Tuesday, September 29, 2015

A small slice of the missing trillions

The question is not, "Does USG engage in child pornography because it stores child porn and uses the stored porn to entrap pedos?" Rather, the question is, "Does USG engage in child pornography because it stores child porn, assists Red Wa, Chao Pho, Dubai and Saud, the Sinaloa and Juarez cartels, and the Northern Alliance, et. al., in maintaining an offsite network of rape, slaving, and picture-swapping, while coordinating its own public laws, moral statements, and selective financial enforcement in order to ensure that its underworld partners will maintain their monopoly on the flesh trade?"

In Japan, the Yakuza took well to the western model after the WW2 Reconstruction, learning how to use "intellectual property" and "obscenity" statutes to nudge prostitution and pornography into a gray area of partially-monitored legality, where public opinion is guided into approving and disapproving of certain arbitrary guidelines so that a black market, with its corresponding profit margins, can develop--in the modern Japanese case, primarily in mere uncensored imagery. Everyone knows that, but that's just pictures--when it comes to actual rape, chattel concubinage, erotic mutilation, and snuff, the process works the same way: private wealth installs executives, legislators, judges, and journalists who establish the obviousness and reasonableness of social boundaries, and the plausibility of police investigations, then selectively enforce to permit only partnered underworld elements to operate.

When you hear people complain about the Fed, you tend to think, "Oh, yeah, it's terrible how they manipulate stock markets and currencies and stuff, but, like, Wall Street is this really consumerist thing, and that sorta stuff is always so shady anyway, so I'll just invest in local bonds." If you can focus long enough to realize how the financial and legal warlocks drive war, you can start to realize how truly demonic the Fed, the Supreme Court, etc., really are. All those dead bodies, right? Sure, it's horrible when NATO rubs out another room full of sleeping two-year-olds, but war is war and life isn't perfect. We've long learned to assimilate that stuff and continue paying our VAT.

You need to make your perspective on things still more visceral than that. The careful shepherding of criminal subcontractors; the nurturing of public awareness of permissible issues and non-issues; the elaborate maintenance of a worldwide network of intellectual property, street-level police "priorities," the forming or non-forming of legislative committees, the decisions to seek out and hear cases, foster or neglect careers; the delicate imposition of selective enforcement across banks, companies, and individuals: these are the things they do that put not just exploding drones into Afghan cribs, but tourist cocks into child orifices. Janet Yellen, Barack Obama, Ruth Ginsburg, and all their somber, responsible buddies are not mere murderers or bagmen. They're not the banal kind of capos who arrange for a "hit," but rather, the far worse kind, clad in blood-spattered black robes, chanting curses in Ancient Aramaic as they bring about the worst sorts of things you can imagine. (You may not care about what America's "Planned Parenthood" does to fetuses, but perhaps the thought of those same things being done to five-year-olds--screwing, dicing, and slicing, for profit--can help better illuminate for you the legal and financial systems here at play.)

Granted, it's certainly possible that they're mere gullible idiots who know not what they do. It's possible that Janet Yellen just doesn't understand where the money went, or how banks and economies work. It's possible that Ruth Ginsburg doesn't have the authority to speak out on important issues and guide millions of people to expose corruption at the highest levels. It's possible that Obama's hands are tied by his deep and abiding respect for the inviolable privacy of American citizens and foreign nationals.

Or maybe they simply don't have the resources, the platforms, the access that they would need to figure these awful problems out and do something about them.

(Really, people. How did you think it was all happening?)

Saturday, September 26, 2015


Roman and Jared not aside, which is worse--the tribe, or the realtors? I chatted recently with a woman who'd "bought" "her" "first" "home," and it was one of those pseudo-heartbreaking modern moments where you listen to someone's long story of struggles and sacrifices, and you can't tell them how utterly easy it would've been to do it all with an hour on the internet, a couple hundred for the inspection guy, and save 6%--to split half between you and the foreclosed-upon family that is probably scattered in pieces across the Jersey tenements about now, awaiting collection of the remainder from the next seven years' worth of paychecks.

You can't tell her, because if she knew she could have a little over ten grand in her pocket right now, she'd feel like she'd gotten violated, and then she'd have an instant counter-reaction, rationalizing it all something fierce, talking about how incredibly nice the realtor was to get the "contract" done by 5PM on this one particular day, and "showing her" the house literally four times (from her eminently practical but luxurious Hyundai Sonata with the tan leather package, omigod omigod am I good enough to take up her time?) to be sure it was "just right." And the Title Company was so nice because they gave her a bottled water and her kid some crackers, and Jesus himself would weep tears of wine if he knew how they promised to rush the recording ahead a day so that she'd only have to wait until Tuesday to miss work and rush out of her existing apartment to grab those coveted "keys" and jam eight years of post-parental furniture into those creaking sixteen hundred feet.

So what do you do? You shut the fuck up and let the proles take the shaft, maybe offering a little motor oil for next time, like, "Sure, I'd like some of her cards." And no matter what, you don't sue the local real estate place for running a nasty cartel of intimidation and buttfucking, where these amazingly redundant storefronts blanket the entire fucking country, producing even less benefit, yet somehow far more goodwill, than a Chase glioma or a payday loan osteosarcoma.

It shouldn't get one upset, anyway. The drug cartels kill off at least as many people per month as the realtors rape per year, and in the former case, the suffering is of the very literal, visceral, screaming kind, whereas the realtors only bleed people in the initial netherspace of confused financial arcanisms. Close enough to the surface for even some of the proles to understand, gnome sane yoh? But still, it's colossal, a lesser giant among greater giants, like a cluster of three dozen writhing ticks sucking fluids from under an alley mutt's floppy ear. Something about the "up front" nature of the realtors' screw-job, though, makes some observations of the process sting a little more than the subtle skimming of a trio of rattling pharmacists.

Like, why do savvy commercial landlords still kick cash out to the realty club? To some extent there's a family and marriage link issue, and the forming of coalitions to control mayorships and councils, wrest developer tax incentives, and use Sec. 8 to blockbust the cubicle analysts into yet another suburban paradise, but even so, you'd think that the occasional eccentric, the rare localized Trump as it were, would stand up against the Long gang, run his own transfer outfit at 1%, and pocket the remaining 5 as a savings to himself and his terrorized clientele. I'm not even asking for a revolution; just a bit of small-scale counter-corruption.

Workable, and eminently imaginable, especially to dog-shit developers in dog-shit tracts. And yet, you never see it, which means of course that the realty capos are using their local governance and their boondocks "publications" to ensure that Joe Cheap Condos and Sally Revitalized 80s Stip Mall take a few falls down the stairs before leaving town in disgrace. Why are some roads mended and others not? How many months and how many ex-roughnecks does it take to blacktop a fifty meter stretch to nowhere? As many as we fucking say; that's how many. Now take all that little capital of yours and go open an offramp Subway in Nevada before you end up behind on your County library fines, know what I mean?

When you look at these things sticking together, it's pretty hard to believe there aren't Satanic gray alien leptorizoid sauranimals with little rosaries actually running things, after all. Because the local bishop and rabbi, god bless them, are always "working in partnership with" the long-timers on the business commission, handling the assignments on the zoning and tax policy councils, and god knows they're fingering children while they do it. Toss a few more imams into the mix, and horror of horrors, you'll see Coldwell-Sharia Real Estate Brokerages signs cropping up everywhere, golden crescent moon against a starry blue backdrop, while the Baptists and the Sunni join each other in winning a twenty year sales-tax moratorium for the new Walmart megacenter with the educational annex and the bike path.

Oooh, Sharia, a magical word. The first stains of Jenomic corruption begin to touch our pristine sheets! God forbid politics state and local become controlled by a bunch of thieving pedo rapists with souls scarred by the desert god! Imagine those vile hordes flooding this land, defrocking preteens without consequence while they incestuously control every function of speech and trade, propagating lies and misdeeds on the public purse...just imagine those cousin-marrying pervert freaks growing fat on kickbacks and establishing public morality laws--in this country! To arms, free secular Mormijewthic Protesbyterians; to arms!

Thursday, September 24, 2015

The Clock Struck Thirteen

I know, I know. The I Fucking Love Science guy had the dad who hated the Mayor for not wanting Sharia law, and so he put some ticking electronic stuff in a briefcase and brought it to school, was snarky with the cops, and got suspended because of racism, and then Google and Baraq invited him to celebrate diversity, which proves that Baraq is a Muslim in disguise and that up is down and right is left, etc. And then Baraq made the white children's cancer demonstration move so that he could visit the Congressional Black Caucus to talk about problems of racial exclusion, which inverts reality so hard it leaves nipple burns.

All very well and good, and the writing seems to be in the sky that Baraq is in fact a hypocritical lying insider Muslim mole, at least, if you look at the facts such as they are. But then, the facts such as they are continue to include Barack's weekly signing of kill orders for lots of Muslim people. So he's not so much extolling Muslim virtues as he is murdering Muslim babies, as well as Muslim teenagers, including Muslim teenagers who presumably actually know how to build IEDs and do "scientific" stuff, as opposed to taking apart clocks. But how does Adam Lanza figure into this? There are so many opportunities for satire. Like, if the cops had caught Adam on the way to school, would he have been apologized to for the ruination of his science project involving projectiles? No, of course, not, but Tamir Rice's parents didn't get invited anywhere either. So the plastic gun is worse than Michael Brown's three hundred pound charge, even when you figure in the age difference.

It's possible that this is all random, and that there is no pattern. Maybe when they wind themselves up each morning, they're not sure what they'll do or say during the day, whom they'll murder or whom they'll praise, and it's left up to Sulzberger and Cohen to rationalize everything. If Baraq were a Muslim sleeper agent, would he really be willing to kill so many Muslims? And effective, utilitarian ones, who can survive and do materially useful things, rather than C-grade taqiyya that would've passed by completely ignored without help from Jenome's ministry of schtick. He's killed more than Dubya; he might still not have reached Clinton's body count, but he's certainly piled up a mountain notorious enough in its own right.

There is actually a pattern, though: the behavior that's being encouraged here is simpering docility. The American media downplays certain kinds of racial violence, and comparatively-excessively hypes others, but at the same time, it doesn't promote candidates who promise to arrest Congress and the Board of CCA for the whole prison-state thing. So it's not just about "police state." And it simultaneously encourages both the mass murder of Arab Muslims and the immigration of Arab Muslims, so it's not just about "the spread of Islam." And it builds memorials to Michael Brown, but doesn't care at all about the astronomical levels of black-on-black violence, so it's not about "black lives."

The media/political/TWMNBN/whatever denigrates "white" and "Euro" culture, but it also massively subsidizes the traditional white European culture of meddlesome benevolence, providing unskilled upper middle class people (Numerically, a colossally disproportionate benefit of now-show salaries to women and minorities, but amply funded worthless administrative layers and redundant FIRE, STEM, and political jobs keep many millions of useless white men afloat and prominent, too) with endless HR, bureaucratic, charitable, and marketing make-work, microbreweries and sitcoms, VR basements for thirtysomething adolescents. So it's not designed to be against whites or Euros, either; it can't be a war, per se, on them.

No, what the clock-guy situation, juxtaposed alongside Obama's murders and tortures of many similar-looking young teenagers, exemplifies for us is that--at least, according to the evidence we know of--the idea is to make war on independence itself. Muslims who try to nationalize oil resources and build cultures separate from the crypto-Chosen "House of Saud," the insane Pakistani and ISIS projects established by London and Columbia, and the various petty Africom kingdoms, will be droned. By contrast, Muslims who whine and beg and socially agitate will be welcomed. White people who shoot back become infamous as villains, while white people who bleat about privilege and want to pay more in taxes are celebrated. Across every race, nation, spectrum, etc., the evidence shows the system reacting in such a way as to punish the seeking of self-generated solutions. Even in Israel, the Jews who would reject all foreign aid and stand on their own are denigrated or ignored in favor of the vast majority who prefers to whine about unfairness and victimization and beg the E.U. and the U.S. to kill all the naughty Arabs because of lampshades and typhus.

It's easy enough to say "victim culture," but what does that really mean? Is it really possible that somewhere, somehow, one person or one group is sufficiently clever to not actually feel like a victim, but only pretend to be so in order to manipulate others? Maybe for a while, but at what point do you start to believe your own story? And more so, if you were such a person/group, then you wouldn't want to encourage too many others to be victims. There has to be at least one bugbear against which to unite, and "whites," despite its remarkable staying power, is getting smaller and smaller, as first women, then the disabled, then homosexuals, then transsexuals, then tiny-quotum mixed-race people, et cetera, were carved away. Someone has to be the aggressor, and in the absence of visible ones, there're always djinn, discriminators, or witches, but that, too, only lasts so long, for the petty victim craves the heady thrill of a real honor killing.

Is it possible that, somewhere beyond the boundary of the twenty-fourth hour, all of us actually do believe, in the total privacy of even our own subconscious thoughts, that we are exactly that sorry?

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Following too closely

The iCar probably won't actually mow anyone down. More likely, it will suddenly brake in order to avoid what it wrongly perceives as a pending accident, then get rear-ended by other driver(s) who did not expect someone to suddenly stop in the middle of the road. When one of those happens and the driver(s)/passenger(s) of the tailing vehicles are killed, it will be considered their fault for following too closely, paying too little attention, and tragically crashing into the Apple Car/Blackberry Car/etc.

If America can guarantee one thing, it's product accessibility. Felons with drugs? Check. Octogenarians with three hundred horsepower sport utility vehicles? Check. Half-blind post-stroke nonagenarians with fifty-foot recreational vehicles, which are themselves towing personal vehicles, barreling past school buses on field trips? Check. Paraplegics with elaborate prostheses to allow them to drive their very own car to Best Buy? Check. Illiterate people with subsidized smartphones? Check. Health, safety, sanity, fiscal responsibility--none of these things matter. "Smart cars" sound a little like a terrifying robotic future, but they're really not. They'll just be another set of incompetent drivers. Incompetent drivers don't actually get in most of the crashes--they cause the crashes, but they don't get in them. They don't appear in the statistics, or the morgue, in proportion to their driving ability. They cause accidents by erratic swerving and breaking that results in other drivers crashing into them, or, more often, that results in other drivers maneuvering away from the idiots' obstructions, and hitting one another, leaving the guilty vehicle unscathed. Because they're overwhelmed and confused by the natural flow of traffic, low-competency (robotic) drivers create obstructions that others avoid to others' detriment. E.g., they idle in travel lanes, blinker running, causing others to brake hard or attempt sudden passes; they turn in front of bikers, causing bikers to swerve into pedestrians or other traffic; they hesitate on the verge of traversing intersections, causing everyone in the surrounding area to shimmy and shudder in potential anticipation; they create auras of weirdness and flow-disruption that can radiate blocks, or even miles, in all directions, as their unpredictable rates of acceleration and deceleration cause cascading patterns of braking, speeding up, stacking at lights/corners, or inciting lane changes.

Smart cars will do the same: they will be very formal, proper, ultra-safe drivers, who brake hard when a large leaf, or a loose section of cardboard, crosses their sensor array. All of the "good" drivers in the vicinity will react appropriately to the leaf/cardboard, but when Mr. Pichai's sedan "avoids the collision" by applying expert braking maneuvers when a red balloon floats by the bumper, twelve people behind him will shriek, curse, slam, and wrench their wheels to either side. Mr. Pichai will either receive damage to his rear bumper, or drive away shaking his head in consternation at all those "impatient risk-takers" behind him, who were so eager to rush to work that they "rode his ass" and caused a horrific pileup.

As with the thousands of yearly deaths, and hundreds of thousands of yearly injuries, caused invisibly by confused motorists unaware of all the people desperately trying to avoid them, the smart-car massacre will go unnoticed by history. Police reports, coroner's reports, lawsuits, settlements, insurance statistics, newspaper articles: all will be able to draw only upon the hard data of "who died" and "who hit what," unable to take into account the complexities of abstract dynamics that produce the erraticisms that end in tragedy. It is just too cruel, too unfair, says the feds/Fed, that competency requirements include more than "Point A to Point B, obeys signals and stops for obstructions."

Like prior poor drivers, smart cars will occasionally have cognitive errors that cause them to suddenly floor it in the parking lot of the local grocer, run down four bystanders, and crash terminally into lampposts--but the full extent of their havoc will never be provable. All the policies that we have in place right now to mandate the "everyone is a licensed pilot" standard, which so effectively designs an inefficient society in thousands of ways, were produced, of necessity, in order to encourage ongoing fees, lowest common denominator barriers, and recurrent damage, and to channel anger at the system's problems toward attempts to fix the system.

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Manifesting Communally

As we go through the Communist Manifesto together, a great number of things to say present themselves. We might ask, foremost, is the "chair" system of musical ranking akin to the "class" system of social ranking, and, of equal importance, are "conductors" conducive, terminologically-wise, to "bourgeois" or, dare we ask, "capitalists"? The jarring nomenclature is evident, the author in the instant case duly apologetic, and the confusion warranted.

In such a morass we discover the first element of the Manifesto's intrinsically crippling problems: the crass and presumptuous generalizations; the question-begging; the appeal to the rudest elements of human desire to lash out at something immediately understandable as an enemy. To whit, "conductors" and "first chairs" and the like overlap in the aforelinked satires in so nonsensical a fashion because, in Marx' original prose, blame is distributed just as ephemerally and just as specifically, time by time: sometimes, the bourgeois are heartless aggressors, completely responsible for the tiniest iota of wrongdoing in the most neglected corner of the world; others, they are purely victims of nigh-geological forces of inevitable economic historicity beyond their pitifully circumscribed levels of control. In one sentence, Marx curse the bourgeois as the greedy, self-cognizantly malevolent puppetmasters of world-historical forces that enslave mankind, while in another, he laments the descent forced upon them by capitalists, while in still another, he laments the grip of disembodied capitalism itself, whose face--like those of the enemies of Stalin--can be anyone's face, at any time, whenever one's Tokarev or loins should call for it.

Indeed, all of the works of Marx spring from this multifaceted, impossible slough of vague accusations. Who are the bastards, we ask? Is it the second-chair violin who sneers at the third- and fourth-? Is it the director of string instruction, the conductor himself, or the snobby attendee in the audience, whose vulgar demands for a fine performance cause the very frictions that turn those hapless workingmen against one another? Or, still more nefariously, is it the orchestra director, the board of the musical foundation, the majority of the said board (against whom the minority votes in futile, yet heroic, protest), or the wealthy donors who must be petted and pampered into supporting the board's activities and, thereby, the orchestra? For if it's the one, you may excuse the others as her victims, whereas if it's all of them, there is no one whom we should be beheading--or, conversely, no one who should escape the guillotine.

The vicissitudes of collective punishment have been demonstrated quite suitably since well before Robespierre, but in 1848, Marx strove to draw upon the bitterest calls to action against both No One In Particular and Everyone In Particular, as well as that omnipresent bugbear, Arch Bourgeois, who is identifiable not necessarily by his or her success (unless the commissariat should feel differently). Deluded lovers of Marx will protest that, yes, Arch Bourgeois and her hundred friends does in fact dine on a nightly stew of babies; yet, hardened jihadists, also, do exist, and still do not merit the Enola Gay's visit to Cairo.

Ironic that, when the so-called Marxists would now resist the emplacement of machine-gun posts in Turkey, to gun down the potentially-jihadist invaders of Europe, while Marx' genetic legacy has begun to suggest the closing of borders and the placing of collective blame. Put aside that irony, though, ye lovers of Karl and Friedrich, and consider again that there are indeed many nasty Arch Bourgeois, but their just verbal comeuppance does not, by any means, justify the adoption of any of the lampooning author's other associated remedies. Collective punishment is only the sharpest edge of collectivism: the temptation to crucify the petit-bourgeois as a Carnegial effigy leads you on nothing more than an unjust witch-hunt, an actualized parody of Bane. For, if you punish small shopkeepers who are actually just frugal laborers, you're nothing more than an exploiting venture capitalist yourself, even as Marx describes it. This is the twisted foundation upon which Marx builds his plans for the destruction of Europe, blaming everyone and no one while calling for the harshest possible action against anyone who might, at any given time, be committing that era's preferred thoughtcrime.

Of ready allies against this tide, we have of course many. Most intimately acquainted against the grander scale of Marx' international brutalities is, perhaps, Dickens, whose Hard Times parables the cruel errors of the anti-workingman agitator, but more importantly, whose Tale of Two Cities knits together an appropriate warning of the madness inherent in such a sustained blend of directionless, intensely focused worldly judgment. Dickens' own description of capitalism, and the specifics of the industrial exploitation of actual firsthand working class members (and homeless- and starvation-class members as well), is both more vivid, and more accurate--fiscally and genetically--than Marx ever permitted to be told via his sweeping generalities and calls to violence. Alongside Dickens, Marx' diagnoses, as well as prescriptions, are contrasted for still more embarrassing exposure than they manage on their own. Marx makes himself a hypocrite, even in the earliest chapters of his Manifesto, by specifically lamenting how faceless bourgeois--or perhaps capitalists, or perhaps world history, or perhaps industrialism, et cetera--have damaged the sacred nature of the family. That, we have already seen in our banal satires via pretend orchestras.

The Marxist hypocrisy shines through later, though, as we shall see when the pitiably cobbled-together forays into the Manifesto and Das Kapital continue, for Marx will then proceed to ravage the notion of "family" itself, proving either that he is a dundering idiot, or that he is a lying hypocrite who never actually believed in the thing whose destruction (by "capitalists," he prophetically claims) he pretends to lament with crocodile tears in his Prologue. Marx would rouse the low-income rabble to his banner by telling them that the capitalists are destroying the family, then channel that energy into a movement which tells them that the family was never worthwhile anyway, and should be dissolved in favor of a marriage to the communist state. Even those of us who believe in such a substitution must take note of the blatant guile with which Marx tells his lie at the beginning, then redirects the defensive instincts later. Truly, Marx is a Straussian, for he knows better than the proletariat what the proletariat wants: it is his honorable duty to tell them he will preserve their families by leading them to create a state which will negate their families. If you are one of the conflicted many who abhor Strauss while cherishing fond memories of Marxist resistance, you have a weighty dissonance through which to wade.

Like expatriated men on a young German vagina, less serious nonsensicalities cluster about the rest of Marx' work. He claims that, for the first time ever, relationships between people have been reduced to financial transactions because industrialism. Cute, but there were serfs before 1848--what kind of colossal idiot and/or astounding liar would claim that the substitution of money or resources for companionship was novel, centuries after the New World had been searched for gold? The good Samaritan had helped the man on the road to Jericho? Cain had slain Abel? Perhaps Marx was a sympathizer with the American Confederacy, who believed that the Negroes were better off under their masters' care than free? Unlikely. A more accurate assessment would be that Marx was trying to use the proles' own short historical memories against them, employing a technique that some might say is typically Chosen--namely, by pretending in his propaganda that, for the first time ever, many human relationships had become characterized by economic transactions.

Hilariously, as well as tragically, we see this same pattern repeated so often. When George H.W. Bush wanted to sell a repackaged New World Order and endless terror wars to Americans, he pretended that Iraq v. Kuwait had come out of left field, just as Marx did with the idea that parents and children, husbands and wives, might need one another's economic input in order to sustain joint households. The Manifesto is really just another superhero sequel, repackaged for a fresh generation of proles, selling a mix of focus-grouped tropes and name-dropping plenty of the hottest smartphone slang. The fact that there's occasionally a good fight scene, or that Dr. Doom's moonbase has some really cool CG, is immaterial to whether or not all or most of the philosophy is beneficial or even coherent.

But that's something we'll discover as we continue. For now, the opening sections of the Manifesto should be recalled as a mess of generalized accusations against anyone, no one, everything, and nothing, the broad swathe of which include some actual do-badders in their mix. Like an indiscriminate bomb thrown into a crowded street, we may eventually learn that the utility of a few correct victims is outweighed by not only the incorrect ones, but also the misdirection that got us there. We should remember also that the Manifesto's opening includes great emotional appeals to the ancestral honor of things that, we shall later learn, are called valueless. Unlike the proletarian targets who gobble up Hollywood, it is our memories of the beginnings of the Manifesto that will allow us to remember, many books and pages later, that Oceania has not always been at war with Eastasia.

Harpsichordists of the world, unite.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Curing Alcoholism and Hot Underage Sex

Lesbians teaching women how to exist "without men," I can understand. But then there are older drunks teaching younger drunks how not to be drunks, older gangsters teaching younger gangsters how not to become gangsters, and hypermasturbatory porn addicts teaching other hypermasturbatory porn addicts how not to be, uhh, hypermasturbatory porn addicts...?

Naturally, you can buy either astrolube, testosterone cream, or both, from the same sites. But that's not the point. Is it a by-product of the make-believe ego, id, and super-ego, that makes us think we can mathematicize our non-mathematical minds, and that we can only do the resulting "proofs" by measuring the unmeasurable; by, as it were, following the blind into the same swamp out of which they never managed to get themselves?

The more I see of things here, the more impressed I am by Nabokov's utter destruction of Freudian insanity. And he did it in so beautiful a way, worming Ada and Lolita into popular culture like mere pornographic interludes, then hiding various pieces of damning evidence in plain sight. It was neither adult nor childish, nor fulfilling nor unfulfilling, to have Dolores writhing under you; after all was said and done, and done, it broke no barriers and validated no higher selves, leaving you saddled instead only by another consumerist bimbette reading L'oreal ads and blabbing about her media-gorged feelings. How pitiful, Sigmund--did you really believe it, or were you just trying to waste a century on rainbows and young throats dot com? Truth be told, I'd take the latter pair in place of all the blood money in all the endowed psychology chairs across the many lands. But neither option is satisfying; the whole thing smacks of Pandaemonium, like marrying Bonnie Rotten and then watching her age without makeup.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Conductors and Artists

Conductors have stripped of their halos every instrument hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. They have converted the violin, the trombone, the oboe, the clarinet, the tuba, even the execrable triangle into a mesmerized servant of the baton.

Conductors have torn away from family audiences their sentimental veil, and have reduced the family relation to a mere vessel of group ticketing discounts.

Conductors have disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence, the most pompous time-keepery. They have been the first to show what man’s creative activity can bring about. They have accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian ballads, Roman choruses, and Gothic symphonies; they have conducted symphonies that put to shame all former hymnals of nations and peoples.

Conductors cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the musical instruments, and thereby the relations of music production, attending audience, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of disharmonized orchestras in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier musical groups. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the conductors' epoch from all earlier ones, which like all human history were characterized by utter peace and tranquility before the advent of the hated conductor. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding audience to fill the seats chases the conductor over the entire surface of the globe. He must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The conductoriat has through its exploitation of the world's ears given a cosmopolitan character to performing and listening in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of composition the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national styles have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new performances, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by symphonies that no longer play from indigenous sheets, but pdfs downloaded and printed from the remotest zones; composers whose works are listened to, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old favorites, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the laboring composers of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in intellectual production, so also in material. The sitar, the French horn, the Harlem saxophone, these cannot be produced by native materials alone, and so the intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local compositions, there arises a world composition, ripe for unitary command.

The conductors, by the rapid improvement of all instruments, by Napster, and iTunes, and yea, even amazon dot com, by these each and every immensely facilitated means of communication, draw all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of grainy mp3s are the heavy artillery with which they batter down all Chinese walls, with which they force the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. They compel all nations, on pain of extinction, to put on earbuds and be guided by conductors, and then deejays; they compel them to introduce what they call civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become conductors themselves. In one word, they create a world after their own image.

Conductors have subjected the country to the rule of the towns. They have created enormous concert halls in even more enormous cities, have greatly increased the urban listening population as compared with the rural, and have thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life, where music is never as pure or original or refined as it is in the venerable halls of Manhattan, Hollywood, or Universal Music Group, Inc. Just as conductors have made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones.

Conductors keep more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of artistry, and of instrumentation. They have agglomerated population, centralised the orchestra, and have concentrated instruments in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was musical centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected groups, with separate styles, practices, gigs, and informal systems of putting in for the pizza, became lumped together into one group, with one seller account, one file format, one immense pool of potential listeners.

The conductoriat, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more musical recordings in terms of raw gigabytes than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to Sound Booth, Final Cut Pro, Garage Band, even electric microphone — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour? Indeed, creativity itself baffles me, and all like me, and I must look to the dreams of others to anticipate how I might make myself later-on indispensable to their carrying them out.

We see then: the means of performance and attendance, on whose foundation the conductors built themselves up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of performance and attendance, the conditions under which feudal society held the court concert and the village dance, the feudal organisation of verbal instruction and instrumental design, in one word, the feudal relations of music became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by social ritual adapted to it, and the economic and political sway of the conductors.

A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern conductors, with their relations of production, of ticketing and seating, a society that has conjured up such gigantic audiences, are like the sorcerers who are no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom they have called up by their spells. It is enough to mention the crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire conductor society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing playlists, but also of the older ones, are periodically ignored. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had left us with nothing to listen to; the music industry seems to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much music, too much to listen to, too many options, too many sub-genres. The compositional forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of music; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder, endanger the existence of conductors and their batons. The conditions by which conductors rule orchestras are too narrow to comprise the wealth of options created by them. And how does the conductoriat get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. Free sail foams with playlists are disseminated widely, and promotional trials of premium radio given away haphazardly, building further dependence on the stream of covers, remixes, and embarrassingly inadequate local fare, which cannot, despite all the efforts of all the conductors, last forever. That is to say, the way is paved for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented, namely, the production of less music, which is necessary to allow a firm and honorable conductor to choose what shall be listened to, and when.

The weapons with which the conductors felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the conductors themselves!

But not only have the conductors forged the weapons that bring death to themselves; they have also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern slave — the artist.

In proportion as the conductors, i.e., baton-wielding super-jerks, are developed, in the same proportion are the artists, the modern instrument-player, developed — a class of interchangeable instrumentalists, who live only so long as they play well, and who play well only so long as their playing increases ticket sales. These artists, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the whimsical fluctuations of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of software, and to the generalisation of harmonics, the work of the artists has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the artist. He becomes an appendage of the orchestral machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. One stroke of the violin on a sustained D, for example, suffices to preserve the sound on the conductor's hard drive, and the violinist may then be dismissed, his greatest works duplicated by even a program that comes prepackaged with a free OS. Hence, the cost of production of an artist is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a musical note, and therefore also of the minute labour involved in so drawing the bow across the strings, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, say, cleaning the auditorium bathrooms after auditions are held, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of software and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed demanded by the conductor, etc.

Modern conductors have converted the little workshop of the patriarchal composer, with his stern, Beethovian browline, into the great factory of the cosmopolitan symphony director. Masses of artists, crowded into the symphony hall, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the musical army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of first chairs and second chairs. Not only are they slaves of the conductors, and of the symphony director himself (also a conductor, though he does not like to let it be known); they are daily and hourly enslaved by the system, by the audience, and, above all, by the individual conductor himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in musical performance, in other words, the more modern performance becomes developed, the more is the artistry of men superseded by that of women. For yes, indeed, though I shall soon explain to you why all human distinctions are illusory, meant to be ground into fodder by the great globalist project, you see here that I am equally willing to exploit traditional sexism when it achieves my ends. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity among artists. All are instruments of performance, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex, which before my compatriots Herr Freud and Herr Boas and Frau Stein have done with you, I intend to affirm as inherently different, and sacredly so.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

A People's History of the U.S.

I read Zinn again, and it struck me that A People's History... isn't really a people's history; rather, it's another elite history, albeit one delivered from a critical perspective. Will it ever be possible to write a people's history? Mel Gibson has probably shown us about as good of an example of such as we can expect, given elite proclivity for destroying and altering source material. People's histories would necessarily be imaginary.

Saturday, September 12, 2015

Dragging Minstrels

Which is the more smarter? I saw another drag show, so I was thinking of doing a post about a future history, written from the perspective of, you know, 2115, or something, using a now-article about minstrel shows as a model except exchanging "drag" for "blackface" and then changing the date to 2115, and, like, this future history would make us reevaluate our perspective on what drag shows are or what they mean. Well, all right, maybe not our perspective, but the perspective of a hypothetical reader who might read it and then think about things in a different way.

Like, it's not that drag shows are necessarily bad, they would say, because they respect...but then maybe they don't, because minstrel shows were a satire too, and even real black people performed in them, which is way more progressive than the drag show I went to, since there were no real women playing drag queens, who were themselves in blackface, except now it's not called blackface it's called womanface, and it's not demeaning to female culture because it is in fact a celebration of transgender culture which is liberating and accepting in a way that celebrations of transracial culture or celebrations of white takes on black culture can never be after the big nine handed down Flanders v. Gump et. al.

Then of course I second guessed myself and thought that the better way to make the point was not through mere satire, as Benjamin Franklin, great Benjamin Franklin, would have it, but rather to address the issues raised by the comparison between drag shows and minstrel shows through a lengthy analysis which henceforth (and indeed) employed both more and larger words. In conducting this analysis, this incisive unpacking of the cultural baggage associated with the as-yet unseen comparison between drag shows and minstrel shows, would I argue, in essence, we had lost our perspective on things, being disclined, sick, to praise anything other than ourselves or those like us, when in fact the same could be said of the minstrels themselves, like the drag queens themselves, becoming part of a culture by playing upon it in an honest way. And, in hindsight, for what it's worth, imho, was it really necessary to say, back there, "In essence"? Perhaps not, though the larger issue looms, like a buttocks-shaped foggy formation descending upon the skyscrapers of Manhattan one cloudy morn, that a Slate-esque argumentative essay, neatly trimmed to one thousand words with a flashing advertisement for e-trade shooting green lightning into your eyes from two inches eastward, might have been the best way to go.

Does selecting the satirical option "cut to the chase," as it were, conveying the essential point without unnecessary verbiage or e-tradeism? Or, does it prove that I'm little more than a sad recycler of one century's critiques for another's, unable to produce the kind of clearheaded analyses of dragging minstrels that, in anticipated hindsight, we so sorely need both in your days and ours?

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Culture of Transcendence ~ updated below

Disclaimer: this post consists wholly of speculative fiction which presumes, for satirical, entertainment, deconstructivist, equalist, and discussion purposes only, that MacDonald's outlandish racism is correct. This post is ©, and was generated by, the Full Information Security project.

Introduction to the Culture of Critique

Kevin MacDonald's infamous Culture of Critique has been growing in popularity lately, for its suggestion that Jewish culture has evolved competitively vis-à-vis other ethnic groups. If you haven't read it, Google can direct you to a free pdf; if you still haven't read it, the book makes the argument that Jewish culture has successfully evolved to maintain its group identity at the expense of other group identities, by criticizing other groups' homogeneity while strongly reinforcing Jewish homogeneity. An easy version of the argument is found in the contradiction between prominent Jewish positions on immigration policy as it relates to Western Europe, the U.S.A., and Israel: namely, a hypermajority of Jews support an openly racist apartheid state in Israel, denying citizenship and life to goys, while that same hypermajority supports open immigration into the U.S. and Western Europe (and into Japan, China, etc., but there they have less success, because it still isn't illegal for Japanese or Chinese to take pride in their genetic heritage, but stay tuned for the next big war spilling out of U.S./China proxy wars).

Israel's formal public racism aside, MacDonald's thesis is a modern retelling of just about the same arguments that people have been making about Jews since before the printing press. MacDonald writes of how, in Western Europe and in America, Jewish cultural movements have promoted homosexuality, casual parenting, interracial children, contraception and abortion, and defiance of all non-Jewish cultural traditions as stupid, repressed, and outdated. Maybe those are good things, and yet, the same Jewish cultural movements have advocated the opposite behavior for Jews themselves: the formation of traditional families, strict parenting, race-segregation in socializing and mate choice, and acceptance of all Jewish cultural traditions (even the blatantly repressive or racist ones) as wise, valuable, and now-more-important-than-ever. MacDonald's argument is that this has given Jews an advantage in long-term genetic survivability, for the Jewish social movements he discusses do things like make fun of baptism and Christmas, encourage childhood rebellion against parents, discourage celebration of genetic or cultural heritage, and denigrate as "racist" any attempt to build white or straight (biologically reproducing) associations of any kind. As a result, "Jews"--who are more likely to parent authoritatively, and to mandate cultural transmission and intermarriage--stay alive as a distinct population group, while other groups lose their cultural heritage and blend into a multicultural consumerist blur.

MacDonald doesn't go into the specific effects of these differing techniques, though he lays the groundwork. The Culture of Critique, as described above, successfully disrupts European inheritance patterns, elder care, career fostering, and other intergenerational relationships. Simultaneously, within their own communities, Jews reaffirm bar mitzvah and Hanukkah, encourage childhood obedience to parents, encourage celebration of genetic and cultural heritage, and denigrate as "racist" any attempt to deconstruct Jewish associations of any kind. Inheritance patterns, elder care, career placement, and other intergenerational relationships are thereby strengthened, giving all individuals within the chosen group a significant zero-sum advantage over the displaced goy individuals created by the destruction of all goyim groups into personal consumer units, whose attempts to build larger social meanings have been deconstructed so constantly and so cunningly that goys have internalized Pavlovian aversions to such selfish ethnocentrism.

If you agree with MacDonald, maybe you think those things are good things, maybe you think they're bad. Maybe all races and identities, except for "Jewish" (and, maayyyybe, "sub-Saharan African" ["SSA"]), should vanish. Or maybe they shouldn't. Similarly, if you agree with MacDonald's thesis, maybe you think that this Jewish technique is a good "group evolutionary strategy," allowing Jews to maintain an ethnic identity in a world where all other ethnic identities are mocked as being stupid, clannish things of the past.

Maybe not--maybe deliberate inbreeding, as we have seen among the European royals, has led to high rates of neurosis, inability to empathize or parent well, inability or unwillingness to naturally reproduce, and increased susceptibility to genetic disease. The inclusive nature of any such movement--were MacDonald's arguments accurate, of course--would conflict dramatically with the progression of life on Terra, and the inbreeding problems would only grow worse. Some might say that this is why it is so very urgent for "biotech" to become "the next big thing": because the lingering inbreeders need a way to perpetuate themselves biochemically, using laboratories to stave off generational time bombs; complex genetic backlashes now woven deeply into the essence of those who so coveted their own image that they couldn't stand the idea of having sex, relationships, or cherished offspring outside the mitochondrial host group.

(If you follow my sci-fi, this is how planets eventually cleanse themselves of Jenome. Patterns of restricted natural reproduction--both genetic and cultural--ultimately kill off the practitioners, even if it takes thousands of years. This effect is built into the original versal code as a safeguard against exactly that type of behavior. In the laboratory setting, the restriction process can be greatly postponed, but either results in sufficient altered diversity that spirals into health and goodness, or in further lack of innovation and creativity that regresses consciousness into just a high-powered calculator. Derivative sitcoms never last more than ten thousand years without a fresh assault.)

Understanding CoC's Popularity with HBD

MacDonald's ideas have resonated with the human biodiversity ("HBD") set. The race realists who seek to be able to be among their own kind, and form segregated societies (whether ones of choice or ones of fiat), cotton to the idea that the western Jewish cultural movements, which have so denigrated European culture for the past centuries, could themselves be adopted by modern race realists. In short, nationalist parties from Greece to the United Kingdom want to adopt the techniques that some Jews have used: they want to heavily restrict immigration, control sexuality and social mores in order to further race-specific reproduction, and operate in a fashion similar to the clannish Jews, who have spent so much money encouraging non-Jews to drop their religious traditions and marry outside their race.

HBD promoters like that idea--to them, it seems like a way to finally get the respect they missed out on during the twentieth century. Why can't white people start having White History Day? That idea sounds silly to people conditioned against the idea, but the idea of Chinese students, in China, having a day set aside for Chinese Cultural Appreciation, doesn't sound silly to those same people, nor would it be viewed as a terrible sin against the globalist god. Similarly, why can't white people establish a country for whites only, and why can't "Christmas" be considered as sacrosanct as "Hanukkah," as far as "making movies that mock the holiday's origins and modern expressions" goes? Why can't white people be cheered, rather than derided, for insisting that their daughters marry other whites--the way Jewish fathers are culturally supported when they leverage control over their Jewish daughters' choices, and when they gun down Hashemites and Sub-Saharan Africans in the streets? If you shoot an African in Missouri, it's international news; if you shoot an African in Israel, it's Monday.

The Jewish bloodline has, as a result of the strategies outlined in MacDonald (again, if you agree with the idea), maintained its distinct sense of identity, which sense is fading rapidly from all other non-approved groups. Consider, e.g., Hispanics.

Hispanic Aside

Even Hispanics, the supposed invaders of the American Southwest, are no longer sacred. Like southeast Asian immigrants to the U.S.G. tax farm, they're going to become part of the PC problem. Decades ago, the success of Asian-American minorities took those groups off the sacrosanct list of multiculturalism, and now, to hell with them--it's an ignorable joke, instead of a tragic racial hate crime, when a gang of 200-300 lb. SSAs beats up, murders, and/or robs a 130 lb. Filipino sexagenarian. If you follow Hispanic culture, the slow-moving passage of Hispanics out of the "sacred" category is not a joke, or a by-note. It's actually really important, and has major implications for the future of government (banking/media) policy. Full-blooded indigenous peoples from the Southwest United States, Mexico, and Central America, are being classified as "Caucasian/Hispanic," as though the presence of mestizos in Meximerica somehow negates the actuality of fully-Mongoloid Amerindians receiving racially-based government preferences for being "non-White." And there are plenty of Hispanics who are completely "non White" (barring, of course, the mitochondrial remnants of female Nordic rape-slaves from the American megalith builders who preceded Amerindians, but put that aside for now), descended from unbroken lines of people who lived in South and North America prior to Columbus.

Not that institutional racism is good, mind you, but it does not bode well for the Hispanic future that Hispanics are being considered multiple-choice "whites," for with that privilege comes the privilege to be discriminated against (more openly than already) in favor of blacks, and attempts to advocate for Hispanic rights will eventually be met with as much seriousness as the complaints of western Europeans or southern Chinese lamenting discrimination in Ivy League admissions or STEM hiring.

(Speaking of STEM hiring, here's another aside: how much of the Dilbert Principle, along with any and all other "typical corporate..." complaints re: bosses and policies, is due to firms necessarily adhering to government quotas, rather than a deliberate ploy by firms to support the worthless via management on principle alone? Adams likely knows the answer, but is too much of a good businessman, a.k.a. an impotent Saturday slave, to give it voice beyond pudgy white PHB.)

Adopting Endogamic Methodology: Zion Guiding HBD

Confronted by deracination, waves of invading young males, and the Fed's ever-increasing leechery, HBD looks for solutions to survival as a minority, and is led into the thought of creating their own culture of critique--as naturally as a herd of cattle guided there by guard-rails. Exactly like that, in fact. The original culture of critique--the Diaspora's protectionism--is what it is, but even the 19th & 20th century cultures of critique used to destroy the Europeans who escaped Europe prior to the Great War are only part of a larger strategy based upon creating movements that guide society in a particular direction.

A matter of terminology arises, also: the Diaspora wasn't actually trying to protect itself, but rather, to invade and dispossess, using CoC methodology. The CoC wasn't a defensive, but an offensive strategy, and the most dishonorable kind--the cluster of bulbous, milky white parasites clinging to the infant's lymph nodes, sucking greedily at the blood supply like six decades of Greenspans. Those who developed the culture of critique, with its noxious Frankfurt School, Hollywood School, Freudism, et cetera, are those who have also developed, simultaneously, the culture of encouraging the EEs ("Escaped Europeans," who fled European Central Banking for Australia and the Americas, but were then pursued) to become like the CoC of their own volition.

Like so many Jenomic strategies, the trap here is the temptation to avoid evil by becoming evil: Gore instead of Bush; Obama instead of Romney; Talmudist racism instead of dealing justly with other human beings. In any of the former cases, though, selling your soul for the power to resist Satan is already a lost cause. Once you've favored your DNA, your genome, your germen, et cetera, at the expense of your spirit, you've proven the culture of critique accurate. You're Robert Childan failing to demand an apology of Paul Kasoura, letting him prove that you really had nothing worth saving from the Talmud to begin with. This is indeed the worldly path of the great creditor-priests, for it is the path that they followed long ago, and are still following since, in which the terrible delights of schadenfreude guide a person to a nightless Valhalla, where dwell neither muscle nor honor, meals nor camaraderie. Therein Bernanke and Ben Gurion engage in a game of terminal chess where the rules and pieces change based on lies and flattery, and the stress of a thousand shames strikes the perceived loser of every move.

The temptation to adopt the sickening plagues of the enemy is a great one. Indeed, even while writing this essay I came across Ted Sallis specifically advocating the adoption of the Jewish method as identified by MacDonald. Here's a clip:
Some may invoke the ethnocentric model of cohesive Jewish Diaspora group evolutionary strategies, as outlined in Kevin MacDonald’s works, as one possible model to follow for Whites who find themselves effectively equivalent to a stateless, diaspora people. There is much to say in favor of this, to an extent, although I note that the large amount of admixture which occurred with Jews at the beginning of their diaspora would be unacceptable for European preservationism, although the later stress on endogamy of course is exemplary.
Here, we reach another stage of the culture of critique: in which the civilizations destroyed by the aggressive cuckoos are convinced to, in their own defense, become cuckoos themselves. This is the Culture of Transcendence, in which the destruction of northern peoples becomes an ideatic absorption. Now, the culture of critique is not merely extracting resources from host societies by use of lies, flattery, the abuse of empathy, and nepotism; now, it is convincing the host societies to become new cultures of critique. The victim, having been eaten alive, is not merely left for dead, but reanimated in the service of the primary mission.

Even as it seems to blame "Jewish supremacy" and "Jewish hypocrisy" for the downfall of "White" civilization, look at how useful this kind of claim truly is to the Culture of Critique: it implies there was ever a diaspora, e.g., an unwilling separation from a sacred homeland. This validates the Zionist narrative that the genocide of indigenous peoples across the world, by the command of an invisible old man in the clouds (the perennial violent desert god), was righteous and necessary, rather than conceding the truth: namely, that the racist Talmudists never built or were native to Jerusalem or anywhere else, but were, rather, a nomadic tribe of wildland raiders who committed genocide against the Canaanites, then the Caucasites, then the Hashemites, because of said invisible old man in the clouds--and who then, millennia later, caused colossal world wars in order to turn the rest of the world to the task of murdering still more Arabs and Africans.

The "diaspora" myth is the lie of "a land without a people for a people without a land," and it's suitably tragic to see another generation of fools fall for it. The Jewish tribes who raped and murdered their way across Africa, then the Middle East, then Europe, and then the Americas, did not do so because they "lacked a land" due to discrimination. Rather, they lacked a land by choice--their style of survival was akin to the Bedouin, but grazing and slaughtering two-legged livestock instead of four-. It's remarkable that the Canaanites managed to recover from Yahweh's first drive-by, providing millions of fresh new victims for the next genocide to begin in 1948. Granting this "victim" status to the racist aggressors--as though they were "landless wanderers" due to exile, rather than, by choice, land pirates avoiding the ardor of physical labor or invention--should be exactly what European-derived peoples would not want to do after suffering ten centuries of usury and banker-spawned internecine wars. And yet, the Culture of Transcendence has made it fashionable to reject the CoC by validating everything that the CoC used to justify Euro-inferiority for the past hundred years.

Jewish Cultural Critique has Created New White Nationalism and HBD

We're reaching one of the pivotal stages of MacDonald's so-called "Culture of Critique." Not only pivotal, but ironic--so much so that it out-ironizes all prior ironies built into Freudian psychoanalysis and the destruction of permissible ethnic consciousness among all non-approved groups. What makes the HBD embrace of pro-ethnic group strategies so terrifically ironic is that the path was forged as a cultural critique, arising from the same cultural critics (the powerful Jewish trends so many have analyzed) that created the "diversity" critique dominating the latter half of the twentieth century, against which HBD is supposedly fighting.

Consider three influential names who propagated this new internet wave of literate, race-based nationalism. The Jews Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug), Ron Unz, Daniel Greenfield, and a host of other fiercely Zionist supporters of human biodiversity dominate "the opposition" as handily as they dominate "the establishment," creating yet another political spectrum laden with predictable hypocrisies and future inevitabilities, such as the return to permissible genetic nationalism in western societies. If you're not familiar with the great power and influence of the Nazis of the Ashen River upon "HBD" and "white nationalism," then you're as comparatively ignorant as someone who doesn't understand what makes Ann Coulter different than Terry Gross.

Your skin may be crawling with the idea of referring to "Jewish intellectual movements," but consider: the racial realism that these Jewish commentators encourage includes Euro and Asian militaries ethnically cleansing the North American and European continents of SSA and Mesoamerican people. In a phrase, expanding Israel to the EU and USA. All of the "neoreactionary" or "Jacobin" or "human biodiversity" stuff that has exploded across the internet has been fostered, encouraged, and often paid for, by these Jewish intellectuals, whose media connections made it possible for white nationalism to move from a tiny corner of neo-Nazi websites to a massive "anti-Cathedral" movement that turned a hundred million goy heads. The growing acceptance of racially-based argumentation, and the gradual waking-up of the DWLs, is an astroturf movement created by Zionism, just like the Great War, feminism, and the 1965 Immigration Act.

If you're familiar with MacDonald's work, you recognize this organizational technique for social change, right? This is the "charismatic Jewish intellectual leader(s), widespread media dissemination, token goys as front-men" strategy that, according to MacDonald, drove the creation of the diversity regime as we know it today, including the destruction of European ethnic consciousness, European religions, and European family and community bonding traditions. And it's being used right now against the very culture that was earlier established by those same methods. Just as the USG arms Islamic militants in order to fight a profitable war with them 20 years later, the culture of critique created ridiculous diversity Cathedrals in order that it would later have an obvious target for additional critique.

The Jewish critics who insulted Euro-Americans for the "ignorant isolationism" that made Americans not want to get involved in WW "1" & "2," and who lambasted white fatherhood, white holidays, white militaries, and white privilege, are now encouraging whites to celebrate isolationism, fatherhood, militaries, and holidays. What makes white nationalists think that following Zion's strategies for another few generations will turn out any better than it did the last time around, when PC regimes were installed, and HUD blockbusting turned against every white downtown? Is it caused by a sudden, genuine philosophical belief in the independence of European peoples, in defiance of a hundred years of constant criticism? Highly unlikely. Is it just an attempt to rationalize Israel's apartheid state, by permitting White Europe and America to create their own apartheid states? Again, highly unlikely--Israel would lose billions of dollars a year, and without its "most favored nation" status, and with Americans turning off the tax spigot to not only Israel, but also to the "Islamic" House of Crypsis Saud, Israel would be forced to take on the Middle East and Africa by itself. Far more likely is the conclusion that this sudden nurturing of Euro/American apartheid tendencies holds as many nasty traps in store as did political correctness.

PC Writ Large: The Ethno-State Future

Once again, powerful Jews are telling Euros that they need to go to war. There's a level of dissonance, of course, as one set of wealthy elites promotes "Black Lives Matter," while another set of genetically similar wealthy elites promotes racial realism, segregation, and outright race war. From major corporate/government news sites, wealthy Jewish commentators scold whites about white privilege and the fairness of rainbow marriage, while, from major non-corporate news sites, wealthy Jewish commentators scold whites about having lost their willpower to deal with third world invasions, the destruction of white wombs by sex-crazed black and Muslim men, the feminization of Europe and America by gays, and the inherent necessity of Israel-style border controls, segregation, and internal race purges. Even explicitly anti-Jewish groups have followed this trend, borrowing Jewish arguments to rationalize Mexican expulsion, Caucasian inbreeding, and "sending all the ooks back to Africa."

Irony rises again in history, as such heated critiques of Jewish influence end up doing exactly what Jews want them to do: viewing the world through a racialist lens. White, Christian, European nationalist groups are now taking up the call of Israel, supporting the ethnic cleansing of the Middle East as a bulwark against Muslim and SSA attackers, and advocating a world filled by ethnically-divided states modeled after Israel in their citizenship and voting laws. The ethno-state future, though, is as strong a recipe for multicultural diversity as any other politically correct nonsense imposed upon Euro-America in the 1980s, guaranteeing a world community of diverse nation-states whose interests can always be played off against one another by the same embedded crypsis that turns diverse municipalities or neighborhoods against one another. If you understand and agree with MacDonald's take on, say, the Frankfurt School, then you should be able to perceive how the "Neoreactionary Movement" is another abomination cobbled together by those same taskmasters. The ingredients are all the same, the calls to battle are all the same, and when George Soros urges black Americans to execute police officers, it's only a step more advanced than when Stormfront, following Mencius Moldbug's devilish suggestions, urges white Americans to build an ammunition storage network so that the city can be cleansed of niggers as soon as EBT runs out.

So too the men's rights movement. The CoC has encouraged the re-propertization of women, including female mating choices being made by the father, or by a council of learned male citizens, instead of by stupid, flighty, greedy women. For those feminists who think that Jewish cultural movements hold women's rights as sacred, there is a surprise waiting to be discovered: significant money is now being spent to alter the media to blame women, genetically, as the source of the world's problems. Those who noticed the "war on men," funded by Jewish cultural critics at the advent of feminism, should now be seeing a dangerous similarity in the reformed antisex league's war on women. Again, it's no joke--many of these nascent internet nationalists are advocating for an end to female suffrage, along with any number of other legal restrictions placed upon women. The pendulum of hypocrisy is being pushed, though not very rapidly, back in the other direction.

The timidness of politically-correct culture is easy to mock, for otherwise we're not even able to discuss these issues. The overreaction to the politically-correct setup that the CoC implemented on Euro-America--with results no less predictable than that of the Lusitania's sinking or the pre-Mossad Zimmermann telegram job--is, though, exactly the sort of command prompt that you'd expect from the movement that turned Freud and Oppenheimer into icons of brilliance. Following the murderers' siren song into yet another century of ethnic and sexual warfare only helps the group that feeds off of it, and the HBDers are dutifully carrying out the will of Zion, selling their races and their souls, even as they believe they're part of some kind of resistance.

And the intended fallout? Simple. Check out some popular comments at Radix just today:
Commenter 1: At this point Europe can only be saved by vigilante mobs or an act of God.

Commenter 2: Exactly, but the mobs must be willing to commit the most savage acts known, worse than anything going on in their own homelands. Nothing less will make these people leave.
Zion yearns to divide the rest of the world, too, into Gaza and Jerusalem.

Saturday, September 5, 2015

How DKE is DKE if you already know about DKE?

The Dunning-Kruger effect says that, if you're stupid, you'll think you're smart, and if you're smart, you'll think you're stupid (or, at least, "equal" or "similar"). That applies, though, only in cases where people haven't already heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect: people who are aware of the effect will, if they're somewhat stupid, have the potential for more accurately estimating their own inferior capabilities, while if they're smart, more accurately estimating their own superior capabilities.

In a world where no one had previously observed the "Dunning-Kruger effect," the DKE initial test(s) might've had significant merit to affirm the DKE. But what does it mean if someone, having heard of the DKE, subsequently begins to report her own results less modestly than otherwise, based upon her realistic assessment of, say, her IQ relative to that of the average test-taker on campus? For the initial tests, too, what about people who were so smart that they had already figured out the DKE on their own, as people have from time immemorial? And how does that interact with the higher-IQ bourgeois tendency to have been pedagogically required to self-report modestly, contra the less-educated prole tendency to grandiose self-reporting in order to obtain success in different types of life?

Dunning and Kruger were, no doubt, clever enough to have considered all this, so they rigged their little test to prove the point they wanted to make anyway. Well, for all that effort, they get to name that planet.

Thursday, September 3, 2015


Every time there's one of those dog attacks--you know the kind...pit bull mix raised by neo-nazis mauls cute 90 lb. brunette when it breaks out of its owner's apartment while the brunette is coming home from the fitness center--all of the dog people are like, "Ohh, it's such a pity the dog wasn't well trained," and then, "The brunette should have used 'calm/assertive' behavior to signal to the dog that she was an alpha dog, because when she turned and ran, she triggered its 'chase' response."

What happens when all those brunettes do try to be calm/assertive in the face of the charging dog? Presumably, all of the pro dog trainers start warning us to avoid eye contact, to avoid appearing threatening, to be "assertive, but not aggressive," and so forth. There'd really be no way to please them, because how do you tell whether someone was merely "assertive" rather than aggressive, unless you have not only video feeds of the entire attack, but also EKG and EEG results from prior to the attack, along with testimony from experts on canine/human facial interactivity? And even then, the experts would disagree with each other. So I'm afraid the only thing we can do is to just turn it over to the pit bulls right now.

Instrumental Discrimination

A ghost is haunting the concert halls of this planet - the ghost of harpsichordists denied. All the conductors of all the orchestras, all in attendance at all the symphonies, all the podcasts in which wordless music is played, all the local concerts, the home performers and practicers, the home listeners, even the corner-street musicians and their bustling audiences, have entered into a holy alliance to suck this ghost, like Slimer into Egon's ghost trap, out of this world.

Where is the artist who has not spoken ill of those lacking the "ability" to play? Where is the audience member who has not sniffed and departed upon encountering a free concert by a harpsichordist who misses every third note with an unwanted dip into the minor?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Sour notes, or notes played out of key, are already acknowledged by all concertgoers to be unpleasant, even jarring, when mistakes are made during performances.

II. Those who do not practice hard must now openly, before the rest of humanity, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and explain to the world of ignorant buffoons why there are no "wrong notes" and why "practicing" and "fingering," et. al., are not necessary.

To this end, harpsichordists of many nationalities, along with many other instrumentalists who have wished to be heralded for their performances and compositions, have assembled in Columbia and sketched the following list of demands, to be disseminated worldwide.

Chapter I. Players and Conductors

The history of all music is the history of struggles between players and conductors. Players and conductors have never been friendly, or in agreement, and have never constructed a full orchestra, a half orchestra, a quartet, or even a solo without the presence of musical struggle. First chair and second chair, soloist and backup, lead guitarist and replacement bass, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a member being thrown out of a band, an instrument smashed against a wall, or in the destruction of the entire orchestra.

In every band that has ever been formed anywhere we know about, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank justifying itself based on so-called "ability" and "musicianship." In ancient Rome, those who could play the lyre might play before Senators, friends, family, or even those on the street, and these existed alongside those who could not play the lyre but who wished to, and to whom no one would listen when they picked one up; in the Middle Ages, it was the same, but with early guitars instead of lyres; whenever a group of musicians came together to perform, they excluded from their ranks those who could not play their instruments well, or at all, or who didn't show up to practice, or who became drunk or violent during performances. Before even the high school marching band there were "chairs," declared or undeclared, come rain or shine, hell or high water.

The modern musical society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal musical society has not done away with chair antagonisms. It has but established new chairs, new ways of assigning notes and prominence based upon skill, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the leading chairs, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified chair antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great chairs directly facing each other — leading chairs and backups.

From the clumsy-fingered serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the absent conductors of the earliest towns. From these conductors the first elements of the modern musical professor were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising First and Second Chairs. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the available instruments and in audience size generally, gave to public performance, to private practice, an impulse never before known, for never in the history of the human race had one man played an instrument better than another man, nor one man practiced harder than another man, nor one man been struck with a moment of inspiration or musical sensation which did not also strike all other men; none of this until trade with India and China began in earnest, when leading chairs first began to assert their superiority over Third Chairs.

The feudal system of orchestration, in which performances were monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new audiences. The modern Chair system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the harmonically provisionous seconds; division of chord structures between the different instrumental sections vanished in the face of division of chords by each type of instrument. Some argued that the sound was better, was more complex, as each instrumental section might present a unified chord, while still others saw the dark truth behind the division, that of forcing the Third Chairs to hold sub-harmonic tones, and rarely, if ever, carry the melody.

Meantime the audiences kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even live performance no longer sufficed. Thereupon, records, cassette tapes, compact discs, even eight tracks revolutionised musical production. The place of performance was taken by the giant, Modern Music; the music of the local violinist made to sound poor in comparison to that of the Second Chairs, even First Chairs, in other groups.

Music has established its world audience, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to musical variety, from country to J-pop, to classical, to hard house. This development has, in its turn, increased the power of Second Chairs, pushing offstage every other musician whose tradition was handed down from the middle ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern leading chairs are themselves the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of performance and ticket sales.

The leading chairs, historically, have played a most revolutionary part.

The leading chairs, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all idyllic relations between musician and audience. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley social ties that forced villagers to listen to whoever performed, no matter how terrible, and has left remaining no other nexus between artist and appreciator than naked self-interest, than callous “what I prefer to listen to.” It has drowned the most hellishly lengthy concerts pretending to applaud at the jangling output of someone who had only for the first time touched the harpsichord, of a moribundidly large man who could not fit the violin under his chin nor the cello between his knees, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved a musician's worth as a performer into merely "who wants to listen to you play that thing," and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Listening. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted compulsion for naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The leading chairs have stripped of its halo every instrument hitherto honoured and looked up to with dutiful awe. It has converted the clumsy drummer, the inebriated harpist, the snoozing trumpeter, into mere hacks to whom no one listens. It has done so without fairness, and without honour, for if it were not for the vile conspiracies of the leading chairs, men would be content to listen to the tired wheezings of that unconscious trumpeter, or to lend an hour of their time to the raucous concert of the slipshod saxophonist, for to do otherwise would be the height of selfishness.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Hope, Nevertheless

There's a terrible beauty in what Israel does. It is inspiring that, no matter how horrible they are, their most noxious acts still contain a suggestion of a dream of a better place, like a buried seed in an extended winter.