Monday, March 30, 2015

Cyclic Lightform Development (The evolution overview)

Terms and Styling

Evolution. The term "evolution," like the term "movement," is broad in application. When this one uses "evolution" herein, the reference will be to "versal evolution," a.k.a. "lightform evolution," or the process by which the verse as a whole evolves in the furtherance of energy transfer. This one'll continue to use "mercantilist evolution" to refer to the current local fad.

Darkness. As popularized on Earth, the term "darkness" bears the closest correlation to the proper term Void. The current cultural meaning of darkness translates more closely to Void than the English word "void" as it is used c. 2015 Earth. Ergo "darkness," here, will be used interchangeably with "Void." Herein, though, darkness doesn't generally refer to "empty space" or "vacuum." Vacuum is existence in the sense that it's encoded with rules for space and time, and is receptive to the addition of matter. Void is different. When this one uses "darkness" or "emptiness" or "Void," it means a nothingness--a rule-less absence of space or time. It doesn't just mean pretty space between the stars, because there's a huge difference.

Light. Light's simpler properties, which are somewhat understood here, serve quite well for most of this introduction: electromagnetic radiation, some of which people can see and/or otherwise sense. "Light" may be used interchangeably with almost anything, most particularly with "energy" and "matter" where context-appropriate.

Lightform. This term may be used interchangeably with "matter," "organism," or "life."


This is a rough lecture that, in more advanced places, would be considered the here-equivalent of elementary education. Any given portion will be only a summary, which could be expanded into a primary textbook to flesh out greater levels of detail. We'll already face a high degree of linguistic distortion as we go through this--of necessity, the result of clashing cultures--which will be exacerbated every time we have to use a term (here a "made-up word") for which no local counterpart has yet been discovered/created. To make things more understandable, therefore, this one will break down each section of the material into three 2015 Earth dialects:

1) The Scientistic. The first portion of each section will be delivered in a manner as close as possible to the scientistic means of communication. Where necessary, heretical (pseudoscientific) terms will be employed.

2) The Abramic. The second portion of each section will metaphorize the first portion's material through a predominantly Christian lens. Where necessary, heretical propositions will be employed.

3) The Ill-Defined Earth Goddess. The third portion of each section will rephrase the same material in a non-Christian, but vaguely spiritual way.

Versions (2) and (3) will sound extra-ridiculous to those who prefer Modern Scientistic English, and maybe vice versa, but even if you think it's all crap, the different dialects should assist in getting the rudimentary subject matter across, so that you can assess it via your own preferred terms.

How Evolution Works 1: The Expansion of Light, Scientistically Expressed

The fundamental property of darkness is the production of light. Indeed, this is darkness' only proven characteristic.

Darkness enables light by encoding laws which describe physical space and physical time in which light can exist. This produces vacuum and time, which light can fill. Light creeps into available reality wherever it is able, interacting with physical laws similarly to how amino acids interact with DNA. The constant pressure of light to expand, factored across a spread of time and space, results in the crystallization of simple light into matter: structures which stand in contrast to vacuum, governed by the physical laws established for said reality, which enable the exponential manifestation of light within said vacuum.

The material structures formed by light grow more complex the more time passes. Energy crystallizes into sub-microscopic particles, which particles seek out other particles in order to form more complex structures. Sufficiently complex collections of matter allow these accumulated "batteries" to serve as a conduit for increased light. Subatomic particles become atoms, atoms become molecules, molecules seek other molecules, and enough molecules become clouds of simple elements. The collected gravity of large clouds results in the condensation of clouds into stars, which produces a reaction sufficient to generate additional heat and light ("light" in the visual-only sense through which we commonly portray stars).

Various light pressures, including gravity, may produce "solar systems": arrangements where matter peripheral to stars, but not close enough to become part of a star itself, becomes drawn into planets, moons, asteroids, etc., which then may orbit said star.

Those of scientistic belief systems can look to the following local principles to assist them in understanding this section:

(1) Gravity. Streams of light, segregated within reality, are always drawn toward other lightstreams. The more concentrated the light, the greater the draw. Light which has crystallized into matter may possess measurable "mass," and the more mass a material structure possesses, the more gravitational force it will generally exert--the more it is able to express the drive to connect to other light, and thereby form larger conduits for future light. Even massless light itself is bent by gravity, which is not explicable through Terra's current dominant religion.

Why does gravity bend seemingly mass-less, volume-less light? Terran mystics ascribe the process to magic, or the indecipherable will of the gods, but there's actually a reasonable explanation: light is simply drawn to other light, because more concentrated light eventually produces more intense light. Light's property is growth.

(2) The strong and weak nuclear forces. Versal coding scripts constantly split apart and rearrange the smallest particles in ways meant to force an absence of perpetual order (i.e., everdeath). "Inertia" is an illusion caused by comparatively short human lifetimes, and any arrogance appurtenant thereto. In actuality, when encoding laws of spacetime, darkness creates failsafes to ensure that, through the motion of matter, the verse never reaches a point where the laws of gravity are too weak to move anything, and everything comes to a stop. The strong and weak nuclear forces (as well as proton decay and other similar types of enforced seeming-chaos) are mandatory parts of the versal code because they guarantee that, even if it takes a septillion years, a reality which has reached absolute stillness will, inevitably across the wide expanse of time, begin to move again. It may take a very long time, but the nuclear forces ensure that things will change a tiny bit every few billion years. Eventually, stasis will always be broken, and more complicated structures will begin to form.

(3) The predominance of simple elements. Light's endless, exponentially increasing expansion into reality ensures that the majority of matter within the verse will be arranged in simpler forms. Increasingly more complex forms will represent increasingly smaller percentages of the total, while the eternal pressure of light to continue expansion will result in a continuous stream of the simplest manifestations. E.g., intergalactic civilizations quadrillions of years old still encounter massive clouds of hydrogen beginning anew the process of forming stellar nurseries, supernovae, and carbon seeding--and those clouds, in their infancy, sometimes contain more mass than the cataloguing civilizations themselves.

(4) Vacuum fluctuation. Light constantly pushes into reality, causing different kinds of matter (including so-called "anti") to pop in and out of existence, like a pinhole of water shooting through the dam, sometimes being blocked by the little Dutch boy's finger, other times tearing a hole through that part of the dam. Earthly scientists consider vacuum fluctuation, like gravity, to be magic, believing it's "just the way things are." In fact, this observable phenomenon is simple evidence of the omnipressure light exerts on versal coding.

How Evolution Works 1: The Expansion of Light, Abramically Expressed

You want to see "the Spirit of God" as a metaphor for truelight, and "the waters" as a metaphor for true Void, or a state which exists "before" darkness (black vacuum in outer space) and light (sun/stars/etc.) were created. If you have a concept of Word and Void, that's a fair enough metaphor, so you're ahead of the Terran scientists on that one. Your humble inability to conceive of God except as an echo through a veiled reflection can be well-likened to the inability to perceive all possible "future" complex light structures.

To better reconcile with your preferred allegorical or metaphorical texts, imagine that any given desert prophet lay down and had a dream in which he beheld a large period of time--say, a few billion years--wherein fields of empty blackness spread across distances larger than his eyesight reached, followed by a montage of swirling gases and nuclear fusion, followed by the camera suddenly zooming in on Sol, then Earth.

Those of Abramic belief systems can look to the following local principles to assist them in reconciling this section:

(1) Light references. Abramic texts don't reference "light" a lot because primitive tribes were "scared of the dark," particularly since those texts were written long after their scribes' societies had built stone walls, iron spears, and fireplaces. The light is the truth, whether or not one emotes about it.

(2) Non-Contradictory. This particular manner by which an Abramic God could hypothetically have created reality is no more contradictory to Abramic beliefs than is using a car. Had the Abramic God been a cruel sadist, He certainly might have chosen mercantilist evolution, which, like all good ideas of the past--including flat-earthism, the crusades, the Hundred Years' War, the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, World War II, and private fiefdoms filled with astounding luxury--has gained public support by the heads of the Vatican Boy-Rape Association. If you're more inclined to believe that the meek shall inherit the Earth than that a horde of scowling, hunchbacked pedophile trolls in lush garments deserve all your gold, then you should continue to seek out the means by which He worked.

How Evolution Works 1: The Expansion of Light, Vaguely New-Agedly Expressed

Consider dark as the negative polarity of existence, and light as the positive. Dark is an expansive, urge-driven creator which exists in a state of successful destruction, which, through its yearning, provides the substance and space and desire to motivate light the co-creator to manifest. Light builds everything and is nothing without dark. You can do a masculine/feminine or yin/yang thing in there too, with Dark as Earth Mother and Light as Sun God.

How Evolution Works 2: The Origin of Species, Scientistically Expressed

Stellar fusion produces a lot of light, including the light that's visible here, small electromagnetic fields (yes, they're stars, so those are "large" EM fields from Earth's perspective, however, relative to the fields that establish versal physical laws, stars' own EM fields are comparatively minuscule), and other types of radiation.

Any given point of stellar fusion, though (or any trillion trillion of them), isn't just tiny in comparison to the vastness of currently available vacuum, but is an incredibly weak conduit for light. Like a river surging constantly at a dam until cracks begin to appear in the concrete, light continues pushing at reality, trying to force more of itself through. Stars and their associated debris pass through their life cycles, waxing and waning, ebbing and flowing, blowing up and scattering themselves into interstellar dust that, eventually, coalesces into new arrangements.

Whenever light finds an easier way to push through into reality, it takes it, as gravity pulls water downhill (or otherwise toward a central concentration of mass). The myriad processes whereby light seeks out more intense manifestations lead to continued complexity in the arrangement of crystallized energy. Crystallized energy structures which bond more closely are able to compress more (stored) light into a smaller space, ergo gravity, magnetism, and the nuclear forces constantly work in the service of light, shaking things up and drawing batteries together.

At greater densities, lightforms gain the ability to store more detailed representations of light, and light's purpose, "onsite," by establishing intra-reality protocols for the furtherance of density-intensification. As light forces the rearrangement of matter through its various "forces"--e.g., gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear forces--so too does it encode more complex mandates on denser pieces of crystallized energy. This is the gradation that often marks "life," whereby light vests streams of its non-crystallized self inside its temporarily-crystallized material self in order to maintain active coding to hasten the process of manifestation. A basic beryllium-nihilipid gellorn (Terrans, think "space amoeba;" these examples are all considered primitive forms of life), carbon-amino prion, or silicate stripwurm: all far superior to a star for purposes of energy channeling. Not only do they channel energy, they channel it consistently, and generate it themselves, over a longer period of time than solely-crystallized matter, rather than burning out in a molecular flash. Now, instead of having to wait for gravity to spend millions or billions of years (inevitable on a long enough scale, but still a long time) mashing molecules together in sufficient density to result in stellar fusion, lightforms can create new versions of themselves. Using onsite coding, lightforms can more actively absorb other matter into the project, then reproduce themselves.

Like the potential danger of random matter movements causing all matter to come to a stop in the vastness of physical and temporal reality, the potential danger of reproduction based only on mitosis ("asexual" reproduction, or cellular division) is that a single type of living creature might so thoroughly divide itself that it conquers all available resources, and duplicates its way to the sole expression of the verse. While this would be a massive conduit gain compared to a mostly-vacuum verse formerly dotted with inefficient stars, it would be an even more massive opportunity cost when compared to potential future growth. Ergo, it could not happen, ergo new rules, akin to gravity and the nuclear forces designed to prevent potential material stasis, had to be pre-emptively imposed by darkness.

To prevent a potential singularity from arising through one successful type of life, as well as to further continue its project of intensifying its own manifestations, light increased the complexity of its coding, developing life by meiosis ("sexual" reproduction). Detached lightforms were encoded with light, which is synonymous with light's "mission"--to increase (to which, on Terra, this one should append, "in quality and quantity," though that's redundant when discussing light). By encoding this drive inside individualized components within a regulated reality, light had created the possibility that any given lightform could thrive at the expense of light itself, potentially preventing more complex developments beyond the scope of earlier, simpler lightforms. This occurs because lightforms manifested within darkness' physical and temporal laws possess only their "macro" perspective on the larger purpose, similar to a neural division, a familiar, or a computer terminal disconnected from "its" mainframe.

The first "natural" (light-) force designed to guard against this possibility was death, accomplished through lightforms' own coding: life which died could not fall into a routine of stasis, because death would always save any particular expression from such a prison. Reproduction, though, however efficient at growing more intense forms of light ("life"), caused the danger that the reproductive process itself would result in lightforms which could transmit stasil* (* a more correct adjective form of "stasis") conditions onto their successors, including cascading stasil chains that could infect the reproductive process itself, and make it, too, stasil. (This is always the way of light--that its increase opens up possibilities for both further increase, or decrease.)

Light responded with the encoding of sexual reproduction. Because lightforms which reproduced sexually were required to interact with other lightforms during the reproductive process; because lightforms which did not reproduce sexually would die, and be unable to pass on individual stasil singularities; and, because other lightforms were themselves bearing coding in favor of manifestation: for all these reasons, sexual reproduction drastically decreased the potential for a singularity infection to cascade. Sexual reproduction not only safeguarded against the potential of one "aberrant" organism dividing itself until it had filled the verse and forestalled more complex development, but also, it simultaneously increased the potential for complexity in offspring. Now, different versions of coding could themselves interact during the reproductive process, blending traits which were more conducive to increasingly intense channeling.

(In other systems, this one would begin the following paragraph with, "As we all know..." but not here.)

Lightforms, including those that undergo mitosis, develop localized coding variations through their interactions with the physical and temporal laws of any given environment. By altering their coding in response to their environments, lightforms better equip their successors to interact with those environments. In more primitive systems, this coding may be known as instinct, whereas in more complex ones, it may be known as enterochoral coding, transferred experience, or ancestral behaviorality. Via meiosis, organisms double the potential gain of such coding adjustments by making available two sets of genetic material to offspring, rather than only one. During the transitory period between late-stage meiosis and tribosis, lightforms may further increase such complexity through telegony.*

(* Terran note: in sexual species, late-stage meiosis refers to the ability of prior mates' genetic material to remain viable inside a female organism, and intermix with genetic material passing to future offspring from a different male parent. Telegony was initially proposed as the enemy by the Athenian Empire's psychological operations division, known as A.R.I.S.T.O.T.L.E., which preferred chattel marriage and paternal child- and wife-ownership in the interests of stifling growth, and used telegony as a scare tactic to justify the brutal enforcement of premarital virginity. Later, telegony was discredited by the Greeks' neoliberal British imperial heirs, although it is now being openly supported again by Earth scientists.

Keep this kind of back and forth in mind when you're reading through all of my pseudoscientific blather and feel the urge to resolve your worldview by relying on what Terran mystics are now telling you. Note the boring hilarity of Wikipedia accurately citing telegony as "conclusively proven wrong with modern understanding of genetics," even as geneticists with fruit flies begin to conclusively prove telegony correct again. Also, send me $199.99 if you want my exclusive DVD kit on how to be saved by the One True God.)

Through the many variations on early sexual reproduction, life is able to consistently expand the amount and complexity of reactor and battery coding, using data which was previously only stored in onsite reality inside disparate lightforms. Sexual reproduction, and the coding drive to so reproduce, greatly increases the speed at which light may be expressed in reality. Like simpler lightforms crafting more powerful reactors--sub-atomic particles seeking each other through gravity, in order to condense into heavier elements and produce nuclear fusion--these more developed lightforms seek each other sexually, building chains of established intercodal reactions that produce progressively more sophisticated material forms. More developed lightforms, in turn, are able to more rapidly produce more developed lightforms as their successors.

Reactions are more efficient when structural and enterochoral coding ("hereditary instinct") models are alike in reproductive groups, ergo the development of discrete sub-groups (Earth: "species") which spend periods of time reproducing only in-group.

How Evolution Works 2: The Origin of Species, Abramically Expressed

"Let there be light" is cute and obvious, but we've already covered that. For this section on species, you'll want to move beyond that portion of available texts, and consider the formation of man out of soil/clay/dirt/etc. (depending on your translation and/or inclinations).

Here, you're trying to imagine a desert prophet being shown the fast-forwarded image of your planet coalescing out of the interstellar dust caught up in your sun's gravity. The planet forms and hardens, and then, over billions of fast-forwarded years, life develops--but it's microscopic, so no prophet can see it. Watching this extremely fast-forwarded vision from God (which, even if the vision is given an entire year, is still a nearly-indecipherable blur), the prophet sees (the thing he's first most familiar with) people, and animals, leaping out of the ground at God's command, then spreading and multiplying. The LORD God formed the man from the soil of the ground--it's only metaphorical if you're trying to reconcile twenty-first century hindsight with Adam, whereas it's literal if you simply speed up the feed.

When you're interpreting your Torah/Old Testament, consider the three paths available to you:

(1) Dinosaur bones were placed by Satan to trick you, and/or are really the bones of demons from an ancient heavenly war (a.k.a. the creationist version);

(2) God is a malignant entity who created a universe based on randomized evolution in order to pit His playthings against one another in an endless struggle of might makes right, wherein the cruelest and most treacherous creatures triumph and the meek never inherit the Earth nor do they deserve to (a.k.a. the NeoCatholic version);

(3) God ordained a general plan of beneficial development by encoding reality with laws for increasing sophistication.

Terran Christians and actual religious Jews will note that lightforms are necessarily created in God's image, and that they have a purpose/plan, and that said purpose/plan is incomplete in a worldly sense, and constantly falls short of the fullness of its true expression, but promises a reunification and an eternity of light. There's lots of room in there for correct science and conscientious scripture to overlap.

How Evolution Works 2: The Origin of Species, New-Agey Version

This translation's easy-peasy. All things are connected, all things are one, all things come from the same eternal source, yada yada. Early local biology duplicates the original eternal marriage of darkness and light in the dance of Sol and Terra, wherein Sol's dominating positive light and Terra's receptive negative soil combine to birth new hope on the earthly womb, yada yada. Also, crystals are important somehow.

( =] This one doesn't mean to make fun, but consider how hard it is getting most locals to understand this stuff even through scientistic verbiage. They've been trained to choke on the non-fictional use of metaphors, so we do what we can, right? =] <3 ).

New-Agey types probably already get this, but for the Abramics out there, the section 2 on "species" helps illustrate why the Word allows the Void to exist. Not because It needs a "challenge," but because Word and Void are synonymous antonyms. The Void desires the Word by fearing and hating it, and the Word speaks to the Void in order to shelter and destroy it.

If you prefer Modern Scientistic English, the abject silliness of the Others' speech can be translated, with painful difficulty, into the following: the pre-initial/post-conclusive paradoxical state of everwas is cyclical in nature, necessarily expressing recursive impossibilities because of the foundational impossibility of generating a response to a versal dialect that can only begin with the simultaneous unification of desire and fulfillment. Ergo there can be neither Beginning nor End, only a boundless set, which can only be defined as impossible within said set, which is impossible (since, in order for it to be impossible, it has to be possible to establish the rules by which it becomes impossible), which itself can only be determined after assessing the former impossibility, which is itself impossible, which can only be considered in full after recognizing the preceding impossibility, and so forth. Any versal coding, let alone the darklight springs of such codings' creation, is only possible because it is impossible, because bounded systems are everdeath, which is now and always the only true impossibility.

Ergo everwas.

Hugs. To be continued.

Friday, March 27, 2015

SSRIs and suicide

The factors we'd need to consider to relate these two things may be impossible to acquire for study:

1) How many people are depressed and don't see a physician, either because they can't afford it in terms of money or time, they're embarrassed, etc.?

2) How many of those people then go on to commit suicide?

3) How many suicides are not classified as suicides, but rather, as drug overdose, incautious driving, sleepy driving, etc.?

4) How many people who were going to commit suicide anyway happened to take SSRIs before doing so?

5) How many people would have committed suicide if they hadn't been stopped from doing so by their SSRIs (as opposed to the minority of their peers who weren't so stopped)?

6) The connection between SSRIs and suicide was evident before, during, and after their approval process(es). So why did the media wait until now to make a big fuss over it? Some of the more cynical people in the health care industry suggest that it's because all the major SSRIs are now readily available in generics, while many new neuroleptics (antipsychotics, some of the popular ones being Latuda, Fanapt, and Saphris) are still in the patent-protected phase, and thus generate significantly higher returns when prescribed to patients where a generic option is not yet available.

For (theoretical rational) grown-ups, this means that the anti-SSRI message is being broadly disseminated now in order to switch people to name-brand drugs out of fear of suicide (even though the antipsychotics also correlate with suicide--which no one will care about until they run past patent, and something new gets developed, at which point Saphris will be blamed for the Nut Of The Hour, and everyone will switch to some new billion-dollar miracle with as-yet-undisclosed suicide risks).

Maybe increased suicide risk is a good thing--maybe SSRIs help their users be more true to themselves, more filled with a sense of mercy and goodness, etc., ergo they walk away from Omelas in the only way possible. No, that doesn't apply to the Latest Nut We Noticed® (Clint Eastwood has no plans to make a movie about him, because the body count isn't high enough), but it could arguably apply to the vast majority of others, who simply exempt themselves quietly from the process of georapine.

It's beyond debate that western culture is a causal factor in suicide; far be it for me to halt any bashing of big pharma, which deserves any and all conceivable bashing, but it's pretty cheap to blame [insert problem here] on a single drug (or a single subset of drugs, or all drugs). You want to end drugs? Then everyone stops going to work, and eventually revolts. Inhibiting serotonin reuptake is the cheapest way to keep the rabble from tearing down Manhattan.

Don't be too impressed

Any predictive model which postulates tragedies will regularly appear to be validated.

A more interesting question is, how overjoyed is the modeler when that seeming validation arrives? And the follow-up: could there be a correlation between such schadenfreude and the fact that such models continue having opportunities to be validated?

Monday, March 23, 2015

Day 25 Among the Endangered Silverbacks

The Anthropologist's Take

Day 25.

5:46 AM. Arose at 5:46 AM. Had a powerbar, checked last night's journal, and went to the western slope.

6:13 AM. Took observation of initial group activity. The herd is on the move. Group 4 is traveling somewhere. Appears to be Group 8.

6:18 AM. All the packs have moved frequently since the beginning of my study. Lots of socialization but no major changes. Still, today I feel like something's up.

10:27 AM. Group 4 and Group 8 definitely meeting. Silverbacks encounter each other. Group 4 Alpha defers! Group 8's Alpha is an older male, broader and heavier all around. Group 4's Alpha, who I nicknamed "Teddy" on Day 1, makes an obvious reduction in posture and yielding body movements before this new Alpha.

10:33 AM. After his submission ritual, Teddy exhibits extremely unorthodox behavior in line with his earlier submissiveness--he is left with the younger members of the pack while all of his females shift to his superior's control. Group 8's Alpha already had one female in his harem, now he has five. The dominance just oozes off him as he leads them away from Teddy and the children. I'm getting horny just thinking about it.

11:14 AM. All of both packs' females fawn over Group 8's Alpha, who seems to be the head of this new group. When one silverback yields to another, a new Alpha is clearly appointed to control the harem of the new pack formed as a result. Teddy may be forced to become a loner for a while. My poor subject! The young are crawling over him and he eats a little to comfort himself.

11:55 AM. Long minutes pass as the females continue to pour attention on the new Alpha. It is colder than ever, but still I managed to sit in the one tree that had ants. They're a common variety around here--they got into my cargo pants and bit me a dozen times before I got out of my perch, stripped down, and swatted them away. Note to self: bring more bug spray along on the next expedition.

12:18 PM. It appears as though Teddy, the new secondary male, or Beta male, has discovered some food. Everyone else is converging upon it except for some of the females. Did the new Alpha prohibit them from eating? They are some of the younger but physically mature ones. Maybe he doesn't want them eating around Teddy?

12:41 PM. The younger mature females are definitely not being allowed to eat. They have remained away from the others while the others are eating and socializing. The new Alpha is keeping them away from their former harem-master. Alphas always protect their women from Betas.

2:12 PM. Looks like the feasting is finally over. Teddy has to leave the group for some reason--sent away by senior male? The females groom the new harem-master.

2:15 PM. Teddy has been allowed to return to the group. He is left with the young while the new Alpha again takes the females away. More grooming! Will there be mating this quickly after a show of dominance only a few hours before? Memo to self, buy more ventilated clothing for next expedition. I know the sexual tension around here shouldn't be getting to me, but it's just SOMETHING, so spicy, to think about the kind of mastery these beasts have over their females. If I wasn't on the job, I'd touch myself and not stop touching myself until the sun went down.

3:06 PM. Day's observation almost complete. Soon it will be time to return to the lab to report on the 25 day spread. The bigger, older silverback remains in charge of the harem. I have decided to call him, "Teddy Senior." I'm gaining a little more affection for him as I peruse his bedding material through my RED Digital Cinema zoom-lens. I don't think Teddy Senior has mated with any of the females yet, but they have groomed him and he has disciplined two of them on two separate occasions. Teddy Junior is all but forgotten.

3:18 PM. I can't take these ants anymore. The wind is beginning to pick up. At least I'm cooling back down a little. The Alpha display from Teddy Senior is incredible. That quickly my entire perspective has been confirmed. It's just like it is back home.

4:09 PM. Hiked back to base camp. It's been a tiring trip but also wonderful. E-mail updates went to the entire department every few days, and during the layover between my flights back home, I have a skype meeting with the director of research, to discuss the effects of my findings. This might seem mundane to a lot of people, but it confirms everything we've suspected for years about not only primate behavior, but human behavior as well.

Susie's Perspective

"Ted? Ted? You know, I hate it when you just watch football the entire visit!"

Ted smirked. "You wanna go see the old man, you go see him."

"But he's so booooring!" protested Alexis. "I had to look through these slides for, like, hours! And his study smells like 'Old Spice'!"

Smothering a giggle, Tracy added, "And old farts! I swear, he was letting silent-but-deadlies the whole time we were back there, like he thought we couldn't tell."

Ted grinned, but waved at the girls. "Don't make fun of your grandfather."

Alexis made a face at him. "Like it was your problem. Every time you drag us there, you just watch ESPN like a doof, and make us put up with him."

"Suze?" Ted compressed his lips into a line, giving Susie a meaningful look.

Exhaling slowly, Susie turned to her eldest daughter. "Sweetheart, he's serious. We all need to check in on him now and then. How would you feel if this was our last visit there, and that was the last thing you ever remembered saying about him?"

Alexis thought carefully. "Relieved?" she offered, eyes sparkling.

Pretending to check the driver's side mirror, Ted tried to hide his laugh.

Susie frowned at both of the girls. "Well, at least you got to see Grandma."

"I like Gramma," shrugged Tracy.

Alexis made a noncommittal noise. "Anyway..." She perked up. "Did you see that weird guy in the tree across the street? What was he doing up there?"

Giggling, Tracy said, "He was sitting on ants--I saw."

"He was, like, fapping," Alexis confided with hushed seriousness. "He was looking in their window the whole day."

"Girls!" Susie rubbed her temples. "Oh, I am so drained. Please, please be mature about all this. " She drew several long yoga breaths. "Dear?" Batting her eyelashes appealingly, she turned to Ted, who was just about to merge onto the freeway. "I love you so much, sweetie." After a careful pause, she asked, "Do you think we could get Chinese tonight? Pleeeease?"

Ted thought. "Long as you put on those ribs tomorrow, yeah, sure."

"Oh, thank you!" Susie leaned her head against his shoulder. Shutting her eyes, she listened to the sounds of muffled truck engines, trying to decompress from the day.

Alpha Internet

In White Boiz, How to Pick up Women, and How to Pick up Women, Part 2, we've looked at a portion of internet marketing which capitalizes on bourgeois men's issues, and which primarily goes by terms borrowed from the femboi/transsexual community ("Red Pill" and Matrix-franchise-derived terms), and the lower class African-American community ("Game"). A small portion of this cultural phenomenon includes people discussing institutionalized bigotry, which can be interesting and meaningful up to the point that its own inherent selfishness--namely, its feminism-like narcissistic focus on domestic men's rights contra global death and misery tolls affecting exponentially more men and boys in exponentially more serious ways--causes the good portions of the critique to collapse, like feminism, into a vulgar caricature of decency which attempts to resort to collective punishment as the only possible defense/solution.

The majority of the bourgeois men's issues blogs are, like the Occupy Wall Street movement, reacting adversely to something only when it begins to powerfully affect the bourgeois. E.g., it's fine if judges throw black men in jail for being unable to pay criminally-deranged levels of child support based upon "imputed income" during recessions for forty years, but once it affects some young white people who work in IT, it's a "new wave" of feminism that absolutely must be stopped in the interests of all men. (The OWS comparison is that American blacks have been living under those same financial hammers for centuries, and OWS didn't become national news until some white bourgeois students started disliking their student debt, then trying to connect their burdens to the larger historical injustice. Which isn't to say that OWS was "wrong," but there's certainly a comparison to be noted there.)

Ergo we have all of these delightful new masculinist blogs and literature-producers that look exactly like feminist literature, only with the pronouns and jargon largely reversed. The marketers are making money by advocating various collective punishments, and everyone, even well-off white people in Britain and America (a lot of the men's rights stuff comes out of the U.K., actually--way more than you'd think, because just like with feminism, the hypothetical financial Powers That Be in London may be reasonably speculated to foster social movements based around collective punishment and rationalized bigotry), likes playing victim.

Alpha Males

From certain temporal perspectives, it becomes easy to see the ebb and flow of movements like these, particularly when they originate among an imperial seat's managerial classes. Why, then, would this one waste time discussing the anthropological example above, where it's so easy to tell that the perverted dunce in the tree had completely missed the point?

A side note about Anthropology

It's interesting (although duplicated in nearly all other fields, still interesting) that, when you deal in anthropological pedagogy and literature, anthropologists talk about how they need to avoid mistakes like the ones above, whereby they project their own desires and cultural assumptions onto the behavior of the subjects they observe. They even teach graduate-level courses where they're supposed to learn how to identify the effects that such biases can have on their research. And yet, even though they teach this, their open admittance of the problems does not cause them to question any of the core tenets of their discipline--let alone the idea of the discipline itself, or its development and paladins over the course of the centuries (by whatever name). Like medicine and politics, anthropologists are wedded to the idea that, no matter how rotten and crumbling the foundation of their entire history and worldview, they can make things better if they continue building new floors on top of their leaning skyscraper.

Returning to "Alpha Males"

This one had posed the question as to why we would waste time discussing such flawed examples as why Ted and Susie's trip to visit Grandpa and Grandma could make it appear to a foolish observer that Ted was submitting to his fat, stinky, weak, broken-hipped old father as an Alpha, and handing over all the females to Grandpa to augment Ted, Sr.'s harem. Why?

Firstly, because the idea of "alpha" specimens still has such a powerful hold on the western consciousness. Like other little-boy fantasies of domination by strength and presence, the coveted western idea of assigning people letters of the Greek alphabet based on presumed prowess draws upon the same thing as almost everything else upon which western culture is based: mangled lies of crony capitalist, free market evolution. The observers who made the original error in propagating the sexualized, classificatory "alpha" fetish were making almost exactly the mistake that the silly example which began this post spells out.

Rudolph Schenkel's 1947 study, "Expressions Studies on Wolves," was exactly the study that the Silent Generation wanted to see after the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden. It was a crappy, terrible study, in which researchers observed a family unit of wolves in (obviously unnatural) captivity, and then concluded that the deference that wolf cubs showed to their mother and father meant that there were "alpha males," "alpha females," "alpha wolves," et cetera, along with other "lesser wolves" (obviously betas, gammas, or something else).

The study has been thoroughly debunked, even by its original authors (see Dave Mech's page, which still hosts the original study), yet it had such a profound impact on modern "science" that it massively shaped nearly all avenues of zoology, as well as politics, economics, human sexuality, and now, in 2015, confident idiots quite earnestly playing caste games on blogspot, unaware that their favorite Greek lettering system is less accurate than Margaret Mead's wishful work.

(It's hilarious enough that all of these rich Anglos are using Lana Wachowski's terms to define themselves as manly, but when they're also using the lettering system borrowed from the Athenian boyfuckers to describe their superiority through comparisons to someone who studied animals at the zoo, the snickers are rather more pronounced.)

Primatology was thoroughly affected, also. Most westerners' impressions of gorillas (along with lions, whales [see Moby Dick for waaaaay too much fantasizing about big males leading harems of females; you can try Call of the Wild too, if you want more of a flavor of Americans getting into the idea of animals as sex-fantasy projections], and other animals that make Anglo boiz get shivers of masculine feelings) are still centered on the "dominant male controlling female harem" notion that is, simply, a human fantasy projected onto complex animal relations by a bunch of guys who wanted to get together in tents in the jungle to talk about gorillas more than they wanted to swive women. But that's another subject.

Even in such a modest arena as dog training, the hierarchical "pack theory" favored by the Anglosphere is still being re-re-re-debunked. It's simply too appealing for so many people to think that they need to be an alpha to their dog that, nearly seven decades after the broken study, teenagers at friggin' Petsmart are lecturing corporate executives about it when the latter bring their children in to learn how to make Fluffy sit.

You may have never heard of Rudolph Schenkel or his study, or his retraction of its conclusions as erroneous, but if you have any experience of the make-believe perception of "alphas" out there in the western world--in human social dynamics; pet social dynamics; business leadership; watching a nature show; political analysis; job interview advice--then you've felt the effects. Not just of that one study, but of two generations of scientists building entire theory sets upon it, and continuing forward with them even when the original study was conceded to be an abject mistake.

So why did we talk about this, anyway? Well, we talked about it because, if you're still clinging to the idea that mercantilist evolution doesn't set social prescriptions, maybe looking at all of these pickup-artist bloggers will help you see a connection between inductive science created through the projection of personal fantasy (I'm here because I'm among the fittest, I'm the heir to "alphas," I have a chance at being an "alpha," etc.) produces bad results as well as incorrect ones. A single piece of misplaced fantasy, if it resonates with a group in the right way, can have tremendous consequences.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Rites of Passage and Guns to Heads

Before you can really trust another criminal, you have to make sure they commit a crime with you. Rob someone, beat someone, kill someone, etc. To a lesser extent, maybe just use drugs with you. You can't let them have a pass on it, or they might be a cop or some other kind of spy.

Politicians work the same way, and parties control this. To be eligible for president, you first have to be a governor or congressman, so that you have a record of having previously sold your soul. They have to watch you commit heinous, immoral acts, like signing off on a state budget, or shelving a clemency plea, or otherwise playing ball. Without that, they might accidentally let someone good through the system.

Every power-centered industry protects itself this way. In American law, for example, it's possible, though extremely difficult, for someone to fake their way into the position of a judge. They make it tough: first, they want to see that you've been a prosecutor or a public defender. They want to see you as a respectable prosecutor, blackmailing people convicted of victimless crimes, ruthlessly destroying peasants left and right, and ignore-enabling the silent thugs behind the curtain. Almost all judges and politicians are lawyers with backgrounds in prosecution, State Bar administration, professorships, or other policy avenues where they are forced to serially commit mundane atrocities before being allowed to gain influence. Those with any conscience are driven out in the early stages, before they've had an opportunity to use their influence to exonerate more than a small handful of people, and it takes decades of work even to get that power.

A good, decent person could (theoretically) fake her or his way into a judgeship merely by being a social asshole and billing major corporate clients, but a catch awaits: normal judges aren't allowed to make law. Only American appellate courts can "make" law, in the sense that their opinions are binding upon future court decisions (even though they can then be overruled by higher state or federal appellate or supreme courts, if a given judge has a late-life splurge of conscience). Mere "trial" judges are apprenticed for appellate and supreme roles by being forced to commit terrible crimes against people, destroying lives and stealing property. Only when enough horrors have been committed, and the person's goodness has been completely forfeited, can they be trusted to have an effect on policy.

It would be possible to lie and fake your way past these people by only acting like a terrible person if not for the requirement of actually being one, by sentencing people for possession or propping up horrid landowners or finagling a chemical company's way past already-farcical regulations; they vet you like this in order to make certain that you commit terrible acts as part of the process, so that you can't be a decent person who lies in the service of gaining power which can later be used to change the world. No, that power is carefully denied until they've watched you execute a few POWs first. They want to see your soul scarred and bleeding before you're allowed to command formal respect. If you're First Lieutenant, you have to sign off on patrol missions, tell the Privates to go into that neighborhood and smash it, and if you don't, you'll never become Colonel, certainly General. If you're Private, you have to be part of wiping out that neighborhood before you can become Sergeant-Major and be perceived by the public as trustworthy enough to comment on policy.

You don't get to run the police station until you've shown that you're committed, as a beat cop, to evicting the poor, using beatings or murder to defend owners' food dumpsters against the intrusion of starving homeless, and writing traffic revenue tickets. Trying to change the system from within is impossible, because the system is designed to replicate itself by digesting only those who perpetuate it. Once you've done the terrible things necessary to become powerful, you have become everything you might once have thought you were planning to fight against. There can be no sleeper agents.

Physicians are tested throughout medical school, residency, and then their early practice years, vetted away from professorships or licensing committees until they've shown their loyalty to the organization by prescribing and/or condoning lots of chemo and methylphenidate. Journalists don't make editor until they've flushed their young lives demonstrating that they're willing to write fluff pieces and downplay substance. You don't get in front of a live camera, as a news correspondent or an actor, until you've wasted years of your life condoning terror and saying nothing valuable, and proven that you can be trusted not to suddenly look at the camera and tell 40 million people that it's all a lie.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

License to Cheat & the Changing of the Guard

Remember this? Not so stupid after all, it turns out. It may've been laying the groundwork for a setup.

Check out IRS Notice 2014-33: apparently, these two fiscal years will be a "transition period" regarding enforcement of foreign income reporting requirements. Yes, that's right: the local police department just sent a memo to the high-income zip code informing people that the next couple of years will be a transition period for speeding ticket enforcement, and April Gillespie just told Saddam that her boss had no opinion on Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait.

Glorious setup for those who have been not reporting "foreign income," e.g., not paying taxes on foreign investments? Or, is it an obvious trap for the same group?

If you're not following the question so far, what it means is that the I.R.S. (the American tax agency) announced that it will probably not punish wealthy people who break certain tax laws in 2014-2015, while it "transitions" its policies regarding those laws. What the I.R.S. did is equivalent to telling certain wealthy people, "Go ahead and cheat on your 1040s this year. We will probably be too busy to punish you."

To what we might, in the vernacular, call "morons," this means that the I.R.S. is very busy developing big important rules, so for a while, they'll need to focus their audit teams on domestic salaries earned by non-wealthy households. To what we might, in the vernacular, call "grown ups," this means that the I.R.S. is (again) officially a big scam meant to take money away from those who work and give it to those who sit on their butts and collect rent based on "ownership" rules made up by evil racketeers thousands of years ago.

In earlier periods, America would do this kind of thing behind closed doors. Mayors and aldermen, judges and other bigwigs, would meet with local nobility (just think "businessmen") at clubs, or over private dinners, and talk about how, to "encourage development," they were going to "probably" not be able to as aggressively pursue, say, certain coding violations for a certain period. Those businessmen who were in the know nodded seriously, then cut corners during said period, gaining a distinct economic advantage over regular citizens, to whom the law still applied. Everyone intelligent suspected that something had gone on, but because of the privacy involved, no one could prove that a bribe had been exchanged for a favor. And most people, despite their deep-seated gut feelings that the economy wasn't fair, were unable to believe that anyone could be quite so dirty as that (gasp!). After all, no one outside of a movie could be so unfair, right? People never act in coordination to make money, and it would take sooooo many people to be involved in such a sophisticated conspiracy.

Now, though, some of this stuff is being released to everyone, the way the I.R.S. did last year. 2014-33 is a public notice available on the internet to every person in the entire world. The license to kill--or to steal, to cheat, etc.--is right there on the I.R.S. site, freely accessible with government backing.

It's audacious, certainly. City managers and state legislators mimic their federal peers in cutting advantageous land and tax deals with their cosplay selves. Example: two family friends, one of whom works for Walmart and the other of whom is on a city council, arrange to give Walmart a "sales tax inducement" to set up shop locally. Normal citizens subsidize the construction of private buildings, allowing Walmart to pocket more money, some of which they kickback to reelection campaigns. Yawn. Boring. America: the land where no one cares anymore. A hundred years before Dick Cheney began farting into the White House bedding, the Halliburton connection would've been a scandal, rather than an irrelevant bit of liberal trivia. So yes, it's certainly an audacious methodology they use now. No more does the policeman wave his baton sideways and lie, "Nothing to see here." Now, it's more of a level look, a hand on the gun, and an honest, "We're cheating you, but you don't got the guts."

And yet, elites are continually clever. This kind of tax notice (license to cheat) suggests a piece of information that could be useful to mere bourgeois, whom elites sometimes hate more than proles.

So the question is, again, did they release this announcement of a no-tax license in order to reassure their buddies that this was a good time to transfer stuff without risking audit?* Or, did they release it in hopes that clever bourgeois would notice the "mistake," try to take advantage of it, and get caught, thereby diluting or eliminating middle class savings as part of the cyclical washing out of potential future elites?

( *Just like the risk that a nobody local D.A. might bust Senator Such-And-Such over bribery allegations, the elites' only risk from the I.R.S. is if they have a falling out with someone more powerful, or if an agent investigates something directly, rather than referring it to the higher-ups. Barring infighting, the right people are never going to get investigated, so their biggest concern in that regard is that some overzealous little true-believer might notice an inconsistency and look into it on her/his own, causing an expensive embarrassment before someone "more experienced" takes over the case and buries it.)

Either answer seems equally plausible. Various market indicators are consistently used to destroy pension plans, sub-8-digit private equities, and other hallmarks of a menacingly large set of future elites. Cyclical crises destroy middle class holdings quite deftly, as do constant methods, the most successful being the income tax. Tricking some would-be clever physicians and project managers into massive fines for foreign "tax evasion" could be, merely, a great way to strip them of their potential one or two millions--ergo the cunning release of a "non enforcement period," akin to the attractive police academy girl who leans into your car window in the red light district with a bargain offer, hoping to create a prosecutable event.

And yet, elites are now that brazen. It is by no means ridiculous to suggest that they simply did this as another part of their public cheatery; there is no identifiable low to which they would sink, and no act so un-savvy that it would risk rebellion if discovered.

If you're into the Nazis, you'll note an interesting parallel between the way that this particular event--whether entrapment setup or elite invitation to cheat by not disclosing foreign rents--mirrors the pre-Great War coordination designed to get the right people out of the kill zone before the proverbial shit hit the fan. Videlicet, ensuring that the whitest, most important racketeers were given a signal that it was time to quietly move their investments and families from continental Europe to England or the U.S.A. In the years prior to the assassination of the archduke, the right white people moved to America, escaping the decades of European and North African trench and chemical warfare, holocaust, and racialized land-grabs that were to come. Like the printing press, the internet creates a massive efficiency for them, for it permits them to communicate instantly to one another, in code, warnings like "Get the hell out of Europe, we're going to destroy it."

We see there a good way to predict when a new nation will be chosen as military hegemon: by watching the elites' movements. Like proverbial rats, they'll be the first to know when the ship is going to sink, although unlike rats, they possess the knowledge because they're the ones who screwed a hole in the hold. The powerful Roman lines who escaped the barbarians didn't do so by lucky coincidence, but because it was time to re-establish financial capitals in Gaul, then the Celtic Isles. So too with the later pre-WW1 shift to America, when the land pirates didn't want to be around to suffer the destruction of their earlier capitals, which destruction would justify the brutal establishment of new ones.

(Interesting side note on Britain: Oxford elites are now trying to hide the Celtic genocide down the memory hole, by claiming that--get this--the Roman invaders are actually Celtic. Double take. How much more ridiculous could you get? Yet Oxford is actually claiming that, based on a study of people who interraped (interbred is far too kind a word) their way into a society hundreds of years ago, shattering and dispersing what was there earlier.

Wait a few hundred years, and America will be doing its own version of this, too. Harvard or Yale will proudly announce that 95% of Americans have genes that prove they are descendants of Native Americans, therefore, there were no Indian Wars. That's how filthy and audacious Oxford is, but as the Celtic genocide recedes into history, it becomes easier for the rapespawn offspring of the ex-Roman Senators to pretend that they themselves were actually the druids who were there first. It's logically impossible to equate the ex-Roman, ex-Gaul pirates to the people who were invaded and killed off by those very pirates, but through rape slavery and murder, one can so wholly kill and replace a culture that one can assume, in retrospect, the identity of the departed.

Half a millennium later, similarly, South Africa and Israel will be able to "prove" that their own populations are, actually, Arab, therefore Europe never invaded Palestine. Such are the flaws of believing too heavily in the importance of genes; the spirit of a people, its culture and its synergetic life, can be totally destroyed, even if some of the genes are preserved through sellouts or rape. In a thousand years, your people will believe that they never existed. Which is a kind way of putting it--rather, they'll believe that they existed, but existed as the invaders. That's why Palestine might ghost dance: not because the people will all be gone in a genetic sense, but, as in the case of the American tribes, because something will have been irrevocably destroyed. Something that doesn't appear in a vial.)

Returning to financial markmanship, keep an eye on those elites. When it's time for them to drop the U.S. and fiddle with the map a little, you'll notice more of them strengthening their ties to wherever they'll want to pretend to be natives of, when a new hegemon arises. They won't entirely pull up roots and abandon American citizenship, oh no--that's the old way. There are people smart enough to recognize that. Instead, they'll buy multiple citizenships, feign continued ties to the U.S., but always have that one foot out the door, so that before the switch is thrown, they can be at a villa in Italy (Romney; Vidal) a panic suite in London (Bush), or a concrete fortress in the Manhattan Pacification Authority headquarters (Clinton). Hegemon switches don't result in long zombie apocalypses, but merely brief transitions to second- or third-world status.

Actors aren't the real ones to track, though, even though their antics are the funniest. If you're actually interested in trying to stay one step ahead of the system, be ready to move when the unmentionable bankers behind the curtain pull up their ties and resettle. Collapse is never collapse; it's just rezoning.

A Tale of Two Systems: Indivisibility v. Transcendance

This one once had the respective pleasures of counseling two systems, each of whom were 5C and working on travel technologies. Both were pretty normal: each had a stable star cycle to work with, and the first had three occupied planets (one origin, one established non-origin, one effectively privatized), while the second had one origin, with no intra-system expansion possible. They were trying to go faster, so naturally they faced the issue of infinity cascades, which here is usually known through Zeno's paradoxes (the arrow paradox, Achilles and the tortoise, etc. If you don't remember those, here). The basic issues deal with light and dark, in that you have to transverse the IC in some way before you can "travel at the speed of dark" (sorry, more new stuff; the only way to "exceed" the speed of light is to "travel" at the speed of dark, which isn't really traveling in the way the expression serves here, because light always has to travel, while dark is always already there).

In each case the goal was accomplished, but differently, which feels weird in retrospect. The first system utilized indivisibility, in a throwback to classical Earth's conception of the atom, i.e., a foundational structure which cannot be further divided. And yeah, the atom can be divided, and the quark, etc., but at a smaller point, they found something, don't even remember the name, where they concluded it was impossible to further divide the quantity. Fractions no longer applied, ergo the paradox wasn't a paradox--in order to advance at all, Achilles would have to cover at least that minimum distance, making it impossible for him to not overtake the tortoise, given sufficient time. And they did well with that. All sorts of practical applications. Still, they couldn't get darkspeed, at least while this one was there, because they didn't technically have the right answer. Earth repeatedly tries to follow a similar path, simultaneously and hypocritically adopting hypothetical endless divisibility alongside the "obviousness" of movement.

The second system did it in an entirely different way: by addressing the paradox directly, they did other experiments and determined that there were no indivisible quantities, and that therefore, all movement anywhere, everywhere, was and would remain a paradox.

And it is a paradox. Even to take a single step is a paradox, because before you can move your foot any given distance forward, you have to cover half the distance, then half the remaining distance, then half the remaining distance, etc., which should technically be forever. You can conceptually divide anything, even if you can't physically do it; anything that can exist can have a half, so Achilles can't ever catch the tortoise. Yet he does. However beautiful math can be, it's still a tautology. That should humble us here, but it seems instead to only embolden us (irony, among the more sophisticated of the currently perceivable paradoxes).

Anyway, for the second system, the way they eliminate the dilemma was to conclude that, by overtaking the tortoise (as it were--one of the popular old-timey stories there was a pretty cool one about the impossibility of clapping your hands, due to the infinite distance between them), Achilles was committing an impossible act. The very nature of reality, therefore, was itself paradoxical. Existence was contrary, they maintained, ergo they rather more easily approached the issue of darkspeed. The essence of existence was the generation of impossibility, inasmuch as we might understand impossibility, which is why they did much better much faster. Their computers also got lots better, but this one didn't deal with that part. Anyway, fun.

The impossibility of existence is fundamental to understanding evolution. We're going to do a more detailed overview of that later on, focusing on reality rather than on refuting the hatred-based systems, so this one shared the above anecdote as a setup to that. During the interlude, reflect on the genuine impossibility of life and movement. Take a breath--in order for the air to travel from your nose or mouth to your lungs, it has to traverse half the length of your esophagus, then half the remaining length, then half the remaining length, and so on forever. Did you successfully take the breath? There's no way for it to be otherwise except by conjoining your perception of reality with your perception of impossibility.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Rape By Fraud

The manly man's blog Return of Kings argues both that a transsexual who sleeps with a person without disclosing their birth sex is guilty of rape by fraud, and that Yes Means Yes consent laws are evil and/or stupidly insane.

Interesting juxtaposition. Of course, it's unfortunate if you swive someone and then find out you'd've preferred not to've done so, e.g. swiving a transsexual when you'd rather not have, and it's also thoughtcrime/inquisition when an act's criminality is so sacrosanct that the mere accusation is sufficient to prove the case, e.g. the Junior Anti-Sex League's current affirmative consent witchhunt.

The men who produce the manly men stuff (like the women who produce the womanly women stuff) are just trying to get click revenue, but the people who actually read and agree with their drivel need to consider how any kind of "rape by fraud" doctrine is only a variation on "affirmative consent." Affirmative consent is an arbitrary, unprovable standard, which adopts the maxim "guilty until proven innocent," and guarantees to any partner ("any partner" in theory, although in actuality, the right to condemn by accusation alone will be reserved only to straight females or possibly to obvious male homosexual submissives) the right to prove someone committed a felony by making an accusation later on, creating thereby a presumption of guilt which is then legally impossible to counter.

"Rape by fraud" is just another variation on that theme. For example, if the manly man gets a trap blowjob, and is allowed to sue the oral recipient for not actually being a girl, how far do we take the allowance of fraud? Can you have someone jailed after sex for:

1) Not being as attractive as you thought they were?

2) Not making as much money as you thought they were?

3) Not being as young/old/intelligent/interesting as you thought they were?

4) Not really being old high school classmates with [insert name of famous actor or actress here]?

5) Not really being a men's rights advocate?

6) Not really being a feminist?

7) Not really being a good cook?

8) Not really being a skillful lover?

Et cetera. Any kind of rape by fraud doctrine, identically to affirmative consent, is a legal license to treat all sex as rape based on an ad-hoc revisualization of the sexual encounter. A man who sleeps with a transsexual in the heat of passion may, after ejaculation, find his arousal reduced, his shame increased, and decide to destroy someone's life. There is no gray area possible, for without constant security-verified surveillance of everyone, everywhere, for every second of the time, it would be impossible to prove that fraud had not occurred. Not coincidentally, affirmative consent works the same way, by permitting anyone to later decide affirmative consent wasn't given, and leave their partner with the impossible task of proving it was.

If you're already sensible enough to understand those principles, then take this post as an opportunity to note something far more important: namely, the ways in which the theoretically opposite sides of a false dichotomy--race realist, faux-traditionalist men's rights advocates v. theoretically hyper-politically-correct radical feminists--are, much like the Republicrat Party, kindred spirits on identical crusades. Women have a legitimate right to be concerned about rape, and men have a legitimate right to be concerned about rape (which is more formally called "presumptions of guilt under a totalitarian prison state"). In each case, the tyrannical solution to an overblown problem is the same. If men want women to accept that drunkenly inviting someone into their beds is going to result in a situation where ejaculation might be consummated despite indecipherably mumbled objections, then they also have to accept that imposing the same rigorous standards on their own judgment might leave them balls deep in some post-op's freshly-waxed ass.

Ergo unfortunately, if the manly men ever want to get rid of the outlandish State interference in social sexuality, they're going to have to accept that they might fuck a tranny now and then. The retroactive State protections they want are only available under the antilife rubric of comptrolling private sexuality. By the same token, the womanly women--who could as easily end up with ruined lives, felony charges, and jail time, once affirmative consent becomes widespread, and a vindictive boyfriend decides he was too drunk to have understood what happened last night--need to drop their affirmative consent invitation to spread Big Brother's duct tape across their vaginas. Big Brothers, after all, like to invade wombs just as much as they do bedrooms. Fear not, for "abortion rights" will never go away under this empire, but when Big Brother begins sending around government vans to forcibly seize female citizens' DNA for the growth of replacement organs for clones, womanly women might just find that this invasion of their bodies is equally, if not more, offensive. It will be a terribly poetic form of injustice when such things happen, given how eagerly feminists have placed female autonomy in the hands of police departments and courtrooms by asking armed cops and judges to retroactively guard their privates.

This interconnected agenda is being pushed by the pro-test-tube maniacs, so there's no stopping the message itself, anymore than we're going to stop advertising itself. Transsexuals are a popular scare Other for some men, while men are a popular scare Other for some women. Goering's Nuremberg quote serves well here. The doubleplusungood irony of embracing the idea of any kind of crimen exceptum is the expansion of the kangaroo court from Guantanamo, to Chicago, to any given traffic stop or set of genitals. For those who are merely emotionally-charged subscribers to this dreck, take this opportunity to see the similarity between two kinds of totalitarian con-artists, and learn how to withdraw your support from either avenue of insanity.

Click Dollars for the Company

Advertising does not prove that something is independent. The Company is just fine with their employees earning a little money on the side. In fact, the employees get to keep that money. When you operate "under cover" doing psy-ops, and part of your cover is working at the chicken place, you don't turn over your paychecks to the Company--you get to keep them. Similarly, if you run a blog for a company, any advertising revenue you get is yours.

That's a notable part of retirement packages, actually. You get these people who've been in the newspaper business for however many years, planting articles and controlling reporters, and they do not have to return any of the fruits of their labor. Editor's paycheck, gold watch at twenty years, the downtown condo to start them off, the master's degree that made it all plausible--tax free benefits, through and through. Plus they still get their $70K/year from the Company, and they get their pension and health care benefits, and Social Security, but they also get anything they kept during a job.

An inundation of advertising is expected these days. Makes it look like a page is a "real" page. Some of the bigger operations, like, might deposit into a Company operating account, but individual operators creating multiple profiles to disseminate minor cultural movements, are permitted to sign up with Google and make money personally, too. The absence of advertising doesn't make anything immediately less suspicious, but don't let the presence of advertising trick you into thinking it's a real opinion.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Founding Father

Founding Father, © 2015, is Arken Gallery's latest treatment. It's one of those "alternate history" movies, where there never was a manufactured American Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, and the Black Panther Party overthrew the government. No Vietnam War, no conflict with the Soviet Union, all the Kennedy conspirators are captured and publicly tried, Bill of Rights is restored, etc.

Anyway, we start with the main character, a rugged young white man named Chris Kyle who feels strangely out of place in a beautiful, peaceful society that leads the world by example. Kyle lives in a small town in central Ohio, but has a lot of national pride in his early years, because the small United States is closely allied to the Republic of Mexico and the Iroquois Confederacy, and allowed to use each nation's respective coastal waters. As he grows older, though, Kyle's grandfather tells Kyle that something is "wrong" with history, and that it all "went wrong during the 60s." Kyle initially scorns the old man's words, but as he grows older, he starts to notice other "historical aberrations." Through a local chapter of the New Klan Association, Kyle meets other young men who say that his grandfather wasn't crazy, and help him identify even more of these troubling aberrations.

During a montage of sweaty rock, Kyle is led around by an NKA Wizard to see the veil that has been pulled over his eyes all these years. He sees nothing but green meadows, waterfalls, and herds of deer and bison grazing where there should be vast prisons surrounded by barbed wire and electrical fences; he recoils in horror at the sight of a local Court building with an empty parking lot and no security guards, open only bi-weekly; he cries in pain when he sees a news broadcast announcing the arrest of a local man for plotting to bomb the Zomian delegation during its next visit to the United States.

The rock montage grows tearful, and over bluish and reddish pictures of Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, and Trump, the Wizard tells Kyle what the future is supposed to be like. At the Wizard's words, contrails streak the sky. Tears roll down Kyle's rugged cheek as he sees fleets of billion-dollar village-bombers practicing maneuvers over the wary shores of Virginia, Arizona, and Minnesota, guarding against potential military assault from Portugal, Mexico, or Canada. Kyle praises Jesus when he sees legions of union-free laborers constructing brick prisons in Chicago; when he watches skinhead Khazars ordering German Shepherds to maul the genitals of huddled prisoners; when he sees writhing women crawling with flies, dying in childbirth as they attempt to push out three-headed babies loaded with D-38.

"What can I do to restore this?" begs Kyle, clutching at the Wizard's red robes. "Tell me how! Tell me!"

The Wizard's cold blue eyes gleam down at him. "Perhaps you are the Chosen One," he said. "Perhaps..." He shifts his staff. "Come with me."

Digging back into history, Kyle finds out that the leaders of the BPP were supposed to have been assassinated quietly in staged killings during the time of the Kennedy assassination, and the Second American Revolution never to happen. The electoral college was never supposed to be abolished, and the federal presidency reduced to First Revolutionary levels; the heads of all federal agencies were not supposed to've been imprisoned, and the great universities and trusts broken up. America was supposed to have a real standing army like Greater London, and never to have repurchased 1/3 of its original land from the Iroquois Confederacy, but to've kept the whole post-Hawai'i coup territory! Kyle grows more and more excited as he sees images of bulldozers installing hundreds of sprawling minimalls across the grain freeholds of the central valley, millions of darkies rounded up into labor camps, and men shot in the head in their living rooms for having a joint.

"What can I do?" squeals Kyle. "Tell me, Grand Wizard, how I can correct the past?"

Armed with nothing but a time machine, a high-powered rifle, and balls the size of the twin towers, Chris puts on his white hood and travels back in time. He kills Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, and John Lennon, preventing the continued momentum of racialist or sustained international marches against war, a silver-backed currency, and the shutdown of the nation's prison and school systems. Lurking beneath a camouflage net in the southern capitals, Kyle puts bullet after bullet into the heads of darkie after darkie, finishing the job that this timeline's version of the CIA couldn't handle on their own. Community movements still; police chiefs reassert control of the south; philandering Senators pass law after fresh law.

But then, something goes wrong (every shitty movie needs a twist after the twist): Chris returns to the future, and things are still the same! He meets with the Grand Wizard as before, but when he goes to the store, no one's heard of Monsanto! He grabs person after person, and, shocked at their curious smiles and willingness to help him, he finally learns, from a history student, about some environmental indictments decades ago. "Why?" Kyle wails to the Grand Wizard (played by a dour Donald Sutherland). "Why? I murdered everyone you told me to!"

Sutherland explains that, although the New Klan Association possesses time traveling technology, so does the current United States Government--and that time travelers from the other faction are trying to save the present. "Those sick bastards!" cries Kyle, flailing his arms, his enthusiasm causing him to accidentally kick Sutherland in the groin. "Then I'll just have to go back again, and finish what I started!"

"No!" cries Sutherland, as Kyle rushes toward the time portal. "It's too dangerous! There are still things we can do now, in this time!"

"You can keep your twisted fantasyland!" Kyle shrieks at the top of his lungs. "I'm going save America!"

Sutherland reaches hopelessly after the portal as Kyle disappears. "You poor bastard," laments Donald. "There are too many of them."

Only the viewer is privileged enough to see the next montage: Sutherland living out his next several years, seemingly unaware of the changes taking place around him. Police sirens begin to fill the night air, and amazingly, no one seems to think it's out of the ordinary. The national map on the NKA's conference room wall grows larger day after day, as though the past is being rewritten in small ways. When the magnetic trains vanish, no one much seems to notice; cars whiz by, drugstores pop up like weeds, and people huddle into their houses, drinking and staring through the windows at an endless network of cracked asphalt, blaring signs, and scarred people getting driven away in flashing cars. All at once, Donald goes into work, and he's not in the NKA offices anymore, but just another military recruitment center in a run-down strip mall in a poor section of Pennsylvania. Viewers are amazed as Donald gets his coffee like normal without even seeming to realize the change. A solar zeppelin cross-national transport changes into a surveillance drone before the viewers' eyes, bringing a sob of gratitude from the audience.

At the very end of the movie, Sutherland lies in bed on the hundred and twelfth floor of a megacity hospital. The four other patients in his room are all terminal, too, and they're talking about the good old days: they talk about the World War VI news coverage, and about how the Greenland Parliament is full of a bunch of pussies who keep stalling the vote on the Populatory Melanin Reduction Act that the United Nations of America has already pre-approved anyway. But basically, things are okay, and when do we get to eat again? Tomorrow? Just take another hunger tablet, Your Wizardship. Nurse said you can have as much as you like.

That night, as Donald's head slips toward final unconsciousness, he sees a picture of a man on the wall who looks strangely familiar. Why does he have so much apprehension about something to do with that man? The thought slips away from him like a dream stolen out of time. There in the dim light of five televisions reflecting off the giant, 300-starred American flag looming from the ceiling, Donald gets a glimpse of a memory. At the very last instant, he remembers Chris Kyle, and his death is a happy one. You did it, you old sonofagun, he thinks, crying tears of joy. You saved us all. You truly were our Founding Father.

A Walmart Medical robot hurries into the room on its track to gather the patient's corpse into a disposal bag. The 1812 Overture (Lady Gaga remix) begins playing as credits roll.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

User-Generated Content

It's been heralded as an amazingly new thing that the grand new businesses of the age, Google and YouTube and Facebook, are not based on the sale of a product or service, but are streams of advertising revenue attached to user-generated content. These companies make money not because they produce anything of value, but because their users (in theory) do, and the companies' name recognition causes it to be convenient for users to go to them to locate information generated by other users. Enough name-recognition and user-generated content, and sufficient people swarm by to produce views and clicks that, at some point, are paid for by the people who buy the products (often only more layers of advertising, but that's another subject). So it's a new paradigm in business schools, communication, social psychology, etc. Instead of making widgets, selling widgets, or even using the proximity of widgets you made in order to advertise something else, you set up a big tent, other people show up and make their own widgets, other people show up to look at those widgets, and you make money thereby. How amazing. It's a bright new digital future of heretofore unexplored capitalist possibilities.

That narrative is equivalent to the serial killer pretending to be stunned when he claims his next victim. There is nothing new about user-generated content. Everything for sale is user-generated content. Remember Henry Ford, who supposedly paid his workers enough that they could buy the things they made? Same deal. Google, YouTube, and Facebook are just another variation on movies, newspapers, and the enclosure of the commons.

Take Facebook for the easiest, dumbest example. They generate ad revenue because people come to their site (at least initially) to see what their friends/family are "doing." Ergo pictures of your friend's new dog, and of everyone else's new dog, cause you, and twenty million other people that minute, to have a 0.5% chance of clicking on an ad for Susie's At-Home Dog Washing Service, for which Facebook bills the digital content provider who subcontracts with the regional ad representative who billed the credit card company who billed Susie. In short. The thing that's supposed to astound economists (and has been so astounding them ever since they decided to be astounded sometime after the internet) is that Facebook can be so big without even making stuff to draw people to the ads. They don't have to take the picture of the new dog themselves, nor hire reporters to do it, etc. How amazing! User generated content!

Facebook, though, isn't a "new business model" anymore than it was "created" by that nasty little Harvard turdling that the CIA used to front their latest citizenry database. Western wealth has always been a means of capturing user-generated content.

So, you go on Facebook's dating service to meet someone. In so doing, you generate ad revenue, directly or indirectly--not because of something Facebook did, but because you wanted to meet someone, and that someone might have a picture up, or some paragraphs about them, etc. Sounds like "user-generated content," right? Made possible only by the internet?

Bullshit. What are Facebook, and all the other plastickly-social versions of it, including the sex or religious or thoughtful ones, replacing? Simple: their real world equivalents. Bars. Clubs. Adult education annexes. What people want--what they've always wanted--is other people. Real estate developers are just material Facebooks, inventing the idea that, by putting a roof over a certain spot of land, and "owning" that land, they get to charge everyone who shows up to meet someone else. No one gives a shit about the blurry music and sweaty room, but in a world where every square inch is owned by someone, there's always the desperate hope you might meet a friend in a place that sells itself as "where you can make a friend."

Everything out there is user-generated content. Labs pay scientists comparative pittances to capture their user-generated inventions. Producers buy rights, show a film, and charge people to look at it, alone or together. States claim virtual ownership of land, levying everyone for rent and hitting farmers for usufruct, too. The middlemen are always there, sitting on their asses, collecting endless tithes from people who actually do stuff, charging them for access even to one another.

Once, we understood this just as we do now Facebook. The offense that some people now take at Facebook--the idea that this big, stupid thing has become a substitute for human interaction, and an encouragement to the worst sort of social misbehavior--was once taken at the idea of some guy getting to own "the green" or "the mall." Of course major news belongs to everybody, of course the farrier should be paid for the shoeing, of course all the young people should be able to go flirt somewhere without paying $20 at the door...and bit by bit, we lost that shock, until now, all that we have left is to be mildly thoughtful when those tiny nooks of virtuality through our browsers are doing something completely brand new by making money without doing anything useful at all.

How far in another hundred years? "Your latest bowel movement, sponsored by WipeKleen®!" Sure, it'll be annoying and offensive as you're trying to strap yourself onto the porcelain throne with a snack and a movie, but by then, we'll have forgotten about the bajillion dollars lost in the 21st century, just like how now, we take it for granted that the Whoever Family owns Wherever. And then comes the time when you take it for granted that your bowel movements cost $4.99 each (unless you want to skip the ad, in which case it's $5.99), but you're mightily offended that DreamSpace Industries® keeps slipping placement shorts into your REM-3. After all, dreams is going too far!

Aww, it's not that bad; I mean, what else you gonna do anyway? Besides, who else is gonna pay for your sleep?

Friday, March 13, 2015

Marrying Lesbians, Modern Slavery, and Necros

Whenever people hear "You're a slave" anymore, they always think something like "slave to your ideology" or "slave to advertisers"--something like that. We've previously looked at marriage, drugs, capitalism, and organ sales, but this time, we'll go a little further, and see how we don't actually own our bodies in any conceivable way.

Freedom of Contract

Hypothetically speaking, suppose I know two lesbians, and that their situation inspired me to put together this post. They've been together c. 15 years, and there's a third lesbian that's sort of involved somehow, but we'll focus only on the original two. To add unnecessary color to the story, suppose that one is kinda cute (or maybe even almost amazingly cute, depending on your mood).

Anyhow, as I was saying, they've been together a while now, and know each other pretty well. One of them works in government, and has a plum administrative position, and the other one bounces around retail and hospitality. The former one is levelheaded, and she keeps all their bills paid, checkbook balanced, etc. Her partner is a little wacko in the financial sense, since she's been known to let a handful of tips blow away in an unexpected wind, forget she signed up for credit cards she wasn't supposed to, etc.

They approach their thirties, then see their mid-thirties sorta looming there, and everyone yabbers about gay marriage, and the issue arises to them, and they like the thought of it at first, because one of their still-living grandparents is hugely, unexpectedly behind the idea, and also because the then-waitress is having thoughts about having a kid before it's too late. They do all the normal things to lead up to it, but the more levelheaded one has a problem, namely, what happens if I sign onto this thing and then Loopy McSilliness there makes some major fuck up and I end up having to pay for it? Naturally, Level has been planning her life pretty well, since she's got a form of tenure and seniority at her job (in the way that some lucky non-academic governmental positions can sometimes become almost un-firable), and she's got a guaranteed-benefit pension plan, and insurance she can borrow against, and pristine credit--all the normal shit that people like. Meanwhile, Cutie is regularly in and out of debt, went bankrupt when she was 22, and has been known to lose her car keys in other people's hospital rooms.

Level loves Cutie and wants to provide for her, be with her, etc., but the normal financial specter of actual legal marriage remains: if Level signs on, she takes on responsibility for Cutie's debts. If Cutie rear-ends someone again, Level could have to pay for it. Level's credit would get matched to her spouse's, so getting a better house would be pushed back years. Even worse, Cutie might somehow end up getting Level's house, particularly if Cutie were to ever have a fling with an older guy, which has happened before (and which may have resulted in a brief marriage and/or minor physical abuse).

For the purposes of this example, assume also that Cutie is a self-identified passive-aggressive bipolar schizophrenic, who is not actually diagnosed with any of these conditions, and who would not be so diagnosed if she went to a doctor and tried to, but who does, nonetheless, meet a few of the symptoms of each and acts a little wacky now and then. Assume that, therefore, Level has a non-frivolous reason to be concerned about the stability of Cutie's behavior now and again. Assume also that Level knows that, after any episode of stupidity Cutie gets into, Cutie will fix herself up in a couple weeks, and everything will be all right again. And Cutie is adorable, duh, and actually a really good person, but if she were to get in a wild mood and sign any papers in Vegas, there would be a major problem for Level. Not only a problem for Level, but a problem for Cutie--because every other time in her adult life that Cutie has fucked up, Level has been the one to bail her out. And if Cutie gained the power to ruin Level's stability, Level would no longer be able to bail Cutie out after a bad decision. So marriage could spell ultimate doom not just for Level's credit, but for Cutie's ability to procure consistent food, shelter, and medical treatment.

You get it, right?

So there we are: Level and Cutie might or might not get married. What would be the perfect solution for them? Well, when Cutie is in her better moods, she often says she wishes she could just put Level in charge of everything. Then, Cutie "wouldn't have to think about it, any of it!" and Level could always take care of Cutie. Cutie could bungle her credit up even more, sign up for supposedly zero-interest balloon loans, disappear inexplicably for four days, etc., and all without affecting Level in any way other than the emotional way. At the end of any period of weird behavior, Cutie could come crying back to Level, and find Level just as strong, just as intact, just as able to take care of her.

And what about when Cutie gets older? God help them when it gets there, right? But Cutie thinks that if she could just let this one loving, trusting, ultimately-protective person look after her, all would be well. In fact, stripped of the ability to be such a fuck-up, Cutie might find herself less desirous of exercising her powers of fucking up, and able to settle down and do all the stuff she's always wanted to do without the ability to ruin it.

The perfect, traditional solution for Cutie and Level is marriage. Not modern marriage, but a binding contract whereby Cutie agrees to give up all of her financial rights to Level. Cutie will contractually defer all her future powers in that area to Level. All of Cutie's paychecks (if any) will be directly deposited into Level's bank account; whenever Cutie tries to sign up for a credit card, it will require Level's written pre-approval; if Cutie tries to pledge her and Level's house as security for a Las Vegas loan, the system will deny her until Level signs on. Cutie can go bankrupt without it affecting Level at all, because anyone stupid enough to have loaned money to Cutie without Level's approval knew that they were dealing with someone who had given up her contractual right to be bound. Cutie will be--actually be--a wife in the traditional sense, namely, someone who has, under a system of free trade, assigned her contract rights to another.

Duh, Cutie can revoke this whenever she wants. She can walk out the door this instant, solely sign and file a divorce decree, and she's done. Level no longer has any part in her life. But what she can't do, per the terms of their contract, is leverage financial power over Level. She can't trade her 401(k) to someone for magic beans, and if she walks, her 401(k) stays behind. Cutie knows she is guaranteed Level's care for life, and Level knows she's able to care for Cutie without any chance of Cutie independently messing up their joint ability to provide for each other. If Cutie walks, Cutie walks with nothing; if Level throws Cutie out, Cutie walks with half.

Suddenly, life is perfect. Level is in charge of all the things she's good at, and they can finally settle down. But they're not legally allowed to do that, oh no. Just as the government protects people from growing organic marijuana in their back yards, the government "protects" Cutie from having the freedom to decide, as an adult, "I love and trust Level so much, and am aware of my own personal issues so much, that I want to appoint Level as my decisionmaker, and to give up my own ability to be tricked in the future." Not allowed. The government claims that's "slavery" or "indentured servitude," which causes great business: it allows people like Cutie to be prevented, by all the power of the police and courts and armed forces, from making an advantageous contract in order to protect herself from bad financial decisions. According to the government, any individual citizen--even a 50 year old with multiple PhDs--is a moron juvenile who can't be trusted to freely make contracts.

This is such great business because people like Cutie, by being unable to protect themselves from future bad decisions, fall constant prey to the racketeer marketers who are ever pillaging America, such as politicians and corporate marketing departments. The government holds a monopoly on such power: the government makes itself Cutie's life partner through its bankruptcy and family court systems. Because Cutie is unable to protect herself from future bad decisions, she falls constant victim to advertising, payday loans, car salesmen, home builders, etc. The government skims billions of dollars from these industries, and takes billions more from taxpayers to regulate these industries and to maintain the bankruptcy and family courts that have total control over Cutie's life. The powers that Cutie is unable to give to Level, she is mandated to give to the government from the moment of her birth: unelected bureaucrats who have never met Cutie, and who consider her nothing more than a file number, can limit her spending, adjust her contractual rights, and determine where her property goes, while Cutie's completely beloved life partner, Level, cannot gain that power no matter how desperately Cutie tries to give it to her.

Applies to men and women too, if you're interested in that. Barring perhaps India, no one is forced to get married anymore, but we're all forced to marry the government. From our most public affairs to our most intimate, from birth to death, we may never manage our own bodies. It's far too cruelly profitable if only the State may look out for Cutie's best interests. Traditional marriage, amidst its many ills, offered these protections. No one had to cohabit or get married, but those who did had the option of negotiating powers and duties in their own way. A better society would permit such contracts, allowing a couple, or any other group, to negotiate any set of rights and responsibilities they wanted.

The obvious counterargument is, "Oh, but that means husbands controlled wives!" Granted, as discussed in the links above, chattel marriage was often bad. Those who would make that argument, though, would do well to look into the embarrassedly, indirectly-referenced western and eastern traditions of wives who managed family businesses, spending, politicking, and socializing, particularly when marriage contracts, dowries, and inheritance rights were negotiated between parents beforehand. The Disney conception is no more comprehensive in its State-boosting presentation of free marriage.

Regardless of bad contracts made in the past, there's no good reason to make Cutie a slave, and decide for her what's best. Free marriage is the only just marriage. Permitting people contractual freedom over their own bodies would result in some evangelist women falling willfully under the sway of idiot boar husbands, which is in practicality no different than permitting women to walk outdoors unescorted--because a woman might commit a crime, go to jail, and there suffer loss of personal freedom and physical violence. A feminist should never take away a woman's right to choose, right? Otherwise, she's really just a totalitarian. So let women, and everyone else, be free, rather than deciding that you know what contracts are best for them.

Modern Slavery

Cutie and Level's enslavement to the United States is not something in which they're alone. Everyone else has been similarly stripped of so many of their contractual powers that this national socialist farce of a republic would be evident even without constant aggressive war and a corporate legislature.

By now, most rational people have figured out that there's at least a touch of wrongness in the Controlled Substances Act. And we talked about organ sales above. I can't sell a spare kidney to someone, oh no. The government and the health care industry love me too much to allow me to do that. So they'll protect me from being taken advantage of by allowing me to donate the kidney for free, then charging for it themselves.

Prostitution, too, of course. At the most extreme example of cleanliness, if I were to get STD tested along with a client, wait in separate sterilized rooms until we'd both had our results, bathe in harsh antimicrobial soap, have him use six condoms, give him a handjob without a finish, then film the encounter and claim I was just being paid for acting in a porn movie, it would still be illegal. Your body, like your mind, is property of the United States Government. Just like they know better than you what kinds of financial decisions you can make, they know when and how it's right for you to have sex.

Most people reading this have probably figured those out, but try more: I have an old family photo album that has pictures of me swimming in my aunt's pool when I was six. Pictures of me. Let's say I was going to die unless I got some heart operation that I couldn't afford, and I were to sell the pictures of me to some perve who thought I was attractive as a six-year-old? Illegal--I may be 18 or older, and the pictures are of me, but because my body doesn't belong to me (and because it never did), illegal. In fact, now that I think about it, time to break out the shredder, because it's also illegal for me to possess pictures of myself. And I looked young at 18, so if a judge could construe pictures of me at 18 as "resembling a minor," even the ones of me at the waterpark with some 18+ friends are child porn. God only knows how many parents and grandparents out there are harboring a massive treasure trove of illegal child pornography in the form of family pictures. (Not an exaggeration; criminologically speaking, most of what is called "child porn" is reputed to be just pictures of people standing or playing. The old Rolling Stone spread of young Britney Spears was waaaay naughtier.) Reminds me of the case of the guy who, at his 50th anniversary with his wife, was telling old anecdotes with his and his wife's friends, and mentioned how he had a picture of them skinny-dipping when they had been 15. And someone told the police, and he got arrested, because he possessed pictures of a nude 15-year-old girl, even though that woman was now in her seventies and married to him and standing there when he told the story. (No, seriously, that's a real case. He spent time in jail, lost a lot of money, and got put on the sex offender registry somewhere. He also lost his cherished photos of his and his wife's life together.)

What else am I protected from? I can't sell my organs, even to save my own life; I can't eat magic mushrooms, even when I'm dying in excruciating pain; I can't take pictures of youthful me, and use them to fund my education years later...ah, here's another one: I can't provide that, upon my death, should I die young and attractive, my remains will be mummified and transferred to a necrophiliac society for their usage. Hey, if necro futures were real, people could make a few grand! In the non-sexual realm, I can't provide that, upon my death, I'll be immediately dumped into a giant composting machine and used for organic mulch at a local farm, because the racketeers control corpse disposal, too.

Christ, they own every molecule of me from birth to death. I'd make a "consumer" joke and say that my only choices left are where to work and what to buy, but even that's so controlled you can't legitimately call this place a "market." What jobs you're allowed to do, what products you're allowed to produce and's all just as controlled as what you're allowed to do with your body.

Endnotes: if you're into Marx, you gotta stop using anything American as a reference to "capitalism." Maybe whatever this is is a result of capitalism, but it's certainly not capitalism itself. If you're into Jesus, you gotta consider how this whole thing portrays the ancient battle between free will and enforced assimilation. Satan is clearly winning the field in the U.S.A., where exercising free will is prevented by the police state. If you're into Buffett, you gotta consider how it's impossible to know who's smart and deserving when everything is so totally rigged ahead of time.