Monday, August 27, 2018

Burn the Witch

Child sacrifice has perhaps always been a human passion on Terra. More particularly, a Nu Euro passion. To say this is not to exonerate the other human species, nor to negate the mathematical genetic benefit of hard-pressed hunter-gatherers opting out of raising additional female young; it is, perhaps, most poignant how Congoids in many places develop beliefs that raping young children (perhaps called "sleeping with a virgin") will cure various unrelated medical conditions, or that killing a chosen child in some other way will affect the weather, unrelated social disputes, et cetera (e.g., "toss the virgin into the volcano"). More horrifying by far, though, is the combination of more advanced societies with more formal, vastly more institutionalized child sacrifice.

The combination the Nu Euro seems to prefer for his ritualized child abuse is as follows: a foreign mystic or mystics is brought in to help the society, with the overt understanding that a purification will occur. As part of his/their work, the mystic(s) is expected to sexually or ultimately attack (molestation, rape, and/or murder) the children of the Nu Euros, and the Nu Euro is expected to tolerate this harm visited upon his young, all the while pretending, in defiance of reality, that it is pleasing some powerful force to have it done, yet also that it does not happen. The society's victims are left despondent and forgotten, their sacrifice to the society's spiritual health unsung and forgotten. Many years later--perhaps many centuries later--the Nu Euro renews the cycle by lamenting that it happened at all, at the same time laying the groundwork for it happening again.

We may trace the origins of this phenomenon to the Judaizing of Europe, whereby the Torah, then the Nicean post-Torah, was imposed upon Europe. Those few peoples who survived, and then who numerically thrived, do not discuss the rapine committed by the northering Judaized forces, which if we know anything about armed human men attacking and massacring villages full of hot young wives and fertile daughters without impartial international observers present, are an absence of records, and an assumption of peace and humanity, that we may trust if we're not even functionally bright. After the conquest of Europe by men acting on behest of the Jewish holy text and the rabbinical savior, the imposition of the Catholic Church made this cycle duplicable, such that for millennia, villages had to pay host to traveling unmarried men having private solo sessions with their children. Our records are again extravagantly incomplete, with only the men who knew the secret language of Latin recording that they were very good and helpful, and villages which didn't open their children's mouths, vulvas, and rectums to holy cum punished or exterminated for disrespecting the Church. It has long been understood in modern legal circles that if a priest, reverend, or vicar is suddenly in trouble with the police, then a child, usually a boy, found the strength to talk, and it was a shock to every stupid innocent (haha, someone made me watch this English 1970s drama Rumpole of the Bailey, and there was such a great scene where the protagonist was called to defend a vicar, and without any details, no surprise nor condemnation nor emotion, just like a normal day at work, he says, "Oh, it'll be the choirboys again"). The 20th century sudden realization by the gullible part of the public was that, oh boy oh boy no way seriously, the Catholics had this massive, multi-generational international faction designed to shield child molesters from punishment and public awareness so that they could continue fingering kiddies in location after location. It has been called "the gay mafia" within the Church, as though distinct from the Church itself, and many faithful have attempted to believe that the central Church infrastructure was committed to the scantily clad suffering rabbi without any perversions otherwise, and the "inexplicable" behavior of the Church in saving so many rapists, as well as the rape-enabling system itself, from prosecution and pillory, turned on distressingly few lights.

Because of western feminism, one of the many underlying contradictions arose in the Jewish program for obedient Nu Euros, akin to "respect and fund the people of color" v. "kill the Palestinian subhumans." This contradiction was in the socially acceptable criticism levied toward the infamous witch trials of Europe and America, whose records were kept better in more literate, cheaper-paper times, such that some of them still remain. You know the witch trials, right? At least one of the more famous ones? Like the imposition of the Church on Europe, the traditional European/American white-people "witch trial" followed the formula outlined above, exactly in conformity with the Nu Euro's preference for socially cleansing child abuse: a foreign mystic or mystics was brought in to help the society, with the overt understanding that a purification would occur. As part of his/their work, the mystic(s) is expected to sexually or ultimately attack (molestation, rape, and/or murder) the children of the Nu Euros, and the Nu Euro is expected to tolerate this harm given to his young, all the while pretending, in defiance of reality, that it is pleasing some powerful force to have it done, yet also that it does not happen. I.e., the child was killed, but it was a sinner, so there was no real loss to the community. The "witch trial" follows this model perfectly, with skilled priests from outside the locality (in the case of an American colony, everyone was often from a different locality or maintained external ties that helped the rabbinical magic work) showing up like a Hollywood cop to finally clean up this town, performing mystical investigations, then placing children away from their parents and under wise-man custody for a time, after which the child might be executed, or merely released with a loose orifice or two. Because of holiness, the full details will never be available to us of what happened to each child while kept in exclusively the company of a holy man who travels around questioning young children in private with the children assumed to be sinful liars whom no one should believe. Since these men often whipped up public passion for later drowning or burning the subjects of their accusations, you may make your own moral judgments on what their moral reservations would not allow them to do with the children while under unquestioned control of them, but I think realistic-minded people know what was going on between the powerless children and the weird single dudes who have a program for dealing with children and then getting out of town to a new town's kids. Indeed, per criminology, the behavioral patterns of the modern pedophile convict are replete with moves, involvement in churches and other youth organizations, and other signs that duplicate the way pedophiles have had to resort to operating ever since patriarchy and community-building fostered the beginnings of a social system designed to protect wives and children from loose adult males.

In the witch trials, after the holy men had gotten their rocks off and watched a few people burn or drown, the society's living victims were left despondent and forgotten until rediscovered by feminist or anti-religious scholars a few centuries later. Their sacrifice to the society's spiritual health remained unsung and forgotten, and the cheap use to which later feminists put their lives--because, after all, giving women the vote is completely related to and definitely stops the sacrifice of women and children--did a continued disservice to the wombs and rectums left in priestly tatters. And of course, many years later--perhaps many centuries later--the Nu Euro renews the cycle by lamenting that it happened at all, at the same time laying the groundwork for it happening again.

We address this subject because the ritual abuse happening now is delivered via Muslim proxy. Rather than relying on domestic perverts, the European has done his work again, but with a different religion--"diversity"? "universalism"?--motivating him to bring a bunch of horny foreign men around his children, and then pretend no one is raping or fingering even though he knows full well that they are, and in some sick, twisted way getting off on it as the victims are prevented from getting help by a society whose strictures command that you lie silent and take it, because resistance is wrong. Today, "racism" and "Islamophobia" serve the purpose that respect for the Church once did and still does for so many boys, where one is not only disbelieved, but criticized for asking to not be raped nor forced to live near the predators. Considering that the priests of the 900s used to order people burned at the stake, and have it carried out, it is an open question whether it is morally worse for eight Arabs to rape some British schoolgirl in an alleyway and then slash her dead, considering that in each tomorrow she's gone. Given that the graphic descriptions of what is done to little boys in, say, occupied Britain are not available to us, and never will be due to understandable private shame and terror (like, the British cops are just as honorless today as their equivalents were then, and they will seriously harass potential employers and keep you from getting jobs if you talk bad about Muslims), an individual lack of historical context, and many other reasons, including embarrassment about never again being able to go to the bathroom normally, we will never and can never know what is happening, anymore than we can know who touched the confined girls before the conclusions of older witch trials. (But if you believe the single traveling child-murderers never got off at their work, I've gotta toll bridge to sell you in the Florida swamplands.)

As before, the abuse, the killings, do not happen in the minds of the faithful. They sorta know, "Oh yeah, there were a lotta rapes in that one town," but like empty mannequins, they go on with their lives as normal, pretending that nothing has changed. The blacksmith keeps making horseshoes, and the social media consultant keeps tweeting about the product, while not a block over the mystic is balls-deep in some poor kid. One shies from saying that yet another thing is insane in these societies, but with these people, our adjectives must be stretched to the limit.

Possessed of historical context, we can ask, why? It casts more light on the current usage of Arabs as rape proxies in the modern world. It also helps us better understand the imaginary medieval witch trials by a comparison with the rape-fostering regimes in Europe today, and by the same token, helps us better understand all earlier and later types of "witch trials" by watching people go through the same motions today with a different belief system as rationalization. The Nu Euro habit of titillating itself by exposing its offspring to sexualized danger has recurred in other ways than via priests and Muslims and many forms of appreciating fostered hazing seem to hold a particular appeal--which is not to say that hazing in military school is necessarily bad or sick, but the old British boarding school's tradition of fond memories of fagging junior students would certainly meet this criteria.

The soulular universalism remains part of the Jewish dichotomy between "Chosen" and "disposable gentile scum," and it is sad to watch today's goyim social leaders believe that they are being supremely moral, or even acting as independent, self-directed thinking entities, by actually believing in the universalist crap they were taught, just as it was with Christian leaders during the witch trials, as child after child goes up as an offering to gods who promise benefits that never come to pass. Obviously the solution, too intelligent and sensible for us to manage, is to remove from this planet all sources and avenues of the infection, including creators and facilitators, but we are not even close to constituted well enough for that, and as individuals, watching them sacrifice pieces of another brood, we find our commonality with powerless observers the last time around.

The aspects of this "modern" child sacrifice are identical to the last time. The belief--or for some, stated belief, for those who merely lie to become or stay powerful religious leaders--in biological irrelevancy causes us to believe that we are purifying ourselves, and improving our society, with every rape; with every dead child, we are becoming more truly Christian, or more truly democratic, or more truly inclusive. We know that the rapes alone are epidemic, but we pretend life is continuing like normal. And indeed, it is. This is now normal. This has been normal for almost two thousand years. Oh, haven't you heard Father Smith speak? What about Mayor Khan? Someday, if we're still alive, children in school will marvel at how insane people of the 21st century were, letting all those Pakistanis have all those kids and not realizing they were crazy. Didn't someone realize that "witchcraft" was just a lie so you could fuck and kill kids right out in the open? Didn't they realize there was no such thing as "dark magic"?

There really was no change. Flying carriages, phones that talk back to you, news from Seoul at the press of a button, and still, these idiots are selling their own kids' bodies to traveling mystics.

Can you feel it? Can you feel it happening all over again?

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

The Essence of Evil

In Of the Jungle, we raised the hypothesis that a substantial amount of relatively recent history can be explained by what is now considered an archaic and inapplicable concept of morality, specifically by suggesting that a motivation separate from the humanocentric moral code could be at all applicable in the known universe, or at least, on the known planet. We'll look here at more of the specifics of this argument.

Profit

Firstly, we have implied that the Cold War could not be about ideology nor profit. The "profit" issue is perhaps the simplest to address, because the numbers are so bland and obvious. Here is a link to U.S. military spending over much of the period, and here are some pictures of it for when the site gets its name switched and the link doesn't work anymore:





Now, that's a lot of money each year, and like being in a city park in Tennessee and buying a bracelet that keeps tigers away, it's a great product for a salesman, since once all the communist-tigers are gone, you can't ever prove that they weren't previously a danger and that your anti-tiger bracelet was not, in fact, a lifesaving investment. Let's look at more figures, and in so doing remember that the military budgets above were reported using 21st century dollars:



Those above are the recent GDP numbers for Vietnam alone, which is a way of hinting at what trade could be with investment and partnering and all that other stuff. I have Google, but those are only the officially reported numbers, and we can presume that military intelligence and super-rich economic dudes had in the 1960s resources at least comparable to mine in 2018. That's the formal GDP, too; it doesn't include the seamier underbelly of sexualized products, slaves, kids building electronics in factories with the death penalty for slow hands, and all that--just the formal stuff, which has much lower profit margins. Let us also remember that Vietnam is/was just one little sparsely populated country, significantly smaller than, say, "the continent of Asia minus Russia" and "countries in which the U.S. has spent lots of money fighting communism."

Here's what is perhaps an even more important formal chart, showing (in only millions, not billions like the military one) U.S. trade with Vietnam in a period without purportedly anti-communist warfare:



As we can see, monthly trade, and potential proportionate GDP capture, between the nations is significant, and again, we recall that this is just one, minor country, still recovering from the ravages of years of U.S. bombing and depopulation. What those numbers would be with a lot more family lines intact, a lot of buildings started from "old building" rather than "smoking ruin" in the 1970s, and all of the other net-depressive effects of the proxy war, we can only speculate. Even given these figures, though, we can see that, spread across many, many proxy-tool nations--and with Korea far in the lead, overshadowing Vietnam--the numbers make trade much, much more effective for producing riches. The POSs who are now enriching themselves on Vietnam were greatly harmed by the "cold war" show.

Even moreso, remember that the military budgets of which they were supposedly profiting wouldn't have been zero without any token cold-hot war. The military budgets still would've been very high, in the dozens of billions at least, just to maintain an American pretense of global security with trinkets and tools and improved VTOLs and some rural senator's pet "advanced destroyer" project. Maintaining bases and goodies for defense would've still gained a lot of profit, so the GDP of all non-Russia Asia, and the trade numbers therewith, would've caused a massively superior profit over the military budget even with the military budget at zero, and a total profit even more massively superior when you consider that wealthy investors would've had most of the military budget returns also. The same dude getting some ridiculous price selling ten thousand $800 toilet seats to the Army would keep getting those profits even as he traded with Laos in a non-conflict environment.

None of this takes into account, either, the other wastes associated with war. Taking humanity's attention away from, say, communications technology, and focusing it instead on pressurized environments in little metal phalluses meant to go underwater (not that submarines are bad per se, but doing it through a modern Terran military, particularly one under American Congressional "oversight," is wasteful), causes the internet to be 1990s instead of 1960s, and the financial losses there are incalculable. The diversion of career paths, the ruination of government resources flows, et cetera, are all far more massive in and of themselves. Even if we cannot imagine them, though, or care not to, we can, through the most banal and publicly-intended information available, demonstrate the massive losses caused by war. Besides this, though the profits caused by war are somewhat temporary, those caused by sustainable trade are of a different character. Nonetheless, ignoring all those factors, it is still massively more profitable to trade than to fight.

(Part of the "racism" period's purpose was to help explain away these ridiculous diversions of resources toward the idea of destruction rather than profit. Many a laughable theory about why some dude in Iowa didn't want to make ten million dollars with a Vietnamese but was holding out for an Icelander owes its genesis to attempts to trick us into thinking that war had "human error" or "human stupidity" rather than "human intention" behind it. If you can value ten million dollars against the unlikable notion of telling your employee to give the okay to the employee of someone you don't like, and adjudge your own willingness to go through it or instead just have zero dollars and work retail for thirty years, you can possibly approximate how workable these theories are in real life. "Yarr! I don't wanna make ten million bucks off that dude 'cause he's Vietnamese! Never!" Lol, it wasn't just sans culottes who fell for it, but there were decades of academic careers based on bolstering these theories. What an embarrassing hundred years.)

Loss

We've seen how, even in just one dinky jungle-country with few if any major cities, the use of the territory for "military industrial complex profits" is a huge loss. If trade with Vietnam is worth $8B a year exported (they buy our crap), and military funding for 1954 (the semi-pretend date they use for the start of the war to remind people there was trouble there before the U.S. formally showed up) was $420B, it looks like war is more profitable, particularly if you pretend every dollar of that $420 billion was attributable to fighting in Vietnam. Which it of course wasn't, but put that aside for a minute. Go to google maps, and look at the regional costs of the war in Vietnam, which cost the U.S. not only trade with Vietnam, but with (really close) Laos and Cambodia, Thailand and Burma, et cetera times a painful number.

As ever for the past few millennia, China predominates. The various conflicts in Indochina barred American-Chinese trade. When you look at just Vietnam's numbers, you can think, "Ohh, Vietnam's GDP was huge but we might get zero anyway, so paying for fighter-bombers to destroy them makes evil old dudes richer" and "In our trade now after that war they didn't appreciate, Vietnam is only $8B/year, a buncha other dinky countries and that can never compare with the money those greedy hogs were making off their MIC companies." And then we consider the loss of China as a trading partner. Here's its GDP:



$11.2 trillion, or 11.2 thousand billion dollars. Of course the U.S. wouldn't get all of that, but it dwarfs the MIC budget, even more dwarfs the resources devoted exclusively to "the Vietnam War" or any other given proxy conflict, and puts the lie to any claim that war could be about profit. Here's China's recent trade with the U.S.:



Waboom. Eat your heart out, military budget. The accumulated small countries of east Asia already did it, but China can do it all again by itself. The people controlling the MIC are the people who have the billions to build factories, pursue and obtain preferred tax status, create markets, et cetera, and as ever the lie that they simply couldn't bring themselves to have a piece of the trillion dollar pie because they didn't like people with slanty eyes is an argument of egregious stupidity.

Opportunity cost forces us to take into account not merely the loss of things we know about, but those we didn't get to see, including of course what Vietnam's economy would've been without years of partial evisceration by the U.S. The same holds true for China, where a series of proxy wars in nearby nations no doubt had adverse effects on Chinese economic activity and the proactive occurrence of buying things from the people who kept sending those helicopters to gun down your third cousins. In contemplating the staggeringly gigantic amount of trade that exists now, contemplate how much you'd want to go regularly to a restaurant where the waiters murdered a bunch of your extended kin a few years ago--and yet, you're still going. Imagine what the world could be like, even for the greediest capitalist pig at the trough, without all that market dissonance: the rates of trade wouldn't have been sudden hundreds of billions after the killings, but perhaps sudden trillions. (The use of the seemingly stupid, indecisive wars to shackle China's economy to Russia's was, besides being inhumane, an astoundingly effective way to keep the chosen postwar hegemon in line.)

Even if these were overshadowed by the whole rest of the world, the instant losses to U.S. traders remained immense, along with the immense marginal ones pertaining only to nearby sources of workers, trade that would have been merely bolstering, et cetera.

Other losses figure in here, too, including overseas Vietnamese, businesspeople generally pissed off by the war, loyal partner nations pissed off by the war, not particularly loyal or caring nations that just didn't want to do business near the war, the gains from other investment lost to buying jet planes, losses in trade with confrontation-averse Russia and other bloc nations, damage to Vietnam's trade with other nations that would adversely indirectly affect U.S. interests and big chances at interests, and so forth--including the obvious China, with heeyuge markets and trade potential stymied by the repeated fraudulence of cold-hot wars. Even though the assembled smaller nations of southeastern Asia overwhelmed the non-static military budget, China something-uples that, making the loss incredible. How Apple stock has done for the past many years by having 8-year-olds under Chinese control soldering things onto motherboards is but the barest allusion to the century that could've been. The American excitement over Nixon's visit to China, even while the confrontational charade still continued, concedes some of the businessmen's recognition of what had been repressed for so long.

Ultimately, we've seen how the "loss" component of playing war is and was by far the larger of the two "money things you can do" under consideration. America's Vietnam War was a loss, and but one of many, many declared and undeclared wars and subversions costing "America" prodigiously larger amounts than simply acting in every other same stupid way as before, but just not having those wars. The military budget could have, and would have, remained bloated anyway, without actually moving the little plane and tank pieces around the board, and by actually moving them, the powers behind America caused staggering losses to everyone else, which most people already know--but more importantly for our purposes here, to themselves. Repeatedly. The web of causes and effects incumbent upon warfare is profound and penetrating, even when other places don't get mad at you over the war itself and close borders or diminish trade intentionally; there's also an aura of risk, a sense of unavailability, and a simple "being busy doing other things." However many yearly billions were lost, present and future, in order to cause the destruction, the effects on nearby regions, and all Terran ones, is profound, similar to a playground of kids stopping to pay attention when a couple of them begin having a noisy shouting and punching fight by the swings: the sum total of "playing occurring" drops rapidly, as "slide usage" and "swing usage" and "monkey bar usage" et cetera all fall to zero because they're watching the damn fight, some with interest, some with fear that it might spread, some nervous that they don't know what to do, and so on.

Ideology

Because the various wars throughout the cold-hot war period were so harmful, even people who like the "MIC steals our money!" approach often resort to ideological explanations for the conflicts. These can range from an Aryan/Slav conflict, where Aryans are as far more advanced than Slavs as Slavs are than Congoids, and the wars were simply a racial conflict, with the Slavs having unfortunately more intermixed blood after so many centuries of Mongoloid invasions and rape, making them the distinct offspring of the "slave" produce of Genghis Khan after Khan after Khan; for people who don't believe in biology, the wars can simply be an issue of people randomly hating what is slightly visually different, or culturally different, but not in any other way different, or that sort of thing. Like, "Africa didn't ever industrialize because of colonialism!": expressions of faith, undaunted by physical evidence.

A tempting explanation, particularly if you do a brief study of the many land wars in Asia that the Mongoloids tried so incessantly for a period, razing and raping across western Asia and eastern Europe, and finally being stopped before western Europe time and time again, lest we'd all be Slavs. Tempting, but wrong, because there were a lot of other countries full of Slavs that the then-primarily-Aryan American nation could've thrown against the wall, laden with more pretexts than Korea and Vietnam, yet instead the Americans seemed to prefer other fodder.

Less naive, but equally requiring of willful historical ignorance, is the notion that an informed populace, or at least an informed military- or congressional-caste, had specific economic policy disagreements that expressed themselves in decades of war. Like, American soldiers so fully believed in the right to choose to work at a bakery, rather than a lumber mill, and Russian soldiers believed just as fully that it was right to be assigned to the mill rather than to the bakery, that they absolutely had to kill each other over whether or not some foreign government granted or dictated that choice. All initially plausible, and indeed, given that much-earlier Jewish revolution's plans to kill foreign heads of state, invade or exert heavy leverage on nearby states, and otherwise cripple humanity's development through the conglomeration of nations behind the Iron Curtain, there was no lack of evidentiary support for this perspective on either "side."

The flaw in this argument deals with the disproportionate response the U.S. offered, or rather didn't offer, to various acts of Russian communo-colonialism. Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine; Lithuania, Latvia, Poland; Albania, Georgia, Hungary: the U.S. did not forcibly resist Russia's forcing of communism on any of these countries, and once you're out to the Czech or the Albanians, the argument cannot be made that being "right across the border" made resistance impossible. Instead, the U.S.' choice to have proxy wars in countries with genetically Mongoloid populations, rather than ones with "white" Slav or Aryan or blended populations, seems obvious: the U.S. thought it could massacre Koreans or Vietnamese and complete its work without popular disgust, whereas massacring, say, Hungarians, it thought it couldn't then accomplish. Clinton later managed a more limited killing of Europeoids in Serbia and Yugoslavia, but only after decades of pedagogy helping American children understand that "whites" were evil and needed to die; the citizens who passively accepted the murder of so many Vietnamese might have then balked at hearing stories of little European kiddies running screaming from the bombers and strafing planes. The American decision to have its proxy wars in Asia, rather than the fringes of western Europe, was a realistic concession to the realities of the time by people desperate to murder and not be stopped in their murdering, just as now the decision to massacre Arabs coordinates with the late twentieth-century entertainment agitprop where full Mongoloids began to have good supporting roles in Hollywood but Arabs were portrayed to the growing generation as the mystical source of geocide (which is certainly somewhat true, as in all Torah-derived religions, but the choice to suddenly focus on that during a certain time period is indicative of the wars planned for the twenty-first century, conditioning the future adults with regards whom to kill).

Most telling is Afghanistan, where Russia, completely openly in front of the entire world, tried to take over a country. The inhabitants of that country of course didn't like it, and fought back, and Russia looked like an ass and was obviously doing poorly, and suddenly, suddenly after decades of claiming it resisted Russian aggression, the U.S. wasn't willing to mount an open response. Part of this is because it would harm plans for massacring more Arabs in the future, if news-users witnessed American farmboys fighting alongside the Muslims, but another part is simply the recognition that the communist bogeyman was running out of steam anyway, and who cares if some dinky little country (Afghanistan is actually quite large, in case ya' didn't know) joined the eastern bloc anyway, since said bloc was on its way out.

The pattern had been duplicated in miniature many times before. In many places in South America and some other places in Asia, American intelligence agencies had found that Russian agents were bribing, killing, and so forth influencing people, and cases creating plausible justifications for war, on the scope of the rationalization for Vietnam regarding interference in a political system or the repression of free markets, abounded; yet, the U.S. chose to intervene in only certain situations. The decision to guarantee the endurance of a communist North Korea, and then North Vietnam, also shows that the U.S. was just interested in killing here and there rather than actually resisting the communist juggernaut it claimed it was fighting, and so early in the ruse, Korea and the decision to protect the Soviets' 38th parallel from eager American troops who would have handily won shows that the goal was never about containing, nor preventing the spread of, communism. Indeed, Korea to Afghanistan mark a clear beginning and ending to the U.S.' phase of pretending the wars were about communism, starting and ending the sequence of manufactured hysteria and dishonest resistance.

Given the cooperative circumstances of the cold-hot war, it was little surprise when Russian Jews so quickly transitioned from communist overlords to billionaire capitalists, making swift deals with outside companies to sell off access to the assets that had formerly been used to keep an extended working class in line. As ever, the planning of planting trusted kin in many locales paid off, as mediation itself made unnecessary so many of the things people might have otherwise done--and so the world began noticing, as the Berlin Wall came down, that the media was reporting on "Russian oligarchs" who were being so cruel exploiting "their" people. But that's a separate subject. We're concerned here with the immense falsity as it was perceived from the West, where the U.S.-led lies about resisting communism justified numerous horrors for an extended period of time.

Spoils of War

We've discussed how the period of claimed "capitalist v. communist" war was not profitable considering its trackable direct costs, as well as its cosmic opportunity costs, and how the supposed ideology of the U.S. was not genuine, but applied using shifting standards with the purpose of causing certain wars but avoiding others. Without "making money," "preferencing your favorite economic system," or "saving the world from a huge monster that would not be stopped otherwise," though, why did the wars happen? In the end, it seems like all they did was waste a lot of resources and kill a lot of people.

Exactly. That was all the wars did. Permitting some east Asians to have free markets, and others to have controlled ones, was part of the planning process, but more obvious, more blatantly literal, in the wars' happenings was the things they actually accomplished, and were known ahead of time and retrospectively to have accomplished. The people with business connections at the time would've been far more knowledgeable than this one in 2018, and been able to guess pretty well how much they would've made if they'd opened a water heater factory in Cambodia and sold one unit apiece to thirty percent of all nearby houses plus run the India special. Their ability to predict the losses caused by their inability to exploit markets far exceeds this one's with a few internet pictures from 2018. Taking away all fanciful hopes or just "pretty good" and "okay" hopes, the ability of the warlords to approximate how much war was costing them was far more precise than 2018 graphs on Wikipedia.

In a realistic perspective, we come to see that the results of war must be the goals of war. Here we run again into our initial arrogant, sheltering sense that everything conscious must be like us; that despite the thousands of years of knowledge we possess of what war makes happen, we're all sweet-hearted innocents here, and have the purest of motivations. War in the ancient world, so to speak, would not fall victim to this analysis; war where people are wiped out, but then the victors take some land and begin farming it, or exterminate an enemy and then thrive using their stuff, is not subject to this analysis, because although it included a lot of killing, it actually produced a profit to the victors, in the sense of getting them resources that would not have been gotten. Today, though, even war has been perverted, where there are no "spoils" except in the margins of future deals; the U.S. spends a few hundred billion killing in Iraq, then declares Iraq free and signs contracts with a puppet government to use the oil, but does not formally take the oil; the contracts are slightly worse than ones that would've been signed with Saddam due to the country's economic needs, ergo the elite bastards are actually losing shavings of percentage points compared to what would've been. (Like his American counterparts, Saddam would've just been using his position to skim the margins while selling a national resource, just like the western owners would've been doing with the American tax base.) And they're faceless, mostly, so it's not like they get on a city bus and receive cheers and adulation for "liberating Iraqi feminists from the horrors of Saddam," or something, so you can't even say that social image, any more than economic image/reality, is why they did it.

It is this modern, ideological, rhetorical warfare, where boundaries and normalcies are returned, a lot of people are killed but the rest stay about where they were, and so on. We saw this in the first stage of the Israel Foundation War, perhaps for the first time, where the giant "world war" was designed, in its faux-resolution, to return the major national entities to their former boundaries, though with little tweaks, and some comparatively minor population movements, that would produce a successful harvest of future killing. The heads of all nations, now, seem committed to this viewpoint that land should not be conquered, nor enemies eliminated, but that a "proper" war is just about killing a lot of people and then leaving to do it over again in a short while, like farmers who tend fields that give seasonally, but who know not to pull up the root structure of each plant lest the field not give in another season.

Many "seed humans" today owe their doomed lives and cursed lines to such policies, as in Afghanistan, where the people have been casually killed for a thousand years, or let's just say 40-something, but the land never taken so that it can keep producing its harvest for whoever goes there to kill again. Sometimes it's winter, and sometimes it's spring. Some honest brute who just kills the enemy and then settles his best men there produces a humanitarian gain, compared to letting some Afghani live so they can be harvested again, year after year, century after century. These things in Terran politics now are beyond the pale. We comfort ourselves when we pretend that we are ruled by mere conquerors; no, these people are sick and wrong beyond our worst waking nightmares--things like Wolfowitz and friends, beyond the scope of humanity.

Again, our minds rebel at the idea that anyone could be so cruel, and yet, the actions of the leading governments show that this, and only this, must be the answer for the 20th century and beyond. The outcome of the Israel Foundation War, and of the entire "Cold War," was death, with no significant territory actually changing hands, no enemies eliminated, and so forth. The one notable difference is in Palestine, where the Jews used their idiot proxies to actually take and hold territory, and begin exterminating an enemy, which was as-yet only done in certain regions. The "Cold War" was even more profound, with high body counts and territory never taken, perhaps culminating in the re-creation of the nomadic wastes of Afghanistan, where the purported nation-builders showed they'd always had no interest in anything of the sort.

No, Virginia, they just wanted to kill people. And to waste/destroy the resources available to Terrans, but the killing part is more instantly emotional. Still, the destruction of X trillion units of food or fuel, et cetera, remains an important part of the process, and all Terrans are hurt thereby (and this one says "Terrans" not because the people doing this aren't using biologically evolved human bodies, like some space-alien thing, but because they are not connected to the planet in the way that most everyone else using the place is). The wars of the twentieth century showed, after the bankers had taken control of Europe and America, that the goal was simply death and material waste (they're rightly terrified at how good, how fast, things would become if they stopped being able to convince people to waste it all fighting instead). Death, pain, unhappiness, despair, and all other such things created by war: the financial woe of those paying for it from a safe zone as well as the more firsthand woe of those in the final minutes contemplating their rent innards, or grieving a bombed child. The idea here, in understanding basic evil, returns to the morality play of how something can be good or evil. These are not terms meant to be used in reference to some relative human concept(s), but rather, as an objective term pertaining to the expansion of light.

"Good" is, properly used, a reference to making more light; where we are now, making lightforms more numerous or complex, while "evil" is in reference to making them less complex. Ergo it is "good" to be nice to a baby and help it learn something, whereas it is "bad" to drop a baby off a skyscraper. Similarly, it is "good" to move the tanks off a farmland a bunch of people were relying on, whereas it is "bad" to salt the farmland. Ergo good is something like a political term, in the sense of being "pro light." These concepts are relative, in the sense that someone can decide to like or dislike light, and act accordingly; there is no Sky Man saying which side one should take in the argument. Pro-light? Then you are "pro" the idea of a bunch of people living happily and productively somewhere. Pro-Void? Then you are "against" the idea of a bunch of people living happily and productively somewhere. As the planet transitions toward an end, we see Void perspectives overtake our political leaders.

(A higher debate involves the issue of pro-Void entities, such as Richard Perle, using lightforms to effect their desired viewpoints, since with their preferred nothing, they can't even make an argument. But whenever it appears here, it is as hypocritical as a flesh-eating virus that can't survive without the flesh it supposedly rejects. Light, existence, goodness: all things they have to use to try to ruin it for others. These things are always liars, because being here is an existential lie. "Honest" Void, which would never possess characteristics nor any kind of existence, never troubled anyone extant, but dishonest Void puts on some shape of here and tries to destroy people and things.)

Certainly, most people have an intuitive understanding of what sorts of things will aid the expansion and complexification of light, and what sorts of things will diminish those happenings, and many people's interest in improving themselves can cause them to conflate "good" with "good for me, at your expense," which is a mistake, and which amoralists have made heady use of in making any distinctions fundamentally useless. Nonetheless, we are left with these basic terms, "good" and "evil," and it is not necessary to metaphorize the concepts to understand them. It is generally "good" when a new star is created; starlight is "good," supernovae are "good," and the residue forming into planets that might later grow more complex stuff is "good." Comparatively to war, some asshole who flies around the galaxies in a mega-cruiser blowing up stars and planets before their natural cycles can work through is "bad," and in him, we see today's Terran politicians, who strive to stamp out lives as gourmands of death, not to risk the experience by making people aware of it, but to perpetuate it by leading people on a series of rationalizations that promise to one day promote "good" things and put aside all "evil" (or most evil, create the lowest-possible evil, or whatever lie they use).

This is a very primitive, foundational concept of being proto-conscious inside reality. And you know so much of it already, which is why even under rule by the Bang religion, you know it is "wrong" to chemically produce ten perfect babies while feeding a single other baby into a wood chipper. The consequences for not just a reduction (or policy of reduction) in the speed of the process of complexification, but also the damage to your own growth cause by doing so, give you that innate moral sense which cannot be justified by evolution in the interests of genetic growth. Like, presume that the ten babies you suddenly lab-create are clones of you, ergo per Bang it should be a good thing to wood-chip ten others in exchange for 100 genetic clones of yourself. Some things out there see the world only in maths and interest returns, and only aspire to material "victory," and therefore don't feel that aversion to the idea of infants #1-10 going into the wood-chipper, but if you would consider that trade wrong in some way, you are are designed for a higher purpose, and you probably won't be k'arash.

What we should remember here, then, is that some of the things on this planet actually enjoy the process of "evil" acts; of crippling or reversing lightform development, of killing just because, and so forth. The pleasure that you would have in light-expansive activities--say, watching your grandkids have a great time meeting someone else's grandkids--is, for them, duplicated by hearing a new report about how that latest attack might've killed up to 117 children. They're willing to kill those 117 potential customers because they enjoy so much the process of preventing those 117 little lights from expanding and growing more complex. So much, maybe all, of the inexplicable behavior of political leaders over the past several centuries can only be explained thereby, if one considers scientifically the methods of light's expansion and retraction, and assesses philosophies and behaviors under this rubric. Napoleon, for example, in his quest to demolish all growth processes by attempting to standardize them; Truman's to cauterize Japan rather than accept a surrender.

You don't have to believe in my crazy otherworldly rantings to use this knowledge; you can just assume that some people like to hurt/kill other people because of a, umm, randomly created genetic condition? That helped them survive by making them ruthless? Or something like that? Anyway, more advanced material aside, it is so boringly, literally, physical-evidence-ly, objectively supported that the only purpose for most modern war can be either random or to produce what is known to be its results, ergo you can view the characters of many current and recent world leaders, and the people telling them how to act, and the other linked policies they enforce, appropriately, even if you are averse to the idea of being a human as part of the process of light's complexification.

So we know they're evil, and as always with the k'arash, this one'd stop this here if this one could, because from this perspective, it seems like a really good idea; nonetheless, removed from this, this one'd no more want to stop them than you want to cross half an acre to wave a fly away from dog droppings. Hey boy, do your thing, good for you, yeah, it helps me out in the long run, do what you do. The point in thinking about it is to advance our own "individual" development, because the ability to perceive evil is linked to the ability to perceive good, since being inside the mortal illusion yet able to use thinking framed by a self-image, and rationality, and all that stuff, to discover anew the pressure of light is yet another way to feel it, in a way both less intense and more intense than just drifting around space literally being some light as we think of it here (inexplicable energy beams; Terran science is such a futile, faithful tautology) and feeling those shadow-echoes of your own existence. Existence is light, and non-existence is an absence of light; not "blackness," because the way we see what we call black is just a representation of color beyond our field of vision, and because what we conceive of as ultimately black--empty space with no light--is still filled with light, in the form of physical laws and existential rubrics and that sort of thing, whereby the empty space can later become host to a passing particle. Empty space is not Void; empty space is so many times more complex than Void, but to call it a multiple is a farce, because anything times Void is Void, sort of like how "infinity plus infinity equals infinity."

Therefore, as part of doing more in this life here, learning more, feeling more, and so forth, we use the evil ones as reminders that many forces exist here which express desires far beyond the little play-pen of random billiard balls creating consciousness as a survival strategy. Drop Bang, drop Random and Nameless; grow and glow.

Friday, August 17, 2018

Of the Jungle



JK Rowling's shameful behavior with regards her product is by now somewhat well internet-known. Unfortunately for her handlers and her later lies, her ego was such that she popularized a bunch of her early sketches of her character-products, producing popular memory of group after group of white people. Indeed, we've seen the revitalization of the "magical boarding school" English-style narrative before, the most recently as to Potter being in the dry run for Potter itself, where they laid a groundwork, and set up an actor, that they decided not to use for another few years. In interacting within the soulless machines that we call the mainstream media, we cannot cling to very outdated notions that they're just a clumsy, inferior version of ourselves, but have to remember instead that they are creatures of whatever ultimate evils we can imagine--and several more variations which we can't--not merely capable of, but specifically prone to, behavior that we would consider unimaginable, or beyond the pale, or comic-book-villainy, and so forth. The concepts of plagiarism, lying, shamelessness, et cetera, are so thoroughly a part of the character of what we face that it is one of our most grave errors to continually write them off as merely selfish, self-promoting, competitive to the point of crushing those better than they, or so forth. Indeed, the evil of our age has pulled Lucifer's traditional trick of convincing the masses that it does not exist.

American "militarism"

When they start wars, for example, it is of course not about women's rights, nor justice, nor honor, nor defending the helpless, nor any of that. You've probably already figured that out if you read political blogs. However, it is also not about killing Muslims, nor increasing the military budget, nor gaining control of oil, nor anything else so pedestrian. No, such motivations are certainly evil, but not in any way predominant; they are, instead, a wishful fantasy where we try to pretend the monsters aren't so scary, but are, rather, reflections of soft motives we can understand, even if we do not agree with them nor hold them ourselves.

Consider some twentieth century American war. Use a popular theater that Boomers oft still remember: southeast Asia, divided into the "different" illusory theaters of Korea and Vietnam. Formally, the wars were about stopping communism, but many old soldiers remember the way they were rolling and the inferior resistance they met, and that China and many other satellites could have been taken, the gloves taken off the soldiery to allow them to take control of North Vietnam and many other surrounding governments, and that a few supposed pacifists among the domestic faux-opposition could not have stopped these outcomes, certainly not in the "first" year of the respective open conflicts, anymore than they could've stopped the conflicts themselves. The idea that the stupid domestic opposition waited through several regional conflicts before mobilizing some angry college students to march in defiance of the military, thereby finally stopping Vietnam, is as laughable as the idea that the American Supreme Court was suddenly moved to action by the necessity of responding to some peaceful protests of African Americans into eliminating freedom of association and further constraining the right to free speech.

It is tempting, oh-so-childishly tempting, to believe that some kind of actual ideological economic differences motivated the wars, or that people just wanted military funding because they owned stock in pre-Halliburton, or were just racist against gooks, or suchlike. In fact, though, the only thing that remained consistent throughout the decades of warfare, in which the United States both incompletely "won" and incompletely "lost," was that a lot of people were suffering and dying--the true aim of the warlords. The supposed evil capitalists behind the victories and defeats showed, in not that many years later, how much they craved those markets of the far east, and they could have made those billions, those exploitative treaties, far earlier, but they did not, for the same reason they didn't march north of the 38th parallel and prevent Tiananmen Square.

If those references aren't familiar to you, you need to know that General MacArthur, and perhaps more importantly about all his soldiers, got to the 38th parallel and were loaded with equipment and experience and ready to march into Beijing, and that a probable supermajority of the Chinese, not a mere majority, would've been so happy to've seen the current overlords thrown out, and that the right phone call from China would've made North Vietnam the happy 51st State (so to speak), but that deathfag, Eisenhower, starver and firebomber of European children, insisted that the chance for later deaths be better preserved, and a decades-long split between contending Koreas be maintained for later harvest, so the soldiers and MacArthur were betrayed and sent home--poor fools thought they were fighting a war!

The American protection of its soldiers, no less its military industrial stockholders, leaves much to be desired, a polite fool might say, not realizing that the negatives are intentional. The cost to the globe, and even just to the U.S., of not establishing even a confrontational trade with southeast Asia and China decades earlier in the 20th century were so profound that all gains to a small set of military contractors are a drop in the bucket, and the supposedly anti-communist nature of the warmongering government, even as its own economy became increasingly more regulated and partly communist in scope, are only plausible stories if you believe the textbooks printed by the successors and bought on pre-made government contract with the mandatorily subsidized school and library systems. "We're free!" Convincing a gullible public that a Russian couldn't go to a bar and say "Khrushchev is a dick!" played a large part in the scam, but was not all of it; the millions of inexplicably acceptable dead paid dividends of social control that were far greater.

Evil in Literature

Whatever dross is available in any period's corporate media literature seems, at first, to be a petty, unrelated subject compared to warfare--and the government and its sister entertainment corporations would prefer you maintain that perspective, even as they cooperate to massage citizenries toward desired present or future actions. Not to besmirch Rowling in particular; she's likely just some doofus they pushed onstage, as part of a years-long plan to create an extended narrative that would have so many millions of children grow up on a narrative where the enemy was a sheet-white dude killed by white cooperation. It is tragically embarrassing to believers, now, that the culture at inception was not deemed prepared for Black James Bond or Black Hogwarts, but there are strong parallels between the work the Potter jobs did on the people, and the policies accepted by the targets once they had come of age, e.g., closer to now. It is a slower recipe than the newspaper, what happens with literature and movies with agendas, but it still can be perceived, even though few will believe you about it until students from the African magic school are warming our hearts with the spirit of cooperation by raping little girls a block over.

The careful maintenance and perpetuation of American-inspired conflict in southeast Asia alone is by no means the worst nor the bloodiest thing that "the U.S." has done. With the help of the haughty fools in Great Britain, the careful work to reject "return to old boundaries and stop all killing" peace treaties prior to the formal fighting of the Israel Foundation War caused tens of millions of deaths, and the shepherding and protection of the pre-Stalinist foreign-led and -funded revolutions in Russia perhaps led to still more deaths; if challenging that foundationally sacred narrative gives you trouble, then at least the U.S.' work exterminating Arabs more recently can be considered more emblematic of the true purpose of its assigned hegemonic wars.

It is telling, in its own way, that such a massively popular figure as JK Rowling is provably a social scion for her role in attaching her name to the plagiarized pap that resulted in her assignment to the Forbes list of billionaires. It is as telling that such an obvious symptom presents in the brief decades after the Israel Foundation War and the various mini-genocides led by the leading nations of the vanishing West in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Indeed, the agent Rowling's assistance re-working of the same old story into the most exciting thing ever mirrors, like so much western entertainment for a century, the schizophrenic forgetfulness of the retarded prisoner who doesn't remember the outside.

Exceedingly difficult for us now is to believe in evil. That refusal brings with it a great sadness, that being the inability to believe in good, but that is not here our focus. In this time, in this place, we struggle to at least remember evil, which is so amply demonstrated, but which we so fear we keep looking for material reasons why costly self-harm might be conceivably done by the knowing.

Consider, again, war. The evil men who arrange for and finalize and vicariously execute these mass killings do not do so for ideology or even money; greed has no place in a thing that is so expensive. Greedy men, running society in the 1930s, would have been good men, using the dozens of millions of lives and phenomenal wealth thereby expended not to destroy itself in a furor of dark amusement, but to invent the smartphone several decades early, revitalize cities with a level of technology surpassing the twenty-first century, adopted civilian jet travel, and other such things which might easily have been done with the expenditure of but a small fraction of the wealth and the manpower which was otherwise marched to destruction. In fantasy-land, the unquestionably evil Germans were hell-bent on taking over the world, and to the ignorant or merely stupid, who through modern pedagogy know nothing of the Reich's repeated attempts to forestall war, then concede territory and end it, this fantasy can seem plausible, just like the similarly dim later games played based on a ruse of the now-documentarily publicly-known "confrontation averse" Soviet, justifier of so many later wars.

(If that's new to you, this one refers to some of the documents gained by American intelligence agencies, then published by a lot of giddy academics who wanted to talk about how stupid American conservatives were [they were half correct], after the "fall" of the Soviet Union, where many historical events were explained, even to the satisfaction of the excessively dumb and patriotic, by the Soviet intelligence agencies' memos and policy papers et cetera discussing how they needed to act toward the United States in a way that was "confrontation averse." So it turned out that all the politicians and military dudes pretending they'd really stood up to the Soviets were just arrogant bullshitters, since the Soviets had piles of sand in the engines of too many of their tanks, and stuff like that, and didn't really want a war, and after the Afghans beat their asses, it became too obvious for the USG to keep covering it up to justify regional conflicts.)

The Israel Foundation War provided great benefits to Jews, yes, shaking Europe and massacring so many goyim and providing plausible narratives of false victimization that have paid, and will continue to pay, great dividends, but these benefits were gained at the expense of the vastly superior tacit benefits which the host nations would've provided to the Jews otherwise. For example, if German rockets and not-murdered scientists had been permitted more freedom beginning ninety years ago, the space programs of various nations might have Jews living in superior-to-now, safer-than-here, luxury in condos on the moon, or simply having vastly more effective cardiac operations in their old age, instead of being comparatively superior as to their mentally defeated hosts of now. So too the stillborn future of America during the "anti communist" fakery of the latter twentieth century, where constant mental and physical resources were devoted to the farce of a battle with Russia that stole half a century of the world's treasures and thought. When the Soviet Union actually invaded a country, of course, Americans were so surprised they didn't actually resist, and then the broken reaper-dolly collapsed under the weight of its own hubris. The wars of the twentieth century proved themselves to be not at all about ideology, nor riches, from men who would've earned far more from the 60-years-earlier development of consumer products than of selling a few more jet planes, and instead about an evil that we have difficulty in comprehending. As the motivations of these evil men cannot even be greedy filthiness, those among us who realize they are not actually ideologues of justice nor cash and hookers are left skimming the surface, endlessly trying to prove that they made (far less) money by the mere manufacture of tanks on government contracts.

The Potter Period

Let us turn our attention, again, to the Potter plagiarism, which has faded for many child-adults, but which was, and will be for many years, a powerful cultural force upon the people who grew up reading it. (The partially, postally eponymous-as-to-this-section earlier series began here.) Like the famous MLK scholarship, the plagiarism is so well documented, visible by anyone with an Amazon account (since they nixed the predecessor from most state approved book depositories, you pretty well have to buy the early draft[s]), that it is beyond question that this product was not created by a mere individual but by the publishing industry; and yet, there are jillions of people online producing generic fanfic of higher quality, and one of them was not tapped; instead, they used a suggestible fool with a dearth of any coherent belief or agenda.

The Potter Product was conceived of, and expressed throughout its literary and cinematic fronts, as a thoroughly white retelling of white-boarding-school literature. Rowling's early sketches, which a wiser early editor of hers would have disposed of and then made an emotional show of trying to find them for poor Rowling's benefit, show, like all her books themselves, a tale about a bunch of white, straight, cisgendered, patriarchal templates--and rich ones too, as Harry is pleased to discover at Gringotts Bank early in the story, lest troubled readers come to think he was actually as economically devoid as his faux-troubled upbringing would have otherwise suggested.

If you're lucky enough to be unfamiliar with Rowling's shameful retcons, the primary ones thus far number two: firstly, in retroactively outing the headmaster of her magical boarding school once she'd finished being associated as the current author of all the books, which is to say attempting to fabricate diversity by declaring "Dumbledore was gay all along," and secondly, by coming out with the "Hermione was black" thing after that, in defense of some really, amazingly pitiable stage play by some idiots whose creativity can be likened to the fictional black holes in which our astronomers now hold such faith.



The foulness here can be difficult to see in the modern era of the entertainment corporation, where character is as fungible as any other component. Rowling's initial writing, and initial sketches, showed that she'd been approved to be listed as the artist of record on the magical-boarding-school narrative meant initially to integrate only the European Union, then later charged due to its popularity with working for Muslims and Africans; Rowling's turnabout indicates that her "characters" meant nothing to her, but were just vassals of an agenda, which she was too stupid and her handlers too short-sighted to possess early on. (Of course, most of the series' fans wouldn't have bought nor read a book with a main black or gay character in 1997, nor would Rowling have written it; their characters were, in many ways, as empty and changeable as that of the name-placeholders in the Potter works, and it was that emptiness which flattered itself through so much money and so many massive revisions.) This is typical for publishers and movie studios now, though antithetical and reprehensible to the appreciators of narrative in better times, where the entire point, or heart or spirit if you prefer, of creating something that means something is for it to actually mean something. Rowling's fans proved as empty of soul and identity as she, their affections proven false, as they happily gave up what we know to be their earlier imaginings of those stochastically-felt totems for what was now popular, which may change again in more decades.

The Law of the Jungle

We flatter ourselves, and reassure ourselves, by the thought that we may live under the law of the jungle, where the strong eat the weak and the weak are eaten or simply starve. Not so: in the jungle, there is perhaps a fearful brutality to the citizen of now, having a faux-forbidden dessert from the organic market while delighting in some new television program. Yet the jungle, however much it frightens the cushioned modern first-world human, is fair, in the sense of the absence of rules which people can change during play, the benefit to the strong in getting space or calories, being all understood. On this planet, for these past many years, we have dealt with something entirely different from the law of the jungle, namely actual evil, where morals are not situational, but based on concepts in which we have come to disbelieve, and which we are, perhaps in all cases, not able to even understand. We can understand, "Thing like me. Thing want resources and mates." What we cannot understand, though, is, "Thing looks like me but thing is different. Thing wants to destroy all." Things which would destroy their own "victories" are a mystery to us; we can imagine someone doing naughty thing to get treasure or mates, but shy from the recognition that those who consistently destroy are actually trying to accomplish what they do accomplish. The people who have had us have our wars, distracted us from an enduring spirit of any kind--in art, politics, or anything else in which we care to conceive--are not ideologues with whom our agreement or disagreement is relevant, and are quite happy to have us argue that they may be "greedy" or interested in "popularity" or "fame" or "money," all of which fall far short of the mark, to the point of being the wrong dartboard in the wrong bar in the wrong country. In fact, the soullessness of the culture-creators and warmongers is so indecipherable to many of us because it is simply evil. People try to get us to distract ourselves with empty crap--which is not even consistently empty, but rather, a mirror of what are to be our current interests--in our national policies, our political or personal preferences, and to buy expensive toys and use them to kill each other, not because they are profiting off it; oh no. In fact, even the most selfish, greediest bastard in the world would be shocked and horrified by the waste of war. Professional sports make a lot of money, but that money is not even a puddle in the ocean compared to the luxury that hosts could provide their indwellers if there were 3 million fewer heart attacks per country, another $50K in capital per household, and another 200 hours of unused motivation to achieve and do well per household, across a country or a world. The proverbial Terran Aryan being bled now by the proverbial k'arash would, if unmolested, create more pleasurable and more numerous toys that could enrich his parasite far more than those enjoyed now, such that the competition over "which caveman has the better rock for smashing" is so decisively resolved by the electronic massage chair that even the greediest parasite would be a fool to keep wanting to have a better rock than the next one over, or even all the rocks in the world.

No, we face here a pure evil. Not a mere stupidity, where venture capitalists are unable to weigh the minute gains of warfare against the monumental gains of twenty years of healthy building and improving, but an actual evil; a desire to destroy and stifle life itself. Wars are fought to hurt and kill people and weaken human societies, and expressions of empty changeability and the voidness of the soul are, similarly, meant to wound, and eventually kill, communication and art. Not as to Rowling personally, probably; she's likely just the Ronald Reagan of the literary world, who would like to thank everyone for letting her play the author, and presumes it's just coincidence that guidance from her editor produced something all but identical to an earlier product. So too the legions of generals, political dramatists, and ordinary grunts who have believed they were prosecuting wars to the best of their ability amidst the confusing flux of a changeable society. The willingness to "compromise" with the disgusting realism of a "best possible" is, like the antiwar left's vote for Obama because he's supposedly 0.7% more peaceful than the other goy, a part of how the evil gains its support. Indeed, it is those small, filthy concessions without which evil could not survive. I had that interaction with a female friend many years ago, who claimed she would read Harry Potter "to read what [name of someone else's favored kid] is reading," and made a similar decision about that time regarding her support for that traitorous turd McCain, who made her turn her nose but was at least "better" than the other goys. By the same token, if the U.S.S.R. is the worst tyranny on the planet bent on taking over everything tomorrow, the decision to prosecute a war against it only through one puppet nation, killing and immiserating millions and then letting it have its way anyway, but at least showing we're willing to give a little resistance, is as ineffectual as a primary vote for Bernie.

It is, sadly, this phony pragmatic faked realism that makes us such an eager tool of evil. If America had said, in 1947, "Communism is evil, Russia is evil, we will destroy the soviet," and had a massive war and took over Russia while a few cities were lost to nukes on either side, the body count would be a far smaller figure, and more limited to the contesting cultures, than the absurd and deadly outcome of the latter half of the twentieth century. Similarly, if the world's readers had demanded in 1997, "We want more stories about white people with accents in boarding schools learning magic and we will not be denied!" then the thousands of little Rowlings fanficcing online could have satisfied their cravings to more of an excess, and they would not be sadly stroking their flaccid prose now, but continuing fresh new series where they could now stand black professors and gay classmates and transgender portrait paintings on their presorted character template House Doorways. In each case, it is the willingness to scar the self, to not follow through, and to accept stillborn dolls of desire that makes the stench more horrible the longer it endures.

The things lost to the shoddy are hard, perhaps impossible, for an above-average local to perceive. What people might have learned, what good feelings they might've had, if, instead of Potter, they had a sometimes-denser, freer swarm of narratives in which to envision themselves, are more unimaginable to them, because we'd have to have a hypothetical better publishing industry fostering the sense of perceived community which they were really after, caring far more for that than for "character" or "originality" or "skilled use of language" or similar; it is several degrees of perception beyond simply "better books," which they likely could never perceive. It is easier, though, for the average Terran to imagine a twentieth century without the various cold-hot wars, because we can conceive of the objective gain to humanity of "14 trillion 2018 dollars available for use instead" or "20 million un-terminated lives" in a way that is vastly more comprehensible than asking people to know themselves so well that they know how they've been personally shortchanged. It is a ruse, of course, for the ability of people to imagine a global peace and relative togetherness would be sorely lacking; the Terran's ability to conceive of the joyful heights to which a good culture might have climbed in those years is as dim as that of Potter-readers to imagine what personal and social fulfillment they'd gain out of a work or works which taught them profound concepts they can't understand from this end anyway.

(In the sense of perceiving what was lost, we see the necessity of encasing memories offsite, running it again a few times with different variables, and being able to review and compare them across multiple venues, which is to say to see how you acted in various lifetimes. Seeing how you honestly, innocently, fully as-yourself thought something was the greatest in one experience, then comparing it to how you viewed similar things when you'd learned more in another lifetime, gives colossal insight into the self, which many, perhaps all, self-aware lightforms do not have the complexity to recognize in one life alone. Ergo this horrible cycle, which you asked for, for you can know and have known what terrible things you were capable of having viewed as penultimate goods provided with other sets of circumstance. This often isn't an ascending scale, either, in the sense of "You liked Harry Potter in this one life and then went to live on Lovia where you read Two Octaves Apart and learned that things can be better"; it's quite possible you would do the reverse order, and learn thereby the same thing about what types of things influenced you and how.)

Curative

The nuances of why and how people will support evil, though, are not here our focus. More pressing is the ability of people to recognize that evil actually exists, and that it is not merely greed, but would happily and perpetually bankrupt itself to remove the last vestiges of what it views as the bipedal life plague from this planet. We are so used, in our conceptualization of our relationship with this world, to arrogantly assuming--as the Europeoid commonly does with the other humans--that everyone is basically like us, with similar abilities and motivations. We automatically dismiss motivations that are not like our own, as when a conflict slaughters millions, we are too proud to admit that something could be so different from us as to do it for death; no, we soothe ourselves, it is simply about money, because that we can understand. We have difficulty conceiving of, or maybe cannot at all conceive of, loss and destruction being intrinsically valuable to something wearing basically the same shape. Alien to us, terrifying to us, is the notion that there exist things which have an entirely different set of desires. No, we tell ourselves, ten million are dead only because of ideology. Murder, death, grief, pain, can't be themselves the goal!

When contemplating each new slice of reality the world presents us, we must surpass the embarrassing conundrum, so unpopular to humans, of believing that nothing in all of existence can possibly have desires we do not ourselves share nor fundamentally empathize with. With greed, for example, this one on Terra would like to have a billion dollars, and be some intimidating figure beyond reproach, who spends days splashing on my private rooftop skyscraper pool with whichever ten hookers are on duty that day, so even if I wouldn't do some horrible thing to attain that--say, convince some rural townies that they need to send fifteen sons to die in Arabia because otherwise bogeyman--this one can understand how someone might make that choice. What this one, as a human, cannot intrinsically understand, is the desires we see fulfilled in a geopolitical sense, where one diminishes one's personal joy, chance of survival, and the same for one's kin and kind and everything else, because, just, why? After so many years of empty trash, of mass misery and painful blowback that change their rationalizations even within the lifetimes of quite physically mature individuals, we have to be rational and conclude that they are doing what they are doing because they want to do it. It is so, so childish to look at human history, or just the last century, and conclude, "They just wanted money. I like money too."

As we consider, say, seven decades of land wars in southeast Asia, or some yahoo making a human character subject to seasonal shifts in original identity, we must always remember: things exist which do not share our motivations for behavior. It is so reassuring to believe that everything which happens must have a fundamentally human cause like unto ourselves. As you approach experience, do so with the thought that your view of potential possibility can be not only wide enough to accommodate "human motivations which are entirely alien to me," but "inhuman motivations..." Most people will snark and belittle the idea that anything is not just like they themselves in both good and bad moods, but if we can expand beyond the primitive map just a little bit, we can begin evaluating what we find beyond the confines of the personified temporal god or the hairstyle or musclecar we liked when we were teenagers. Motivation is a complex thing, far beyond the set of local human ones with which we are familiar imagining, but a scientific evaluation of results can show us so much. The great potential of, say, hundreds of millions of readers over a decade, or dollars over several, and the staggering opportunity cost of empty skinbags or feinting wars of endless intensity, can show us that something is more important than our narrow range of imagined ideologies or the shoddy, comparatively tiny prizes gained from their theoretical expression.

Thursday, August 9, 2018

Pedophile

Analyzing pedophilia in the manner of anal sex can prove almost as, or perhaps more than, enlightening, in the sense of human sexuality being instructive about humans.

Preponderance of Pedophiles

Approaching the issue of pedophilia first through the lens of Terra's currently popular random mutation religion provides a number of potential insights. This is because evolution is, in large part, actually about concepts related to survival--in the sense of most organisms not evolving with a mortal aversion to air--even if the mutations which cause Terran organisms to fit into the Terran system are not randomly generated. We feel an instinctive understanding of the rightness of "survival of the fittest," which is part of how the "random mutation" lie gained such social traction: by being paired with survival of the fittest, the "random mutation" component of the faith made this nasty little random remora subtly popular, whereas evolutionary theories which had components of survival of the fittest, but not random mutations, didn't receive the necessary press or university backing in the 19th & post-19th-century west to survive. (Irony.)

Compare the way the "random" portion of the faith piggybacked on the reasonable, intuitive, obvious "you have to be fit for survival in order to survive" to the way that Christianity piggybacked on all spirituality, creating a false dichotomy between "material only" and "maybe something spiritual" in which almost all social force claimed that any meaning to existence beyond the drudgery of the material belonged solely to Christianity, causing many otherwise good, sensible people to wrongly conclude, "Well, I sort of feel there's more meaning than this, so I guess I should believe in Jesus." Anyone who disagreed outside of the private sphere was murdered, and even now, when after centuries of murder the mortal punishment for that type of heresy is no longer necessary, ordinary people who realize that bouncing molecules isn't the sum of everything conclude that they should find their way to the church of the risen rabbi. The edifices of government and academy worked similarly with Bangism, using something really instinctively obvious, like "you have to be capable of surviving to survive," as a trick to sell their "random mutation" lie, talking so much about the two together that almost everyone just assumed the "random" thing was as obvious and provable as the "fittest" part. It's a common marketing trick, like suggesting that if you don't buy Super Cola you are also a homo, or wear your pants pulled up to your chest, or don't like Local Team, et cetera. You might not enjoy Super Cola but still be heterosexual or wear your pants normally or like the local sporting team, but enough media can convince most people that there is a relationship between things they already like or feel and things that someone is wanting to be sold. Like, buying a Chrysler is like eating Grandma's apple pie on the fourth of July. Home-baked desserts and feeling good about your community are inseparable from this one particular car company. You get it, right? Pass the collection plate. Similarly, there are lots of ways to find deeper, perhaps indecipherable, meaning in existence, without concluding that some rabbi must be an all powerful god, but enough commercials and murder can create a culture like nineteenth century Europe or America, where any sense of the transcendent got smushed into rabbi-worship. Run a bunch of commercials about the new teen health center, and mothers who wouldn't've otherwise thought of that idea after an argument with their brat kid will go to the teen health center and get really excited about whatever drivel, and/or pharmaceutical, the center is pushing. And, sadly, they're probably not smart enough to realize why they really found their way to that answer. So too with religion, where people often don't understand how they ended up believing something was true, or how the things they really feel inside don't necessarily need to connect with whatever corporate logo they've been taught to associate with those feelings.

The concept of survival of the fittest has, similarly, conflicted with so many religions. Putting aside any pre-Christian moralities, use some version of Christian morality, which more people have an idea of now than any non-Christian moralities whose adherents were murdered when Europe was taken: posit generation after generation of people watching as actual piety, empathy, surrender, et cetera, produced a lack of, rather than a mild or abundant quantity of, success. Someone who smiles tenderly at the mugger loses his stuff and maybe gets his ass whipped, while someone who pulls out his Glock and shoots the mugger keeps his stuff and doesn't get beaten up. Similarly, the dude who backstabs his co-workers and shamelessly sucks up to the boss gets the big promotion and retires to a mansion, whereas the co-worker who got lied about is passed over, fired, and ends up working retail into his seventies. The material world doesn't reward good behavior, and the endless Christian promises of "rewards later!" have been a great part of that belief system's draw, but were consistently unsatisfying, and personally unverifiable, which made it so easy to transition western society from Christianity to Bang, where at least your sense that the world is against your conception of decency can comport with the random version of Nameless God.

(The much healthier pre-Christian paganisms of Europe had notions that you should try your hardest and follow the examples of fictional god-characters to do and be your best, but often, perhaps always [we don't know thanks to the swords and fires of the heresy-hunters], included a female representation of material reality similar to the Greek "Fate," where the tendency of the world to screw you over due to its own plans unfathomable to you was acknowledged, and considering humans and the way they select and desire mating, it's really appropriate to personify that role as female, but that's a separate subject.)

Survival of the fittest, then. Like anal sex, the desire to screw--or touch or diddle or play with or whatever--infertile young, whether of one's own species or of colts, is an evolutionary loss, though even moreso considering that anal sex might lead to accidental vaginal penetration, whereas the immature womb simply cannot be part of the conception of offspring. Yet despite this, a lot of people throughout recorded history have apparently suffered this anti-evolutionary affliction of wanting to in some way behave sexually with the sexually immature. It is, like anal sex, an evolutionary mystery, where a trait that should've been utterly rejected, disqualifying one for a designation even remotely like "fittest," yet endures. Not only Christian authority figures with immature males, but many other adult humanoids who were apparently members of the "fittest" after x hundred thousand years of supposedly brutally competitive evolution, exhibit this trait.

How many, and to what extent, is impossible to tell. Western countries are often arresting some lone weirdo for child porn, though we don't have statistics--even dishonest ones--on how many people the police forces of the world's various countries suspect, or investigate, or actually catch, having looked at, owned, or transmitted child porn annually in the world. Nonetheless, we can extrapolate that the numbers are quite a bit higher than we tend to assume.

Firstly, sex tourism: lots of dinky little Asian countries have acknowledged sex tourism industries for child prostitutes, and if we extrapolate from the percentage of people in the U.S. who can afford to drop five grand on international travel to the exclusion of something otherwise popular to their demographic, and who are willing and able to take the moral and legal risks, against the total population, that suggests a very high number of people who would screw the eight-year-old slave if all other factors were removed. For example, if you're part of the small class of people who can afford to spend five grand on a yearly trip, you form a population that is a distinct minority, and if XX% of that population spends the money going to Thailand to bang eight-year-olds, as opposed to staying nervously at home or just going to Cambodia and fantasizing about it but never actually visiting the broker recommended by that pamphlet from the dude outside the sex shop, or visiting the Grand Canyon instead, you represent a portion of the full population of western Europe and the U.S. which never appears nor can appear in any kiddie-sex-related figures. The people who go, being a tiny percentage of that percentage, can help us speculate about what percentage of people not only would go if it were socially acceptable, but what percentage of the total population would be, privately, interested in just the sex aspect--even if they would never go, nor admit to wanting to go, and would die rather than say, or didn't even know it about themselves. And that's dicey territory, because people don't want to admit they've seriously thought about the issue, or tried to titillate themselves even if they failed, so it's difficult to tell. Nonetheless, extrapolating from that tiny percentage of people with the social and financial freedom in life to take that trip to Laos for an eight-year-old or three, the number of those who do suggests quite a high proportion of those who would had they the cash and the time and the freedom and the self awareness. That is perhaps scary and unpleasant to think about, and the willingness of some governments to ignore the trend and not prosecute, so they don't lose all those hotel and restaurant dollars, even though people know full well there are dirty bastards selling kiddies to 50-year-old perverts who fly there every year as their lagging libido can find no other prop than the presumed ultimate, speaks volumes about their understanding of what an important industry it is for places people would otherwise not visit nearly as much.

Celebrity reference here is Rush Limbaugh. Remember when he was always doing the southeast Asia coast thing, and finally got arrested a little closer to home for traveling with too much Viagra? Consider, this is a man with many, many millions of dollars, who often hangs out in Manhattan, where some really high class hookers operate free of police oversight, and he could afford anything he would've wanted. Non-disfiguring sadism, anal where they do a pro clean with enemas beforehand, ten really beautiful chicks at once, sharing up with friends, watching four chicks go crazy with one another and then slaver really believably over him...but no, he keeps having to travel the world with his Viagra, for the obvious reason that there is one service you can't reliably buy safely yet in the U.S., namely kids. There are nominally straight Hollywood actors who buy legions of same sex potentials just to visually interview without fear, but the U.S. is not a safe child-sex trade place, and single wealthy older businessmen who globetrot in southeast Asia are not there because they really want to see this tiny Buddhist temple for the sixth time. Sometimes it's ladyboys, sometimes it's watching the K9 crew, and oftentimes, it's the things you can't get on Craigslist.

Fully accurately, preponderance-wise, there's no way to tell what percentage of humans would be attracted by underage sexual things. Part of this is some version of morality, where judging by the world, 90-some percent of people just never would, because they don't, but like homosexuality through the ages, some noticeable percent will despite the most punishing social aversion possible. Not just not being able to live near a park in America, but multiple homicide, multiple rape criminals forming gangs to shiv your anus in prison for moral reasons everyone else respects, provides a strong extra motivation to not do so, if you even needed one. Evolutionarily, though, we're concerned not just with who would despite potential social pushback, but just who has in them this extremely evolution-adverse trait. That anyone does is yet another proof that our evolution religion is wrong; every child abuse case since western legal records existed shows that this is not an organism that evolved randomly on this planet to out-compete other organisms via successful mutation of pro-reproduction traits. As with anal sex, we must remember that any form of sexual activity with kids is a complete evolutionary failure, a waste of time and resources, and while you're diddling some kid your evolutionary competitors are storing supplies or producing offspring and so forth. The idea that someone could compete, let alone survive, carrying that trait, particularly when human society has since written inception exhibited a violent mortal response to such behavior (yes, with a few exceptions, but primarily with a violent response approved), is absurd: one such pervert in the world per year, okay, maybe it's random, but a lot of them per year across many different societies is a proof that our random mutation struggle for survival is a poor choice in religions.

What if every male in the world were hooked up to bloodflow and brain monitors and shown a video of a fourteen-year-old hottie waving her naked butt and cooch at the camera while saying naughty things? Easy: nearly a 100% arousal rate, since she's probably gone through puberty already and age of consent laws are weird and unnatural. Drop the age of the actress to eight, though, and to four, and our percentages of arousal drop rapidly. But how rapidly? What percentage of single heterosexual 50-year-olds with lots of disposable income and free time and inclination have visited Thailand, and if every male in the western world were granted that income and free time, what percentage would take the trip? What if you could order it up to your hotel room with a 100% guarantee from God Himself that no one would ever find out? What if God's guarantee also included that it wasn't a real kid and would just pleasure you but not then exist forevermore?

The internet, as always, proves instructive here. Not only does "acting young" play in porno, or wearing pigtails and holding dollies while Tyrone bursts in, suggest widespread hebephilia (made-up name for "normal" given puberty), but digital alterations, illustration, erotic literature, and the like suggest a massive interest in the field. Sorry, topic. Topic. The thousands upon thousands of people facelessly trading actual kiddy pictures online, from "my kids at the public pool in their bathing suits," to the actual stuff, even in the presence of a massive monitoring system by exorbitantly perverted cop-like cowards who never have to actually go break up fights at the convenience store, suggests the number is really high, even though our governments aren't, and possibly can't actually be, honest with mere citizens about the subject. Indeed, the U.S. government's massive child porn stash, which they acknowledged only after so many years of catfishing so many people that it became impossible to hide anymore, suggests there are a lot of gullible fools who are still willing to offer some undercover web-pervert $50 to get the other ten pictures of Veronica and nameless dude.

The likelihood of people willing to be interested in mere child porn, and interested in it at huge personal risk, suggests that the number of people just interested in the topic--the number of actual pedophiles, including those who just never let themselves think it due to societal norms--is massive. Like, if driving dirt bikes or trading dirt-bike pictures carried with it a stiff jail sentence, but there were still thousands and thousands of people in just a few countries willing to keep risking their lives to trade pictures of dirt bikes or even ride dirt bikes themselves while trusting that the new guy wasn't a cop, obviously they're drawing from a population of people more risk-averse: a much, much larger population, which would never fill out a survey indicating that they liked dirt bikes. You can put a Target store in a certain area, and from the number of transactions per day, get a pretty accurate picture of who the nearby inhabitants are and what they number; so too with the shadow populations of private kid-fantasizers that the arrested ones show us. Much of the social passion against child porn or child abuse certainly draws from honest origins, but a large component, perhaps a silent majority component, draws from a sort of projective punishment and doth protesting too much. And if we developed mind-reading machines, we wouldn't want to know the answer.

Elimination of Competitors

Per Terra's current evolutionary faithfad, how could this be? An easy answer for how pedophilia could be evolutionarily successful is found in groups, not individuals: elimination of competitors. If you molest or rape or sexually spoil a girl from another tribe, perhaps you help your own girls indirectly. Say, e.g., there are 1,000 girls in your tribe, and you move among the other tribe, molesting three girls before they catch you and kill you. Their numbers of fertile reproducing females drop to 997, your tribe's remain at 1,000, and even though one male reproducer has been lost to your tribe, your tribe has a net gain. Therefore, evolution could have provided for some small percentage of child-abusers for each population, to increase the numerical dominance of that tribe's next generation.

This explanation fails, though, because molested girls tend to be more sexual, more sexual early, and have more children than average.. For every broken soul, there are four or five "sluts" who go on to have 0.3 more children than average (or much, much more than that before the availability of elective birth control drugs), or whatever, and then it seems like child-diddlers are helping their own tribe's evolution directly, by advancing the sexuality of their girls. Why, though, the recurrent human desire to execute child-diddlers? Evolution runs up against itself, there. Is it good, is it bad, or what? The modern clerisy will say always bad, but the "reproduce" branch of the church, if they still have any social power--very little, because of the "race" thing--would be forced to conclude that child-diddling was actually an evolutionary good. That's obviously a very unpleasant conclusion to reach, and viewing it that way can help you form a new perspective on Terra's popular evolution religion, if you're still a believer: if a pervert, some pedophile, molests eleven girls before he's finally jailed and killed by some random dudes in prison, but each of those girls then has 0.3 kids more than average, that pedophile was good for the species. So you have to go with that, or you have to conclude that the "evolution by the natural selection of random mutations" faith is, if not just a lie, a terrible thing.

Another problem this theory runs into is the rabbinical one, e.g., the molestation of males. Whereas the molestation of female children tends to accelerate their physical maturity, causing pubic hair and breasts to grow faster, hips to widen in readiness for reproduction, earlier periods, et cetera, molestation of the male human causes his puberty to be stalled. Boys who are molested--as was common in ancient Greece, demonstrating that it isn't wholly a Christian trend--have their voices stay in higher registers for longer, and puberty sometimes forestalled until they're 19 or 20, rather than in ages more thought of in modern times. Molested boys grow facial hair later, have genital changes later, grow more bodily hair later, and other things, almost as though heavy molestation feminizes them, encouraging their bodies to keep higher voices and smoother skin for longer. Ergo it is a brutal evolutionary stroke.

Again, it is perhaps conceivable only as an offensive weapon: if your tribe of 1,000 creates one pervert, and he molests 10 boys in the enemy tribe, they lose six or seven years per kid of viable, reproducing adult males. So your pervert helps your tribe out-compete them over those years, getting more offspring into the field while they can't.

All these "group benefit" theories, though, run afoul of individualized, American-capitalism-fantasy evolution faith, though, because the molester is then executed or just childless or child-reduced, having spent his life diddling kids instead of making them, therefore his germ line is really disfavored and how has he still survived until today? The currently popular "Bang" religion on Terra draws heavily from Judaism and the Book of Genesis, of course, but also from the early industrial fantasies of "struggle for survival" seen in the late 1800s, and the desire of the rich men of the day to imagine themselves some kind of evolutionary pinnacle for their imaginarily solo route to what they felt was success. This religion needs to change as time goes on, not only because of the growing faith in human differentiation ("races") not existing, but because of the necessary corollary to that belief, "group work," where people will have to stop believing in a religion based around the individual. Ergo we'll have to see a reformation of the faith in which some form of "group achievement" becomes more prominent. Current dogma holds that individual creatures mutate successfully, then produce favored lines which come to predominate, and that does not comport with a "helps the group" theory of the benefits of having some perve molest the enemy's children.

Early Access

Another theory for why pedophilia could have evolved is the "early access" theory. Like the theory that anal sex now increases the likelihood of vaginal sex later, it is plausible at first blush but stupid in the medium to long run. The idea is, if some dude screws some chick when she's eleven, he's first in line when she hits puberty, therefore first offspring is his. Under this rubric, pedophilia provides an evolutionary advantage because it preferences access to the fertile by establishing it ahead of time, all but guaranteeing that the dude who starts them off young keeps them until they're viable.

Like the "anal sex leads to vaginal sex" theory, though, this is idiotic. Having sex with the age-barren female, even if it leads to sex with her later when she's fertile, is a loss 100% of the time. Who is more successful: the dude who spends two years copulating with the immature, then has an offspring with her when she's fertile, or the dude who spends two years screwing various fertile chicks, then also copulates with the newly fertile partner? Obviously the latter. There is no justification for screwing, or for light's sake wanting to touch, the infertile, younger partner.

Confused Desire

A compelling theory for pedophilia is that of confused desire. Specifically, the notion goes that seeing reproductive organs, or reproductive organs paired with limbs, or limbs and torso, et cetera, confuses the human into desire. We can certainly see this with pornographic art, or indeed, erotica of any kind, where you can draw a really hot naked chick in a sketchbook, then hand someone the sketchbook and have them turn it over and wave it in the air and look behind all the pages, then look at the drawing of the hot naked chick, and become aroused according to bloodflow sensors or brain monitors or just their own admission, ergo people have this massive problem of getting aroused by things that are not actually viable sexual partners. Indeed, if you have the choice of banging some fat chick or looking through photos of some hot celebrity in the nude, a lot of people might choose the latter: a seeming evolutionary impossibility.

And yet, it exists. Taking really great photos, or creating the illusion of depth or texture through masterful illustration, are all well and good, yet if the person knows they're looking at a piece of paper, or a .jpg, yet prefers the hotter image to the more realistic mating one, there's this supposed evolutionary full stop, where it not only shouldn't be possible, it shouldn't have created an art industry that out-earns the "first date" one now. Even when people know it's fake--for people risking ten to fifteen trading pictures of kids at the beach as much as for people just trying to add to their hentai collection legally--they have this inexplicable draw toward elements of (sexual?) fantasy utterly divorced from sex. If someone doesn't ask a girl out because he's planning to use that brazzers special offer tonight and jack off to the movie about two chicks double-teaming that one lucky dude, that's at least explicable, but not so much if it's him not asking out that skinny girl with the funny elbows from the science library because Vixine updates tonight.

The idea of "confused desires" leading to passion for children is similar in type: perps are often drawn to their victims because they're children, known as illegal or just socially disapproved, with zero interest in reproduction, and perhaps some of the sickening spice being related to the immature impossibility of it. If it were confused jungle-people who didn't realize that banging kids didn't produce offspring, okay maybe that's just an evolution of idiots, but humans can pretty well tell the signs of puberty, and are naturally drawn to them, and repulsed by their absence...yet, pedos keep getting arrested, and they're not all drop-guns. So how can this be possible that they still exist?

In discussing the prevalence of pedophilia in the 21st century, one has to take official, protected pedophiles into account. Not religious organizations, this time, but governmental ones, where the British and the U.S. and other governments spend dozens of millions of dollars amassing loathsome collections of actual child porn, which they store in perpetuity for the loathsome use of loathsome agents who pretend they're enforcing the law by spending long hours alone with their child porn, hiring young girls to catfish people online, and arresting people for showing up at airports to pick up some 14 year old who claims she was abused and needs someone's help because there's no one she can trust and her parents are corrupt and the local cops are corrupt and please help me mister. I.e., they create narratives where a completely moral person could plausibly believe there isn't even a governmental route to freedom in that kid's locality, and gets arrested for theoretically going to meet a minor, and we can only trust their perverted "jacks off to kiddie pics all day" experts to tell us that the dude arrested at an airport for a hypothetical crime really was intending to screw the under-18 person who never existed. There's one of those "trust in government" fantasy lands out there, where all western wars are just and the agents aren't jacking off to the porn on the public dime while occasionally tricking some dude into accepting an e-mail so they can prosecute him and justify their salaries, but more realistically, western governments have invested massively in pleasuring their captive perverts, abusing children more than any other force on the planet except the Roman church, and all that--like, seriously, monitoring "suspected" cases of kidnapped foreign kids and then not moving in until the 16 perverts they were watching have all consummated the rape giving plausibility to some super prosecution where they look like heroes to the kinds of people inclined to trust them after how disgusting they've been.

The size, and power, of these government networks of pedophiles should not be overlooked. They're often involved in some major "operation" (google operation "Avalanche" or "Flicker" or "Broken Heart," but there are so many, and it's uncannily weird how the British police seem to try to match the American in this realm). And at your own peril trust what they officially tell the media about their why or their how. Funny, when the American drug controllers "seize" some disfavored faction's drugs, you can weigh the total to verify how good they've supposedly been, but when it's kiddie victims they can do that "To protect everyone you can only trust me about what happened because privacy" thing; pedophiles are good liars because it actually works, like no one knows how this works. And largely, no one does since it's too scary to contemplate that they're in charge. It's shameful to be involved in these things even were they not run by pedophiles, since actual cops have to hurry into a dark house where there might be an armed burglar, and indeed, the stockpile of child porn, which includes pictures of actual victims who are still out there living and didn't give consent for the government to keep naked pictures of them to show to people to maybe make an arrest, is disgusting and disgustingly indicative of the twisted characters and perverted priorities of those governments. People acted shocked when they found out western coalition troops were having sex-play with grown Arab men in their Iraqi torture-dungeons, but the things western police agencies are doing with children and child porn pictures are far worse. Funny also that people had a minor stir about that sicko pizza place in the District of Columbia, but as yet, the federal agencies of child porn in America have received so little pushback. Yes, the pizza place denied it, but sheesh, it's not even about clues and denial in the case of other government arms; they proudly tell the newspapers what they're doing, and yet no one gives a crap. The pizza place should've just admitted it was trading kids, but claimed it was doing it to catch perverts for arrest and trial. Simply saying there was no CP connection was, amazingly, the wrong route to choose.

Confused desires, because of porn, is certainly something, and the human ability to titillate itself with "sex in opposition to social standards," which makes evolutionary sense, certainly holds enduring power, but the attraction to children that a pedophile holds is of a different character than that someone wants to watch otherwise-arousing things happen on what they know damn well is just an LCD monitor. Like fantasy in the head, the LCD can at least titillate with reproductive-possible imagery, whereas the pedo is so off course that even the fantasy isn't a fantasy that can be related to reproduction. It disproves the modern evolution faith by its sole existence, in addition to its massive and enduring appearance in humans, and the knowing embrace of its futility--which itself forms its primary, knowing lure, in defiance of the species as well as reproduction itself--shows that it is not possibly a simple issue of confusion.

Tougher Than

There're all sorts off reasons why someone might be sick enough to develop the perversion of kid-wanting. We're not concerned with armchair psychology in that realm, though, but with the nexus of the desire, e.g., the ability to actually want that, as distinct from the willingness to carry it out. Like, I like cash, but when the dude turned his back at the gas station, I didn't just help myself to the contents of the register, even though there was a dude there fixing the obviously disassembled camera system. My desire for cash was not enough to make me help myself. Similarly, the vast network of child-sex tourism (where someone else, or some other government, has taken great cares to create a veneer of consent), or online sim-porn, has indicated that pedophilia is a vast human interest, probably at least approaching double digits in percentage occurrence, while willingness to act on that desire occurs in a much lower percentage of Terra's, let's say, six billion units.

Random psychological speculation could, as mentioned, lead to lots of suppositions about pedophilia, like, people want a partner that they're unquestionably the master of, or that's reliant on them for resources because it can't acquire any of its own, or that it affirms the pedo's self-image because the kid represents an earlier stage of life and makes the pedo feel really advanced, et cetera. All of these things are true, but all of these things would be the same for someone who chose a potted cactus as a partner, too (withholding water when it's disobedient--and undoubtedly, many pedo affirmations have gotten these benefits, just as have many "pet owners" having surgically mutilated animals roaming around their houses making them feel superior and benevolent. Nonetheless, the desire to touch or screw the kid is an evolutionary quirk; the willingness, the ability, to actually want that, is a different creature entirely from any weird, sicko-related mental benefits one might gain from being so much more of a dominant partner. There are comparable equivalent predilections for, say, quadriplegics, but not nearly of the scope and intensity of people willing to risk ten years inside to watch some dirty movie.

Evolutionary Failing

We see in pedophilia, like MSF anal sex or homosexuality, this glaring contradiction to our faith in random mutations producing a situation where we can settle into the cold, dirty morass of the faith of the Big Bang and random mutation. Like some gay dude, or a thousand or a million of them, it is inconceivable that randomly produced traits with the brutal removal of all which don't support reproduction would ever include any of the anti-breeding traits that we have seen in human history and the human now.

Lots of other weird quirks in human behavior have plausible explanations. White people like kayaks, and the desire to explore new areas and try new things correlates to finding food or shelter, so the net loss of kayak-playing now doesn't change that it could've originated in a survival/reproduction-favored trait earlier, or that engaging in it now increases the possibility of meeting or socializing with other people carrying such traits, ergo more survival/reproduction-focused offspring. The actual survival/reproduction loss caused by an overblown interest in kayaking now could genetically linger in spite of the fact that recent changes in society have caused, say, women to seek to demonstrate strength or independence by rejecting until after menopause men who otherwise demonstrate these traits, such that the dude at REI ain't gettin' any despite his thorough demonstration of pro-survival traits, because an unfortunate blend of evolutionary motivations has caused women to look for a different kind of trait than that his genes tell him has worked.

Similarly, the desire or tendency to do stupid dances could be an evolutionary demonstration of fitness or coordination, and someone could still maintain that in their genes, and feel it's a good idea, even if society has changed to make that no longer an effective mating strategy. A lot of traits have plausible evolutionary sources, even if shifting society disfavors them, and it's plausible that something currently disfavored was once favored in a more visceral time. If pedophilia or homosexuality had suddenly developed, we could argue that it was due to random mutation, but if men in ancient Greece were Socratizing each other and they're doing it at the gay bar in 2018, sickos in new literate times were fooling with kept boys and they're doing it in Thailand now, it's a recurrent trait, and its aversion to the struggle for survival raises troubling, fatal questions for the faith of random mutation.

Source

We closed our discussion on buttsecks by drawing the necessary conclusions from the evidence, namely that the human desire to explore other humans' bodies was not wholly related to some hypothetical struggle for survival, but to some design for living organisms to want to explore other bodies contra reproduction. That explanation would prove unsatisfying for lots of things, though, including murder and torture and pedophilia, and as with murder and torture, pedophilia is a use of the system to damage another's development at the expense of your own sub-standard growth. Caring for kids provides perhaps excessive opportunity to learn about immature human bodies, as when they spray feces over the living room and themselves and need to be attended to for the tenth time, and there is, often but not always, a correlation between imparenting lives and pedophile lives, where the stupid route of broken selfishness increases its own inefficiency. As to evolution specifically, pedophilia represents the influence of choice, which should have no role, on the evolutionary process, where modern Terran faith makes choice solely a subsidiary of the randomized evolutionary mandate. Like the development of inexplicable character inside the new people supposedly produced by random-faith, characters and choices good and bad that lie outside the possible rubric of the Terran religion demonstrate that religion's failure at anything approaching an explanation. Like, I knew this (childless) dude once whose goal was to become a billiards champion in a male-only environment, uncelebrated and unannounced and in no way conceived of or even wanted to be a crappy local event that included even post-menopausal females as potential admirers, and you can make a stretch claiming that the desire to be a victor in unimportant, un-witnesses male-exclusive competition stemmed from some drive to dominate other men at physical feats because it might lead to future mating, but you have to do so much to attempt to rationalize human behavior under the faith of random production of traits that, aside from the many ones where you just can't draw any lines, the many more others where you have to hypothesize brokenly are almost a worse condemnation by faint praise.

The ability of people to duplicate a wrong done to them, or express a numerically massive sickness via kid-touching, or demonstrate any of the other hundreds of potential mental ills that could conceivably result in pedophilia, in contravention of the purported mandates of the random-evolution faith dominating their culture, proves that faith cheap and stupid, like many things, and as one of those seeming inexplicable contradictions that dominate our faith, is so well-known, so understood, that it offers easy, free passage away from that faith. Even Christianity's acknowledgement of a unique soul that makes choices which can be good or ill regardless of survival is so far ahead of the next (Bang) lie's description of people as workers in the existential factory, existing only to exist.

If you still feel those calls of the faith, do some thinking about all of that stuff that you know exists out there somewhere, in the tangible, material, personally objectively verifiable world, like bees that live only on flowers and flowers that only live on bees, or some kind of non-rare interest in buttsecks, or pedophiles, and even if you don't want to conclude or believe anything else, perceive the impossibility of the current religion, and at least don't believe in it. In the same way that Jesus shouldn't get to gather in all the believers who've realized that material-only makes for an incomplete worldview, the false juxtaposition of Jesus v. Bang should not permit the many lies and stupidities of the Christ to sweep everyone into a residual belief that random mutation created all these traits we can see around us.