Thursday, October 29, 2015

Son of a Whore

If you should ever feel any qualms at the thought of criticizing Zionism's worldwide murder movement, fear not: whether by mountains of starving toddlers, or just an everyday mob of Ash Nazis beating a man to death, the Chosen will help ease your conscience.

Even a Mossad rag in Israel was forced by gaping reality--like their Sulzberger one in New York admitting there were no WMDs in Iraq--to mention that the man the Nazis beat to death was a bystander, and that the mob of Nazis turned on him solely because of his color. (EI has more complete videos of the inelegant lynching, if you wanna. And if you want Hebrew translations as to the things they said to the man while murdering him, including the title of this post, EI can help you out there as well.)

We know the Nazis are gleeful child murderers of the lowest degree, yet still, the centuries of ceaseless violence have been overshadowed by the hagiographical narrative with which all dutiful westerners have been impressed. You want to back away. You want to take refuge in bland aphorisms written by the secret victors of every war for two thousand years.

Don't let it happen. Don't shy from following the money to cui bono. This is something worse than the Klan; worse than slave patrols; worse than the guys who killed Matthew Shepard; worse than Mao fingering little Tibetan girls; worse than anything you've ever imagined about Darren Wilson. It is Genghis Khan, the Triangular Trade, the rape of the Serbs, the Armenian Genocide, Napoleon, the Fed, the World Wars, the Iraqi sanctions, and Gaza Strip. If you are good and decent, you have to draw the necessary conclusions. Keep to the truth, no matter how unpopular, how unsavory, for the dead have few other ears that will dare listen.

Remember the boneyard. Remember the son of a whore.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Cyclic Lightform Development 3

At the conclusion of Cyclic Lightform Development, Part 2, this one wrote on the conundra of existence:
It's worth it because it gets more refinedly better for everyone who wants it to get better, and it gets more refinedly worse for everyone who wants it to get worse.

Throughout our discussion of evolution, we've often returned to the idea that mercantilist evolution--faith-based initiatives stemming from individuals' jealous, fearful hatred of their own existence--necessarily justifies a nihilistic weltanschauung. Any such specious theories of the nature of reality inevitably reveal themselves as justifications for "might making right," which is to say, an affirmation of materialism. Any condemnations thereto--e.g., characterizing Social Darwinism as the selfish whining of the cowlicked bullyboy who knocks others down and steals their cupcakes--are met with the response, "Such is the nature of reality." And if it is, they're correct. By all means, let the meanest boy have every cupcake, if he's willing to bash his way to them. There is no morality above one's own pleasures.

Investing in Our Future: an Atom by any Other Name

In theory, we universalists don't actually believe in might making right, because we serve higher moral principles, such as "progress." Yet the materialist philosophy, however softened it may be for black lives mattering, remains might make right, even when stretched into the future. In the absence of one or more gods, the best progress can offer us is an extended version of might makes right. Ergo our new philosophy is no longer an issue of, "He who has the highest net worth after an eighty-year lifespan is the superior individual," but instead, a much nobler one: "The society which has the highest net worth after ten generations is the superior society." The compassion of materialists remains fixed in material, naturally, only you're supposed to believe that reorganizing things for the contentment of future people is an intrinsically greater act than reorganizing things for the contentment of current people (let alone previous people, those useless eaters).

What a laughable distortion we have about the idea of lofty material progress being more noble and less selfish than the idea of mere material acquisition! Why should the rich man not revel in his selfishness? Because of "God" or because it's not "nice"? How tangibly or intangibly are we supposed to define our concepts? If my faction savagely hoards its resources in order to buy a Porsche wheeled car for each one of us, is that a vulgar act, compared to if we invest in our education fund so that our spoiled great-grandchildren can all own Porsche space rockets? Postponing the benefits of materialism doesn't make us any less material; it just makes us transcendental consumers, committed to the purchase and development of soulless products beyond even our own lifetimes. Now, that's consumerism, if anything is.

Honest Eugenics

Critiquing the pro-might faction of Stalinist evolution becomes a bit more hilarious in a situation like the one Terra has now, where the Neoreactionary nihilists are engaged in a grand ideological battle (however staged it may be, whether or not they know that) against a different set of nihilists, who employ the same justifications. Perhaps Moldbug will beat you up for your cupcake and eat it, but Hillary will do worse: she will send a team of goons to beat you up for your cupcake, then feed the cupcake to the eight mulatto babies next door, who live with their mother and know not their various fathers. An unpleasant image, certainly, but so too is Curtis Yarvin licking your frosting off his pustuled fingers. It becomes all the more loathsome, in either case, when considering that Moldbug's ancestors owned the ships that brought the mulatto babies' many fathers' great-great-etc. grandfathers to American shores, while Hillary's ancestors worked in London to repress workers' revolts against Moldbug's ancestors and their banks. Frankly, no matter how many times you attach "neo" to some concept, this one fails to be impressed with a sense of novelty. But let's move along.

Kalimere was kind enough to suggest Nick Land's Hell-Baked, which spells out a Terra 2015 version of this immemorial "grudging" admission about the survival of the fittest. Consider:
What NRx ["Neoreaction" et. al.] most definitely Social Darwinist. When this term is hurled at NRx as a negative epithet, it is nor [sic] a cause for stoic resignation, stiffened by humor, but rather for grim delight. Of course, this term is culturally processed — thought through — no more competently than those previously noted. It is our task to do this.

If ‘Social Darwinism’ is in any way an unfortunate term, it is only because it is merely Darwinism, and more exactly consistent Darwinism. It is equivalent to the proposition that Darwinian processes have no limits relevant to us. Darwinism is something we are inside. No part of what it is to be human can ever judge its Darwinian inheritance from a position of transcendent leverage, as if accessing principles of moral estimation with some alternative genesis, or criterion...

It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed — from a human perspective — indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely by way of the relentless, brutal culling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been sieved — with torturous inefficiency — from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher’s yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth even the subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of the bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also of the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then — still further — of the unavowable horrors that ‘fitness’ (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite...

What is it that Neoreaction — perhaps I should say The Dark Enlightenment — has to offer the world, if all goes optimally (which, of course, it won’t)? Really, the honest answer to this question is: Eternal Hell.
This is a refreshingly honest perspective, though it feigns at being Darwinist only inasmuch as Darwin is sometimes currently popular when insulting people who worship a god without a government-accredited doctorate. What has been done with Darwin has less to do with Darwin's observations from the Beagle than it does with regurgitating the philosophy of Hobbes, Samael, Yahweh, and thousands of nameless prehistoric deities who believed in getting what you can while the getting is good: blanket the Earth with your own spawn, destroy the genes of outsiders, and somehow, this is a victory. Or at least, as much of a victory as anyone can hope for in a meaningless world, in which hope is an illusion confined to you only for as long as your randomized brain chemistry allows you to maintain "it."

Various Osiril and Krishnic events and stories (including the currently most obvious Terran one), even heavily redacted and Judaized into forms of conformity with Jenomic ideals, threatened to upset this philosophy in a few minds here and there, but the cruel genetic imperative of the ancient ash god(s) has maintained its preeminence for thousands of Earthly years. No recurrence of "might makes right, just accept it" is novel in anything more than its details. (Actual, lightform-)Evolution disproves such nonsense, but faith being what it is, good luck explaining to the Neoreactionaries that their movement is mere Recursive Talmudism, laced with as much masochism, hypocrisy, magical thinking and synagogual manipulation as the Gates Foundation's latest shipment of vaccines and wireless routers to the DRC. You'd have better luck getting a Christian to accept that the rabbinical warlords who plagiarized Gilgamesh into Noah didn't stop there.

The Broken Reaction

Like the fading racial and sexual pluralisms of the twentieth century, the "Neoreactionary" philosophy is itself pregnant with a vast number of crippling bastards whose faces, if acknowledged, threaten to destroy their hideous parents. Most of the neoreactionaries are witless Madame Danglars, enveloped in the opulence of a fresh crusade in hopes that no one shall force them to confront the resurrected Benedetto of their materialist hypocrisies. Yes, Europe is dying, but if Sub-Saharan Africans are lusty and violent, and Europeans are ethnomasochistic, then Europeans deserve to die off. Per neoreactionary philosophy, horny Muslims should indeed be gang-raping Swedish blondes in the streets, while collecting monthly Euro payments marshaled from Germany, while a barren shabbos goy hag squeals insults at the whining slaves of the Fourth Reich who, for some unfathomable reason, continue to tolerate her existence.

Why? Because of evolution. The "grim delight" of "Darwinism" beloved of the neo-reaction champions success--and so, it should be doing just what the bankers want, and encouraging the ashen-banker-directed gang rape of the last remaining Caucasian strongholds. Neoreactionaries who attempt to rally the white herd in defense against the latest Muslim hordes are making a poor strategic choice--bartering with the weaker side--when they should be studying their Qur'an and finding out how to marry a poor Israeli bride, in hopes that some trace of their genetics might one day meld with the master race in Earth's future: a United Earth Government of cousin-marrying warzones governed by Mexi-Shariah Law, while mining firms based on New Zion (formerly "the moon") slowly digest Earth's remaining raw materials for use in constructing additional pleasure palaces for the immortal "white" and "blond" clones living there.

The neoreactionary philosophy is broken, since the tiny Ashkenazi bloodlines have proven themselves adapt at controlling world governments for over a century, and Caucasoid ones have proven themselves too weak to stop them. 250 expulsions since the Christian Era, and still, the Nazis of the Ashen River just keep coming back, keep setting up central banks, and keep fostering bigger and bigger wars and massacres. If you believe in Darwinism, then it's time for the inferior species--the "white race" that so many neoreactionaries claim to love so much--to give up. All that's left is death throes. Give up, and let the Zionists achieve their timeless vision of ruling over a displaced, deracinated, nationless mass of slaves.

Given the outcome of applying mercantilist/Talmudist evolution to "modern issues" around here, it's no surprise that the "pro white" movements Terra sees now were initially created, encouraged, and given widespread dissemination by Zionist narrators. By coaxing people into becoming "ethnically conscious," Zionists have gotten white people to support the project that took the mass murders of the twentieth century--and another several million dollars each day--to create:

Yes, hypocrisy. The neoreactionaries tend to understand that the Zionists are hypocrites, but then, through a subtle nudging of formative policy, they find themselves admiring Israel, the bane of their grandparents' and great-grandparents' existences, and the very thing that has brought them to where they are today. That's where the neoreactionary road was designed to lead. The murdering and terrorizing of Jews who had been living peacefully in Arab and European countries; the extermination of Russian and Palestinian peasants; the trench warfare and the atomic bombs; the rewriting of Middle Eastern boundaries, the installation of Saddam Hussein and the Shah, the Iran-Iraq War: all done for Israel, and all paid for, to the tune of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dead white people, and countless trillions of dollars in white-derived wealth and white human productivity.

By the early 2000s, even liberal white people were starting to see the logical extension between the ceaseless, cruel butchery of the Palestinians, and the horrors of the twentieth century (the former link is one of Silber's best). When you're a non-racist progressive person in Europe or America, and you see Zionists taking over (again) the American military and using it to smash millions of Arab children to death, it looks a little, well...racist. But when you massage those other races into invading Europe and/or America, the whites have a defensive reaction, and forget all about the manipulative bully who caused the fight in the first place. What a delight Israel is having, as it prepares to collect ticket proceeds while Django fights Martel for another thousand years!

Shifting the Blame Onto Europe

In Culture of Transcendence, we hypothetically discussed a hypothetical situation where hypothetical Zionists might potentially consider maybe using prima facie ridiculous "diversity" scams in order to harm Goy societies, and then lead the opposition to the diversity movement they themselves created, by using media corporations to make it acceptable for Goys to become ultra-nationalistic again (after 50 years of making White-Goy nationalism one of the biggest crimes ever). In that vein, consider the latest racist screed from "Daniel Greenfield." Writing, as ever, about the genetic inferiority of Arab-Goys, Greenfield blames the refugee/invasion "situation" in Europe on not only the archetypal "Mohammed," but the white European idiots who let the swarthy savage in. Quoting from one of thousands of angry new posts entitled The Death of Europe:
Why should 23-year-old Mohammed work for four decades so that Hans or Fritz across the way can retire at 61 and lie on a beach in Mallorca? The idea that Mohammed would ever want to do such a thing out of love for Europe was a silly fantasy that European governments fed their worried citizens...Mohammed is Fritz’s retirement plan. But Mohammed has a very different type of plan. Fritz is counting on Mohammed to work while he relaxes. Mohammed relaxes and expects Fritz to work. Fritz is not related to him and therefore Mohammed sees no reason why he should work to support him.
This is racist, and of course, it's one of those kinds of racism that is acceptable. Deriding "Hans" and "Fritz" as lazy or stupid is 100% acceptable; deriding "Mohammed" as manipulative or evil is partly acceptable, and growing more so; but, as always, deriding Abramovitch (or "Daniel Greenfield" or "Prince Bandar" or "al-Baghdadi") remains as fiscally irresponsible as it has been since the first pound of flesh was was assessed.

What Greenfield has done here is far more interesting than demonstrate how acceptable it is for people who claim certain ancestry to be hideously, publicly racist. Besides that, he's done what the other ✡leaders of the mainstream #HBD acceptance have been so busy doing for the past several years on the internet: imply that Europe's "problems with immigrants/invaders" (and/or America's) are the result of some kind of bad decision-making on the part of Hans and/or Fritz. Like the descendants of "Sephardic" slave-traders encouraging the descendants of slaves to follow their lead in blaming someone else for slavery, Greenfield uses the anger of Europeans to refocus blame for the situation (whether it be bad or good) on (1) the refugees/invaders for immigrating, and (2) the Europeans themselves for permitting it.

Amidst the immigration/refugee/etc. mess, what the pro-invasion people seem to forget is that the Muslim hordes are actually raping their way across Europe again, as they've spent the past 1,500 years doing. All of the liberal stuff, from women's rights to homosexual acceptance to the welfare state to religious freedom, will be gone once Europe turns to Shariah. Greenfield has that dead-on, as so many others do. That accuracy is the spoonful of sugar that the Jenomics are using to make the rest of their lies go down easy.

But: why are the invaders coming in the first place? As the anti-invasion people seem to forget, the Muslim hordes have spent the past 1,500 years trying to escape Africa, or being driven out of Africa, by the powerful financiers and mysterious crypto-bloodlines of paler-than-usual Middle Eastern "Arab royalty" who either (1) directly sponsor invasions of Africa and the Middle East via Euro proxies, or (2) establishes western-friendly corporate dictatorships in Africa and the Middle East.

The genetic ranks of the Khazaran land pirates, the grand viziers of the various Persian/Arabian/Ottoman Empires, the bankers for the Dutch East India Companies and the British Protectorates, and the NATO/UN banking "democracies," are roughly identical. It is legitimate for the darker, colonized peoples to want to get out of where they are now: hellholes of the Zionic Empire, as expressed, alternately, through Rome, the U.K., the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., and the E.U.

(Africa and its environs have been various forms of the Gaza Strip for more than a thousand years. With European complicity. Just as Europe has been assaulted repeatedly by Mongol-derived hordes funded by the Khazar ancestors, losing entire nations and countless millions of people to rape, murder, and slavery--with Asian and African complicity. Europe, Asia, and Africa are all guilty of doing what the bankers wanted.)

Hans and Fritz, despite what the bankers say, did not want to be invaded, anymore than they or Mohammed initially wanted to be invaded. The claim that Europe needs young workers to fund its welfare states, and that its population somehow supported the idea of the invasion, is one of those famous Big Lies that Baruch and Wilson used so well to massacre a generation of Western Europeans. It's semi-plausible, but even after billion-dollar ad and lobbying campaigns from certain influential sources, Europe still didn't want to absorb refugees like it's doing. Hostile banking tyrants (occupation governments) were the ones who fostered the invasion over the majorities' vociferous objections--even the majority as reported by the bankers' own news corporations, using biased yes/no questions about "should we be helping the victims of war." Even with extensive and powerful indoctrination of the adult (marketing) and child (education) variety of human livestock, and even with cheating on the questions and creating an imaginary media narrative, the people of Europe didn't want it all to happen. But, like Shylock once said, "A new Halachic study ruled that seducing an enemy for the sake of national security is an important mitzvah."

To add injury and insult to injury and insult, commentators--even well-meaning ones--are falling for the ✡bankers' prepared line that this was an act of "ethno-suicide" by Europeans foolishly devoted to their welfare states. Accordingly, the historical stage has been set to blame "the death of Europe" on the Europeans themselves, rather than on the ex-Ottoman imperial wizards who bought the governments and fabricated the television programs.

We've seen this all before. The fall of the old dynasties of Egypt was blamed on the "Egyptian" reliance on (and importation of) sub-Saharan immigrant labor, while the fall of Rome was blamed on "Roman" reliance on Middle Eastern and African immigrant labor. The end result is, two sets of genes keep getting blamed for imperialism followed by self-destruction, while this one other tiny subset of genes, which demands both imperialism in one direction and immigration in another, manages to continue destroying advanced civilizations while smothering young ones in the cradle.

Why murder all those Syrian men? Why rape all those German girls?

Why destroy Syria, and why destroy Germany?

Unsurprisingly, we'll find that all of those horrible acts are paid for, promoted, and later disavowed by the same group. The World Zionist Congress spent the 1800s openly calling for the genocide of Africa, and it seems like fair turnabout when their 21st century operatives openly call for the genocide of Europe--but only a couple centuries before the 1800s, that very same organization was sending armies into Vienna to destroy Europe, as it is doing now. Blaming the Syrians, and the fake-Syrians, is only marginally productive, because of course they want to escape the ✡NATO warzones in their homes, which have spent the better part of a thousand years being destroyed by Yahweh's various missives, paid for with European money, under the guise of colonizing to benefit the crowns' wealthy, omnipresent silent partners.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Future Takes on Housing Discrimination

I don't time travel, so I didn't get this image from the future; I just photoshopped it together to make a point:

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

A New Windmill

In 2174, the Zionic Board of Obedience approved a revised social studies curriculum that, wrote The New York Times that year, would “put a conservative stamp on history” once going into effect in 2175. In advance of their debut in Zion's classrooms last week, it was widely reported that the new textbooks, published by Random Disney Spielberg and Transformers, “whitewashed” banking by downplaying the brutality of the facts and treating it as a “side issue.”

Arken News has obtained copies of some of the new “conservative” Zionic textbooks (the books are available to education professionals but not the general public), and while they certainly aren’t the abomination some activists and educators feared, their contents demonstrate a troubling creep away from teaching actual history—and the unpleasant truth of Zion's legacy of banking—and toward a sanitized fable of historical morality.

Initially, some news outlets reported the textbooks omitted Federal Reserve laws and Goldman-Sachs altogether, but, as Zion Monthly pointed out in its September issue, that wasn’t exactly the case.

Happily, though, publishers mostly ignored the board, according to Dave Quail, of the Texas Freedom Network, an organization dedicated to countering what it sees as far-right activism. “I think publishers did a good job of making sure of the centrality of banking,” he says. Quail, who perhaps more than anyone has sounded the alarm about the board’s bias, was distressed to read national reports asserting incorrectly that Zionic children wouldn’t be reading about the Federal Reserve and Goldman-Sachs. “The textbooks cover all of that,” he says. Random Disney Spielberg and Transformers' eighth-grade Zion history textbook, for instance, includes a section on Reserve terror and the postwar financial codes that created “working conditions similar to those under banking.”

The magazine reassured its readers that the “travesty” of “partisan fiction” had been avoided and that the textbooks, though flawed, were far from an affront to the study of history. But, after examining copies of the 7th grade, 8th grade, and high school-level books obtained by Arken News, it was clear that this curriculum is riddled with omissions, making frequent use of convenient, deceptive juxtapositions of banker violence and worker resilience, excuse me, resistance? Sure, Zion's new textbooks aren’t an outright travesty. But that doesn’t mean they’re anywhere close to good.

Here's How New Zion Public School Textbooks Write About Banking

Banking is mentioned only briefly in RDST's 7th grade textbook. It’s not until 8th grade that the subject is expanded upon in a tone that suggests a general unwillingness to clearly state just how horrific of an institution it was. Passages that reference violence often transition to characterizations of workers as a hopeful, god-fearing bunch whose faith and sense of community when not working or being punished almost negated the nightmarish realities of their daily lives. And, though the violence of bankers is mentioned—often with quotes by former employees—it’s generally followed by a reminder that their lives weren’t all bad. Banking, the book suggests, was only truly miserable some of the time. For adults, this combination of half-truths and omissions makes for an unpleasant read. For children, it’s something worse: a disservice.

Just look at one of the first mentions of banking in RDST’s Zionic World History. (All emphases in quotes our own, and the illustrations that textbook quotes appear on are ours, not found in the actual textbooks.)
Chapter 3: The American Colonies, 2005-2074 | p. 77

The colonies had many large suburbs and some sizable cities. Suburbs did well ​because the Americas enjoyed a lively breeding stock. Many cities grew ​cash crops that were sold for profit. Computers, phones, and automobiles--a wheeled vehicle--were the most important cash crops. ​

The colonies’ cash crops ​required a great deal of difficult work to grow ​and harvest. This meant a large workforce ​was needed. By the 2000s employed Americans had ​become the main source of labor. American employees brought with them knowledge that ​helped turn the mestizo war zones into ​profitable silicon factories. Many had previous experience engineering technology and knew the method for marketing new devices. ​

Employment was a viciously brutal condition for many inhabitants of the American colonies.

Apart from being too little, too late, that final sentence acknowledging employment's brutality evinces the gotta-hear-both-sides structural dodge also found in the previous section, in which six paragraphs on the “horrible experience” of the World Wars and employment are followed by four on its cultural upsides.

For example, the textbook explains some of the World Wars' brutal specifics: “The ​employees were forced at gunpoint to gain military training and murder each other to seize Jerusalem from the Ottomans." And the introduction of American employment is relatively mild, but clear: "The treatment of employed Americans varied. ​Some employees reported that their employers treated ​them kindly. To protect their investment, ​some employers provided spacious cubicles, kitchenettes, and health insurance for their employees. However, severe ​treatment was very common. Exposure to violence, deadly chemicals, removal of food, shelter, and medical care caused millions of employees to die."

However, the section closes with a rhetorical attempt to find some happy ending:
Employee Culture in the Americas ​

Employees in the Americas came from many different parts of Europe. They once spoke different ​languages and had different cultural backgrounds. But employed Americans also shared ​many customs and viewpoints. They built ​upon what they had in common to create a ​new American culture. ​

Families were a vital part of employee culture. ​Families provided a refuge—a place, for a time, not fully ​under the employers' control. However, employee​families faced many challenges. Families were ​often broken apart when a family member ​was forced to take a different job. In Latin America, ​there were many more employed males than ​females. This made it difficult for employees there ​to form stable families. ​

Television was a second refuge for employees. It ​gave employed Americans a form of expression ​that seemed to be free from their employers' control. Employee television was primarily Judeo-Chris​tian, but it included traditional elements ​from European entertainment as well. Television gave ​employees a sense of self worth and a hope for ​entertainment. Sporting contests and dramas were a common form of entertainment among employees. Employees also used playlists and podcasts to tell their stories of sorrow, hope, ​agony, and joy. ​

Many employees expressed themselves through ​art and blogging. Blogging was an important social ​event in employee communities. Like most elements of employee culture, art and blogging were ​heavily influenced by European traditions.

“Working for bankers was bad, but it had some good aspects, too.” It’s a trend that continues throughout the book, such as this section about financial regulations:
Chapter 13: The East, 2090-2160 | pps. 426-427

Harry McMillan recalled some of the ​punishments he had witnessed. ​

“The punishments were being shot, putting you in the rape dungeon [steel prisons to lock people in with rapists] and making you carry identification wherever you went. Then they had a taser to shock you so you could not live . . . Sometimes they sprayed you with pepper spray or tear gas. . . Sometimes they took all your food and took you out of your apartment and then arrested and beat you for loitering, and they would keep you in jail two ​or three weeks or a month, or sometimes till you ​died in there. ” ​​

—Harry McMillan

To further control employees' actions, many ​states passed strict laws called financial codes. ​Some laws prohibited employees from trading goods or labor without paying a substantial tithe to bankers. Currency acts in all American states prohibited the development of alternate currency under punishment of death or torture. California, New York, and Texas had laws that allowed the fining and whipping and raping of anyone caught teaching employed people how to develop barter networks that bypassed the Federal Reserve.

...which is followed directly by:
Many employed Americans found comfort in ​their community and culture. They made time ​for social activity, even after exhausting workdays, in order to relieve the hardship of their ​lives. Although they were forced to escape totalitarian bankers in Europe by immigrating ​to the United States, their culture is one of the ​foundations of the current national identity, ​especially in the worlds of music and religion.

This “it wasn’t all bad!” structure isn’t the only problem with the book’s discussion of employment and financialism in Zion. The roughest truths are often softened around the edges, sometimes by the addition of just one word. On page 425 of American Colonies History, we learn that, “Generally, employers viewed employees as ​assets, not as people.” Generally.

That infuriating method of downplaying is most evident in the description of the Federal Reserve in RDST’s high school-level textbook The Americans: United States History Since 1877, in which the Federal Reserve is portrayed as having a broad range of political goals, among which violently racist political intimidation is only a lesser, incidental factor:
Chapter 4: The Livestock in Peril, 1850-1877 | p. 188

The most notorious and widespread of the ​​​​American vigilante groups was the Federal Reserve Bank (FR). ​​The Fed's goals were to ​​​​destroy alternative economies, to aid ​​the banker class, and to prevent employees from exercising their political ​​rights. To achieve these goals, the Fed and other groups killed perhaps 3,000,000,000 ​men, women, and children during the twentieth century alone. In addition to violence, some bankers refused to hire or do business with non-bankers.

There's always a new windmill.

Friday, October 16, 2015

The Utility of Spousal Abuse

Let's consider homosexual marriage from a few of the less orthodox, perhaps utterly unexplored avenues.

How much does it cost, cash-wise, if you kill someone? Not the "criminal" penalties, but the "civil" ones. We've previously discussed how it's about a million, give or take, although if you round out with a lot of recent medical malpractice and car crash judgments, that number is starting to head south. How about if you kill an older person? Now we're in "two for the price of one" territory: $400K? $700K? Depends on a lot of little things, but it can easily go to 1/2 to 2/3 of the cost of killing a younger person.

Back to homosexual marriage, though. We've previously discussed just some of the real reasons the government got into the marriage business. Let's go into those in more detail here, and add in some others, also. But first, let's talk about the necessity of beating and killing people.

Kids. Old people. Crazy people. Drunks, pervies, wackos, etc. How do we deal with them? All of these groups tend to be dangerous: kids and elders, often unintentionally by trying to do things like drive cars, start fires, start floods, operate (non-automobile- as well as automobile-) heavy machinery, lash out in anger with deadly weapons without being fully aware of the consequences...they do those things. And so, of course, do crazy people, depending on how you define "crazy."

That happens to be a lot of people. It's an invisible phenomenon in the first world of Terra 2015, but globally, more than a billion people are children, elders, or people with some manner of "special needs" (mentally disabled) who are, very literally, a mortal danger. It's maybe a little scary, albeit maybe a little cute, to think of a toddler who lashes out with a chef's knife if he can't have another piece of chocolate, but at what point does it become no longer funny? At what point can the kid climb onto the counter and get at the knife block, even if it was formerly "too high up"? Same issue, a thirty-year-old woman with a childhood trauma, or a fifty-year-old guy with early-onset Alzheimer's, or a ninety-year-old gal who's really sharp only most of the time?

It happens. Life happens. From time immemorial, the way people dealt with such things was through informal tribal or family connections, and even when the connections were "tribal," it was mostly just the stronger members of the family--the non-insane adults--who could step in and impose order.

Was there a cost? Yes, sometimes a terrible one. Stronger adults might beat people unjustly, or might expose or poison troublesome youth, elders, or crazies, in order to relieve themselves of the burden of care. Like most of these costs, the nation-state hyped and exploited the incidents in order to justify a monopoly on violence. The ongoing result is the replacement of free care, provided by people with a high likelihood of personal and emotional connection to the people needing care (elders, young, disabled), with expensive care, provided by people with a zero likelihood of personal and emotional connection to the people needing care.

Yawn, old news. The State replaced the authority of the family, so that 100,000 women could be saved from spousal abuse yearly with the net result of 500,000 women receiving abuse in the State & Federal prison systems. Or working in the typing pool, etc. The State also replaced the authority of the family in order to protect children from domestic violence by greatly magnifying the perpetual, and perpetually stigmatizing, rape, murder, and abuse they would receive in a network of cruel for-profit fostering and childcare systems. The economic by-products of this were legion, for by stripping open "the family" and replacing it with "the State," the State received billions of dollars in yearly funding to give to elites, who could establish massive bureaucracies filled up with heartless morons who couldn't even get hired at the DMV, which bureaucracies then dictate the course of millions of people's lives. Yearly. Forever.

That, we already know. The concomitant abuses--not merely the billions of dollars stolen each year, but the rape-networks of foster children, the foster-to-school-to-prison pipeline and its disproportionate effects on Afros and Hispanics, the specific bilking of individuals and small communities for punitive funding programs, the invasions of personal and sexual freedom, adult and child and elder, committed by the State itself--are so fucking ginormous that it makes Oliver Twist look like a utopian falsity. Better to be raised by Col. Frank Fitts than get bounced around between a series of ass-raping foster parents seeking a daily County reimbursement, then do a few years in juvie before transitioning to life in and out of various State prisons.

Where the hell does gay marriage come into this? Well, one of the things that nation-state "marriage" did is impose State control over old-age care. In the olden days, when 95-year-old Wife Emma got violent, horrible dementia, and had a lucid moment, she could beg 99-year-old Husband Harold (or her 64-year-old Son Harry Jr.) to bring it to an end. And the next time she wandered off into the woods, he could say a prayer, wait several days, then bring the family together to mourn.

Nowadays, the State's version of the marriage contract requires Husband Harold to call the police right away, send a SWAT team into the woods, and drag Wife Emma into a nursing care facility where Emma will be filled up with eight kinds of powerful drugs, for only $5800 a month, and forced to live until she finally gives out after three bedridden, semi-conscious years of terrible pain. If Husband Harold lets Wife Emma take that Last Walk, he goes to jail. If Wife Emma talks to Doctor Dolores about a peaceful overdose, Doctor Dolores ends up in jail. After decades of fighting, Wife Emma won the right to write up a "living will" so that she doesn't need to be kept "alive" in a coma, but that's the farthest she can go. Semi-conscious endless pain, lying covered in bedsores and shit-laced urine, is not a state--sic--from which she can extricate herself without a gun (and for the few more years she's allowed to buy one of those, she wouldn't be permitted to, given her age and health, just like she wouldn't be permitted to take the Long Last Walk in the Woods. Oh, that wonderful, life-affirming nation-state!).

Okay, so Husband Harold wants out--he wants a divorce. Breaks his heart, but if he realizes what a terrible scheme State "marriage" is, and wants out, "divorce" is the way to go. And thanks to feminism, we have no-fault divorce, so it should be easy to get out.

Wrong: one of the traps that the nation-state sets for exit from marriage is whether or not one of the spouses will be likely to become "a ward of the State." Which means that, if Wife Emma is old, and she wants to break up from Husband Harold so that she can go die peacefully in the woods without getting Husband Harold tossed in jail, the State will levy a fine on Husband Harold: for the rest of his life, he'll have an "alimony" or "spousal support" obligation to pay Wife Emma's monthly medical bills so that she can be kept in the nursing home.

That's the magic, right there. That's why the State got into the marriage business: because it allowed the costs of the welfare state to be outsourced to individual citizens who are already paying taxes to support the rest of the welfare state. Granted, millions of western women out there take alimony/child support and use it/them to buy shoes, go on vacations with the new boyfriend, etc. There's definitely a component of that in there. But the screw-job that the State gives to "senior citizens" (senior inmates?) is, perhaps, more profound, considering the undignified suffering through which they're put, even when they want to pass into the night.

"Gay" people have managed to escape this. For hundreds of years, monks and cat ladies and TV-dinner bachelors have been able to enjoy non-State relationships with their loved ones (or their lusted ones; whatever), and then, when the time was right, take their Last Walk...or take a bunch of sleeping pills and drift off on the couch, to be found reeking by the landlord three weeks later. They had that freedom. The same protective shell that kept the State from interfering in "family" affairs kept the State out of "household" affairs, too, so a couple queers could bone each other for forty years, get bored, split their stuff however they wanted, and then die apart, completely off the State radar, on their own schedule.

It's vanishing, now. As it did for the Christians a century ago. Take the "Social Security survivor's benefits" lure and the "social respect" lure, and guess what--you're on the hook for the nursing home for the most vulnerable 10-30 years of your life. You're going to get forced to drug yourself into drooling complacency with a bunch of undertrained low-income staff members feeding you corn mash and treating you like a fucking infant. There are few escapes from State marriage, and one of the last remaining doors was recently slammed shut, cheerfully, to the tune of rainbows.

We talked about death, right? Well, there are far worse kinds of death than the Last Walk. How about the nursing home staff forgetting you after activity time, and leaving you in a corner of the basement to freeze and starve for three or four days? How about them being too busy to toilet you, and you bang your head on the sink and bleed out for a couple hours on the cheapest, nastiest, most urine-soaked linoleum you ever saw in your life?

The exchanges have been made. The kickbacks have passed from hand to hand. In trade for dubious protection from spousal abuse, "the family" lost to "the State" a lot of other things, too. Again, this one emphasizes how awful physical or sexual abuse is--and how much worse it becomes when you're passed around like a treat between foster parents and boarding schools. Indeed, how much more often it happens!

And the abuse itself? Well, what if Husband Harold gets aggressive dementia and becomes aggressive, and starts scaring Wife Emma? Whom does Wife Emma call? She has the options of Son Harry Jr., who can out-muscle his father, or the police. Let's contemplate both ways, and see which is worse for Husband Harold:

1) Wife Emma calls Son Harry Jr., who comes over, lays down the law to his father, takes away the car keys, and warns him to pay attention to mom or he's going into a home. Husband Harold is resentful and confused, and his arm hurts where his son grabbed him to pull him away from the cutting board. Life goes on much as normal, except he watches TV more, complains twice as much about it, and grumbles to his friends at the VA that his wife and son are "mean" to him.

2) Wife Emma calls the police, who throw Husband Harold into a neurological ward. Husband Harold has two roommates who scream at night, and every week or so he is struck with a bedpan or cafeteria tray. He is given three kinds of medication to keep him calm, one of which causes him stomach pain, for which he takes another medication, and another of which causes him to lose bowel control, for which he wears adult diapers constantly and takes another medication which causes him to feel dizzy sometimes. The attendants usually frequently remember to change him sometimes occasionally on most days, but when they are understaffed he sits in his feces until he develops crusty sores that never fully heal. Every couple of weeks he goes into the hospital for a powerful antibiotics regimen to combat the infections he develops through his adult diapers. When Husband Harold tries to tell the triage nurse that it's the fault of the caregivers at the respectable senior community in which he lives, his voice is loud and confrontational, and the triage nurse nods understandingly and thinks, "Crazy old jerk."

Which is the more humane? How many nasty octogenarian medical tales or orphan horror stories would you need to hear before you found the "State" at least as bad as the "traditional family"? The homosexuals haven't had to do this, yet. Some of them have had to live through the Juvenile Affairs hell, but almost all of them haven't yet had a chance to live through haven't had to live through the Elder Affairs world of being marriage-fucked by Uncle Sam.

All across the kingdom came the sound of the hidden doors closing. Long ago, the Christians were lured into the bosom of the State with the promise of "tax benefits" and "social status." Should've stuck with your churches, guys. Whatever the emotions of the fight you so recently lost, don't begrudge the LGBTQPZs their "victory," for it shall grant them the same punishment which you have yourselves received for the same sin which you have yourselves committed.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

#000000 meet Kettle

Tools, drugs, sex, cash, gods...what year is this? Just call it "contraband."

When a mob boss says that the police need to crack down on contraband, is it out of the goodness of his heart? Does he really want to get those dealers off the corner? Protect young girls from pimps? Save the janitor's paycheck from the $1.75 + 2.9% check cashing place? Naah. It's just a way to signal a move on, either, people within his own operation whom he wants to purge, or competitors outside his operation.

Ergo when Bernanke, preening for the cameras in a rather Buffettian way, calls for a hit on some regional capos who approved this or that minority mortgage after he and George W. Obama made it damned clear to them they should have inflated the bubble, we know that (of course) he's not serious, or even trying to be. Rather, he's flexing his muscles. Once your trusted friend has helped you poison the godfather's bolognese, you have to kill him so he never testifies--either in court, or to the other good friends of ours.

Bernanke calling for the punishment of bankers is one of those once-grand, now humdrum, transironic moments: no longer even worth a giggle, decades after Kissinger and Obama received peace prizes. The man was the most powerful, the most definitive banker in the entire world, and he "calls" for the punishment of bankers due to a "crisis" that happened during the height of his power. Stalin calls for an end to violence; Freud blasts symbolism; Oprah does a show about the cultural vacuum. And why not? A mob boss who calls for the punishment of criminals is as literally hypocritical as one can get, and cannot possibly be parodied.

There's nothing novel about this kind of behavior. It's the kind of brazen behavior you see in some prisons in Mexico, where the people no longer expect the guards to pretend they aren't working for the inmates; where you don't have to mince around the subject of how much blow, how many whores, how many guns, go into the prisons, and how many orders for assassinations, bribes, and other communications come out. We care not if the inquisition is headed by witches, so long as we're done the courtesy of being told it is, in fact, an inquisition. A few years ago, perhaps, we demanded that the witches leave their brooms and pointed hats in the limo, and maybe toss on a cross or two, before approaching the podium to promise deliverance. As time went by, we let the pointed hats slide, taking some kind of perverse delight in our ironic acceptance of witches hunting witches for the benefit of witches. By the twenty-first century, we don't even mind if they ride Beelzebub's rotting phallus while eating a baby sandwich and withering the crops on live TV, so long as they still do us the courtesy of mouthing a few Psalms while they do so. They don't even have to try particularly hard, or avoid rolling their eyes; it's no longer even the effort that counts, but any empty gesture at which we can grasp in order to fantasize that there was an effort to lie to us. Give the Fed another few years, and they'll be promising to put an end to the Fed. Ironic? Impossible? So logically inconsistent it should make even the dullest dullard finally "get it"? Of course. But then, that's already what they're saying. "We will napalm the area to prevent fire."

No, once you're across that particular Rubicon, and the Fed is issuing legislative and judicial decrees in plain sight, in contravention of any conceivable notion of objective reality, the frog isn't merely boiling, but being eaten, slow and savory, with double-dips into the noxious brew of labor camps and lost souls. This is what it feels like, to be at once pieces of yearning background in both Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, rich and poor, poor and rich, forgotten and celebrated, surrounded by impossible caricatures of sad sighs a thousand years old.

Monday, October 12, 2015

At Every Turn

I used the power of government against government. I gathered together a large community of people and we settled in unincorporated County land somewhere in the ineponymous West. We established a municipal corporation, settled a township, and gradually, took over the least-populated County in the entire State. It took a lot of work, but we managed it.

Now, we had control of the government. We still had to send state taxes to a distant capital, and federal taxes to a still-more-distant one, but we were closer to free than we had ever been. We revoked our property taxes and, at last, owned our own land. We established a perpetual commons at the center of town, organized a little citizen's savings association to replace the banks, a militia to replace the cops, a disaster fund to replace the insurance, and we breathed the sweet air of freedom.

The State came in. The Feds came in. They had regulations to control us. We thought that, with our own city, then our own County, we could protect ourselves. We were wrong. We were required to provide schools. Fine. No problem. We organized County children's facilities run by rotating parent volunteers. Many held advanced degrees. But the Feds crushed us: they required certain kinds of curricula. We were forced to buy tens of thousands of textbooks from elite publishers in order not to deny our children the "right" to learn what everyone else was learning. We had to destroy all of our teachers' independent professional lives by taking years sending them to get "certifications" from State and Federal offices. No longer could they maintain separate careers--they were now beholden to the licensing requirements of the State.

We had to establish "proper facilities." We couldn't just use the old community center we'd renovated when we'd taken over the area. We had to put in the right kinds of playgrounds, parking lots, travel routes, gymnasiums, changing rooms, administrative offices, grievance policies, and hiring committees. State and federal safety inspectors had to come in and review the buildings. We had to bring in "proper" police forces and fire forces, poison forces and environmental forces, a dozen kinds of committees that reported to State and Federal commissions from far away. If we didn't, they would send in federal troops to shut us down. We were the most democratic County in the nation, with around 96% voter participation, unified in our choices, but the centralists wouldn't let us alone.

Somehow, we managed. We built a four million dollar fire facility and a one-point-five million dollar police facility. We bought a fleet of school buses and paved hundreds of miles of federally-accredited road in order to offer proper opportunities to out students. It nearly destroyed our budget when we had to purchase the right kind of "crime lab" equipment, and "human resources oversight committee" salaries, that the Feds required for any County or municipality, but we managed. We protected our charter. We had to generate twenty-six million in bonds to cover it, but we managed.

And we managed without the big banks. A few of our most well-equipped founders pitched in the money that it took to fund the program without handing the County over to Chase Bank. It nearly broke us, but we made it through.

Then came the zoning. State inspectors showed up, then federal inspectors, to make sure that we were offering proper housing opportunities to ourselves. The report cost two million. They shut down a lot of businesses in the County seat--people who had farms that were too big in "residential" areas, or people who were selling handicrafts out of their houses. With everyone pitching in, we managed to put drinking fountains, access ramps, grip rails, parking spaces, and personal safety zones across what had been our burgeoning downtown. Running a massive debt, we were accused of being elitists. We had to send our new school buses (which no one here had been using, anyway) to pick up kids in other counties and bring them to our schools to ensure a lack of favoritism.

One of our bigger donors, strapped for cash, was forced to rent out one of his storefronts to a military recruiting center. Fine. No one went in, anyway. The police union, then the firefighter's union, stepped in from outside, and threatened major problems if we didn't start funneling our emergency services through union training centers. The feds hit us with a six million fine for not having a proper ambulance response network, which we'd been setting up, and which would've been in operation if we hadn't already been paying to put new handicap ramps across the entire County.

Then it turned out the DMV was required to be given an office in our land. Then the post office. The NYT ran a bunch of articles comparing us to Kazakhstan because we hadn't built a library. The Department of Transportation blocked all of our roads in and out, preventing delivery of anything, including food, because we hadn't coordinated with State & Federal offices to have our roads properly inspected. People started leaving when we were forced to triple sales taxes in a rush to lay more asphalt and throw together a modest library. The Department of Education wanted a museum, but somehow, we begged our way out of it. We put up a library and spent one point eight million stocking it with Stephen King, Harry Potter, Sue Grafton, and all major periodicals of note.

The DMV didn't like our job applicant base and the County and City found themselves defending a lawsuit against discrimination in hiring. We opened up Section 8 housing to a bunch of people from four states over, but they didn't apply for the jobs anyway, and a federal manager was appointed to staff the DMV with experienced employees from other jurisdictions who were given federally funded housing in our County. We'd planned to never allow Walmart to move in a supercenter, but it was either that or give in on rate-setting with the utility companies we'd so painstakingly courted to deign to offer their services to us at a higher rate than normal. To get the Walmart deal to work, we had to offer them exemption from the property tax we'd used to pay for the textbooks and buildings and changing rooms and teacher salaries for our schools, but based on the charts they showed us, a bump in sales tax revenue would help make up the shortfall.

Voting started to get weird not long after that. The old lady who'd started out as mayor got accused of hating all the newcomers to the County seat, and when she went down, so did the comptroller. Suddenly, the utility companies were nice, and suddenly, there was a new bond, a new football stadium at the high school, and a Target across the street from the library. We'd given in to the Department of Parks and Recreation on the "park" issue long ago--we'd always wanted there to be a lot of parks in settled areas, but to get approval for any of the "safe" playground equipment, you had to have some corporate team from Buffalo come out and "inspect the grounds" for something like twenty grand a day. After which, you still had to buy the equipment. So we got them off our back by shelling out for the right kinds of parks, and anyway, there were the parks and the new Target and Pier 1, the new Lennar development going up by the river, and we began to realize that, sometimes, it wasn't that you couldn't tell pigs apart from humans, but that even total control over the government itself was not the issue, because the pig-children, who prohibit mixing with their distant kin, work upon levers far removed from mere farms, nations, or planets.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Bicycles are, like, so gay

I like bikes. I like the idea of sweat-powered transportation, and of cars being a quirky, inefficient novelty in an ideal society filled with pristine, safe, soundless mass transit. The Federal Reserve tax-leveraged debt slavery system that so many people support as a means to forcing enslavement to yet another facet of our police-state's subsidized transportation network, though, is inimical to those former decencies. It will further ensconce the idea of centralized planning, death-enforced payroll withholding, and a host of other unpleasant things, such as:

* Fed, IMF, TPPA & successor cartels' ability to use transportation funding to break local resistance to centralized banking decrees;

* All the integrated nation-/world-wide nepotism and aggregation of marketing budgets in political campaigns resultant from such power;

* The creation and expansion of travel tariff firms that use the "responsibility" of individual operators/owners to justify rent-seeking behaviors, such as design and maintenance violations, victimless moving violations, and "public health" checks like emissions tests for vehicles of a certain "age" (e.g., market value, reflecting the purchasing power of the owner).

Traveling farther down the road of another form of "everybody drives" transportation further ensconces the massively complex schemes meant to justify how safe it is for nearly everyone to be a licensed vehicle pilot, establishing unilateral standards for ninety-year-olds, sixteen-year-olds, and people of nearly all ethnicities, sexes, chemical dependencies, criminal records, IQ, and dynamic spatial intelligence levels. The gradual phasing-down of cars that would accompany the transition to a better world would be entirely dissimilar from the further cementing of a "me go in my machine!" philosophy of bikes. Once you subsidize bike paths further, you'll get handicapped people claiming the civil right to use motorized bicycles--and they will deserve it, and earn that right. And then you'll get less- and less-handicapped people receiving that right, and eventually, bike lanes will just be "small car lanes," and it'll work its way right back to the highway.

Bike advocacy is so heavily centered around the "urban" lifestyle, which is what makes it so gay. Take Manhattan: you have a bunch of trendy, self-centered assholes who think they're really cool for taking the subway, walking, riding bikes, and (maybe) occasionally sharing a cab. Stretch that out to the rest of the city lifestyle, though: the city is a tumor, in as literal a sense as is possible for a settlement of people. Cities are gigantic dumps of energy, resources, and life. When you live in a city, it seems really cool and fancy and great and modern--all that shit. But then, what happens if the cables of power, the pipes of water, and the truckloads of food, products, and young people stop coming in? The city dies. Even taking into account the hyper-breeding of a bunch of imported dwellers, the financial and governmental conglomerates that keep a city going only exist because of the resources that they suck up from hundreds of miles of surrounding countryside.

If the food stops coming in, the city dies. It cannot feed itself. If the power turns off, the city dies. Some of them can power themselves, but only for a little while, because the raw materials they need to keep the plants running come from somewhere else. Even if a (dense, urban) city has its own factories, it isn't a net producer of anything. It can't be, because the dense city-scars we have now are still, in their hearts, the Dickensian, Sarumanish cities of early industrialism, built around the gilded townhouses of the managers and the sprawling tenement hells of the proles, with very little (or, more frequently, zero) room in-between for (actual, productive) rivers, farms, mines, forests, plains, and all of the other things Terran humans still need to live. (If you've read the history of NYC's Central Park, or of the "design" of San Francisco, you'll recall the failed attempt to address some of these issues, now reduced to a means of controlling real estate prices and availability.) It's quite possible to build and use cities that are different than these, but the trans-suburban appendages expanding now still aren't offering the sustainable fix.

The situation remains the same for people, too. Without younger people coming in to look for jobs, culture, opportunity, et cetera, the city dies. Twenty-year-old interns, rent-controlled septuagenarians unaware of an outside world, and forty-year-old fund managing bachelors, do not keep the city alive, any more than the city keeps the nation alive. People interested in kids, aging, and other aspects of nature, tend to get the hell out of the city, and though cities are always eager to attract dusky proles to drive down prices in the service sector, they can only obtain renewals of their managerial class by forming a monopoly on regional theater, music, art, etc., and using the city's advertised "prestige" to cause people to continually want to move there. There are so many movies about New York and Los Angeles, and there were so many stories about London and Tokyo, because something always had to motivate a new crop of kids to want to move to the big city and become cops, actors, bookkeepers, doctors, etc., able to maintain the parasitic edifice that draws in the rest of the province's water, calories, power, and youth.

How stirring, really, that cities have come to be considered progressive. When they were first formed in the modern way, cities were seen as the tumors they are. Cities were the bastions of the robber barons who built reeking fortresses in which to hide the wealth they had stolen from ordinary people. In the first few decades of cities, the majority of liberal, progressive people realized this (even Marx and Engels noted it), and they lamented the ways in which the old guard had set up these extractive new settlements to stymie human progress.

Back to art. That's actually a hilarious part of a lot of cities--the theaters--because the audiences come primarily from the suburbs, outer boroughs, or out of town. The "locals" might go a lot because they're close to it already, but they can't support the industries by themselves. If cities allowed their artistic monopolies to dissolve, or lost control of the ability to summon people to centralized courts, filing and licensing authorities, or had to give up their museum artifacts, then--like people abandoning congested traffic for a seat on the magna-train--cities would go the way that the car would, and no one would come to the awful places anymore. It takes a lot of money, a lot of advertising, and a lot of political requirements to keep government offices running in capital cities, so that less disgusting, lower-crime financial and political districts can't develop in competing locales.

Oh yeah--the gay thing. This dovetails with homosexuality because cities, being non-renewing, are Homonormative. It would be great if we could all just live in little apartments, suck each other off a few times every week, evaluate corporate HR filings for a living, ride bikes or take the subway whenever we need to get somewhere, and appreciate all that life has to offer. But if the truckloads of food, power, goodies, and young people stop coming in, it all dies. The ability to do all those things--to receive resources in exchange for imaginary makework; to pedal to the corner market for organic Chilean mangoes; to suck all those cocks--exists only because of the vulgar breeding, building, trucks and factories that spill out of the badlands.

As Marie Antoinette might have said, "Let them ride bicycles."

Breaking Weeds

It's been way too long since they put out a new movie where a white person gets into the drug trade at street level and proves their inherent superiority by dominating the field. What the hell, man? I want to see a mundane suburban white early-forties gal and/or dude successfully beating down urban minorities while juggling parent-teacher conferences.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Plaques and Pots

You can all but kill a flower, then stick it into an iron lung of sorts on your patio or breakfast bar, cramping its roots into a pot of limited size, watering and trimming it, and keeping it zombie-alive for a very long time to appreciate its, err, colors; shape; smell...?

That's old news. But how long will it be before a hunter can all but kill a moose, cut its head off, and mount it on a nutrient platform that keeps the head "alive" for a very long time to appreciate its colors, shape, smell, noises, etc.?

All of these little flowers, tugged out of the ground and brought into tiny flower-terrariums in people's apartments, looking so terribly pretty, so longingly beautiful, as they imitate what it means to actually be a flower. Alive, but not alive; free to grow, but not actually free to grow. As soon as we can upgrade our technology from "flower pot" to "moose pot," when I visit hunters, there will be this severed moose head attached beautifully to the wall, grunting and horking and making moose sounds, attached to neurons that plug into the house's electrical power system to keep its mind and fur fresh, so that everyone can appreciate exactly how beautiful moose truly are.

"Oh, is that an eastern Canadian?" "Yeah, I got it at the Trader Joe's. Fresh caught." "Oh, those last a long time if you charge them every week." "Yeah, I know. We had one a few years back that used to make the neatest little sounds...remember, honey?" "Can't we just get some squirrels? Moose are so expensive."

Monday, October 5, 2015

Bike Argument

I had a bikes v. cars (wealthy or upwardly-mobile urban fantasist (UMUF) v. rural poor) discussion recently, in which the UMUF offered a pretty good spread of pro-bike stuff. Recording here for posterity. Jen Sorensen offered this cartoon which started it off:

High Arka: Should people who can't afford to live closer to their jobs pay increased payroll taxes in order to fund special roads for people who enjoy riding their bicycles to Whole Foods?

Alan Barta: No, HighArka, you are ALREADY paying higher taxes for not installing bike and pedestrian accommodations, which actually cost almost nothing, just paint street appropriately after they repave it, which has to be done anyway. By comparison, dedicated bikeways including land acquisition cost on average only $500,000/mile to install, whereas interstate highways cost $10,000,000/mile. More money goes to construction workers for bikeways than does for highway, too. The US government spent $1 trillion on highways in the last decade, and that doesn't include state matching from income and property taxes. In other words, you are getting ripped off royally for highways that exclude bicyclists, and pay an additional penalty for ignoring vulnerable users.

High Arka: Are you of the opinion that motorized vehicle travel by interstate highway, motorized vehicle travel by city surface street, and bicycle travel, are interchangeable? No. Bicycle travel is for the privileged few who have the free time, wardrobe and employment and appearance flexibility, and health privileges to bike places.

For those who have to show up at work exactly on time in a uniform, and who can't be sweaty or disheveled from a bike ride, and who have to make it to another job within a certain amount of time, bicycling is impossible.

Check your privilege. Biking is great for upper middle class university students, "interns," and bookstore-cruising latte-sippers in Portlandia. It is great for people who live in safe, low-crime areas where they will not be threatened with violence or harassment for being exposed to the elements, or other people, without a layer of automobile in between them and other people. It is not appropriate for the rushing poor, the physically vulnerable, or people living in low-density or dangerous environments.

Making working people pay for special non-motorized lanes for those who have the privilege of making convenience-based choices to cruise around town is theft. I completely support you having bike lanes as long as YOU pay for them, instead of robbing the paychecks of working mothers who have to go from a retail job to a waitress job in a 30 minute gap, change uniforms, and NOT get groped, grimy, or have their hair blown into a huge mess by trying to bike across the County.

And those same people shouldn't have to work more hours to pay for your special bike lanes, either.

Alan Barta: It's one misconception after another with you, HighArca. There are one billion bicyclists in the world, all poor except for a tiny percentage of spandex privileged, second only to walkers. Motorists only number in the low hundred millions, yet they get all the funding. Not democratic at all, total favoritism. Cyclists see less than 1% of budget, because they don't need much, just properly apportioned streets as already required by law. Wheelchair users get more attention because of the ADA, which demands curb relief and ramps as well as, duh, bikeways. In many cases you can arrange around motoring with several different, less costly modalities: bike, bus, cab, subway, train. This way you're not victim to the average $7600/year cost of car ownership, and, who'd have thought, might actually get around faster than driving. I routinely beat bus and traffic into city center, as do the typical 600,000 bike commuters into NYC every day who can't afford and don't want to drive. Though inconvenient, never had a problem refreshing in a lavatory, equally safe to other ablutions. A decent new bike cost only $300, not on average $25,000, 83 times more, plus insurance, license, mandatory maintenance, registration, and taxes. They collect castoff bikes and ship them to Africa so grateful rural villagers can commute to cities, earn a living, and improve their lives. Best part is you're 20 times safer cycling than driving. The fewer motorists you allow, the less crime and urban terror, which has been proven in cities around the world.

High Arka: Assuming, foremost, that your Cycling Monthly gush report was accurate about the readership-stoking estimation of "one billion"--assuming that without question--it is highly disingenuous of you to use "worldwide" bicyclists statistics to justify tax policy in a modern industrial nation.

You live in a giant concrete tumor that survives by financially exploiting hundreds of other states and nations, in order to suck up an egregious portion of the world's energy, food, and other resources. In order to obtain the kind of vulgar financial concentration you have there, you need to level the natural resources and disperse the populations of many other places, including even sister states in your own "nation," whose populations have to travel a much greater distance than your commute to "city center." Your fantasies can only apply to such a narcissistic bubble, because for many other people, having a pickup truck to drive fifty miles to a job site, laden with old blankets and tools, is a necessity in order to eat each month. People who clean houses, fix toilets, care for and transport infants and children and the elderly, and many other occupations, do not have the option at all of "choosing" to bicycle.

There are also billions of people in the world who are not surrounded by a massive police force, with a lot of witnesses nearby, on their commute to work. Many people work at night, and many people work in rural areas.

Ironically, it is the festering sore of places like New York City that have extracted so many resources from the rest of the world via the FIRE sector that peripheral wastelands are unable to afford public transportation. Check your privilege: most people do not buy a $25K car. They drive a hand-me-down vehicle with no warranty, 50-150K miles on it, and it was bought off Craigslist for $3,000 cash. The statistics you're citing from NPR's Marketplace only apply to privileged white people who think that a new Toyota Prius is a comparatively cheap car. Obviously, you've never lived in an area where the local high school track coach's $22K Camaro is the fanciest vehicle in town.

Now let's talk public transportation: it may have escaped your notice inside your cosmopolitan FIRE bubble, but many people find public transportation a rapey, violent place. Particularly if they're not a young, wealthy, fast-moving person traveling to the financial district with hundreds of their kin during peak business hours.

People traveling bad routes, who aren't able to physically protect themselves, who don't want to get shot or stalked or shouldered constantly, or who just don’t want to be surrounded by a dozen aggressive, unfamiliar poor men having an argument about something scary, every time they need to carry their cashed payroll check home, understandably prefer an alternative, and always will. And when you’re asking those people to reduce their take-home pay even further, so that special new “proportionately cheaper” lanes can be added to make it easier for rich white MBAs to get to NASDAQ in a “greener” fashion,’re definitely an American.

* * *

That's where it is so far. Carry on.

Friday, October 2, 2015

The Quintessential Now

"If humankind had determined a fact, I would have already heard about it and decided to believe in it."

How emblematically postmodern; how timelessly ancient, to believe that you know everything important. It does so echo the birthing squalls of the jealous viral god, does it not?