society which could produce inventions and wealth, but rather, with the repeatedly verified and historically understood proof of the victims, the death and destruction of the host. Europe since the Jewish conquest has provided a number of monetarily and spiritually brutal examples of harming itself, including integrationist colonialisms and financial panics and reasonless internecine wars, which have, individually and altogether, greatly harmed not just the individual societies participating in them, but the whole international system which has repeatedly, and probably is now again, crumbling for wont of resources it can no longer produce to keep the charade superficially intact. No, Jewish rule has never produced sustainability or gain.

And, on that primally instinctive destroyer level, Jews understand that. They take over, then destroy, America, not because they believe there will always be another golden goose out there, but because they want all golden geese to be dead. The primary function of these entities is not some petty conquest of a planet that bores them anyway, but the janitorial service of cleaning the life away, and in only three thousand years, look how far they've gotten. So much resistance to this idea stems, as so many other White problems, from the notion that "That entity over there must be like me. It must be concerned with fairness and truth and justice etc." And on the Jewish level, Europeoids see Jews, and think, "They're killing all of us and taking over the planet. Obviously because they want to create a paradise true to their ideals filled with their version of justice but basically surviving." And, like assuming African-Americans and other hyphenated negroes want monogamy with their extended kin and quiet neighborhoods and invention and other stuff, it's a rude, arrogant presumption, and the victims of this cruel charity have neither the desire nor intention to receive the condescending gift. So when we see the Jews destroying some civilization, it's a wishful fantasy to think "They want to populate it with their own kind and then go on to glory appreciating all the nice things and fine achievements that this planet could bring."

Particularly ironic, here, is how truly racist it is to be "non racist." When people are not racist, they're not only scientifically unsound in regard many types of data, but actually more completely judging the character of another person, assuming "That person is a person and therefore like me." If a Klansman sees a brown ("black") and thinks, "That person is probably less intellectual," and a college student sees a brown and thinks "That person's fundamental nature is like mine," the latter is, by far, the more racist thought. How funny that this is actually a battle against racists, when you come down to it.

That is why Jews destroy, but not build; the "evolutionary impulse" to kill the hosts who provide the most stable zones for reproduction and child-rearing, the best defense against predators, and gives away the most resources to the parasite's group, is not explicable nor complementary to the desire to survive, let alone have host-subsidized 3D gaming or VI sexbots or any other subsidized toys that a future U.S. would undoubtedly give Israelis living in condominiums built on Palestian bone dust. By destroying the Aryan remnants, Jews don't just ensure they'll eventually all die, but that their standard of living will never attain even echoes of what it would if they'd just stopped at WW2, used false flag incidents to justify America taking over a new country-sized piece of land for them every few years, and let the Aryans keep on inventing and giving presents.

And it undoubtedly would have happened. Aryans are so dumb, so gullible, and so desperately in need of other entities to validate their fantasies about not being alone in the verse, that, if the Jews hadn't spawned a "Civil Rights" movement and just let vaguely traditional America continue the 1950s forever, loyal American taxpayers would work, murder mountains of Arabs, send even more money to Israel, invent better goodies and send them to Israel also, and forever, forever shelter their coveted ideals in the form of an expanding Jewish population, Jewish moonbases, Jewish Mars, et cetera.

Many, many passenger viruses have developed in sync with humans, creating an eminently stable co-dependency or just an exploitative relationship which is not troubling enough to justify killing the passenger viruses, and Jews do not work like that. After destroying Europe and East Asia and the Middle East to establish a Jewish country, then getting idiots in America and Europe to pay for it and protect that nation, the Jews still continued destroying western Europe and the United States, because survival was never their goal. Culture of Critique is, sadly, completely flawed, because it presumes the Jews are White-like in their motivations, interested in thriving themselves, even possibly attended to by less intellectually capable races; yet, none of those other races can or will provide new kinds of things that will save Jews' lives and feed increasing numbers of Jews, and the Jews are fine with whittling down the remaining members of the only group that can do, that has done, these things for them, while we stupidly fantasize "Oh, they're like us in the most important of ways, I guess we should try to survive, too." But their ongoing hostility to and extended slow genocide of the best of all available hosts demonstrates that, actually, they are interested in neither survival nor pleasure, but that they have a job to do and are going to do it.

* * *

This ridiculous, extrasolar claim is, as you can see, the finest available way to combat anti-Semitism. It is ridiculous to follow logical conclusions as far as they reach; one should simply stop investigating once it's unimaginable that the conclusions reached could be accurate. We're not possibly part of a larger ecosystem than the ones we think we've discovered so far, and all organisms that we encounter are pretty much like us, including possessing primarily and only hardwired purposes with which we can emphathize. It's completely crazy to assume otherwise, like there are "reasons" things happen.

* * *

What will happen when Jews get their way and they've wiped out the last of the Aryans and are in crypsis ruling over a mulatto world while a few White Thai in China or Japan try to persist? Well, some imaginary wars, of course, where the mulatto hordes take the holdouts. But what happens then? South Africa, obviously; people can't farm at levels that sustain modernish populations with division of labor, and the last few Jews will have a lot of comparative luxury, but then it eventually fails when all the private generators go out and mulatto hordes find the terrified huddling crypto rulers, and seize those last few hoards of food and batteries. And then those remaining mulatto hordes eat the stuff and use the power for something like video games, and the food and batteries are all gone, and the Stone Age returns, or rather the Artifact Age, where life is pretty stone age-ish except occasionally some lucky dude finds a trinket from the past and is the big man for a few days until someone gets it while he's sleeping or he shoots his own leg off or it just runs out of power. Lots of great potential tales there that'll never be told, because rayciss and then later on because the horde-children who will be telling them won't have a sad ending but one with lots of sex. Point is, when the Red Giant comes, no one will have developed anything to fly away, everything can melt up and start over, and the K'arash have won again.

Which, as I said, isn't an argument for giving up. By all means, try to save this decaying place. As this one has said before, I'll be happy if you prove me wrong. Me saying "you can't; it's too late" could just be cynicism. Terra becoming Gaza, followed by a lifeless rock clinging to traces of atmosphere, might similarly be a vision borne of this one's cynicism. All of the other things to do are still there. And ultimately, we can think of this as a learning experience.

Monday, March 19, 2018

Kosty

In Anna Karenina, one of the more interesting of the tales is that of Konstantin Levin. A wealthy man, Levin thinks often about the emancipation of the serfs, its relationship to the lives of the peasants, and the correlation of those two lifestyles to his own. Transmitted throughout are heavy critiques of modernity, in which we can see that, at least a hundred years ago, the specific falsified problems of today were already analyzed and resolved, and "today's" questions and concerns represent (again) not a discovery of new things but a revisiting of old; of a cyclical rejection of problems and solutions already long foreseen and solved. Indeed, our problems now seem more to be caused by a blockage between certain types of people, than by a deficiency in producing or transmitting wisdom.

Levin can be likened, in some ways, to a modern liberal in the sense of his recurring desires to "uplift" those who do not have the things he does, such as rental acreage, marketable timber, and the like. He grapples with his own metaphysical problems with reality as he finds it, exhibiting beliefs that the work performed by the peasants is more trying and damning than his own tasks of resource management and leadership, and in so doing evaluating the failure of the emancipation of the serfs to effectively change their lot except by burdening them with the task of managing their newfound labors and planning for their futures. How selfish Levin, and us, for forgetting that land needed to be made safe against predators and cleared and drained and planted before it could be an asset that, like sunshine, is presumed free and abundant and how lucky we are to pay taxes to someone else to let us say it's ours. Levin's worries in this regard are similar to the once popular, now toxic American debate about the ending of slavery, where the labors and stresses of men now considered socially responsible for their own destiny are ascribed, by the emancipator, to be a wonderful reward, as though planning one's finances is a coveted privilege rather than a malodorous burden. Given the course of human societies since the nineteenth century--that of "freeing" more and more people to carry that crushing burden as atomized units of potential labor--it is unsurprising that it is taboo to consider these issues, for those who benefit from trading in humans as fungible units of random value or worthlessness benefit from everyone thinking that the right to work for them when jobs are sporadically available, have obvious motivations for it being dogma in the modern world that freedom to occasionally, randomly contract for laboring for someone else is not only an inalienable right, but the duty of all decent people everywhere and forever.

Anna Karenina shows Levin's rather pitiful, modern-liberalesque attempts to identify with the ex-serfs and peasants of his time by trying their work for himself, and feeling that it is more natural and healthy than his own. Levin, therefore, feels it is tiresome or worthless to plan seeding and leveling and fallow-times for a facility, but inherently better to engage in the manual labor appurtenant to cutting greenery for the animals to eat. Like a wealthy heir citing to his childhood labors in the mail-room of Daddy's company, he is in error, yet unconscious of it; the context of the labor, like God enduring the Passion while omniscient, makes it labor of a different sort. The peasants' inability to accept his labor, and their confusion over his insistence on putting off his own labor and instead miming their own (more physical) labor, is utterly explicable, as is its failure to change society for the better. From a certain economic perspective, what Levin is attempting is to create a utopia where he doesn't have to engage in his own work of planning and management (hilarious thought now given how worthless and/or redundant such job titles often are), but can occasionally do labor to fill in the gaps of years ignoring something harder. In Levin's struggles, his failures, we can see encapsulated the past two centuries of human history, where the exalting of one kind of labor and the defaming of another has caused well-wishers to no longer have--to have not laid out generations ahead--anything for the laborers to do, except be laid off from the Johnson & Johnson labs janitorial staff.

Regarding labor and management, or ordinary people and the inheritors of wealth, it is abysmally crass, incredibly lazy, and outright rude to continue making this faux "noble" crusade toward "equality," by which the manager of the asset acquired only with generations of difficulty then attempts to shirk his responsibility by using myths of "togetherness" to burden other human beings with the freedom to engage in the onerous tasks of managing resources, planning their development over decades and centuries, et cetera. Our history is so tainted by this presumption that our chronologies show a march of progress toward the shirking of duties. E.g., the European develops a complex human society regulated by understood conclusions that would've taken generations to understand, such as "The central office should handle all disputes rather than individuals handling them," and once this onerous gift has been foisted on a society, that society is expected to punish those who solve disputes without bringing in the central office. People of European heritage, rather than simply imposing the central office upon those they would prefer to conquer--and rather than walling off people of African heritage and permitting them to continue in their posturing- or random-based process of selection--imperfectly induct them into a cult of respect for a faceless, impartial central office, replete with all the indirectly personified illusory entities which it took hundreds of years to get most Europeans to conceptualize and accept, and then either deny that the arrogant experiment is a cruel failure--witness African-derived community behavior in western cities or zones primarily populated by the ancestrally-derived Africans, or the success of thoroughly westernized African-derived peoples in pursuing mental aptitude tests developed by and for those not so derived--or lament the fact that European-derived individuals have not done more to force conformity on conquered populations. For some people, surely, suicide is the answer, but not all desire this suicide, and would prefer to offer return and reparations and start over.

Levin was, at least, genuinely well-meaning. Through his struggle with his inner convictions, we can see that he actually cares, to some extent, about the people he is trying to help, as contrasted with today's, say, student activists for social justice and the life paths they may pursue after a few years of taking pictures of themselves engaging in well-wishing. It is the social preening that was, and is still, part of rejection of the responsibilities of management that confuse the peasant as well as doom the farm and the society--and the peasants--who depend on it, which underscores this whole line of inquiry. In short, buying Africans from Semites' ships was incredibly stupid and wrong, but once they're here, burdening them with life-management in a completely different type of society is even more wrong, leading to a mass forfeiture of well-being for both classes of abruptly freed serf and peasant. To whit, the starvation and mass exploitation of newly freed American slaves, due to their no longer benefiting from either their now-inherent social structures, nor their "self-as-asset-management" approach of nominal owners who had to do all that work before emancipation, is viewed as yet another crime of slavery rather than as a crime of emancipation, and the self-designed life plans of many family-less career prison attendees and 38-year-old tack hammer and/or murder victims, as compared to what would've been, is instructive, dissonance removed. People of the west can track how poorly the grand experiment has done, using rates of murder, reproduction, extended kinship family and community formation, disease, et cetera, to see how poorly their plan has performed; it was not, of course, "their plan," anymore than the result of World War II for the Arabs, but the inability to process the most raw, basic data about the outcome is sufficient to call into question the capability of the subsidiary perpetrators.

The struggles of Tolstoy's character at being unable to himself be a serf (and thus entitled to their suffering, as he sees it), or to be a member of a peasant family (for the same reasons, along with his desire to know best how to order them about when convenient), are instructive, with the implied conclusion of "do your job and let others do theirs" being a facet of not only general wisdom, but specific wisdom as to responsibility-shirkers, who would have those in possession of the most be free to cast all responsibility aside and leave management and maintenance of all society to those less endowed. The desire is similar to that of feminism, in the sense of the feminist's desire to avoid juvenile steroid infusions, accomplishment-related neurological stresses and designs, conscription into the armed services, and the eschewing of all womb-carrier privileges, but to nonetheless gain all the privileges of those who've undergone the said treatments.

Alexey Alexandrovitch's cuckolded concern about the plight of "the native peoples" of Russia (Americans tend to believe they're the only ones who ever had to live alongside a population of rapey, architecturally-impaired Siberians, but not so, and it's interesting to see the Russian government, beset by the actual problems of its actual people, fretting instead about how many gibs to give the feather-dancers to relieve their perceived comparative suffering as they continue to not approach what was then Russian modernity) is instructive, and like Bezhukov's naive fascination with Jewish spawned revolutions in France, shown to be foolish (in Bezhukov's case, via imprisoment, in Alexandrovitch's, via cuckoldry) rather than offered as a shorter lived verbal diatribe from Tolstoy directly to the reader.

How interesting, really, and how sad of course, that the genetically based warnings of Tolsoy, Dostoevsky, and even Dickens were ignored to their audience's own peril, while the more superficial details of apparent plot were--like life, and like popular events in the 21st century--focused now, by castrated experts, toward the exclusion of the meaning that gave the whole story a reason for social decorations. The details of the orphan's survival, the hero's contemplating battle, and the woman's affair, are as incidental to the meaning of the narrative as our own broken dreams unfunded by money sent instead to the government treasury. Innumerable stories exist, of calmer retirements and businesses started and things created during additional spare time, and perhaps these are all, like a passion for Vronsky, tales worth telling, but they lose so much of their meaning when severed from the unjust and necessary circumstances of their creation.

Private Fund Sharing

Some people like what they call "r/K theory," in part because of people who like what they think of as "eugenics," and from the financial side, from the collective stupidity of decamillionaires and centimillionaires. The latter are usually stupider, having more likely received their wealth from inheritance or entertainment, but the former are often nearly as stupid, being usually either less successful entertainers, ghetto- or suburb-lottery winners, Middle Eastern extended royalty, or third- or fourth-generation heirs from a drying tree. It's funny, kind of, how the "middle class" of finance--say, $10 to maybe $250 million--is generally dumber than either the make-believe wealthy, or the $1-$10M wealthy, like part of a bell curve in apparent reverse.

We've discussed scams which trick people into believing that one monkey at a keyboard is a better writer than others, by assembling a group of monkeys and then using the output of the one who misspells the least to prove that said monkey is either literate at all, or "more literate" than the other monkeys. The simplistic form of the complaint can be easily misunderstood by: (1) people who don't understand pyramid investing, and (2) people who understand pyramid investing quite well or very well, but who haven't seen certain things behind the curtain, and so view the suggested scheme as impossible. Let's give an investing intro, then look at how the schemes actually work.

Investing

The world is broken. Everyone's so content they don't know the meaning of discontent, all the shows are about minutely wishful fiction instead of about real-like people, antidepressants and reality shows are stupid and fat people are everywhere. System purged?

* * *

A weathered old cowboy walks into a blue-darkened bar and sits down at a little round table with one leg that doesn't quite touch the floor. The waitress comes by, he nods a couple times, and she brings him a whisky. He sits there drinking it, stony-faced, until an eager young soldier comes in.

The soldier scans the room. His eyes go wide with anxiety. Once he's finished searching out the patrons, he hurries over to the cowboy's table. "Sir!" he says. "I'm gonna need your help. See those two perverts over there?"

The cowboy looks up. He sees the table the soldier had mentioned. A couple fruits in Aloha shirts are sitting there, having daiquiris and laughing a little too loudly.

"They're sexual transgressors," the soldier explains. "Gonna have to ask for your gun-arm."

Bitterly, the cowboy stares into his whisky. "The fuck you care? You jealous or somethin?"

* * *

We already know stocks, don't we? Controlling the money can control a constant, hilariously indiscernible yet minutely identifiable inflation, whereby merely saving wealth is death over the long term, making stock gambling incumbent upon anyone who cares intergenerationally. So you give your capital to some board of directors, and they occasionally throw some dividends back, although the magic fairy god of the invisible unpredictable market may zero the loan balance at any point, you owner you, utterly eliminating the investment. Ergo over enough time, it's all taken away, stock and savings, at risk not quite as much as starting your own restaurant across the street from what would clearly be a good spot for a new national chain, but still at risk, e.g., nothing is yours because controlling the means of exchange really does mean controlling it all, ergo you're not winning just because you manage to occasionally breathe easy or rent a dingy with its own wetbar attached. Who knows? Maybe temporal material pleasures really are all we can take away from this. Better than building a life around the study and dissection of such most-inviolate currencies, no? From one very limited point of view, yes--it's not just everything, it's the only thing.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Saying a Lot

Feel like you've said a lot
When you haven't really said
Anything
Empty wisdom
Like empty bottles
Behind the grocery store
Were they ever really full?
And did it benefit anyone, at the time they were drunk?
If it's been worth something
They would've been hauled away
Treasured
The schematics of wisdom
Are only contemplated
By people who haven't collected bottles to eat
As though an empty bottle is
Worthless
Sure it might not mean anything to you
But
It can save someone's life on the afternoon before a cold night
And suddenly
You can afford to sit in the cheap diner for three hours
Which has a heater
Besides the
Gristle you paid for
Is it wisdom that the discarded bottle
Once filled with a drink that might've been good might've not
Can be the means for a lifesaver?
I think it's just empty wisdom
Seems to be something just because death is mentioned
This trash is not poetry
Just because it's wistful
Just because it's incomplete
It's not a song either
Even though a genius could set it to a melody that was good
and make it a song
But it wouldn't be the skeleton that is any good just like having a conversation with a skeleton wouldn't be good
Even if it could talk without a tongue
Through supernatural zombie powers
Then it would be the supernatural zombie powers that would be the good conversationalist
Not the skeleton it was using
You want something to believe in
Believe in the skeleton
Believe in the bottle
Summing it all up makes nothing art
If you believe it does
I've got a skeleton to sell you
Great condition
Very few breaks
I'll let you shake its hand if you're not sure
It's not even really an ending.
Starlight hits me in the face. I don't mind because it feels

Starlight embraces me. Comes from far away. Reminds me of home. Emotional resonance.

Stop.

Everything is wrong and this is not a shit factory. It is not even good enough to be a shit factory because it breaks all the time and it doesn't work anyway and

Stop

This whole place. Not even good enough to be a shit factory or a torture chamber because even when it tries to operate sometimes light shines through the cracks in the shit wall and you can imagine you can remember you can feel that something better is outside and that something is inevitable and this isn't really a shit factory it's worse

And the only thing that can make it worse is something that is better by comparison the only way they could copy this place is

make this place is by copying and all the rules inside it are based on comparisons nothing can be known except by its relationship to other things here even by feel because everything you feel is the same except by comparison to some other thing you can feel here the only hope is getting out

but time is the same it is grounded anything you can feel is grounded in this place in the rules of relativeness relativity of copying and comparing to something already here because it's so jealous you can't know anything else while you're here so goddamn awful you feel sorry for the wretched thing that must've made this place without any basis for anything

or maybe it has a basis for everything but it's so broken inside it justifies itself by making a world in its own image a world of things that can't know other things except by comparing them to other things a vase is different than a frog is different than a wheelchair is different than a door that is the only reality

The only way out is by leaving but when you're here you don't want to leave one of the rules of being here is not wanting not actually wanting to be somewhere else maybe you imagined the light on the other side maybe you imagined the cracks in the wall maybe there is no wall and this factory of shit this incomplete broken miserably wrong shit factory doesn't even have an outside it's all here all of everything is here now and there never was or will be another anywhere anything anyplace anytime

there is no god except the president of the broken shit factory that truth be told can't even successfully produce a piece of shit that could survive anywhere else nothing viable except the demo products in the factory itself god I hate working here.

i've heard rumors that there really isn't a president at all that one of the characteristics of the broken shit factory is that it couldn't even generate a token fake figurehead it's all rumors and lies, rumors and sighs, rumors and dies, there's no one in the office upstairs, you can only see it out of the corners of your eyes anyway and when you look straight on it's simply not there.

A factory this bad, this broken, is beneath even the shattered intentions of a scatophiliac demon who was called the president some time ago. There are much better ways, even I can think of them, to run this madhouse so that getting off on our suffering could work out the better for him her it whatever it is whatever it may be

Friday, March 16, 2018

European Rappers

Interesting friction over hip hop, particularly as Europeoids/Caucasians become more willing to again consider or discuss race. Like viewing Trump as a nationalist, the point has been rather embarrassingly and totally missed.

The standard line about hip hop is that the Balrins, or Terran brown peoples ("blacks"), invented this style of music, focused around percussive verbal repetitions, and it was so good or unexpectedly intrusive that it overpowered Terran reddish-skinned ("white") reservations or racisms, becoming profitable and popular. People who disbelieve in races or the effect of race upon a person's motivations and/or actions, as well as people with more of a belief in genetics affecting character and likely choices, may view the short history of hip hop and rap music as continued evidence of African willingness to defy the stupid, pointless boundaries of stuffy white people, or as willingness to pervert society because of an inability to create or maintain it or any other norms related to decency as associated with reduced tendency to rape or randomly murder or allow rape or murder, depending.

What has escaped all of these analyses is that hip hop and rap is not "black" or African music, but a European art form magnified and stoked by Jewish direction. Most hip hop music that is or may be appealing results from the normal market forces associated with any other popular art form--guaranteed nationwide repository purchases, co-marketing through reviews and advertisement placement disguised as summaries of what is happening these days, and cleverly aimed social criticism. Even the blackest fan of the most hardcore group, who would never think of supporting white music, listens to or lionizes an aspect of hip hop or rap primarily because of the employment of amplified European computerized music. Not only all of the instruments vital to the creation of all hip hop songs, the centuries and centuries of European musical theory that fostered the creation of a hip hop song, but the actual programming, melody-creation, scripting, harmony punctuation, bass planning and enacting, et cetera, were European products, produced primarily (if not wholly) by European or a few east Asian composers and sound engineers who created/composed the music that accompanies the often incoherent, note-less backing to the popular piece or pieces that are often thought to define hip hop. The person mumbling, grunting/howling angrily, or clearly enunciating the percussive words that are part of any piece of hip hop music is a piece of advertising, like a provocative costume on a female singer--perhaps it adds to the effect or image of the performance, but it is not the reason people paid to hear, or became attracted to in the first place, or listened to a musical feed because it did or might have included, or bought a copy of, any particular recording. For the vast majority (all?) of popular rap/hip hop songs, the person muttering the occasional words could be switched out, and unless someone knew beforehand, no one would notice.

(The popular trend in younger hip hop eras of the performer repeating his name as part of the lyrics is not only a guard against being switched out by vile producers by associating show with performer, but a practical act in another way, namely helping the audience realize for reasons not of protection against scabs who deserves credit for the show.)

To recognize this is not to defame any of the particularly skilled occasional-singers or stylized vocal percussivists of the entire genre, but to consider the ways in which the art form, replete with its female choruses doing nothing like hip hop (and who are often if not predominantly not even "black") to stylize the refrains, is not an African or brown Terran thing, but a product involving primarily the management of a series of people who weren't permitted to reach the market as solo electronica composers, into whose potential careers were not invested millions in advertising, market coordination, image development, et cetera, but who were paid to sign over their rights to all their output by crafting a denouement or collaborate on the rhythm of a hard-house-like chorus that would catch consumer ears and make the titled artist justifiably a popular musician.

Like the black lives matter events of the two thousand teens, the Black Panther movie, et cetera, the African-Americans involved in creating and promoting the final product were necessary for a successful sale of that type of product. The musical merits or demerits of such product, like Hollywood's ability to commission a serviceable story and hire good actors and slip a few lines of dialogue in between some or other agenda should not be confused with "African output," anymore than people should believe that R.L. Stine agonized over how to properly portray culture in his works.

Terran browns incompletely scatting (sic), or spoken-word reciting, something that could be turned into a semi-plausible piece of modern marketable music when someone else pays for the rights to it and then wraps it up for sale with several other incomplete musical products should not be blamed for the results, like when they defend their territory from an inexplicable "random killings not allowed" policeman and inexplicably upset surrounding pseudo-giving idiots. Considering that, like some social movement, movie, or assaulting of a policeman with a firearm, they did not develop nor understand the technology involved (including chord theory or international economics), it is childish, ineffectual, and rude to expect any alternate behavior, and if there be blame or praise to be handed out, the rap artist is logically no more to be targeted than the rope in a tripwire someone has strung in front of your door.

What makes people like a piece of music, or if hip hop isn't music, what makes people like something that they would call, or otherwise would consider, to be music? The most effective component in a few hundred years, or perhaps since there was human-created music, has been popularity, or as the years pass, perceived popularity, which dominates most art--particularly art as fungible product--including visual art, live performance, cinema, and literature. The vast majority of people make a decision to buy or otherwise partake of the art product by a sense of it being popular with others, which is an obvious benefit to the closed loop of preloaded sellers, who can decide what gets positive exposure, repeated exposure, et cetera. Something of middling quality--say, a sorta okay song--can become internationally popular in a day when worldwide news conglomerates talk about how good everyone's saying it is. Whether the widespread recognition of quality came before or after the media excitement is an arguable conclusion, and by the time that quandary is being not discussed, the mass awareness of product is foregone. The service this offers the public is the ability to feel that they have partaken in something good and artistic, and been part of a community in doing so, when otherwise they might just be bored, and not even reading, viewing, or listening to anything, or not sure if what they experienced was a good experience or not.

Recycled myths about the ability of the average person to experience something, or to be motivated enough to seek out a positive thing, or to recognize what they would like if they could just think about it for x minutes or hours--or what they would consider vomitous if they were sold an alternative with equal fervor--are endlessly harped upon or implied by those who arrange for the actual transactions to take place. The method by which they work demonstrates that they don't believe in, nor have any faith in, this rubbish; since long before the payola, music producers and the entities behind them have known that something can be made or unmade as popular irrespective of its merits or lack thereof. Even an incredibly good piece of art on the internet is subject to the gatekeepers of so-called "mainstream" access, where a symphony of avowed promoters like playlist-selectors and product-placement ads and layout editors, may keep people focused enough that a consensus of some kind can be achieved. The edges of the internet, like those of real life, are littered with exceedingly rare work of phenomenal quality that may be controlled by using salaries for people who need to eat and/or live to control output, or simply redirecting mass attention elsewhere to ensure that some wonderful thing isn't found during the brief time it or its creator might be accessible.

(Consider, e.g., an incredible painter or CG artist who lets their work vanish from the internet, from any potential public attention, due to the licensed exclusivity demanded by the prowlers who will only pay the artist a pittance to develop backgrounds for some movie's jungle scenes if they don't try to independently sell things. The model used to suppress creation is the same one that large corporations, universities and their often-associated medical labs use to repress the development of engineering and medicine by pre-emptively using salaries and materials access to buy out the products of thinkers. The rationale often goes, "The machine is so expensive that if we're going to let people run tests on it then we control what they invent," when a hypothetical decent world could involve scheduling tests not around someone's faux-teaching schedule, but a pay-per-use policy that could bring the per-use cost of the testing apparatus into range for plebeian salaries. The control of permissible medical studies, permitted surgical facilities, cadavers, and post-surgical biological materials sounds icky and scary enough to most people that they're willing to ignore or disbelieve in the abuse, but for "engine design," no company has sprung up offering $100/use half hours on a million dollar machine to would-be mechanical engineers, despite the massive profit that could be soon realized, because the people who control laws and regulations are clever enough to recognize that making money now is actually not in their own interests as much as controlling people's ability to make things.)

And ultimately, that's a tragedy about human art, because whatever art could do, it is itself much less important to most people than a sense of having participated in something together with others, maybe many others, by experiencing it.

As said before, this creation of a sense of mass popularity can often become real, and promoting something as amazingly groundbreaking and astounding and popular can become partly true; true in the way most important to participants, namely in being popular. If during the time that Rowling is proven docile and movies are definitely decided on, worldwide newspapers sing a unanimous chorus about how children are really participating in reading, the product of relatively minor popularity can become what everyone so desperately wanted, giving a gift to believers in the form of a god who really was alive (after all, all those people really were waiting in those lines, so it was all real). The validation of the seeming fulfillment of these voids may be better than the real thing, because maybe most people wouldn't have felt any void otherwise, they would've just thrown rocks at empty cans for a few hours and then gone to bed. Decrying the people who can orchestrate a system that can reach them in their relative mental sloth is like decrying the lady who brings the morphine around to those with congenitally painful lives; yes, it's a terrible form of existence, but are you suggesting we stop the morphine?

Similarly, if someone travels to hear Mozart perform four separate times in the 18th century, it is not necessarily an indication of higher cultural quality in the sense of the individual being able to sorta appreciate or sorta understand what is happening. There is probably a relationship between a culture that is provisioning one kind of entertainment versus the other, and what people imagine they're aspiring to, and what they're learning, and how their brains are developing or regressing or not, but as to the individual, their ability to choose a good book, recognize a good statue, et cetera, is not definitive, nor known. Precious little time existed between, say, caveman-chanting and hip hop to allow for study as to whether or not the appreciators in either case were actually internally defining cultural high marks by participating in whatever way they did.

The upper class and people with more life experience still congregate around cultural venues to watch failed K-12 music teachers and other types desperately re-repeat classical performances in a well-meant but misguided expression of preserved high culture, and the number of competent performers and shows worldwide is significantly higher now than in times likely presumed more cultured. East Asians are struggling viciously to force their children to not take an interest in east Asian instruments, but to develop mastery over European instruments while playing European tunes, and even though they're doing very well at that, they're becoming predictable, stereotyped bores, nowhere near the international popularity of some muddy brown crack dealer chosen to front a new rap act. East Asia can copy hip hop too, and has very well, producing rhythm variation and harmonic class to often exceed that being churned out by the Euroserf development labs serving the black frontmen who serve et cetera, but questions of novelty and genesis remain inconclusive given that what we now call "rap" is primarily the product of a people who copies, not attributable to any source but perhaps "humanity."

If someone hears a good melody and feels like hearing it again, something has happened, which can be most vulgarly reduced to a sale surviving its hospital birth, hospital shredding, and maybe even some public school. The creation of that melody, rarely if ever associated with the hip hop image product (if they can even write their own few lines, which is a sad rarity for a significant number of them), though perhaps initially stylized something after a particular way a seven-syllable refrain could conceivably be made into inherently complementary notes. The European's creation of electronic music with suave or angry vocal accompaniment by a decorated image-product, perhaps owes a significant amount to Africa, inasmuch as idealized, incorrect conceptions of "primitive man" allow for a Hong-Kong-based hip hop collaborator-composer to inwardly condone designating a series of aggressive harmonies or bass lines which he might otherwise feel improper rendering, and in this, the instinctive association of a different subspecies may allow Europeans to do something they wouldn't otherwise be able to do. Some of them, of course--many artists have produced aggressive bass lines which did not have to become associated with black scat to be made into a track. What this means more simply is that a lot of hard electronica tracks have been written which could have easily been hip hop hits if produced and marketed properly, but were otherwise--perhaps more honestly--designed and targeted. Current culture, with the American myth of a specific racial African musical aptitude, makes it likely that an additional generation, or generations, of budding composers will find their only effective purpose in society as being uncredited group techs composing on some African act, but humorously, the future may hold larger numbers of more-independent artists gaining more-independent renown for crafting music, perhaps even with a percussive or crooning group chorus, which does not otherwise appear to glamorize or reify some misconception of "African American street life"--and no one--not even "black" people or "white" people who want to be black or understand being black--interested in buying tapes of someone mumbling angrily over a canned beat.