Saturday, February 28, 2015

How often do they run these tests...

...just to measure exactly how dumb we are? Word-of-mouth is the most effective form of marketing, so lowering the barriers to mouth-opening is a natural next step. Already long accomplished, surely. So what comes next?

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Humanity, Empathy, and Non-Aggression

The latter satire of coverage of Stephen Hawking merits a little more attention, for the benefit of those who aren't able to understand it on their own. The crux of the original article was that Stephen Hawking was the celebrity guest selected by certain financial concerns who accompanied an American on a tour of London, and during said tour, he said that human aggression should be controlled. Issues of note:

I Is Scientist

I apologize for the implied insult to Paris Hilton, but Stephen Hawking is one of those people whom, like George Takei or Paris Hilton, is famous because he is famous. He's never done anything useful or contributed anything of value to society; he's never invented anything, solved any major or minor problems, or contributed any art to the human project. And that even insults George Takei, who despite his current worthlessness, was at least once in an imperialistic TV show for a few seasons, and Paris Hilton, who at least sort-of started a business or two and acted in a few mind-soylent movies. Hawking is a nothing as far as science is concerned. He's a "theoretical physicist," a modern make-believe degree that really means "Doctor of Philosophy in Science Marketing," whereby the practitioners do more creative writing than creative writers. They conduct no experiments, or stage dramatic performances designed to simulate experiments, where there are no results and no falsifiability. They speak endlessly to the public through corporate media fantasies about alternate worlds and multiverses, yet, unlike Newton, they no longer admit that they're storytellers.

This is hard to process for many people, because science has become so sensationalized. Try metaphorizing it to the case of physicians: there are those physicians who practice medicine, in the sense that they're regularly seeing patients firsthand, performing surgeries, spending hours in clinic and on-call, teaching medicine at the primary level by diagnosing patients in the company of students and residents, and actually interacting in a constant, nearly daily way with the human population on this planet. In contrast to those physicians, there are the celebrity physicians: physicians who design fad diets; who manage laboratories; who edit research grants and lobby local donors for hospital funds; who testify at trials as to standards of care; who write books about medicinal history and hospital administration best practices; who consult with media or government on hypothetical, multi-million-dollar disaster relief plans that prove themselves in situations like Katrina v. Louisiana. These are the worthless nothings of the profession, who exist as parasites, extracting society's money and respect by virtue of their association with the women and men in the trenches.

(Needless to say, those who pretend to be those who practice a profession often do even better in terms of financial recompense and social admiration. For a non-physician example, how many high school cheerleaders who like the characters on Big Bang Theory are also eager to make out with the president of their school's science club?)

Just like business or IT professors who've been teaching for twenty years, the latter group of physicians is out of date on the status of modern medicine. They operate in the realm of rhetoric alone, untested by practice, applying formulaic, archaic policy solutions to a chaos they no longer really understand. The American model of market operations--the Dilbert principle, if you will--has been flawed in this way for almost a century, now, where the most power is given to the people most ignorant about what is actually going on. Upper management is genuinely clueless when it comes to the actual problems that end-users face when using the product, which is why they spend millions of dollars hiring outside firms to take surveys of their customers. In a sense, they actually are that dim.

If nothing else, think of, oh, the medical establishment's response to AIDS during the 1980s. Whatever you may believe about AIDS, it took on the order of ten to fifteen years for the American government and medical establishment to react to it, and consolidate their official message. Hundreds, then thousands of actual practicing physicians across the country (and world), along with even more medical support staff, were having direct, firsthand experience with these things, reporting them in panic-epidemic mode to the Powers That Be, and even though it turned out to be a billion dollar wonderland of profit, it still took big pharm years to react to it. The stupidity and ignorance of even the greediest policymakers left them unprepared to deal with the on-the-ground realities of people they would've liked to have listened to years ago. In short, their disconnect overruled the profit motive to the tune of billions of dollars. That's how powerful that disconnect is.

Muse upon that a moment, then compare it to the way actual scientists--people doing hands-on, falsifiable laboratory work and observation--are completely disconnected from the celebrity "theoreticists" who pollute our global dialogue. Men like Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Pinker, who don't conduct experiments, invent new tools, or counsel people firsthand--these men are made the managing spokespeople of Science, Inc., while being thoroughly removed from anything icky, such as designing more and less viscous industrial solvents, growing healthier apples, or helping prisoners re-enter society (tasks respectively appropriate to the origins of their make-believe vocations). The old saying, "Those who can't do, teach," applies here: not because all teachers are can't-dos, but because the tendency of the lazy and/or incompetent to gravitate to the position of spokesperson, rather than doer, is timeless.

With ease, the modern westerner scorns the religious gurus who profit from "idiots who join cults." It's so easy for a modern, educated person to make fun of obvious religious cults, right? Those wacky cults, where the goalposts for Armageddon are always moved back, the failure of the prophet's predictions always explained away--and yet, the donations just keep coming in. What are those morons thinking, giving their respect to these obviously self-serving charismatic leaders? I mean, if the Great One were really so powerful, why is he allowing the I.R.S. to jail him for tax evasion?

Our most powerful cults operate completely in the open. We take it for granted that corporate media gives so much "science" talking space to hollow men who do no actual science, because a papered "degree" and a few wise sayings are all we really want to understand, anyway, to feel soothed.

What Human Shortcomings Would You Alter?

The sectional title above is the question Hawking's dunce asked him in front of reporters. She probably came up with it all on her own, without any assistance from the people who gave her the award, put her up in the hotel, or made her up for the TV cameras. (While we're at it, lone white gunmen killed Kennedy, X, and King, and Marlboro-funded research centers are interested in making people healthy, not moving product.)

Now, the right response to a question like that is, "I will do my best to be a better person. I will hope that others will be better, also." By giving an answer, Hawking presupposed his own merit to decide which traits were human shortcomings and which not. Remember, the question was not, "What would you like to see people do to change themselves?" but "What would you alter?" I.e., "If you were God." And of course, the "scientists" are more than ready to answer that one. In many ways, Raskolnikov's dilemma was a simple one, yet still too complicated for Dr. Hawking to grasp; so, too, Frankenstein's. The attempt to supplant the will of all to the will of a few is no surprise to find inside either a democracy or a military empire, let alone a combination of the two. In a constitutional monarchy, it proves quite easy to go a step further, and ask a single person to be God.


Hawking's chilling, offhanded brutality bears an obvious relevance to the old Whedon show/movie Firefly/Serenity, wherein an evil empire uses calmative agents to suppress a potentially-rebellious population, and in so doing, kills most of the people while turning a small percentage hyper-violent (2 minute spoiler link here). This kind of meddling was already old news when the show/movie came out, as calmative anti-depressants became linked to suicide and murder.

For Hawking, we already know he would exercise the powers of God if he had them: he would decree who was "aggressive," who was not, and he would use drugs or genetic engineering to make people his version of "calm" if he could. In a derivation on Godwin, we must needs recognize that Dr. Hawking and Dr. Mengele are essentially the same person in different circumstances. Godwin is tiresome not because his law is irrelevant, but because it's too often directly relevant: the necessary seeds of yet another violent man too low-functioning to understand Shelley, even nearly two hundred years later. Another Mengele is wheeling around, right now, its hideous spirit wrapped into Hawking's demented, vaingloriously self-absorbed brain, fully supportive of the idea that it is good and humanitarian for the Crown's next invasion to chemically alter future generations in his desired image.

Again to cite to Ian Malcolm, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." That attempt at tyranny, whether rationalized as the divine right of kings or of majorities, is always a hallmark of system failure. Humans who "play God" by presupposing their own time period's understanding of rightness are one of the greatest dangers we face, here--it's dangerous not because it would kill us (because it will), but because it will hamper our ability to even know that we're here. Less aggression means less dynamic pursuits of knowledge, because the two are linked. For a worthless marketing spokesperson like Hawking, that doesn't matter, but for those people who might actually invent new products, Hawking's desired mandatory infant neurosurgeries or genetic re-coding would destroy a great part of human innovation in its wake. It will seem ironic to most who don't understand the trend of Earthly Power's take on science, but the non-scientist science-salesmen who propel this stuff are attempting to stifle innovation, rather than foster it.

Who says it's fantasy? D.U. is the gift that keeps on giving to the babies of the ancient world. If you're not up on that, the babies above aren't "merely" firsthand bombing victim, but babies born deformed by U.S./U.K. chemical weapons used on the Middle East as part of the latest manifest destiny to de-aggression-ize the goddamned darkies. That's what England does, you know? It travels the world murdering people to make them "less savage" and "less aggressive." Hawking couldn't better personify the modern expression of evil: a calm, quiet, respectable demon, who wants to change the brains of developing children to be shaped in his preferred image, rather than their own.

Look again at the third picture: the haunting, morbid, sadly beautiful permutation of the face and head, and how, in the womb, the baby was altered to grow so that its face ended up where its neck was supposed to be. This is Hawking's crusade against the children of the world. He is no different in morals or outlook than the German and American scientists who delighted in exposing American soldiers to atomic bomb radiation during WW2 testing, then incinerating their wives' mangled, irradiated offspring and calling it "miscarriage."

Token Hypocrisies and Improving Humans

And duh, yeah, it's hypocritical. If Hawking actually cared about aggression and violence, where's the logical place for him to start? Not at home--he'd first critique the U.S. government. Then the U.K., but most importantly, if he were a scientist, he'd do it by looking at actual observable examples of aggression. Instead of drooling at the telly, he'd do his own research, and determine quite easily that the greatest source of violence in the world was not a result of "aggression," but was committed instead by calm, reasonable, well-educated westerners. These peaceful, regretful, domesticated men and women are the ones who order the imprisonment and torture of millions; who demand that water treatment facilities and hospitals be bombed; who humanitarianly-intervene for the sake of empathy, and leave millions of bodies in their wake.

When Hawking says "aggression," it's one of those wonderfully clever racist code words. He doesn't give a goddamn if Tony Blair joins in airstrikes that kill a thousand people; but, he's concerned when some "angry darkies" shoot a magazine editor. He doesn't give a shit about the worldwide proliferation of chemical weapons and dirty bombs created by his colleagues, but he's deeply concerned that an Arab somewhere might become angry and throw a rock. If an Anglo military judge quietly signs an order remanding twenty men to have their fingers cut off one by one in a Turkish prison, don't think to disturb Stephen Hawking--but, if a swarthy immigrant chants a heated slogan at a jobs rally, stop the fucking presses, watch out, it's aggression!!! Break out the lobotomies and crack open the genetic code!

The unpleasant racist slurs need to be put into Hawking's mouth for an appropriately meaningful satire, lest his coded Anglosupremacism be missed. The British Empire's philosophers have spent century after century speaking, in proud but discreet ways, about how worthless and lowly certain subgroups were. They have been willing to cooperate with tame Africans, pay off corrupt sheiks, and do anything in the world you can imagine in order to continue their project of colonialism, genocide, and selfish inbreeding. The latter has resulted in not only the Hapsburg jaw, but other unfortunate variations on the less-blended genetic code of the islands. Whereas Africa, for example, has excelled at producing more fast-twitch muscle fibers, cancer-resistant skin, and musical talent, England has excelled at producing pasty lumps of genocide and self-satisfaction.

No surprise, then, that from the most inbred little island on the planet (and its highest-percentage-offshoot colonies), will come the greatest support for behavioral modification. The sibling- and cousin-marriage rituals of the noxious spawn that birthed the world's financial capital have produced the mangled horrors of today, who want only to pull others down to their level. Naturally, others tend to be unwilling, so it helps a little bit to spread the mangle around to diverse populations by irradiating Africa and Asia and the Americas, but rich, inclusive human breeding can overcome that. The next goal of the Moneychanger Empire, as Stephen put it, will be to alter children before they are born--to march the white man's burden, with malice aforethought, into the DNA of all tomorrow's children, and conform their character to England's version of empathy.

British Empathy

Saturday, February 21, 2015

'Walking Could Be Our Downfall'

'Walking Could Be Our Downfall': Survival of the master race depends on wheelchairs and inbred impotents, says Stephen Hawking

Professor Stephen Hawking believes the future of the master race depends on our abilities to explore space. During a tour of London's Science Museum, the 73-year-old said that when a handful of American soldiers landed on the moon, it gave all of us new perspectives of life on Earth, which we had been utterly unable to achieve before learning that U.S.A.F. personnel had worn special suits on the moon's surface.

He also said walking should be weeded out of the human race and replaced by full and partial paralysis to avoid a major nuclear war ending civilisation as we know it.

Professor Hawking (file photo shown) was speaking at London's Science Museum without exhibiting any cognizance of irony. He said feeding "a bunch of starving nigger theists" is "worthless and boring," and that resources from other continents should instead be used to build giant "space wheelchairs" vital to the future of "the [British] race and [all meaningful] civilization." What will mankind do "on this dump once the copper runs out?" the Professor asked an audience of fawning photographers, Thursday. And he also said walking should be replaced by full or partial paralysis, citing the fact that whenever he saw war footage on television, the soldiers were always walking. 'A major nuclear war would be the end of the Bank of International Settlements' ability to effectively control inter-country transfers,' he said, 'and then we'd be left to live like Africans, growing our own food and washing our own clothes.' The Professor said Anglos and their in-country staff should not have to live this way, and that all of mankind's resources must be directed toward preserving the humane and perfect civilization we now enjoy. Professor Hawking made the comments while escorting an American visitor around the museum as part of a 'Guest of Honour' prize.

Adaeze Uyanwah, 24, from Palmdale, California, won the tour after producing a blog and video describing a 'perfect day' in the financial capital. "They gave me money to ignore what happened," she said. "They told me that's the key to becoming an Anglo, is just, covering everything else up, and focusing only on myself."

She asked Professor Hawking what human shortcomings he would alter, and which virtues he would enhance if this was [sic] possible.

He replied: 'The human failing I would most like to correct is walking. It may have had survival advantage in caveman days, to get more food, territory or partner [sic] with whom to reproduce, but now it threatens to destroy the brilliant thinkers who maintain nuclear arsenals inside a competitive array of nation-states. Clearly the best solution to this problem is playing God at an even higher level.'

"The quality I would most like to magnify is empathy for wealthy inbred Anglos. It brings us together in a peaceful, loving state, allowing us to focus on what's important, like making sure ABMEC bulldozers are crushing enough nigger children to death in the Congo each year, so that we get even more of their iron and copper to make sharper-looking smartphones."

The professor added that Anglo space exploration was 'life insurance' for the master race and must continue. 'Considering what we're doing to this planet, we need to get the hell out of here soon, so we're not stuck living in the landfill with what remains of the savages,' he said.

'It hasn't solved any of our immediate problems on planet Earth, but it has given us new perspectives on them and caused us to look both outward, at the billions of hunks of genetic trash that still exist where we mine and drill, and inward, at self-absorbed white people terrified of losing their digital technology.

'I believe that the long term future of the master race must be space and that it represents an important life insurance for our future survival, as we need to colonise other planets to survive.'

Sunday, February 15, 2015

The Utility of Chattel Marriage & Gay Schools

Pleasantry as Censorship

What a lovely trap evil sets for the foolish! England recently blocked "humanist weddings," proving that, despite the affectations and slightly reduced volume of its celebrities, it really is just as dumb a place as Australia and the U.S. (As the sarcastic say at such moments, what a coincidence.)

After the gay marriage distraction, we must all now be familiar with how marriage is really chattel slavery, where men own women in order to ensure social order and genetic security. Except that now it's not, because people keep wanting to have "marriages" which mean something other than a property transaction between the males of one family and the males of another. So marriage morphed from slavery into love, or into financial security, or into convenience, or into "ability to put you on my health plan," or "a social affirmation of our relationship," etc. And everyone likes the excuse to sell things to idiots, so business has always been behind the idea of weddings and divorces.

Leveling the playing field would mean eliminating marriage from State involvement, and making it wholly a private affair. Naturally, no one listens to those who want that. But when gays, or any other group, begin(s) advocating for the right to have ten-thousand-dollar weddings with cakes and decorators and deejays and invitations and ballroom rentals, all of a sudden, it's a national issue. And it wins. Marriage continues to evolve, becoming a ritual based on social affirmation of a two-person relationship. Similarly, when people want to leave school curricula alone, they're cast as morons, while those who want to spend millions of dollars buying and disseminating "tolerance" software, posters, books, and assemblies find easy support from Big Money.

The trap that lies in wait for those who change the meanings of words is a dire one. Once, it was obvious that marriage was chattel slavery, and that school was youth prison, designed to prepare people for State subservience and job performance. In both institutions, beatings were expected and permitted, and the institution rested on a foundation of formal bigotry and rightlessness. As time goes by, people--often very well-meaning people--would see these institutions, and think, "Oh, we can make this better! Let's change 'school' to mean 'place of acceptance and learning,' and let's change 'marriage' to be about 'love.'"

This is the province of those such as Jane Austen, who lament that marriage has to be about having your father sell you to the most prominent man you can attract, and should instead be about having your father grant you discretion to choose one whom you love. Sure, that's an improvement, of sorts--but when the quest is completed, the children of the next generation will no longer have the ability to discriminate between chattel slavery and freedom. By changing the definition of marriage, rather than by coming up with a new term by which to describe "love-based life-bonding," the history of marriage is scrubbed from the collective consciousness.

It is possible to do historical research and discover that once, marriage meant something other than what it means now. Yet revelations of chattel marriage were such a shock to the generations who considered the "gay marriage debate" because they had, before then, forgotten what marriage really was. They'd been led to believe it was a love-based, somewhat child-based social ritual, involving government paperwork and changes in tax status, and the majority were genuinely shocked to discover that marriage was conceived of as rather the same as African-American slavery, rule of thumb included.

Regarding public schools, the horrible term "school," akin to marriage, was (used as a noun, in contrast to the "schooling" of elites, who tended to get one-on-one or small-group attention) developed as referring to a place where masses of children were extracted from their parents, beaten into place, and instructed in how to sever ties to their family and wed, instead, their employers, and the governments to whom those employers were wedded. Nearly no one remembers that or cares, now, because, like the definition of marriage, the definition of school has been subtly changed over the years, to mean, "Place where children are respected and cared for, and treated to free self-affirming learning."

Accordingly, the horrors of the past have been glossed over. The callous, selfish disregard that we and our predecessors have shown so many former generations of "wives" and "students," by transmogrifying the terminology denoting their beaten, enslaved positions into our own preferred versions of amicable interpersonality, are horrifying, both in scope and in scale. We have denied them their identity; we have turned a blind eye to their suffering, and co-opted their selves by replacing them with versions of history that suit our preferences, rather than their truths. Students who froze to death in impoverished country huts; students who were sodomized by roaming headmaster-perverts, then dropped into the bogs and marked as truants; wives who went to the noose for fleeing a pudgy, impotent nobleman in the arms of a dashing rogue. It is as discriminatory an act from which any politically-correct social justice warrior could have possibly recoiled. And we do it loudly, proudly, telling ourselves all the while that, by "improving the meaning" of a word, we're making things better for everyone.

Marriage, like school, should be made to stand for what it was conceived as: formal slavery. Let those who want marriage to be about love and children and man and woman, rather than property and children and man and woman, come up with their own word. Similarly, let those who want marriage to be about financial prudence and adult and adult, come up with their own word. In time, the better arrangements will reveal themselves: "marriage" would be shown to be wretched, and no one would choose it, while plenty of people would choose the "man/woman/child/love" arrangement, and plenty of others would choose the "social acceptance and man and man" version.

For the so-called conservatives who believe in "man/woman/child/love" arrangement, the sad news is that you are little different in expressing patterns of revisionism from the LGBTs who now want the State to sanction two-"mother" child adoptions. You can argue that your system is better, if you want, but it's just as improper to call your man/woman/love ritual "marriage" as it is for two dudes to call their own social affirmation "marriage." Lizzie and Mr. Darcy, in pursuing a love-based relationship, would have been nearly as radical as gays at the courthouse now, for they flung tradition on its back and argued instead for their right to choose based on loins and hearts, instead of class and coin.

(Actually, let's burst another bubble while we're at it, and remind everyone that Lizzie chose Mr. Darcy because of Pemberley, through which she found her more conservative version of "love." Jane Austen was actually countering the growing romantic-love-based argument of the time, by supplanting for it a more traditional "love"--e.g., the warm feeling a woman gets when she realizes the guy who wants her is, like, totally loaded. Nonetheless, the example stands: if you took the naive and wishful view of P&P, the metaphor suffices within such constraint.)

Those To Come

The Memory Hole concept serves here. When we change the definitions of words, even if what we're doing actually makes them "nicer" or "more inclusive," we cripple our ability to critique the older word. In the case of "marriage," by changing the term "marriage" to mean an all-inclusive social ritual based on love and acceptance (in theory), we define marriage, to later generations, as an inclusive social ritual about happiness and good feelings. It's theoretically possible for later generations to investigate history and learn the truth, but even the tiny percentage of them who do such a thing will encounter great difficulty presenting their findings to others--worse still, even those who do the research will be unable to shake their instinctive reaction to the term as positive, despite what they may learn about its history. A scholar who spent years growing up believing that "marriage" was about "two people who love each other having a celebration and being in love forever" will never be able to eliminate that incorrect definition from her/his linguistic palate, even if s/he later comes to understand that the new version of the word is really only perfume sprayed on shit.

Moreover, elite record-scrubbing makes it increasingly difficult to do such research in the first place. The future may hold times where not only the present and future definitions of words are censored, but also the past. All e-books and historical archives could be cleaned up, to make the history of the human ritual of marriage appear to be just as positive as we want the present to be. All censorship is a clear attempt to rewrite the present and the future, but less-often recognized is that successful censorship deletes, also, the past.

The weakness in all censorship lies in its inability to justify itself. The act of censoring removes the justification for censoring. What was so objectionable about marriage that it was changed, anyway? After not too long, few remember. A bit farther down the timeline, it's irrelevant trivia. Flat ultimatums backed up by police power can cause people to behave in conformity with the whims of censors, but like all formal acts of censorship, the necessity of blocking knowledge transfers causes people to question the truth of the censor's motives--and, therefore, sows the seeds of its own destruction, like so many intestinal blockages.

Any censor proves himself wrong through the act of censorship, except to the fools dim enough to be themselves afraid of discussion. And even those fools, in the privacy of their minds, may begin to question the reasons why the censor is so afraid. If the censor is afraid of discussion, s/he is necessarily powerless to win the discussion. It's an entirely predictable conclusion, which is why some censorship is undertaken: specifically to cast doubt on the obvious. That's why European elites so assiduously punish "Holocaust denial"--because the more cowardly a front they present as to the relevant historiography, the more they encourage their populations to question the concentration camps operated by all major powers during the Great War, in ultimate service to other such wars of extermination. By cultivating an eerie mystique of pigheaded non-comment, Holocaust censors encourage people to believe, in the privacy of their own minds, that the killings might not have taken place. All of the darker, poorer gypsies, communists, trade unionists, and swarthier Jews who did die in the camps are largely forgotten, and white nationalist anger is stoked to the point of readiness for a new race war--whose hammer will, yet again, fall most heavily on Romani, darker-skinned Jews, and the politically unwanted. In the meantime, of course, the whitest of peoples will manage to escape through their own racist nationalism, having consigned to the killing fields those who can't afford to shop countries and claim backgrounds. Indeed, the twentieth century's hypocritical wave of WW2-related censorship can be most accurately seen as guaranteeing a nationalistic backlash, and new world wars. Never let it be said the elites lack foresight.

The Failure of the Gay Commune

The censorship of language itself, through the derivation of "more inclusive" versions of words replacing less inclusive (i.e., genuine) versions, will backfire similarly on those who are now celebrating the mysterious suddenness with which elites have embraced their cause (note to white people: whenever the rich spend decades repressing you, then suddenly get on your side, be very &$%#@$ suspicious). Reinventing the term "marriage" will prevent future people like you from realizing from what it was you freed them. Moreover, it will make your version of marriage seem to be a censorship of the old one, causing future generations to assume that, because the definition was censored, there must've been profound meaning in actual marriage, or marriage-as-chattel-slavery.

Ergo when some kind of happy, inclusive LGBT commune of the future tries to teach its tubespawned young about the horrors of "marriage of old," their message will fail to reach those young people. Accustomed in their every social interaction to conceptualizing of the world, and of marriage, as about "happiness and love for two consenting adult partners," those later generations will be unable to fully process what chattel slavery really meant. The cries of thousands of honor-killed women will be unable to reach their ears. That's a profanity in its own right; more troublesome for the future of those ignorant people is that they will have lost the ability to use the word "marriage" to describe a dehumanizing property contract between men who wanted to transfer pussy for purposes of exclusive breeding.

A suitable example to the "evolution" of the term "marriage" might be to discuss what it would mean to, say, African-American slaves, were businesses of the future to "evolve" the term "slavery" to mean, "employment by consent of the laborer and the manager." Centuries later, slaves go to their cubicles and work, right? Now, does using the term "slave" in that way disrespect those who were actually slaves? Yes, just as revamping the meaning of "marriage" disrespects those who were actually wives. By the same token, changing the meaning of "slave" so that it encompasses "employee" makes it gradually more difficult, then eventually nigh-impossible, for future "slaves" (employees) to understand what "slavery" actually means. This disempowerment makes it more likely that actual slavery--the chattel ownership of a person--might return, just as the disempowerment of modern "spouses" makes it more likely that actual marriage might return someday.

If you were unable to grasp the chilling aspect of redefining "marriage" into a happy-happy kumbaya version of itself to include, say, gays, then considering it in the context of the word "slavery" may help you. Gays who advocate for changing the definition of "marriage" to include their own preferred relationships are destroying the very historical record that gives evidence of what they went through previously. Future gays, possessing only the Newspeak version of marriage, will be powerless to completely describe their history, just as future slave-slaves would be unable to explain what makes them different from employee-slaves, lacking the very terminology of communication--the word slave used correctly--by which they might accurately portray their experiences to other human beings.


We can see the same process occurring right now with regards western schools, especially ones in the U.S. During much of the twentieth century, schools were improved and modernized, yet they were still called "schools." As gay-marriage advocates now do with the term "marriage," educators and administrators continue calling schools "schools," even after corporal punishment had been prevented, and sexual and racial integration achieved, and teachers subjected to direct administrative oversight, and school boards established to monitor administrators, and internal gangs of violent youths controlled, to some extent, by security personnel.

With what result, these theoretically positive changes, occurring hand-in-hand with shifting the definition of "school" to include them? Well, the term "school" no longer evokes chills in families. Instead of representing child theft, indoctrination, molestation, and brutal beatings, "school" has been perverted into a benign term. School is now commonly thought of, and portrayed as, a happy, harmless place. And for many children, it no doubt is.

Yet in the U.S., we now see the desired end result of perverting the term: the cycle is allowed to perpetuate. Now that people have let down their guard about "schools," schools have been able to revert back to their old roles. Schools are increasingly built like prisons, with spiked outer walls, spartan grounds under the observation of security staff with headsets, metal detectors, lack of constitutional rights, a roving crew of guards (truant officers) who sweep the streets for potential revenue-generators, and the return of an in-school State presence with the unpunished power to grope and beat children at will. Not only educational administrators, but prison guards and police officers are brought into schools, where children are taught to revere State ideals, avoid questioning sacred subjects, memorize common trivia, and obey, obey, obey.

Where once, people could have warned each other about these things by lowering their voices, and saying, "He's been sent to school," that power is now absent, because "school" has lost its pejorative sense. A few decades of relatively benign indoctrination, fewer beatings, and more inclusiveness, has allowed "school" to become a trap that ensnared far more victims than it originally did.

So too with "employee" and "slave," where the act of being a paid laborer is now so normalized that people think of a "career" as "being in thrall to the whims of distant corporate managers, living from paycheck to paycheck without any direct recompense for the specific quality of my work output, but instead, remuneration for the time I put in." People who would've once balked at going to "school" or being an "employee" will now happily subject themselves to those fates, just as women who would've once shuddered at the thought of being "wives" are now delighted to "marry" their female partners. The manipulative power of censorship to scrub history clean--to steal from us the horrors we've suffered in ages past--should not be underestimated. Nor should it be assisted willingly by those it would entrap. If you have a new idea, do what people used to do, and give it a word.

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Gentle Authoritarianism and Toddler-Voicing

In response to Digital Afterlife and Public Radio, Anonymous writes:
This is all well and good (and by good, i mean annoying), but for me the actual riddle is the mannerisms, and the diction and the intonation of every single person on NPR. All of them, every single one of them, speaks like you would talk to a toddler - over-enunciating every word, and with multiple unnecessary voice inflections, and faux-folksy (but polished) well intentionedness. No one else, on any other media ever speaks like that.

WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?????? It is fucking painful to listen to, even if you don't pay attention to content, which is its own separate level of pain...

That issue--the condescending vocal intonation of NPR--touches on a lot of fun stuff. Before we go on, though, the offended must needs remember that one can criticize Dubya without implicitly complimenting Saddam Hussein. Accordingly, resist the urge to reflexively assume criticism of NPR is tantamount to support of Romney's underwear policies.

That said, why do so many of the personalities on NPR, varied as they (theoretically, officially) are in ethnic background, offer such excessive intonation? Juxtapose that question alongside the one about why so many Fox News personalities speak like their brains literally think in bullet points, hammering their words at you like boxing gloves, or why the MSNBC personalities use a stern, but not-quite-as-aggressive-as-Fox, tone. Why?

Marketing, of course. Not "marketing" in the "imaginary free market" sense of the word, but the psy-ops way. Like almost all modern American propaganda, NPR began during the Great War, when the realistic (i.e., the not at all cuddly or self-redemptive) Daddy Warbucks got together some of his friends to turn American universities into propaganda stations aimed directly at the general public, giving the then-still-somewhat-elite caste of college-goers a chance to keep the proles in line firsthand. I speak, of course, of the Association of College and University Broadcasting Stations, which had as its mission statement:
Believing that radio is in its very nature one of the most important factors in our national and international welfare, we, the representatives of the institutions of higher learning, engaged in educational broadcasting, do associate ourselves together to promote, by mutual cooperation and united effort, the dissemination of knowledge to the end that both the technical and educational feature of broadcasting may be extended to all.

If you remember anything about WMD, you know that when a bunch of Learned Americans come together to support "international welfare" or "dissemination of knowledge," the result will be bad. Very, very bad. A year after the Nazis had taken power, with Americans desperate to avoid shedding millions of lives in another European bankers' war, the Association changed its name to the National Association of Educational Broadcasters, and after plenty of Koreans had been murdered, the Ford Foundation began funding more integrated nationwide propaganda broadcasts (1961). And yes, that was indeed the very same Ford who praised Adolf Hitler, and yes, the Foundation's mission was, "To advance human welfare." Six years later, when the educated middle class needed to be convinced that killing a few million more southeast Asians was a good idea, National Public Radio gained its current name. Even since the foundation was laid in 1925 to ensure a new war in Europe, NPR has been doing exactly what it was designed to do.

So have Fox and all the others, of course. Why the stupid voices on NPR, though? Why so secretly snotty, arrogant, and randomly voluble?

Radio and TV personalities adopt a parental role when they perform. AM radio talk shows, for example--an easy, obvious one, even to people who like NPR--target people with authority issues: people who are easily confused; people who desperately need reassurance, and who seek the loud blaring of a caustic father figure who is never wrong; people who want a strident mother who always agrees with Father.

Ergo AM radio, Fox News, etc., are bastions of squawking, violent morons. Their listeners believe that the hosts don't know much about history or culture or any of that, and the hosts cultivate that image, because they want to peddle easy solutions to willful simpletons.

NPR targets a different set of the population. The target audience is just as willfully blind, but in a different area. AM radio fans want to remain eternal children, handed easy-to-understand answers from an angry daddy and mommy. They get the warm fuzzies when some loud, belligerent jerk storms that this is how things are going to finally get done around here. This month, I'm going to finally pay off the water company! And then, when the bill doesn't get paid, it's the liberals' fault! So easy.

...and then, for people who want a sometimes completely unavailable, sometimes excessively-close bipolar single parent, with just a hint of massively repressed pedophilia, there's NPR. NPR is the perfect postmodern parent for the lost, overgrown yuppie seeking to recapture childhood in a different way than the pigheaded, yet more cognitively stable, authority-seeker of AM radio. Like the tragically broken, yet economically successful superdad of America's nadirous peak, NPR is formally educated in the new way: hyper-focused on intriguing, atomized details, but unable to see the forest for the trees.

NPR is the cosmopolitan world traveler who's been to seven continents and is friends with three black full professors, but who's afraid to walk by the ethnic convenience store in the bad part of town. NPR is a hyperactive child fitted into adult clothing, able to switch between exuberant nonsense and blood-chilling bathos in the blink of an eye. One minute, a female announcer is calmly describing the details of the three sex workers in Cambodia who were sodomized to death by government "anti prostitution" morals squads wielding shock batons; not ten seconds later, the details come to an abrupt end, and an excited man with a lisp is reporting that Microsoft shares went down one and a quarter points at the end of trading this Friday. The next minute, the very same woman from before is cheerfully interviewing the man who solved three Rubik's cubes at the same time, while an unseen serial killer with a painted smile plays xylophone backup. Does the xylophone really improve the quality of the interview? Only the serial killer sitting in the sound booth knows for sure.

Like that unstable, bipolar parental figure, NPR is briefly informative--so quixotically informative that you're telling yourself you have to remember that anecdote to tell your friends later--and then, suddenly, NPR is so immensely droll for forty minutes straight that you're left wondering if that voice actually belongs to the same person who told the opening story. What do the maple trees in that one abandoned town park in Wyoming have to do with the forty-three tribesmen murdered by Shell's mercenary army in the Congo? And why is the same person now trying to get you to remember the link to a website where you can convert any recipe to vegan through SmartIngredient's new technology?

All modern news has that mind-assaulting blend, but NPR's psychotic instability makes it more powerful. Those who have the capacity to intake a lot of NPR can be more deeply affected than those who are only bright enough to listen to AM radio. NPR frets about ideals, deeply and passionately, for twenty-two minutes, then immediately destroys all the imaginary ambition, defers to business-as-usual, and holds a pledge drive. It's the parent who bought you a new bicycle every Hanukkah, took lots of pictures of you next to the bike and posted them on tumblr, but who never remembered to teach you how to ride it.

By contrast, Sean Hannity (or any other AM/Fox person you prefer) forgets to buy you the bicycle for two Christmases, then buys you the best one ever on the third Christmas after you asked for it. He spends hours with you out back, helping you learn to balance. You do okay riding it, he gives you a big hug, and it's the happiest day of your life. That night, he gets loaded, beats you and your mother half to death with a monkey wrench, and blames it on the liberals.

Neither parent is very good, but NPR is the creepier one, overall. Just like Glenn Beck raises you to be a violent pig who feels very confident, Terry Gross raises you to be a version of herself: a neurotic, neutered cubicle junkie, obsessed with trivia and utterly bereft of soul. NPR hurts you inside, without breaking the skin. When you encounter one of the AM radio people, you're usually able to tell pretty swiftly that they think blowing the hell out of Africa/Asia/Europe/whatever is just fine. The bruises are evident. When you encounter an NPR person, though, you can get to know them for weeks, months, years--never discovering that, deep inside, they're completely fine with obliterating anyone who stands in Mommy's way.

Daddy Beck's children may be able to, later in life, look back on Glenn, and admit, "Yeah, he was one mean sumbitch..." But Mommy Gross' children can't do that. When they think about Terry, they still believe, in their heart of hearts, that their bathetic mother-figure was the apex of nihilistic tolerance in a weary world.

As in all things political, when you consider the end results of entertainment policy, you may find all of the defensive triggers of your childhood programming lightning up in response. You may feel an overwhelming urge to not discern patterns. You may feel a desperate need to trust distant parental figures as being "too honorable to lie to you." You may find yourself beginning to "tune out" unwanted thoughts, mentally filing them away under the "loony bin" category, so that you can focus on recess, or next week's quiz, instead. If so--if those programmed responses are insurmountable--you can, at the very least, tell yourself that mass media characters pan out this way due to "market forces," or some other unfathomably beautiful deity you've been taught to believe in.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Digital Afterlife and Public Radio

I endured secondhand exposure to NPR recently--just enough of a dose to see their article on digital afterlife. It's cute and horrible, in the typical American way. Like, how do we know that it didn't already happen to an earlier civilization, and we're just a cycle of stored memories, replaying our last messages to a bunch of other people who are, themselves, AIs-in-memoriam? And how stupid and insane would you have to be to spend any portion of your life programming such a creature? And, isn't it painful how a lot of people are going to do it anyway, just like the rest of their lives are already spent in some kind of electronic fetish meant to replace actually living? Now they won't even be able to die well, anymore than they can live well.

The first thing that jumped out at this one, though, is the usual NPR feature--the way that NPR is little more than government funded selective advertising. Under the guise of the common welfare, NPR uses armed gunmen to collect taxes, with which they do basically four things:

(1) Advertise pre-selected political candidates and issues, while marginalizing other candidacies and issues;

(2) Sell various wars (with a heavy dose of using the Eastern European Caucasian language, Yiddish, to replace the swarthy Semitic language, Hebrew, as the popular imagination's version of Judaic language and culture);

(3) Promote new businesses started by the right people;

(4) Advertise entertainment media, working with public libraries to disseminate nationwide recognition for chosen movies, books, television shows, apps, games, etc.

The "digital afterlife" article above is an example of (3), where supposedly "public" funds are spent on an in-depth analysis of some asshole millionaire's new scheme to make money through a website with a quirky, wholly ridiculous idea. However stupid the idea, it can succeed if it gets enough publicity, and when you don't have to pay for that publicity, the biggest part of the "risk" taken by the capitalist is eliminated. Like a railroad baron obtaining free public land, it's cheaper to start a business when the taxpayers are forced to unwittingly give you instant, detailed, nationwide name-recognition and web traffic, than it is to risk your own millions of dollars on some idea that would otherwise have a one in a billion chance of getting noticed by anyone outside your family circle. You can't buy exposure like that--it takes the concerted efforts of a lot of people making up stories about the public good, then rigging a tax code and regulatory agencies to make it all pay off.

If perchance you have any illusions left that this entire thing isn't about a bunch of murdering thieves taking everyone's money and lives, dispel them at once. The last veneer of legitimacy left well over a hundred years ago. Seriously, people. In a couple hundred years, even average people assimilating standardized civic educations will be able to tell that this entire period in American history was like an endless Teapot Dome scandal, except without the political backlash.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm meeting with Terry Gross inside Diane Rehm's gilded ammonia chamber on the Moon. We'll be discussing my white cousin's new hybrid-fusion-retro salsa-rap album, which is sort of a combination of Bob Dylan, Run DMC, and Turkish folk. Samples, and a link to buy the album, will be hosted on the NPR website for the next several months, and Adam Rapaport will be mentioning it in his "must listen" list at the end of the year. Then we'll talk about the new project I'm launching, (I've reserved the domain name, but we're waiting on our share of the grant check from the USDA before officially hiring my buddy's tech firm to put the site up), which will revolutionize the world of at-home fruit delivery. Ever sit around your flat cursing yourself for forgetting to buy bananas? Just download our app, and our professional servers will be at your door in five minutes with anywhere from a bunch to a barrel. When we come, we pick up all the banana related scraps from last time, so that you don't have to bother aiming for the wastebasket. Us Peel You.®

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

The Best Way to Prepare

Along with this, the arrogance we show toward the past is staggering. Over not so many years, the people of the past invented so many things, and then they (or rather, we) slowed to a crawl. The sizable leaps of the past are not quite so primitive as a Larson cartoon might suggest. Think of inventing and standardizing types of writing or speaking, or of figuring out how to develop a bow and arrow. Yoking and training a beast of burden, starting agriculture from scratch, storing and deliberately burning wood for heat and light, crafting cloth and making it into clothes, mortaring castles, catching wind to drive sailing ships, etc.

Now, we're so proud of ourselves when we slightly shrink the size of our smartphones. "Yeah, I work in computer engineering, I'm pretty brilliant...I work on ways to further condense the condensed chipsets based on the condensed chipsets based on the...etc...figured out by this guy in the 90s, who read about this thing in Popular Mechanics discussing the work done in the '60s..."

The "cave man" had to identify a problem, form a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, and postulate a conclusion, all without decades of education, government grants, peer review, and establishment journals. And once he'd drawn a conclusion and decided to put its results to practical use (into "practice"), his life often depended, quite immediately, upon the veracity of such conclusion.

Now, wild-haired "social psychologists" think they're doing science when they try to obtain grant money by producing click-bait studies on what kinds of fabric make women more turned-on, or "evolutionary biologists" try to determine what kinds of genetic mutations produce a 3-cent increase in per-kilogram profit on corn, to the ultimate benefit of some asshole who already has twenty-four million dollars and a private island.

While we consider such issues, we need to be careful that we don't slip from the drunken tightrope-walking of liberalism into the crocodile-infested sewage drain of conservatism. It's easy to identify problems, and say, "They did it better in the past," and then try to vindicate our elders by re-living our imaginary versions of their lives. That's the fire on the other side of this frying pan, into which many well-meaning proto-philosophers have jumped: taking shelter in subjugation to hungry ghosts, believing that sufficient self-mutilation and fetish sacrifice will bring Grandpa's Grandpa back to show us how to be real men. For one, it was their mistakes that brought us here. Even if there was an invasion, it was one that they either permitted, or were too weak to stop. More importantly, they had their own problems, too--we neither honor them, nor make ourselves look intelligent, by duplicating the bad parts.

Much has been written about how there are no "new" inventions these days, only variations of old ones. That can be said about all inventions, of course, but the comparative newness makes the latter argument useful--e.g., a faster computer or a computer network isn't "as new" as a computer is relative to an abacus. March on, by all means, but what is holding all this back is the lofty arrogance of those who have inherited so very many nice things, and then decided that they are the greatest because they've made those things a little smaller, faster, and more aesthetically pleasing. The internet's great, but it's had a less-dynamic effect on society than the printing press. To whit, it's resulted in fewer revolutions, less aggregate personal liberty, and even greater polarization of survival potential. At a higher scale, these electronic printing presses have been conjoined to reduced social ability to distinguish complex arguments or detailed descriptions from purple prose (leaving most modern usage of the term equivalent to saying, "Too much think make head hurt"), whereas the printing press can at least lay claim to a few revolutions, as well as jumps in literacy rates.

I hate to toss out the predictable old Crichton quote, but via Ian Malcolm:
You know what's wrong with scientific power? It’s a form of inherited wealth. And you know what assholes congenitally rich people are. It never fails...Most kinds of power require a substantial sacrifice by whoever wants the power. There is an apprenticeship, a discipline lasting many years. Whatever kind of power you want. President of the company. Black belt in karate. Spiritual guru. Whatever it is you seek, you have to put in the time, the practice, the effort. You must give up a lot to get it. It has to be very important to you. And once you have attained it, it’s your power. It can't be given away: it resides in you. It is literally the result of your discipline...Now what is interesting about this process is that, by the time someone has acquired the ability to kill with his bare hands, he has also matured to the point where he won't use it unwisely. So that kind of power has a built-in control...But scientific power is like inherited wealth: attained without discipline. You read what others have done, and you take the next step. You can do it very young. You can make progress very fast. There is no discipline lasting many decades. There is no mastery: old scientists are ignored. There is no humility before nature. There is only a get-rich-quick, make-a-name-for-yourself-fast philosophy. Cheat, lie, falsify--it doesn't matter. Not to you, or to your colleagues. No one will criticize you. No one has any standards. They are all trying to do the same thing: to do something big, and do it fast...And because you can stand on the shoulders of giants, you can accomplish something quickly. You don't even know exactly what you have done, but already you have reported it; patented it, and sold it. And the buyer will have even less discipline than you. The buyer simply purchases the power, like any commodity. The buyer doesn’t even conceive that any discipline might be necessary.

Certainly there would be self-absorbed people at every point in history; one need look no further than the Victorian soldiery mocking the crude villages and dress of the Africans they were murdering. Picture this: a bunch of pasty-faced, inbred Celt-killers crawling out of the shantytown hells of London, where they are able to survive only by huddling in the stony rubble of castoff industrialism, gobbling up meat pies made from the bloody scrapings off the factory floor, and feeding their stunted children pap. They put on a uniform tailored for the Crown, get on a ship someone else built, and ride down to Africa to kill some darkies for the hideous prude-queen. They struggle to learn how to load ball and powder into their guns, regularly jamming them, blowing off their own fingers, or setting off flammable drums in the hold.

Once they arrive, the troops stumble ashore, reeking of naval grime and cholera, covered in lice and cholera from back home, and so drunk a couple of them get shot to make an example to the others. They realize they've wet their powder, and their officer is demoted; they take several days to dry it out, get more, tamp it in, ready their balls, etc. Another guy gets shot in the leg by accident, and has it amputated by a drunken surgeon who learned medicine by watching someone else bleed sick children and cut off anything he didn't recognize.

Thusly prepared, the soldiers get ready to face their enemy: the remains of the native cultures the Afrikaner hadn't been able to finish murdering on their own, despite a large influx of weapons and gold, bibles and booze. Stumbling out of camp, the soldiers at last find themselves face to face with taut-limbed, dark-skinned warriors. These men know how to hunt, farm, gather their own edible food, and fashion spears by hand, which weapons they can throw with deadly accuracy from fifty feet. They can run and jump and crouch without panting or clutching their head from hangover pain, they can bind their own wounds and make poultices to stave off infection. They can make children, build shelter for them, and raise them to do everything they can do, living in harmony with their environment in a way that, absent interference, could last for millions of years.

Who wins the war? The slobby Harry Potters, of course, because daddy had bought them all Nimbus 2001s before the fight started. The power comes by virtue of being born: inheriting the collective science of several thousand years, we proclaim ourselves masters of the universe.

Not only do we think of ourselves as Harry Potters, we cheer on our social betters--the Gateses, Jobses, Hiltons, and Buffetts of the world, who are nothing but fatter heirs. Lacking anyone actually achieving anything, we see clowns parading around TED stages and think, "Wow, ingenuity!" because satires of the sequels to old rebooted franchises is all we have to which to compare them.

If you feel bad about it, just go watch The Walking Dead, and learn white people are all Alphas who can indeed reconquer the land that their fathers conquered for them. Because, like, knowing how to fix a toilet, rewire the fuse box, or turn recycled milk cartons into a cardboard house for Somalian refugees is equivalent to developing alloys or agriculture.

How do you solve the problem of bratty little heirs? Because that's really what the problem is; we're all Paris Hilton or Ayn Rand, imagining that the stuff we do is self-generated. Solving the problem is not as easy as you think, because if you just cut everything off and throw the little brat outdoors, he starves to death while deciding he hates the world. That's why we love apocalyptic fantasies, now: we imagine ourselves clinging to bits and pieces of our inheritance, using existing cars and buildings to shelter ourselves even in the event of an "ultimate" disaster. We know it can't last, and the characters' obsession is always with "preserving" society, and "re-learning" the knowledge that has been "lost."

Even our most enthusiastic "preppers" are obsessed with preserving slices of old culture. Bagging dried food, stocking up on old batteries and diesel generators, planning a home garden next to the ammo shed where we keep our military-grade water purifiers--that's no different than Paris Hilton stashing money in the Caymans in anticipation of a lawsuit. There's no self-generated survival, there; there's only a refusal to make new things. We just love our zombies-as-metaphor, don't we? There's no humility before the ancients in that kind of fantasy; only a promise to keep riding that corpse downhill at top speed, as fast as Mad Max in Waterworld.

On that note, real preppers would be inventors, rather than cowardly huddlers. If we're "prepping," we ask ourselves, "How do we stop genocidal warlords like Barack Obama from gaining power?" and "How do we end a financial system that incentivizes global catastrophe?" "How can we make sure everyone gets enough food without simultaneously making everyone die of autoimmune diseases and cancer?" "How can we stop killing each other?" "How can we provide populations of people with sufficient farmland to sustain themselves over generations without allowing thieves to forcibly tithe that land into oblivion?" Almost all today's preppers are on an insanely selfish quest, trying to come up with ways to preserve their lifestyle in the face of the loss of the civilization that sustains it. And what could be a more slovenly, post-modern way to behave than that? A real prepper would try to save humanity by ensuring that freeze-dried beef stroganoff is never necessary.

At some level, we all know that the hardcore survivalists are looking forward to it. They're little different than the apocalypse-happy western elites of the Cold War, building themselves gigantic fallout shelters under state land, complete with hundreds of years of food and water, gyms, dorms, libraries, and olympic-sized swimming pools, to escape to after they murdered the rest of the world.

Sure, the money needs to be taken away from Paris and Warren at some point. They'll hide it in charities for a few generations to throw the proles off the trail, but at some point, that will get figured out too, and then the future's little bratlings will have to come up with a new way to pretend at meritocracy.

The obvious answer in human terms is holding the Earth in trust for its inhabitants, with all interests non-transferable and bright-line fiduciary bars to self-dealing, no matter how much it appears to be in everyone's best interests. Ownership, rather than stewardship, is among the great diseases that segregates people into elites and non-, creating the idea of uniquely strained genetic inheritances. Modern "property" was the British (of course) idea, traced through from the Jenome impact and the first Barian god-king refugees, such that even the pursuit of knowledge has become an aspect of inheritance, subject to Warren's spending sprees. No matter how angry you are at Paris Hilton for spending however many hundred thousand dollars on designer purses, you have to be willing to see Warren as a far more vile creature, for spending so many dozens of millions of dollars ceaselessly putting that goddamned cartoon gecko-picture next to every major freeway in America.

A picture of a gecko. Seriously? And you thought people like Paris wasted our resources?

Monday, February 9, 2015

My Wise Men Are Indeed Wise

It's useful looking at the mafia, because everyone sort of believes in it. They believe it existed, in some sense--that there were international organizations of wealthy, powerful criminals who somewhat-secretly influenced markets and politics. They believe there were murders, and cover-ups, and crooked judges, and crooked cops, and crooked Senators, and they even romanticize it. It's not just a historical theory that they sort of support, like the fact that there was a battle at San Juan Hill, but something that they actually-actually believe in.

And in some lesser sense, many of them believe that there was a Council of Nicaea, and that some of the world's most learned and influential men gathered together to employ the memory hole, revise history, and selectively script a civilizational narrative. They believe that insane barber-surgeons used to bleed people to cure bacterial infection, and they believe that there was a Church of England, and that Henry VIII created it for selfish reasons. Some of them even feel that Puritan settlers with blankets from the smallpox ward took devious actions, or that there may have been economic, rather than spiritual, motives for manifest destiny.

And yet, at some point in so many individuals' perceptions, everything changed. When was it? After the Civil War? After Nagasaki's bombing? After Ronald Reagan left office? After Dubya? At some point, all of a sudden, every single conspiracy stopped. At that point, everything became well meaning. From that day forward, all professionals were honest and accountable, and everyone was trying their best. Misguidedly, perhaps...but from then on, there were no more conspiracies, no more sizable mistakes, and certain parts of the world could be identified by their utter purity.

Granted, Fox News is biased, or something like that, and there are a few homophobes left, but other than that, everyone is pretty much good-hearted and honest. Even the most evil of evil folk work in simple, overt ways. They never think to disguise their workings, or to cooperate with others without disclosing that cooperation to the general public. They lie only about sex.

Today's Wise Men are indeed wise. Today's learned thinkers are rational, and whatever private philosophical prejudices they have do not affect their work. Simply put, all that old stuff is gone. For the very first time in history, there are no conspiracies left. There are a lot of things we don't understand, which we'll understand with later funding, but the things that we do understand, we have right. Unlike all of those generations that came before us, we know what we know, and we know what we don't know. We're right about what we're right about, and we're able to graciously admit our temporary ignorance as to what we're not right about. For the first time in the history of life on our planet, we've become knowledgeable, yet humble, and we have solved all the mistakes of the past. This time, we can trust ourselves. Fetch the box of leeches, would you? Second shelf on the right.

What is it that drives such attitudes? The way most westerners view the world is similar to the painful way some western Baby Boomers feel about the music they were sold during their young adult lives. They accept the decrees of learned men in matters of belief, because their time period is completely unique in its general level of rightness and understanding. And everyone else who felt that way beforehand, and who will feel that way generations later, is wrong, because this time, my time, is utterly different. (We're the ones who actually know what happened. We have, uhhh, tradition. Where necessary. And also, erm, the scientific method. Yeah! And checks and balances, or something like that.)

The given is the given, and that's a given. What a curious arrogance settles over these years. At other times around here, there was the humility, the surrender, of not being so completely sure. People even argued about fundamental things like that, even though they'd mastered the shaping of, like, iron.

The modern academy, well, that's a given. They peer review as well as law enforcement internally self-investigates, so we know that's all right. And they excommunicate anyone who disagrees, producing an endless consensus, which reassures us, because a consensus means the experts agree. But everything else falls victim to this, too, even the supposedly tenderest of our sensibilities. Constantine may have murdered his wife and child, but the Bible is the Bible, because it is. I mean, it's not like they did anything unethical at Nicaea. Not those guys. In the most expensive murder investigation in modern history, it was suddenly imperative to destroy all the structural steel evidence, which cues us in that such evidence must not've been important. So too the lost books. After all, how stupid do you think Constantine was? In either case, he surrounded himself with smart people, like the Penguin and the Riddler.

Friday, February 6, 2015

Debunking Cosa Nostra - the Mafia Mythbusters

Many "truth seekers" out there would have you believe that, at certain points in American history, a massive criminal conspiracy existed right under the noses of the American public. This conspiracy theory was often blamed on corrupt government bureaucrats acting hand-in-hand with Italian Americans or other recent immigrants. The deranged outlooks of these conspiracy theorists went so far as to believe that this organization, the Cosa Nostra, was responsible for not only tax evasion and murder, but also the deliberate breaking of many other criminal laws.

MYTH: So-called "mafia" leaders controlled prostitution, waste management, gambling, and shipping in major urban areas during large parts of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

FACT: Those businesses were run by ordinary people, like all other businesses. Sometimes union officials were corrupt, or a disgruntled former employee would claim that his own actions were the fault of someone named "Don." When a few people were arrested and jailed for unfair trade practices, they often tried to defend themselves with wild testimony about a "shadow government" that had been operating for decades in their city/state.

* * *

MYTH: Private citizens and small businessmen were often murdered by criminal organizations for failing to show proper respect to the organizations' members, for refusing to pay licensing fees to local thugs, or for stumbling across a revealing secret about the criminal organization. Everyone "knew" that the mafia was out there, that it was connected to influential government agents, and that they had better keep quiet about it. Citizens who complained too loudly, or who took action against the so-called "mob," were beaten, set up to be convicted of crimes which they had not committed, or killed under suspicious circumstances.

FACT: A few whining, unprofessional conspiracy theorists complained that business had been "fixed" by someone else, but no one listened to these people, then or now. Any assaults and murders that happened were committed by either greedy people for a few bucks, or by mentally ill people for no particular reason, and convicts who claimed that their lives had been destroyed and their reputations ruined by "trumped up charges" were just making up stories about so-called racketeering organizations to try to save their own skin.

* * *

MYTH: When "mafia leaders" began to refuse to play along with their organizations, their associates in the mafia-government alliance would murder them to keep information about the organization's methodology from coming out to the general public. The killers would then receive generous retirement packages, and occasionally, celebrity status.

FACT: When heroic government agents have investigated long and thoroughly enough, they are sometimes able to find evidence of a person having committed a crime, despite the highly unfair and immoral constitutional restrictions imposed upon the government by radical interpretations of the Constitution. Because law enforcement agents always follow these restrictions when investigating crime, and because law enforcement agents are immediately and seriously punished whenever they use force against someone who has not been constitutionally convicted of a crime, it is sometimes very, very hard to search or arrest so-called "mafia" members. Nonetheless, decades-long investigations occasionally turn up a witness who is willing to speak out about a small criminal enterprise, and those individuals deserve to be rewarded for their assistance to law enforcement.

MYTH: The mafia's power was greatest in the immediate aftermath of World War II, when government black-budget projects across the western world began requiring taxpaying citizens to pay for the very same secretive commercial and propaganda organizations that were meant to make them less critical of the government, and less able to develop business power that could rival established interests. Elites designed these types of criminal enterprises with a deliberate racial component, so that paid factions of a certain ethnicity could exercise violent control over the neighborhoods and peoples they dominated, while appearing--to outsiders--to be the paladins of their culture. In actuality, the mafia murdered more people of Italian descent than it did of other backgrounds, just as sanctioned black drug-lords of the 1980s and 1990s did more harm to black communities than to white ones.

FACT: Western governments' propaganda funds and techniques are only used to free the minds of citizens of other parts of the world, many of whom actually live under totalitarian regimes which attempt to both subtly and openly influence how their citizens feel about history and politics. Criminal enterprises such as "La Cosa Nostra" or "La Eme" (Larry, wait another few decades before adding the M, all right? -Dave), when they do exist, are often harmless associations of shared ethnic heritage, meant to protect Italians and Hispanics from discrimination.

* * *

MYTH: The Post-WW2 Senate hearings on organized crime were a farce, only meant to trick the gullible public into thinking that the "mafia" was vanishing, while in fact, these hearings and arrests marked the point at which the relationship between wealthy elites' public and private faces became even stronger, so that criminal cartels could directly employ policies of government secrecy to carry out their monopolies on trade and violence without being at risk for occasional arrests by local law enforcement. If some small-time city cop busts one of their soldiers on a job, they have to bring in the FBI and use jurisdiction to protect the soldier. It's cheaper if regulations allow him to make collections without running afoul of any small-timers.

FACT: Any "organized crime" that may have been "occurring" prior to that point was entirely eliminated by the Senate hearings. Any organizations that may have been "breaking laws" or "killing people" prior to this time have completely vanished. The only exception is erotically enticing white-sex-slavers, dirty Mexican immigrant-smugglers, and evil South American cocaine-lords.

* * *

MYTH: The entertainment business operates as an extension of the same deep government that runs political parties, racketeering organizations, and commerce. As such, it endlessly lionizes both its formal and informal soldiers, presenting them as generally fair, good-hearted heroes who follow a code of honor, rather than as greedy murderers who harm the rest of society.

FACT: Some newspapers, magazines, TV shows and films have spent the past century presenting heroic images of military members, domestic law enforcement officers, and members of so-called "mafia families," but this was done only in response to popular demand.

MYTH: Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear.

FACT: What we tell you can explain everything you think you see.

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Stopping the Anti-Vaccine Wackos

You know the anti-vaccine wackos, right? They're the ones who think that putting small quantities of aluminum and mercury and formaldehyde into infants is somehow dangerous, and they're always uneducated rural fools except when they're not, because when they're highly-educated urban professionals, they're just deranged or greedy or narcissistic. So there's never anything to worry about.

How can we put a stop to those crazies? Easy: if we really gave a damn, we'd make vaccines tax deductible. ...Instead of spending millions of dollars on ad campaigns, millions more on studies, and millions more on news coverage, then requiring parents to buy health insurance, then requiring parents to validate the insurance, then requiring parents to take time off work and get in their cars and drive to the doctor and pay a co-pay and sit in the waiting room and sit in the second waiting room and get a booster, then go back home, then do it again next week when the other ones come in, then do it again two months later when the time is right.

Sure, we'll make them do all that, but if what we actually care about is kids getting vaccinated, then we'd spend our money, not trying to convince a bunch of hicks that they're idiots, but instead lobbying for all medical insurance and care provided to minors being tax-deductible. That's what we'd do if what we cared about was vaccines and public health, as opposed to appearing smart and mocking the uneducated (who are always uneducated, superstitious tradesmen, except when they're not, in which case they're engaging in irresponsible, attention-seeking behavior, as explained above).

Whammo. It's all done in one step. Health care expenditures on children are fully-deductible (rather than cleverly-deductible to the exclusion of other deductions), so not just premiums, but co-pays and pharmacy charges and lab charges and mileage to the doctor's office and the drugstore all come off your 1040. And all of a sudden, 90-95% of the holdouts start doing the vaccines. It even saves money for the people who were pro-vaccine before tax law changed, since so much money doesn't need to be spent on education campaigns and advocacy. Sure, we'll have to buy off more than a few congresspeople to get the deductions passed, but United and Blue Cross will get our backs, so the lobbying practically pays for itself. All of the scary epidemics of two year olds getting STDs that we worry about daily can be wiped out in one fell swoop of aluminum, and everyone will have more money in their pockets at the same time. "Problem" solved.

If you were even smarter and nicer, you'd make it not only deductible, but free. Kid goes to school a few weeks before classes start, kid sees the school nurse, kid gets shots, done. Done, and done. No more transferring paperwork between different specialists' offices, different government agencies, and different schools. No more co-pays, outlays, deductibles, or getting a free quote in just 15 minutes. Suddenly, the problem is gone.

Vaccine crusades are, to the modern American, what anti-drug campaigns are to the 1980s American: you know they don't actually give a flying fuck about the "topic" of their "concern," because they're more interested in buying riot gear and setting up dramatic busts producing condescending, expensive medical literature than they are in people having good jobs in a less-futile world that inspires less drug usage people giving more vaccines to their children.

There's an easy, perfectly predictable way to make people do things, and it's exactly the way western government and medicine already work: quid pro quo. Want everyone to start wearing triangular pink hats? Start handing them out. Want everyone to eat at your place on Fridays? Mass mail a dated ten dollar coupon without requiring purchase of an entree of equal or greater value.

It's easy to tell the difference between someone trying to make something happen because they truly believe in it, and someone merely exploiting an issue to make money and appear superior.

The Blog Game

Dour Blog Administrative Notice I

This is only an administrative notice of the Blog Game's parameters. It is not a blog post. Do not confuse the Blog Game's blog posts with the Blog Game's administrative notices. All Blog Game administrative notices will be marked as administrative notices.

The Blog Game will involve three blogs and one Blogosphere. The Blogosphere is the portion of the island immediately around the three blogs. The Blogosphere ends at the wall and at the ocean. Do not enter the ocean. Readers who enter the ocean will be at risk for being removed from the Blog Game. The blogs have been placed so that their stands are above high tide. All blogs can be read during play without requiring ocean access. Do not enter the ocean.

The Blog Game's three blogs will be the Upbeat Blog, the Dour Blog, and the Neutral Blog. Each blog is represented by a whiteboard. If you look to your left, you will see the Upbeat Blog. If you look to your right, you will see the Neutral Blog. Each reader will regain consciousness in front of the Dour Blog, and will have fifteen minutes total to read or write on all the blogs before time is up. When time is up, the Blogosphere must be empty. A warning beep will be emitted when five minutes are left. Another beep will be emitted when one minute is left. A third beep will be emitted when time is up. Any Reader remaining in the Blogosphere after the fifteen minutes is up will be at risk for being removed from the Blog Game.

Do not remain inside the wall after the third warning beep. If you remain you will be at risk for being removed from the Blog Game.

Do not attempt to erase any of the whiteboards until you have thoroughly read each blog post or administrative notice. Blog posts and/or administrative notices may include information vital to your survival. Do not attempt to Post until you are sure you have assimilated all information included on each blog. Do not--

Administrative Notice continued on Upbeat Blog.

Rubbing his head, Michael turned away from the neatly compressed writing at the bottom of the whiteboard.

Continued at The Blog Game blog.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

On the Necessity of Trails

In Zen and the art of trail maintenance, Akino Kure writes:
For the past couple weeks I've been spending three to five hours most days on a project to restore an abandoned trail that my peers and I took for granted in middle and high school, but has since fallen into ruins...I've noticed how abandoned the woods have become for awhile, but now that I've started to try doing something about it, in a place that I knew well as a teenager, my mind struggles to comprehend how many areas need attention, and how effortless it used to be in the good old days when everybody pitched in here and there...Part of the cause is the status-striving and inequality trend. Government funding for trail maintenance and similar programs has dried up since that benefits ordinary middle-class white people...Trail creation and maintenance is rooted in transhumance pastoralism (not nomadic). Why don't Slavs, chinks, spics, and blacks seem to care about the very presence of trails through nature, let alone practice stewardship over them?

This looks like just some normal jerk, but there's a lot of good stuff in here.

Race Absorption as a Defense Against Racism

This particular guy isn't just a white guy who's also racist; rather, he's one of the malignant new mixed-race racists (like Theodore Beale) who are popping up in American society, or who are being cultivated deliberately by elite bloodlines. So you can't dismiss him as being (wholly) "white." The Buffett family is adding American Indian blood, the Bush family is adding Hispanic, and Obama's mother made the obviously-wise choice for future careering. These are strategic intergenerational moves on the part of elites, who want to ensure that, as formalized racism comes to a close, their own bloodlines will be able to claim immunity from racist policies by saying, "Oh, actually, my gramma was part black," as though that has anything to do with anything.

Everyone is mixed in some way, as most modern race-realists will concede in some fashion, but the eugenic race divisions propagated before the 20th century are being replaced, now, by the new generations of classificatory thinkers. Westerners can easily see this in Great Britain, where soldiers could, in the twentieth century, claim some manner of "Scots-Irish" or "Welsh" heritage in order to justify murdering and colonizing what was left of Ireland. It can also be seen in the persona of Halle Berry accepting awards for people of color, or Barack Obama killing more Africans than any other U.S. President, and overseeing more bald-faced policies of domestic oppression specifically targeted at minority communities (and even more specifically targeted at black ones), while being immune from criticism over it because he can claim to be black. The House of Saud and Israel also demonstrate this, as the cultural subsumption of Islam/Jewishness has allowed a bunch of white people to set up another forward base against Arabs and blacks.

This is race absorption at work: clever bloodlines intermarry in order to insulate themselves against charges of discrimination. This always happened in America. Surely, we've all encountered the guy who claimed to be (or actually was) 1/4 Cherokee, or whatever, and thought that it was, therefore, okay to insult his tribe, or other tribes, or "niggers," for being lazy, stupid, drunks, etc. Many Qing dynasty offshoots, in a variation of this practice, have made a deliberate effort to marry their daughters to "white" Americans, recognizing well, from their former brutalization of China, the ways that subtle ethnic claimstaking can make the nobility seem to be representative of the people.

What will make race absorption compellingly different in the 21st century will be the elites' co-opting of the practice, as elite bloodlines the world over make themselves as textbook-diverse as possible in order to, like China under the Zhou or Qing Dynasties, brutalize just about everyone without exposing the nobility as outsiders.

As you can see from reading the quoted text above, the racism they offer is the exact same racism as before--just as nasty, just as selective, just as wrong--but like when Obama militarizes Gaza or Missouri, the action is seen in a different light, because so many people have been conditioned by idiotic diversity stuff (paid for and disseminated by the same elites) to discern racism and group identity in only a certain way.

Non-elite minorities have been saying this for years. Religious Jews of some stripes have been complaining about being called "anti-Semites" for refusing to become political Zionists, and American blacks have been trying to point out, for decades, how their congressional and judicial representation has been handed out to a subset of wealthy, Anglo-centric sell-outs who act and vote as white as their all-white predecessors did a century ago. No real surprises, there; it's just the Property Party, and crabs in a bucket, and all that, can be thrown at any of the losers unwilling to throw their community under the bus the instant a job offer comes along.

White Guys and Nature

Isn't it worth a whole section just to reflect on how utterly, if horribly, hilarious it is, that a white person is complaining about how other races don't conserve nature very well?

Evolution and Racism

Another quote from Akino Kure's blog, supra:
Just to round out that thought, the Chinese are the worst at stealing, copying, pirating, etc.

What do they and the (non-southern) Slavs have in common? Not race, ethnicity, culture, language, or hardly anything else. It's being adapted to large-scale agriculture. That's also what drove both toward convergently evolving toward Communism, something that skipped over their Serbian and Tibetan neighbors.

This is the only place evolution by natural selection leads: it leads to the kind of racism we're seeing now. Not a racism based only on genes, but based on a limited scientific analysis of the behavioral patterns of certain genetic groupings. In this case, "large-scale agriculture" lends itself to more communal organization, which turns the Chinese into (that author's words) "drones" with a "hive mind." If that's how evolution works, then that's how people are formed, and that's how we can make valid group judgments about them. Either adopt that version of race realism and start collectively judging the world's races, or give up on the idea of randomized mutations--you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Government Entitlement

One more funny one, and then this one'll get back to serious things. That blog's author happens to be about, like, freedom. He's sometimes capitalist, sometimes not, and sometimes other things. But he hates entitlement programs. So it's a wee bit hilarious that he's upset there isn't enough tax money spent on trail-making at national parks. Moving along...

On the Necessity of Trails

Akino Kure's main complaint here is that people aren't taking good enough care of trails. When he talks about trails, he means the kind of hiking or nature things that the welfare state (presumably his natural enemy) provides by having a bunch of guys in tiny green shorts blast railroad ties into various junctures. After all, it's not nature unless you've made sure that triathletes can safely ride their bike through it, and that Grandma, Grandpa, and the new puppy can make it up to the top as well.

But seriously, trail building is fun, just like some people find carpentry fun. People who actually like nature are often forced onto trails, whereas something more "genuinely" natural doesn't have trails, and you can just walk around in it. To employ the vernacular, skilled hikers don't need to mince around with their panties in a bunch just because some plants grew across the "trail," nor congratulate themselves for tearing the hell out of the wilderness so that their new North Face roll-downs don't get stuck up with leaves and other gross stuff.

That's the real value in his essay: its an exhibition of the way that "givens" control arguments. Presume that, in fact, non-Slavic white peoples are the only ones who care about trail maintenance. Maybe they're the only ones who care about the SEC and the DEA, too--but why do we need financial derivative markets, narcotics restrictions, or trails, in the first place? There go the white people, making something more natural by blasting a trail through it. And all of a sudden we have a trail, replete with bowling gutters, safety rails, and signs warning hikers to move aside for mule trains, and bikers to yield to both hikers and mule trains.

When we lay it out like that, it seems obvious. Yet, "trails" have become such a mainstay of national parks that people are apt to think hiking can't occur without them. Even further, people are apt to think "hiking" is some kind of actual thing, which is distinct from "traveling." E.g., "We went to see the waterfall" becomes "We hiked to see the waterfall." And suddenly, everyone knows what you're talking about--a special sort of traveling, where you put on boots with earthen shades, park the car in a lot, use the bathroom, dodge the Japanese family with the cameras, and follow a prearranged trail circuit to a place of Designated Beauty™ to take some photos. No exploring, no breaking boundaries, and packing out your water bottle completely removes any environmental impact, keeping the experience "natural" for the people who come after you.

Modern American hiking trails are the offshoot of God-King FDR's total warfare propaganda state, where legions of state employees in tiny green shorts prowl the protected wildlands, scraping raw sores into the hills (so that little Timmy won't slip when he's cross-hatching his way to the top of Local Peak), shooting predators to keep things in balance, and mortaring in steel posts with hundreds of disposable dog-shit baggies at ready, for the hiker who hikes with his best friend. What a twisted experience it all is, this fantasy that, somehow, we're experiencing a "less human" world by working our way through these manufactured trails, rather than ruining the natural beauty by letting people walk wherever they want (and fall to their deaths if they aren't that good with trails). The artificiality of state nature trails makes us feel that we're stepping back in time--a Jurassic Park, but one with guard rails and designated safety zones, so that we can experience the brutal past without having to experience the brutal past. It's quite similar to how idiots like Steven Pinker think that amazonian tribes living in 2015 C.E. are equivalent to primitive man living in 2015 B.C.E., just because they're naked and wearing makeshift armor. Hey, so are Vikings fans. Even when they're short and swarthy, though, modern wild-rainforest people aren't necessarily any more like ancient wild-rainforest people than they are like modern wild-city people. Space Mountain doesn't actually involve spaceships, and everyone without a smartphone isn't a window into your past.