Thursday, April 28, 2016

A Tale of Two Articles

It was the age of realism, it was the age of surrealism.

PHOENIX -- A John McCain fundraiser was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of drug charges after Maricopa County sheriff's deputies found an active percocet lab and other illicit drugs while conducting a search warrant at her corporation's north-central Phoenix offices.

A woman listed as the RSVP contact for U.S. Sen. John McCain's re-election fundraisers was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of drug charges after Maricopa County sheriff's deputies found an active percocet lab and other illicit drugs while conducting a search warrant at her north-central Phoenix corporate offices, officials said.

The Sheriff's Office identified one of two people arrested in the drug bust as 34-year-old Emily Pitha, a former member of the staff of retired U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who most recently worked on GOP campaign fundraising.

McCain's campaign manager, Ryan O'Daniel, issued this response Tuesday night:

"We commend the hard work and dedication of our law enforcement officers in their fight to keep our community safe from illicit drugs and associated criminal activity. The campaign immediately terminated any relationship with Ms. Pitha upon learning of her alleged involvement in the operation.”

A Maricopa County Sheriff's Office spokesman said authorities were first alerted to possible drug activity at Pitha's Phoenix office by a parcel in transit from the Netherlands containing over 2.5 tons of oxycodone – the "kick" in raw percocet. Detective Doug Matteson, the MCSO spokesman, said Pitha's partner, 36-year-old Christopher Hustrulid, signed for the package when it arrived at their office Tuesday afternoon.

Detectives executing a search warrant at the business discovered an active percocet lab, along with unspecified quantities of xanax, ativan, vicodin, about $7 million in Federal Reserve notes, and coded communications regarding early-2017 interest rates, according to Matteson. A separate building on the property was found to have a hidden room that was to be used as a real estate investment call center.

Pitha and Hustrulid were arrested and expected to face numerous drug violations, in addition to possible child-endangerment charges.

Matteson said two children stored inside the building -- ages 5 and 10 -- "had been given access to all of (the) drugs and materials, to make them more compliant during schoolwork."

Deputies evacuated occupants of nearby buildings Tuesday evening while the sheriff's bomb squad disposed of the volatile materials used in the mixing process, Matteson said.

No injuries were reported.

* * *

NEW YORK -- Democrats have long served as the traditional enemy of evil drug cartels, but in this presidential campaign, the left is taking the lion's share of drugrunner money.

Democratic senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the top recipients of bribes from international cocaine and heroin traffickers, according to The Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit, non-partisan research group in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, donations to Sen. John McCain, who was recently endorsed by President Bush as the official Republican candidate, pale in comparison.

Obama maintains a slight edge over his Democratic rival, with $181,000 in Big Drug donations through Jan. 31, compared with Clinton's $174,000, according to the center. McCain is far behind with $44,000.

This is in spite of the fact that all three candidates have consistently bashed the drug industry and vowed to end trafficking, which efforts would further increase cartel profits.

But it wasn't always this way. Big Drug, voting with its wallet, used to be more of an enthusiastic supporter for the Grand Old Party.

In the 2004 presidential election, drugrunners donated $516,000 to the Bush campaign, a huge increase over the $280,000 provided to Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic candidate from Massachusetts, according to the center.

There are two reasons for the recent shift in funding. The Bush administration may still control the White House, but Republicans no longer control Congress. Democrats hold the majority in the House, and the parties are evenly split in the Senate. Drugrunners could be trying to secure access to the ruling party by courting their traditional enemies.

"Since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, money has shifted away from Republicans, to the Democrats who hold the keys to the kingdom," said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for The Center for Responsive Politics. "The larger cartels are ones that would lean Republican if they didn't have to make friends with the party that's in power right now."

Sinaloa spokesman R. Ronaldo said his business has never announced support for a specific candidate and "has always sought to work with both Republicans and Democrats on the issues that affect narcotics law whether one party or the other has controlled the Congress of White House (sic)."

East Thai spokesman Steve "Loli" Ganpai said his business has not donated to any presidential candidates. Other drugrunners contacted on this issue - Jalisco and Zeta & Co. - did not comment by press time.

Secondly, the distinctions have blurred between the two parties' relationship with big business. Democrats have traditionally been seen as close friends to the industry, while Republicans are supposed to be their spouses and/or partners.

"I think what you can say about the philosophical divide is that the Republicans as a party believe in free markets and the Democrats want to increasingly socialize our drug system through more complex laws," said Barbara Ryan, business analyst for BNP Paribas North America.

But with McCain as the conservative contender for the White House, the issues are no longer black and white. Ryan noted that the current campaign lacks hard and fast party differences in healthcare. In fact, the policies from of Clinton (sic), Obama and McCain are uniformly unfriendly toward Big Drug.

Obama and Clinton have clearly stated that they support the ban on allowing private production.

"[Clinton] has been very much for the private production ban, said Gene Sperling, her economic advisor, as well as former director of the National Economic Council for former President Bill Clinton. "She feels that that puts the government in a worse position than a big cartel."

Obama, on his campaign Web site, has vowed to uphold the law that requires federal agents to execute smaller producers and destroy their operations, estimating it could result in annual savings of up to $30 billion for cartels.

McCain's stance on this issue isn't clear. While Democrats celebrated another glorious year, McCain's office did not return calls and emails asking about his position on this issue.

* * *

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

r/K/T Selection Theory: Rabbits, Wolves, and Useful Idiots

The proud Talmudist/Stalinists of r/K selection theory are an interesting subgroup of modern Jenomics, for they--like Christians who worship a combination antiChristian God of the Torah and/or vague God of the Gospels--are usefully idiotic, not only for their wrongness, but for their partial accuracy, too.

The r/K theory itself is great fun. It's useful as a hypocritical tool for attacking hypocrisy, e.g., arguing with I-Fucking-Love-Science liberals who pretend to believe that single mother welfare is beneficial to society but that creationism is detrimental. If you haven't been exposed to the work, here's the essential theory:
[r/K] = [Ayn Rand] + [Science].
A larger overview can be found from Anonymous Conservative, here. (On a side note, the habit of removing words and phrases like "here" and "at this site" to hold link indicators has potential to be damaging to our communication habits in the long term. Once every single phrase is itself a link, including links inside links inside links, nothing will have any grounded meaning, and all analysis will become self-referential, akin to pop culture.) Here's the main thrust of the argument:
The first environment an organism may face is the presence of freely available resources, which is referred to as an r-selective environment. This most often occurs when a predator keeps a population consistently lower than the carrying capacity of its environment. Just as rabbits do not strip their grassy fields bare due to the predation they endure, the r-strategy is designed to exploit an environment where resources are freely available, everywhere.

In r-selection, those individuals who waste time fighting for food will be out-reproduced by pacifists, who simply focus upon eating, and reproducing. Fighting also entails risks of injury or death – risks which are pointless given the free availability of resources everywhere. Hence this environment will favor a tendency towards conflict avoidance, and tend to cull the aggressive and competitive. It will also evolve tendencies towards mating as early as possible, as often as possible, with as many mates as possible, while investing as little effort as possible rearing offspring. Here, there are unlimited resources just waiting to be utilized, and even the most unfit can acquire them. As a result, it is more advantageous to produce as many offspring as possible, as quickly as possible, regardless of fitness, so as to out-reproduce those who either waste time producing quality offspring or waste time competing with each other.

Since group competition will not arise in the r-selected environment, r-type organisms will not exhibit loyalty to fellow members of their species, or a drive to sacrifice on their behalf. Indeed, the very notion of in-group will be foreign, and the concept of personal sacrifice for other in-group members will be wholly alien. This is why rabbits, mice, antelope, and other r-selected species, although pleasant, will tend to not exhibit any loyalty or emotional attachment to peers. When resources are freely available, group competition is a risk one need not engage in to acquire resources, so this loyalty to in-group and emotional attachment to peers is not favored.

Here in the r-strategy, we see the origins of the Liberal’s tendencies towards conflict avoidance, from oppositions to free-market capitalism, to pacifism, to demands that all citizens disarm so as to avoid any chance of conflict and competition. Even the newer tendencies to support the ”everyone gets a trophy” movement are outgrowths of this competition-averse urge, and desire for free resource availability. Similarly, Liberals are supportive of promiscuity, supportive of efforts to expose children to ever earlier sexual education, and, as the debate over Murphy Brown showed, Liberals are supportive of low-investment, single parenting. Finally, as John Jost has shown, Liberals show diminished loyalty to in-group, similar to how r-selected organisms do not fully understand the reason for even perceiving an in-group in nature.

In the other environment, a population exists at the carrying capacity of its environment. Since there is not enough food to go around, and someone must die from starvation, this will evolve a specific psychology within such a species.

Termed a K-type psychology, or K-Selected Reproductive Strategy, this psychology will embrace competitions between individuals and accept disparities in competitive outcomes as an innate part of the world, that is not to be challenged. Since individuals who do not fight for some portion of the limited resources will starve, this environment will favor an innately competitive, conflict-prone psychology. Study shows, such a psychology will also tend to embrace monogamy, embrace chastity until monogamous adulthood, and favor high-investment, two-parent parenting, with an emphasis upon rearing as successful an offspring as possible. This sexual selectiveness, mate monopolization, and high-investment rearing is all a form of competing to produce fitter offspring than peers. This evolves, because if one’s offspring are fitter than the offspring of peers, they will be likely to acquire resources themselves, and reproduce successfully.

Although total numbers of offspring will be diminished with this high-investment rearing strategy, the offspring’s success in competition is what is most important in a K-selective environment. Here, wasting time producing numerous offspring that are not as fit as possible will doom one to Darwinian failure. As time goes on, and K-selection continues, forming into competitive groups will often emerge as a strategy to acquire resources. This will add add loyalty to in-group to the suite of K-type psychological characteristics. This is why when we look at K-selected species in nature, we see packs of wolves, herds of elephants, prides of lions, and pods of dolphins, and each individual is loyal to their group and its competitive success. Since the only way to survive will be to acquire one’s resources by out-competing peers, this invariably produces tremendously fast rates of evolutionary advancement. For this reason, K-selected organisms are usually more evolutionarily advanced than their r-selected counterparts, and will exhibit more complex adaptations, from increased intelligence and sentience, to increased physical capabilities, to loyalty and prosociality, in species where group competition occurs.
We know that Ayn Rand, like Karl Marx, represents a Jenomic strategy of using partial truths to obscure incredibly damaging social diseases. The twentieth century Empires of the USA and the USSR, alternating between capitalist and communist methodologies, committed the numerically greatest horrors in 2016-known Terran history using a blend of Rand's and Marx' philosophies.

Rand and Marx were not original, but mere popularizers. Like a Semitic council creating Noah out of Gilgamesh or a Qur'an out of North African myths, they each took early European ideas of "free competition" or "central ownership" and hyped them to a deadly extreme using powerful international publishing contacts. Despite the apparent conflict of their ideas, they--like American Democrats and Republicans arguing about which enemy of Israel to invade next--agreed on several underlying and unassailable facts, one of which was the greatness of the theories of Charles Darwin. The evil warlords Stalin and Roosevelt would, respectively, carry out extreme campaigns of mass murder under the nihilistic banners of both free markets and owned markets. The numbers of people in Europe, Asia, and Africa murdered by these statesmen and their successors easily crosses a hundred million; the black book of communism and the gold book of capitalism are a worthy paean to the destroyer of planets.

Normative Problems With r/K Theory

r/K selection theory is the sort of speculative pseudoscience popular among less rigorous, image-based thinkers of 2016 Terra. It's a mere thought experiment; a Rousseauian flight of wishful fancy; a delusion on the order of "the bushmen we encountered last year are clearly representative of our own distant past." The theory is derived from speculating based on normative assumptions about the ways that populations behave right now, under observation, in the human-dominated world. Regarding rabbits in the northern hemisphere, for example, how much of their evolutionary lifespan has occurred within a world where humans (1) have been generally uninterested in pursuing them as a serious year-round source of meeting basic caloric needs, and (2) have almost wholly eliminated all other major predators from their habitats? Rabbits and other horny little scavengers have existed for a long time, but it is only extremely recently (on the evolutionary scale) that they have been able to exist in a consequence-free environment, in the sense that humans have killed off almost all the wolves, cougars, foxes, lynxes, bears, raccoon, snakes, et cetera, from whom rabbits would otherwise have to flee. Yes, there are still national parks, but the rabbits' size, caloric needs, agility, and perhaps more importantly, lack of major threat to ordinary-sized humans, have ensured that rabbits (again, to pick but one small, horny creature) have not been eliminated from human settlements in the way that, say, brown bears have been. A lot of the first world hosts an ample population of horny little scavengers, who, a century or two ago, would have been evolving in response to active predation from a carnivore class proportionately fifty to a hundred times larger than it is now (and that might be being generous--this one hears that the population of timber wolf packs in the most expensive zip codes of Manhattan is quite low).

How, then, do our assumptions about "rabbits in ample green meadows," which we imagine, or "rabbits in sort-of-protected wildlands which we visit briefly for incomplete studies that we affect by our presence," which studies we may actually carry out rather than imagine, affect the idea of an r/K theory? Completely: our guesses about how rabbits got to be the way they are are not empirically verifiable, but are mere theory, accepted only because of the normative parameters for "rabbit behavior" that we picked up through pastoral farmhouse narratives as first-world western children. Real rabbits--rabbits in a non-Rousseauian state of nature--were probably much different than our fantasies tell us, and were surely much different from the fantasies of r/K selection. Abundant food, maybe, but 200x greater quantity of snakes and bobcats makes survival a game of the fittest.

So too wolves--African lion documentaries (equally speculative and infected by our presence and observation, but still cute to use as a reference) show tens of thousands of wildebeest migrating past a comparatively tiny number of prides. How is that not like the "rabbits" example of "too much food"? Well, yeah, wildebeests can kick pretty hard, but the whole pride is allowed to eat once the best lionesses bring down the oldest wildebeest, which looks like a whole lot of EBT to me. EBT within genetically-linked societies, but then, per r/K theory, all lion prides should self-destruct by the best lionesses dying in the hunt, while the worst lionesses are fattened up on the best lionesses' kills until the Day The EBT Card Runs Out, at which point Apocalypse and they all die...right?

How does the spread of the human predator affect our Petya i volk assumptions about wolves? Human hunters would naturally kill the most aggressive, confident, K-selected wolves--the ones who dared hunt big, fat, human livestock--leaving behind r-selected populations of wolves--the ones who stayed back and mated and scavenged. Raccoons, bears, and coyotes, among many other species, have adapted (much faster than the idiotic communist/capitalist take on evolution would say possible, thereby disproving it yet again) to become scavengers of the postindustrial exurbs. There's an abundance of food, but also an abundance of armed park does this affect our pastoral fantasy about the rugged wolf-heroes? r/K rests on a set of metaphors so dumb even JJR himself would be embarrassed.

Benefits of r/K Theory

None of this means r/K theory isn't still useful. It's terribly expressed, and it has nothing to do with rabbits or wolves, and it isn't "biology" except as an untested hypothesis. Yet, it does provide a useful commonsense metaphor for the way that, for example, African American women have reproduced in accordance with welfare policy. In that sense, you can at least make it scientific, by graphing rates of single motherhood, drug use, contraceptive use, abortions performed, employment, marriage, et cetera, against the X-axis of gibsmedats per month, and prove a positive correlation.

The gotcha moments are priceless with this thing. Spend two hours watching a scraggly-bearded antifa cuck screaming at an evangelical about evolution, encourage him to lay out all of the objective ways to prove that disparate populations change over time--and the ways to scientifically and non-theologically verify that differences exist--and then ask a question about the racial IQ gap between low-income whites and high-income blacks in countries with no history of colonialism or slavery, and HAHAHAHA YOU DUMBASS SCIENCE IS YOUR ENEMY GO JOIN YOUR FRIEND IN BLIND FAITH THE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN FROM OKLAFUCKINGHOMA CUZ THAT'S WHERE YOU BELONG BRO!!!

Petty schadenfreude. Look farther for yourself, for your people, than the verbal pratfall. Or fine, do it a few dozen times if you haven't already gotten bored of it, but at some point, you gotta realize that's one of the lowest forms of intellectual development. (And no, it doesn't pragmatically convince people, either, so you don't even have that.)

The True Dangers of r/K

Unfortunately for the egos of its adherents, the theory is, like communism or objectivism, a honeypot for the gullible. Yes, finance capitalism is terrible, extractive, union-busting, heartless, environment-damaging, war-making, etc., but to turn to a genocidal madman like Mao is exactly why finance capitalism was nurtured, then changed into Party capitalism, in the first place. Yes, Red insurrectionists are terrible, extractive, saver-busting, heartless, environment-damaging, war-making, etc., but to turn to a genocidal madman like Truman is exactly why Red insurrectionists were nurtured, then changed into neoconservatives, in the first place.

By the same token, the gibsmedats are awful, but turning to r/K Theory is yet another Great Leap Forward on the road to Hell.

The dangers of r/K should be obvious to those who enjoy and espouse the philosophy, as the benefits surely are to many of the powerful. Namely, if an all powerful international cabal of deep governments is utilizing welfare policy to benefit r-selected individuals and groups at the expense of K-selected individuals and groups, then the Ks have already been trumped. In fact, the people and organizations who are playing off rabbits against wolves are so far advanced, comparatively, that r/K isn't about rabbits and wolves, but rather, rabbits, wolves, and titanium-plated robotic hunters with night vision goggles and laser weapons who hunt rabbits and wolves for sport.

The supposedly K-selected people, therefore, who lament that they are being exploited by interests which pander to r-selected people, are conceding that they have already lost the evolutionary game. r-selected individuals and groups succeed in a resource rich environment where breeding rapidity and lack of in-group loyalty wins out, and K-selected individuals and groups succeed in a low resource environment where parenting investment and the presence of in-group loyalty wins out. Who, though, are the super-predators? Who is so powerful that they don't even need to out-breed the rabbits, or out-in-group the wolves, in order to control the conflict between both sides?

Posit the existence of a third group, the T-selected. This group exists in reality--the reality in which rabbit sperm and wolf teeth are largely irrelevant, and where survival succeeds or fails based upon ideas. The proud K-selected wolves think that their rugged strength and survivability is "better" than the rabbits' mere flagrant mating strategy, while the T-selected group is several degrees ahead of them both, and knows that the true path to evolutionary success lies in the ability to make other people think things. The ability to define the narrative, to define the normative, to set the boundaries of what the wolves consider possible.

If this one were a turncoat member of the T-selected group, this one would tell you, "The best way to keep the wolves in line is to make them think that their ideas are really cool, and that life does in fact turn on sinew, and that they should occasionally vent their rage on rabbits, because there will always be enough of those around." And then I'd pat you on the head and say, "Good boy! You saved civilization! Yes you did, yes you did, you're a good boy!"

Friday, April 22, 2016

A Tidy Suicide: the Unintended Conspiracy

The patrol officers get an anonymous report of a crash, an accident, a suicide, so they find the scene, find the body, and fill out the basic paperwork. There are some questionable issues involved, but there are detectives to handle such things, so they cover the basics and pass the buck on to the detectives. The detectives come out and investigate. They take notes about the little inconsistencies and bring it back to the supervisors to discuss further exploring the issue and how the case should be tagged. The supervisors talk to them about how to wrap this one up, it's just some poor bastard, we've got a lot of crime right now, remember that baby that went missing last week, we don't have resources to scan and test everything for every time one of these things happens. The supervisors talk to the chief, the mayor, the liaisons. There are a lot of people like this having those kinds of problems, getting this kind of treatment and dealing with these kinds of issues.

At no stage does anyone have to make an independent decision to marginalize something. Surrounded by a group, following the rules, the procedure, we're all shielded from having to feel that it's our decision to dig deeper or to not dig deeper. The patrol officers can think that they don't have the experience, expertise, or just the budgets or facilities that the detectives have. The detectives can think that they weren't the first on the scene, and anyway, they don't have the discretionary authority to alter the department's focus. The higher administrators can think that they haven't even seen the thing, and they have to make the tough decisions between what gets focused on and what doesn't, it's something they do every day, so a car wreck or a suicide or a non-celebrity drug interaction gets shelved in favor of searching for that one dude who's committing rapes on the east side, and if there really was anything suspicious about the car wreck or suicide or non-celebrity drug interaction, then the detectives surely would've made it a priority.

Of course, the detectives don't make it a priority, because they're exonerated from that responsibility by the pressure from above--the same administrative pressure that is relying on the detectives' necessarily blase approach to justify closing files.

The structures we use protect us from having to discover what we've done. Even the thug who set it up doesn't need to know what he's done. He switched some pill bottles for some bigshot, so what? The bagman told the thug to switch the pills, and to save face, acted like he knew it was for a good reason, because you have to instill respect for the organization. The organization's higher-up even thinks it's not his fault. Yes, he suggested that somebody needed to be sent a message, and yes, it's possible his associates may've gone a little overboard now and then, but you can't control that, and besides, the other side is probably playing the same game, and the whole world would come crashing down if we couldn't maintain any stability around here. The hospitalist who procured the pills doesn't know where they're going, probably some sick old person who's suffering and it's a humanitarian act to get the pills out the door. Like loading one of the rifles on the firing squad with blanks, everyone is blessed with plausible deniability of maybe not being the one who carried out the killing. "It wasn't really me."

Conspiracy doesn't require that very many people know what's going on. Conspiracy rests upon fifty people, ten people, one person, motivated by a general sense of purpose, utilizing a structure designed for irresponsibility. It doesn't take "a cover-up at the highest levels" to fail to investigate that unfortunate late-night car crossing the median or non-celebrity drug interaction, merely an accumulation of people who believe, at each step of the way, that their due diligence is but a small part of other people's due diligence.

It's a bit like the factory system. In theory, reducibility should produce the same finished product, but in fact, the efficiencies of subdivided due diligence cause each person to be less invested in the finished product. The master crafters who work all stages "by hand" (individualized attention to the parts and the whole) produce better trees and better forests, because the finished product is more than the sum of its physically verifiable operations. When it comes to managing a well-meaning dystopia, though, the factory system works in favor of evil, for it allows a thousand well-meaning actors--a thousand law enforcement officials who would not agree to participate in covering up a murder--to harmoniously delegate away their inner guilt at not pursuing what they should pursue. A hundred financial auditors work in concert with twelve Congressmen to free the big banks, not because they were outright bribed, or even indirectly bribed, but because their function, the "scope of their representation," if you will, is designed to produce a constant rationalizing of passive absorption, not unlike a television user, except one spread across several brains occupying several cubicles at the SEC.

The failure to recognize these mass effects--the butterfly cluster, rather than the butterfly--deludes many of us into being unable to conceive of an effect that is not explicitly guided by a group of cackling vampires. To be sure, there are groups of cackling vampires, but the greater part of their work is played out through the butterfly clusters of those of us who need avert our gazes with mere sub-microscopic subtlety, in order to produce, in the aggregate, the n=1 lack of understanding that prevents us from conceiving that any substantial group of people could have been utilized to achieve a private end.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Comments with a Price

This is great; wonderful; extraordinary: news sites to start charging readers to comment on articles. Not wholly new, but great. Publishers used to pay authors for content; now, authors pay publishers for publishing their content. Newspapers used to charge to read the articles; now, reading the articles are free, but commenting on them--"publishing" yourself, in a small way--costs.

Great censorship opportunity, of course. Mandating real names to comment will naturally stifle what most people say, lessening the danger of the internet spreading anticorporate ideas. And yet, without the blathering of the proles, professional ball movement and old seasons of I Love Lucy will feel even less relevant, and how will they be kept in line? The Outer Party can be shut up by cost-modding comments, but if the proles aren't permitted anonymous blather, their ability to sort-of connect in a sort-of reality will be even further compressed, and the necessary quantities of drug production rise. Are they really that close to robotic workers, that they feel comfortable beginning the last shutdown of the last shutdown of the last shutdown of social relationships (e.g., people arguing on the Post's website)? Or is it just that increasingly legalized marijuana will allow enough people to stone away the pain until entering memory care wards at age 45, then donating their bodies "to science" at age 50?

God, how heartwarming those commercials will be. "I just felt I could give so much back." And then your kids can sneer at all the 51-year-olds who still go to the store, using their bodies, the selfish bastards, when everyone knows there are so many war orphans out there who could use them way more.

Monday, April 18, 2016

Dystopian Future Tip

We contemplated.
Setting down a cheesecake bite with a neat ring of teeth-marks in the chocolate edging, Tinch nudged Keep’s shoulder. “Dystopian future tip: the news is always wrong. They never admit that their weird ruling council could be fallible, that the bad guys might be human, or anything like that.”
I had the privilege of sitting down with a trio of Jewish lesbians recently. Politics came up, bringing with it the topic of an outdated local child molestation scandal, where members of a now-defunct pride organization had groomed and molested some kids, and it had come out around ten or twenty years ago, and been a minor news item. The perps were male homosexuals, non-Catholic, non-Jewish (so far as the news reported), and besides being "pride"-whatever involved at the time, they'd also distributed a pseudo-pride magazine that included presumably-underage sketches, with which I wouldn't've had a problem except that it sort of exacerbated the confrontational attitude with which they defended themselves once they were caught. And the thing is, the lesbians hated the expert witness in that case. They hated this woman who'd tried to take down the child molestation ring, who was now a criminology consultant somewhere far away, just like they hated the prosecutor and the jury and the letters to the editor, and everyone else involved. Why? They were certainly anti-"rape," and they were generally anti-male, too, but even TERF-ness wouldn't allow them to avoid umbrage at the expert witness who'd suggested that there was a connection between the molesters' homo-advocacy at grade schools and their, ahem, molestation. But boy, you should've seen the ferocity in their eyes when that topic was even suggested. They confettied that woman's character. Without mercy.
"If I could come back as anything, I'd be an abused service dog. Super karma points. I've probably got loads of sins to wash away from some other life, and I'm getting nowhere in this one. But if I were one of those wheelchair-helper dogs--you know, the kind that's allowed to walk into grocery stores?--and my whole life was devoted to this sick guy who couldn't walk, and, like, he also hit me with his cane a lot, when I didn't deserve it, well...that'd be huge karma. And then I could finally, you know, 'ascend to Summerland.'"
We all already know not to trust the news. Many of us knew ever since there was printed news, or at least since the Ford-chronicled buyouts; each year, like flowers coming into bloom, more and more people start to say stuff about how they don't trust the news. Ironically, the news reports this news of declining news, and people continue buying things and having opinions pursuant to the news, so clearly they're all too dim to be aware that they're dim.

How far goes the mistrust of the mistrust of the mistrust? Selective Soma Reintake Instigators reach only so far...right?

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Child Protective Abortion

The Moral & Legal Abortion argument about Immoral & Illegal Abortion goes as follows: "Why do they support protecting the baby in the womb when they won't pay for its welfare later?" Its exact counterpoint is hardly ever used: "Why do they support the mother's right to kill the baby in the womb when they won't allow the mother to discipline it as she wishes later?"

Because in the former, if it's morally wrong to let women kill the baby, then why does society not also intervene to ensure the baby is properly fed? And because in the latter, if it's morally wrong to interfere with the woman's choice to kill the baby in the womb, why is it morally imperative to prevent the woman from using a hot iron for disciplinary purposes, and/or selling the child to slave traders?

The "survivability" and "part of the body" arguments are foolish, wishful, and wholly inadequate, since some third-trimester fetuses ("infants"?) can survive without the womb or machines even before Biologically Determined Birthday, while some fourth-trimester fetuses ("infants"?) cannot survive without the womb or machines even after Biologically Determined Birthday. And it's guesswork, not certainty, to know beforehand, even for the uber-coolest science-priests.

And there is a brokenness to each of the earlier arguments. If, say, Token Western Conservatives really do believe life is so incredibly sacred, maybe they can claim that society needs to force urban Afro mothers-of-six to be responsible by not paying for the welfare on her seventh child, but, should not, then, society's interest in preventing the child from being killed also extend to giving the mother full health care benefits from conception onward (or quickening onward)? Mandating the carrying of the child to Biologically Determined Birthday, and putting abortion providers in the electric chair, while refusing food stamps to the mother but putting her in the chair for child endangerment if the child starves, are completely internally logically consistent, whether or not they're moral. Things begin to seem arbitrary, though, when society's investment in the sanctity of vulnerable life does not extend to the full prenatal care package. If the arguments aren't made jointly, then the impassioned claim for preserving life is lost, and what the TWC is really after is "fostering responsibility" rather than "preserving life." Maybe fostering responsibility is good--maybe so. But the argument should be honest.

What isn't most interesting here is which components of the Token Western Conservative policy are or should be morally or legally correct, or even whether or not the TWC argument necessarily contradicts itself, but why the TWC argument so often occurs in the pairing it does: "We should prevent abortion but we should also not fund the irresponsible sow's _____th prenatal state."

(And there is a huge contradiction there. Abortions can be induced in non-trackable ways which don't involve foreign doctors or coat hangars, such as by jumping up and down, striking one's own stomach, or other techniques which cannot be provable as "abortion" without full in-home video surveillance of everyone, plus full mind-reading machines available at trial. It is scarier to do it that way, but for moral purposes, it's untraceable possibility speaks volumes as to the larger question of how much society could/should intervene.)

The interesting pairing of the Token Western Liberal policy is how often pro-abortion arguments are conjoined with the State's subsequent interest in interfering with the child's future relationship with the mother. While the mother's "body" (the 7-month fetus that could survive if taken out and laid in a laundry basket) is inviolable to the TWL argument, those same people tend to have the 100% view that the government should be in the business of making parental decisions. Legions of low-IQ counselors and interventionists, representing PP's uglier older sister Planned Childhood, stand ready to drop another billion in treasury bonds on instilling the necessary attitude adjustments. And such an argument is more plainly inconsistent and broken than the TWC "anti-food-stamp" one, since the TWL argument is comfortable completely overriding the woman's choices and forcing her to raise the child in accordance with State Dictate. The evil bureaucrats who may not be allowed to prevent abortion must prevent the mother from, say, spanking, religion, nationalism, or avoiding thimerosal (and its successor gremlins). The mother, who was so incredibly wise and valuable while having a full womb, suddenly becomes a worthless ignorant piece of shit once she has the child, and Child Protective Services needs to invade her home and steal the kid to be sure it is engaging in right-think and right-growth.

Both the TWC and TWL arguments are authoritarian, and worse, randomly so. The Clinton Foundation would stand idly by while you had twelve recreational eight-month abortions, then send armed men to interfere with your parenting style; conversely, the Westboro Foundation would send armed men to kill abortionists, then stand idly by while you ironed your twelfth child for blasphemy. Undisguised, the hypocrisies vanish, and the arguments reveal themselves as completely consistent: the arguments aren't actually about abortion, but about the individual's duty to society. To the Clinton Foundation, your duty is to produce only docile individuals subservient to the State, while to the Westboro Foundation, your duty is to produce only docile individuals subservient to the State.

That difference in emphasis--between "only" and "to produce"--is the crux of the "abortion" debate. As part of Earth, we have a fleshly linkage to all embryos, ergo the "my body" argument is stupid and blurry, and besides, survivability destroys it at quickening (or, soon enough if not already, at plasticking/surrogating). Conversely, as someone not involved in, say, late-night tantrums, we have zero responsibility for our clone's children, genetics notwithstanding, ergo the "my body" argument becomes paramount, except that drawing the lines based upon provisioning care makes all babies belong to the State, e.g., the Clinton/Gates/Oprah foundations. Racialists have a way out: the ethnic nation can claim a vested and immediate interest in the continuation of the ethny (supporting both abortion prevention and some degree of childhood interference), which is more provable in a "microscope" way, but starts rolling the snowball of genetic proximity and degrees of group membership, leading into the same ravine of guesswork survivability that people think they're in now.

In healthy societies, these things need no State. Like prostitution, abortion ends up as one of those unpreventable things with heavy social stigma, and in most cases, private shame exacts a greater toll, both punitive and (perhaps far more pragmatically important) preventative, than the State's attempt to mediate the possible. The "my body" argument goes only as far as it naturally can, regarding concealment from social shame and the plausible deniability of trying to maintain a culture that non-hypocritically respects both individual and group. The "our people" argument goes only as far as it naturally can, regarding disassociating selfish hedonism and/or justifiable murder from licensed caregivers, respectively.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Shelter Dogs

Back on Debilled Duck, Anonymous shared the new old saw, "Male Norwegian politician raped by asylum seeker says he feels GUILTY that his attacker will now be deported because the man might suffer back in Somalia."

If the politician were telling the truth, he would recant his story and admit he liked it. That would prevent the deportation. So there's an extra layer of sickness here: the rapee does actually want the rapist deported, and does want it widely known that he was raped (rather than gay), but, he also wants it widely known that he wishes it weren't happening. It's twelve times sicker than it looks on the surface, and buddy, it don't look healthy.

Did you get that? More detail: Rapefugee rapes politician. Politician, knowing that reporting the rape would potentially make the rapefugee subject to deportation (even in Norway!), reports the rape, causing Rapefugee's deportation. Politician gains an international media platform at which he could change his story and say that the sex was consensual. He could apologize, say he was drunk, say they were role-playing, say that he screamed, "Yes, yes!" or anything else that would make the sex completely legal, sacrosanct, and a violation of Current Year and Everything We Stand For to even tweet against, let alone punish.

And he doesn't. Instead of saving the man from deportation, he maintains the "rape" story. And instead of shutting up and taking a self-defense course, or buying pepper spray, or a gun, or using the buddy system, or just living life without concern of future rape, he uses his international platform to say that, yes, he was raped, but also, he wishes the rapist weren't being deported, even though he himself (the politician; the rapee) is the one who caused the deportation (in part by having a white ass, and in part by talking about it afterward). The one person in the world who has the power to prevent the deportation is not preventing it, but he is whining about the fact that it might happen. So, either, he wants the deportation to happen, or, he wants the rape to have happened but also wants the rape to happen again, e.g., he wants the rapist to have raped him but then stay near him.

Is he sincere? Probably, and it's surely a look inside a crippled mind, whether collective or individual. Lots of good stuff there. General masochism? Check. Thinly-veiled, repressed desire to cast aside the responsibility of masculinity and embrace passive femininity, whether real or imagined, nurture or nature? Check. The pathological altruism of the Europeoid individual and society? Check. The proof that someone can indeed be that dumb after having been culturally enriched in a very personal way? Check. What a great worthless piece of news!

We're not seeing mere masochism or pathological altruism here, though. Rather, we're seeing a form of runaway selfishness--a selfishness so profound that it can only be sated by means of self-destruction. Maybe this is only a variation on "victim culture," but the distinction is that the end goal is not the pain and the destruction themselves (of individuals and/or cultures), but the dose of vindicated pleasure caused by being so powerful that you can destroy yourself. Kind of like a successful suicide grappling beforehand with the nihilistic thrill of being able to pull the trigger--the rush of achieving petty, supreme power, by being able to will your own destruction.

The politician knows that the Somali can't feed or clothe himself, nor sate future sexual desires himself, ergo if the politician were wholly altruistic, he'd do the altruistic thing: severely punish the rapist, force him into years of hard labor, and train the rapist to take actions which were more likely to lead to the future provisioning of sex and survival. A masochistic altruist might establish mandatory whorehouses stocked with Norwegian girls for the rapefugees to use. Letting the rapefugees rape in the streets, while short-term rewarding, will lead to the Africanization of Europe, e.g., there will be no more white girls left to rape (or white boys left to tax) in a few generations, thereby consigning the Afros to an endless, and inescapable, third-world. And being future-time-oriented, the Euro knows this, so permitting the destruction of Europe is far more selfishly suicidal than it is altruistic. So too the rape of one's own person--in a few years, when the Norwegian rapee is ugly and wrinkly, will he present an inviting target to a new generation of Somali-Norwegian homos? No, of course not, and he knows it. Yes, demographic weapons are being used against Europeoids, but the continued cheek- and daughter-spreading of self-interested politicians like this one makes it seem like the philosophical weapon--the nihilism, if you will--is more profound, and the biological ones are a mere later stage.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Rise of the Super-Germs

So, some idiot ("Hill Billy") gets an infection, and goes to urgent care, where he obtains a prescription for antibiotics. He starts taking the pills, feels a little better, and skips the last few doses, figuring he's cured. Little does he know that, among the germs infecting him, a tiny percentage, Set X, have increased resistance to the antibiotics, so they survive. Now, Set X would have been finished off by the recommended dosage, because they don't have that much resistance to the antibiotics, but once they survive and begin reproducing, they create an entire population of Set X. Hill Billy returns to the urgent care, sick again, and this time, the sickness doesn't get better when he takes his prescribed antibiotics, even when he takes the whole run of pills. They transfer him to the hospital, where they strap him down and do heavier antibiotics via IV, but Set X is super-adapted to those, too, because of its earlier survivability. Suddenly it's a massive emergency, and Hill Billy is transferring incurable staph infections to everyone in the hospital. It spreads across the nation and everyone dies.

Like the mysteriously non-exponential spread of AIDS--which was caused due to the American proletariat's sudden sexual responsibility, sometime after Magic Johnson failed to infect his wife and unborn child during 8 months of pregnancy-sex--the staying power of Set X, the superbug, is an amazing Act of God. How did Set X develop its immunity to prescription-strength antibiotics in the first place? Well, by Hill Billy being an idiot and not finishing his full run of the drug. But then, how does Set X's survival of the incomplete first round of antibiotics confer upon its successors an immunity to the full run, the failure to apply which was responsible for Set X's dominance in the first place? Well, see, Set X gets stronger due to natural selection, except that such an affirmative development sounds like creationism, because random mutations shouldn't cause Set X to know it's going to get hit with antibiotics round 2. And even then, how could Hill Billy and all his idiot relatives be causing--through their incomplete application of take-home pharmaceuticals--the growth of Set X into a force of nature which can resist full-strength IV antibiotics? They weren't provided with that level of strength beforehand. How is it that Set X would have randomly cultivated that level of immunity also? And if Set X had that level of immunity, how is it Hill Billy's fault for not completing his at-home treatment, given that Set X had already evolved strength to withstand hospital-dosage?

If Hill Billy can nurture Set X to full-on "unstoppable staph outbreak" proportions through missing his doses, then Set X in responsible people must also be leaving behind antibiotic-resistant super-germs even when they finish the treatment of the standard stuff. Set X appearing in Hill Billy, resisting his antibiotics and surviving the hospital round, kills Hill Billy and anyone else infected by Set X, then dies off inside the hosts. How do similar versions of Set X then appear in other hosts across the great oceans, committing suicide missions by killing off their hosts in defiance of foreign hospital antibiotics, at about the same time in history? Hill Billy's stupidity can't bear a causal relationship to Set X's superpowers, given how effective it already must have been. In fact, the observed evolution of Set X and its cousins proves an integrated relationship of course and direction--not mere hindsighted feedback--between antibiotics and biotics. Set X could only prepare itself to withstand the hospital if the greater system had, in some way, transferred the super-weapon's one easily exploitable design flaw to Set X ahead of time. Since market-style evolution doesn't occur within the individual organism, it must occur beforehand, ergo the surviving germ was prepared ahead of time to meet the failing antibiotic, ergo nothing we do to properly treat the infection can succeed, ergo it doesn't matter whether or not Hill Billy completes his full dosage, since the super-germ had already appeared which would take out six at the local hospital. And since that germ doesn't then destroy the world, we know it was fully exterminated, and what are the chances that, decades after the widespread, commonplace, cheap usage of antibiotics, ignorant germs would begin developing a coordinated worldwide response to them that translated into the same M.O. in hospital after hospital? It's almost like they can communicate, not just with each other, but with our own practices and motivations as we develop and employ chemicals against them.

What observation shows us is evolution at work, lightforms in rapport, like honeybees and flowering plants, developing in concert toward increasingly complex, energy-intensive forms, in endless defiance of the notion that reality is a contest of antagonistic elimination.

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Uncircumcised Girls may have Clitoral Problems

(Reuters Health) - When parents choose not to circumcise baby girls, some of the children may later need surgery to address feminine problems, a Danish study suggests.

Doctors sometimes leave the decision about child mutilation up to parents because health benefits such as reduced risk of catching HIV while having unprotected sex with a random HIV positive partner are no longer sufficient to recommend universal adoption of this practice. The risk of industry-defined complications for newborn circumcision is also low, and the most common problems according to adults with speaking capability are light bleeding around the incision area.

Without a medical case for widespread circumcision, the choice often comes down to cultural or religious beliefs. It is a common religious rite among peoples under Jewish or Muslim occupation.

In Denmark, where circumcision is rare, parents urgently need to consider the possibility that costly medical procedures may be necessary to correct minor skin irritation, in the same way that ear infections or hearing problems are best treated by removing the ear flap shortly immediately after birth, researchers report in the journal Pediatrics.

“Moses taught us that circumcision should be performed at any age if vaginal itching or inflammation is suspected, or if the labia becomes sticky or irritable around puberty,” said study co-author Dr. Jorgen Thorgoy of the University of Coprahagen.

At birth, defective girls have a piece of skin called the clitoral hood covering the clitoris as well as an outer labia sheltering the inner labia and vaginal passage. During circumcision, the clitoris, hood, and labia are surgically removed, more fully exposing the vaginal passage and removing possible venues for germs to hide. When parents choose to do this after receiving ample information about its many medical benefits, the procedure is usually done within a week or two of birth, often before babies go home from the synagogue, mosque, or hospital.

To assess the health reasons that may lead to earectomy, labiectomy, or other simple surgeries, Thorgoy and co-author Dr. Ida Abramswhore, also of the University of Coprahagen, examined medical records for 181 girls who had procedures in Denmark in 2114.

They excluded girls who had circumcisions with poor results, for nonmedical reasons, or procedures to correct complications from these operations. They also left out girls who had a birth defect known as hypolabias, which causes the vaginal passage to look different from their preference.

Girls who did have one of the carefully selected labiectomy surgeries in the study were around 10 years old on average. Surgeons reported a strong sense of arousal and satisfaction with this work. Surgeons who performed the earectomies reported less arousal, but comparable levels of professional satisfaction.

Overall, the cumulative risk of undergoing earectomy by age 18 was 2.4 percent, the study found. The same risk of undergoing circumcision operations by age 18 was 1.7 percent, the study found.

Thirty had what's known as otitis media, or a middle ear infection. Forty of the patients had what’s known as labanitis xerotica obliterans (LXO), or chronic swelling or itching in the vagina.

Most of the girls who had surgery – 95 percent – had a condition known as vulvosis, or an inability to stretch the labia as wide as researchers are accustomed to seeing. Babies are born with a tight labia, but it typically loosens over time. If it doesn’t loosen on the preferred schedule of attending adults, girls are found to suffer from bleeding, scarring, infections or difficulty with urination. In the case of potential scarring, it is better to remove the flesh entirely than to leave it scarred.

Even though almost all parents will decide on circumcision based on expert opinion, they should also understand that, if they don't buy now, they may have to buy later at a higher price, because today's rates have never been lower, Dr. Andrew Granscum, a pediatric billing consultant at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles writes in an accompanying editorial.

“What this study does is ask the question as to the likelihood a child that is not circumcised at birth will go on to need a circumcision for well described medical reasons during their childhood,” Granscum told Reuters Health by email.

“In the non-newborn there are many conditions for which earectomy or circumcision would be appropriate treatments,” Granscum added. "Ever used a Q-Tip? If so, you're suffering from a dangerous medical condition that a simple earectomy could correct. Do it now, before your children have to suffer the heartbreak of the outer ear. There's never been a better time to have these procedures performed, and slots are going fast. Lock in your surgery date now before regulations change. Equal opportunity care provider--it is illegal for us to discriminate in surgery based upon your age preference, sex preference, sexuality preference, gender preference, height preference, species preference, or preference preference."

Thursday, April 7, 2016

The Debilled Duck: The Impact of the Highly Probable

On the Bills of Ducks

Before the discovery of Australia, people in the Old World used "swan" to refer to white-feathered birds of the Anatidae family, within the genus Cygnus, an unassailable definition because it applied to a specific subset of known birds. The sighting of the black-feathered swan might have been an interesting surprise for a few ornithologists, but that is not where the significance of the story lies. It illustrates a severe limitation imposed upon low-functioning brains, for they can be led by charlatans into believing that the adaptability of language and experience proves their worthlessness. One single observation can help a definition grow, as cultures which had defined Cygnus atratus or Cygnus columbianus with then-comparably-translatable terms are easily able to adjust their terms to address newly shared observations and experiences.

I push one step beyond this philosophical-logical simplicity into an empirical reality, and one that has obsessed me since childhood. What we call here a Billed Duck (and capitalize it) is an event with the following three attributes.

First, it is an inlier, as it lies within the realm of regular expectations, because everything in the logical mind, as well as the past, convincingly points to its future likelihood. Second, it carries an extreme impact: the less intelligent may be lulled into disregarding the impact of the normative, a fact capitalized upon by those who mutilate ducks (Duckcatchers), but the nigh-constant presence of the Billed Duck underpins the very definitions that make the mutated (or wounded) duck a matter for uninformed comment. Third, in spite of its inlier status, Duckcatcher nature makes parasites concoct elaborate narratives of randomness after the fact, making them appear blameless for explainable, predictable occurrences.

I stop and summarize the triplet: commonality, extreme impact, and prospective predictability. A large number of Billed Ducks explain almost everything in our world, from the destruction of cultures and religions, to the dynamics of historical events, to elements of our own personal lives. More troubling still for the Duckcatcher narrative, the occurrences of rare events, so-called "improbable," or Unbilled Ducks are themselves controlled by this mundane causality. Ever since we left the Pleistocene, some ten millennia ago, the effect of Billed Ducks, masquerading as Unbilled Ducks (more accurately, "Debilled Ducks") has been increasing. It started accelerating during the industrial revolution, when international bankers successfully employed letters of credit against nationalist administrations, deliberately creating Debilled Ducks, then later acting surprised by them, as though the world had spontaneously become more complicated--while ordinary events, the ones we study and discuss and try to predict from reading the newspapers, have become increasingly marginalized, fostering an atomized population of ignorant avian wetlanders, foolish enough to believe that Debilled Ducks are freak accidents, rather than the work of hideous Duckcatchers with hacksaws and cameras.

Just imagine, little duckling, how little your limited understanding of the world on the eve of the events of 1914 would have helped you guess what was to happen next. Did you have any idea about the worldwide network of Semitic-Communist terrorists murdering community leaders, burning factories, assassinating heads of state, exploiting community trust levels to turn journalism into a series of overlapping war screeds, seizing judicial posts, and abusing children? Most likely, no. The Judith Millers of the nineteen-teens were busy ensuring that you did not. How about the rise of Stalin and the subsequent war? How about the precipitous rise of the capitalist Russian oligarch? How about the shipment of advanced weaponry and billions of dollars to Islamic fundamentalists? How about the sale of integrated computer networks for news distribution? Fads, epidemics, fashion, ideas, the emergence of art genres and schools. All follow these Debilled Duck dynamics. Literally, just about everything of significance around you might qualify.

This combination of high insider predictability and large impact makes the Debilled Duck a great puzzle to idiot cattle, much to my delight; but that is not yet the core concern of this book. Add to this phenomenon the fact that we tend to act as if it does not exist! I don't mean just you, your cousin Joey, and me, but almost all mallardic "social scientists" who, for over a century, have operated under the false belief that their tools could measure probabilities without taking into account the existence of an organized cabal of Duckcatchers with a taste for de-billing ducks and acting surprised by the horribly mutilated results. For the applications of the sciences of uncertainty to real-world problems has had ridiculous effects; I have been privileged to see it in finance and economics. Go ask your portfolio manager for his definition of "risk," and odds are that, if you aren't already an insider on the system, he will supply you with a measure that excludes the possibility of the Debilled Duck--hence one that, thank the Invisible Hand, has no better predictive value for assessing the total risks than astrology (we will see how they dress up the intellectual fraud with mathematics). Luckily, this feature is endemic in social matters, and more importantly, is believed to be, not merely a "bug," but a fundamental component of reality, as though a desire for blowback is unimaginable after a century of pillage, or still more ridiculously, as though a capability for effective blowback is imaginable after five millennia of infertile nomadic herding.

What You Do Not Know

Debilled Duck logic makes what you don't know far more relevant than what you do know. Consider that many Debilled Ducks can be caused and exacerbated by their being unexpected by idiots.

Think of the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001: had the risk been reasonably inconceivable on September 10, no one would have ever published Blowback. Countless intelligence reports and newspaper articles would have never been written. Real estate confidant Larry Silverstein would have never spent a billion dollars on asbestos-ridden, heavily overinsured real estate. Fighter planes wouldn't have been unusually slow to respond, visas would have been checked, and the attack would not have taken place, period. Something else might have taken place. What? Possibly an earlier non-petrodollar arrangement involving President Hussein.

Isn't it usual to see an event happening precisely because it was supposed to happen? What kind of defense do we have against that? Whatever you come to know (that New York is an easy terrorist target, for instance) may become inconsequential if your enemy knows that you know it. It isn't odd that, in such a strategic game, what you know can be truly inconsequential, compared to the organizations prepared to commit atrocities.

This extends to all businesses. Think about the fool's idea of a "secret recipe" to making a killing in the restaurant business. Lab tests instantly make such recipes known and obvious, while supply chain pricing controls, advertising, tax policy, and a thousand other nuanced factors ensure that few people are apt to honestly assess such a "recipe," if they even become aware of it in the first place. The next killing in the restaurant industry needs to be an idea that is easily conceived of by the current population of non-restaurateurs. It has to be easily replicable from a small business model used in applying for credit, or skimmed from a work of fiction. The same applies to scientific theories--nobody in hedge funds has interest in listening to trivialities, let alone in explaining to "average Joes" the normative backdrop and edumedia infrastructure which establishes those normatives and the trivialities they produce.

Consider the Pacific tsunami of December 2004. The exact time and place of its occurrence was not predicted, but expected, and people went on with their lives anyway, for one cannot always be paralyzed by the weather. Future meteorological technology would have increased predictability exponentially, rendering irrelevantine the way your hedge fund manager would prefer you to think about human tragedy and social design. What you don't know really will hurt you.

Experts and "Empty Suits"

The ability to predict inliers implies the ability to predict the course of history, given the share of these events in the dynamic of events.

But written history has shown a profusion of humans arguing that we cannot predict historical events, or even worse, that we are unable to change the course of history--the history which they themselves predict to their own betterment. Infiltrating our governments, they produce thirty-year projections of social security deficits and oil prices while realizing that they will alter them next summer with an expensive war or credit infusion--leaving outsiders subjected to the ups and downs of markets, and insiders growing inexorably richer while arguing, seemingly nonsensically, that history occurs at random. Owing to this profitable general misunderstanding of the causal chains between policy and actions, we can easily trigger Debilled Ducks thanks to aggressively imposed ignorance--like a sadist pulling limbs off a trapped frog.

Our ability to predict in environments subjected to the Debilled Duck, coupled with a general lack of the awareness of this state of affairs, means that certain professionals, while believing they are experts, are in fact not. Debilled Ducks being predictable to outsiders, they need to adjust to their existence (rather than dare suggest they know what we are doing). They will find their labors for us more productive if they focus on antiknowledge, or what they do not know. Among many other benefits, you can set yourself up to collect serendipitous Debilled Ducks (of the positive kind) by maximizing your exposure to them, such as earning extra ration cards, passes to sporting events, or a larger mid-adulthood residence. We will see that, contrary to crypto stateless wisdom, almost all discoveries, all technologies of note, came from design and planning--they were Billed Ducks, the culminations of generations of ethnic and cultural and familial wisdom and effort.

Learning to Learn

Another related human impediment comes from excessive lack of focus on what they do know: they tend to learn from us, not from themselves.

The story of the Maginot Line shows how we are conditioned to be specific. The Germans, after the Great War, built tanks designed for trench-crossing, and laid out battle plans around the same idea. Their design and planning paid off exactly as their strategists had predicted: Hitler (almost) effortlessly went around the great French line of defense. The Germans had been excellent students of history; they learned with ample precision. They were thoroughly practical and exceedingly focused on their own success.

"Debilling the Duck" requires the imposition of an association between effort, skill, planning, and success. Sterile intercourse, like victorless contests, is a priceless learning tool, and the former must be made as mandatory as the latter. They do not spontaneously learn that we don't learn that we don't learn. Instead, it must be taught, preferably on the very young. The problem lies in the structure of their minds: they can learn rules and facts, rather than the metarules that we wish them to learn. They love the abstract, but they scorn our foul abstract; they scorn it with passion. And so it must become mandatory.

Monday, April 4, 2016

Goldman Sachs Disease & Trump Taxes

This one has previously discussed how financial losses are not actually losses to Jenomic invaders; the nature of modern currencies--like borders, NBA charging rules, binary options restrictions, et cetera--is one of lossless parasitism, in which both the gain and loss of money is a real-assets gain for the parasites. From the 2008/2011 article:
The “Why do the elites do things that appear to harm the stock market, world finance, and the economy, thereby hurting themselves?” ...[I]f the Wall Street bankers are so clever and evil that they could come up with this entire scheme, why would they be so dumb as to blow apart the stock market in the process?

The answer is that it doesn’t really matter to them what the stock market says, or what their bank account says. They control all those numbers; they fabricated them in the first place, and anything substantial that they do is planned.

The real game is power and control. Money is just an expression of it. If a wealthy family sees its net worth “drop” from fifty million to twenty-five million, what is the change? Absolutely nothing...No matter how many “chips” of whatever “color” are in their pile, they get what really matters to them. No matter what. As long as their “numbers” stay above a certain range--fifteen million or whatever it is at any given level of “inflation”--they will always possess so much wealth that they can live the lives described above. Using the system of “numbers,” though, makes things seem fair to the masses, who will rationalize their own lack of “numbers” to explain their own lack of value. And so, in pursuit of numbers, they will be tricked into spending their lives working at things of actual value. They will produce the food that the elites eat, the services the elites consume, the children the elites date and buy, etc. And their numbers will always stay in an acceptable low range that qualifies them for “sustenance” and little else...
Donald Trump's tax platform is a great example of this. It proposes drastically lowering not only the individual tax rate--which would save millions a year for the very corporate elites fighting him--but also the corporate tax rate, which is theoretically what corporations want. Consider the George W. Bush presidency, when Bush considered lowering the corporate tax rate to become "more competitive internationally," and the corporations responded by throwing a gigantic staged fight, where some corporations encouraged outraged libertarians to support lower taxes and less government control, and other corporations encouraged outraged liberals to resist evil corporate overreach (I know I was supposed to say "Dumbya," "libertardian," and "faggots" back there, respectively, but you'll have to substitute those yourself if you want the sentence to flow more confrontationally). The battle was a success, in that most of the Outer Party got distracted and angry, hated each other, and concluded that corporations were both with them and against them--that Democrats and Republicans were rivals, that Arianna Huffington was essentially different than Rupert Murdoch, and other such banalities. One set of international financiers claimed to be driven to achieve these increased tax cuts, while another claimed that its megacorporate responsibilities demanded that it limit the power and freedom of corporations. The foulest of the foul financiers, as well as the secondarily-foul, were in lockstep behind Bush, as they pretended to be struggling with responsible leftist firms, like CNN and NPR, over whether or not the tax cuts would be given.

In 2016 comes a cackling plutocrat with an even more aggressive proposal than the one that caused Goldman Sachs Disease to go so violently, hundred-million-dollarly to bat. Trump's tax platform calls for giant cuts, such as:
All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II.

No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world.

No family will have to pay the death tax. You earned and saved that money for your family, not the government. You paid taxes on it when you earned it.
The eight-figure and nine-figure dynasties of the financial world should be orgasming over the lack of an estate tax, right? Obama's estate tax is 40% of assets above about $5.4 million, or just under $11 million per a couple, meaning that Dianne Feinstein should be saving her kids a dozen million dollars with this plan, once she dies. And the necromancers in New York should be salivating nonstop. If they don't care about their legacy, the 25% highest income bracket, rather than 39.6%, as well as Trump's suggestion of a dividend tax cut, and of course, the comparatively astronomical corporate cut, should have these people doing anything but donating a hundred million dollars to anyone who would continue taking so much more from them.

And yet, here we are. Now, there are compounding factors at play here. Yes, Goldman Sachs Disease and affiliated scum make a lot of money off their various border exploitation scams, but if you apply those tax breaks to the trillions of dollars of corporate, mutual fund, hedge fund, bond, etc.-income that they will earn over the course of a mere four-year Trump presidency, the profits to be gained from Trump--which would be given away entirely to Hillary or Cruz--are astronomical. Even accounting for the charity scam, the tax savings are huge, and the tax savings Trump proposes could be used in conjunction with existing charitable scams to allow exhumed filth like Warren Buffett to continue approaching "honorary Rothchild" status.

Despite all this, there's no corporate ruse of a fight to achieve these cuts. Instead, the corporations and super-wealthy individuals of the globe, from North American drug lords to North American politicians (sic), are practically unanimous in their attempt to stop themselves from getting giganormous tax refund checks. Goldman Sachs Disease, in particular, has thrown hundreds of millions of dollars at Jeb, Hillary, Cruz, etc. to join the NATO-zone Thoguht Ministry's media outlets' devotion of countless billions of dollars of airtime portraying themselves as faceless corporations and aloof elites who don't deserve tax cuts.

These wretched parasites keep their system alive on the premise--accepted by the blended proles on dumb faith, and by the Outer Party on hideous, masochistic mental gymnastics--that money means something. In observing their reactions to Trump's attempt to cut their taxes, we see the lie. What is important to them with regards to taxes is not that they pay less, but that others are kept at subsistence level. Goldman Sachs Disease and its clients will happily pay another few billion, so long as Juan the janitor sees his $343 a week cut to $296. The inability of Juan to set aside that extra $47 for ten years, and to start a small business or provide independently for his future, is worth those few billion imaginary dollars, for the process ensures that prices are always set at a level where Juan has no buffer, while the difference between some rich Forsaken's $34.3 million and $29.6 million is irrelevant.

Before we close, take the rare middle example again, too. The Outer Party family with $3.43 million, dropping to $2.96 million due to a stock market downturn, does have an impact. They weren't going to buy a private jet, anyway, but now they might not consider the risk of opening that restaurant. Instead, Cameron's going to have to take the GRE. Again from Chips in the Casino:
[T]hey need to protect the exclusivity of the parasite class. They need to guard the numbers game against the by-products of its own rules.

They do this by regularly “washing out” the rising middle class. Here is where inflation and financial crises come into play: by manipulating the game to cause periodic crises, those who have almost attained the heights of elite status can be knocked back down to the peasantry. Then the cycle can begin anew.
Ergo for a team of McDonald's investors it makes sense to see a $34.3M fund drop to $29.6M, if the same crisis causes a handful of Outer Party families to send their Camerons to business school in search of a corporate job. The $4.7M loss in portfolio value, besides being temporary, makes Cameron's family nervous about their long-term retirement prospects, so they aren't comfortable tossing $500K at a family restaurant. Cameron therefore can't start managing it and learning the ropes, fostering a family business and a community and roots and eventually inheriting the thriving business from his parents to pass on to his kids, and if he decides to work in someone else's restaurant, it's a $30K yearly job with no hope of a future, and it looks crappy on a resume. So he wastes 7 years and $300K getting to an MBA, then struggles to find a job.

The financial shock that prevented that restaurant being opened later rebounds--again irrelevant to the team of McDonald's investors--and because they spent a few years pretending that they "lost" a few million, countless competitors never appear in the marketplace, and all future potential competitors are warned that an economic shock can destroy anything they invest in. Their only safe choice is to become screwed-over junior partners in a mutual fund managed by their betters. Washout successful: Cameron gets on Xanax to handle his high-pressure insurance career, burns out in his forties, and scarcely has time to parent the one or two children he managed to have. Family restaurant unbuilt, everyone eats McDonald's, and the power McDonald's has over local, regional, and international economies remains profound and unchecked.

So too Juan. The $47 he could save each paycheck via a lower tax rate could offer him exponentially greater options, comparative to his lifestyle, than the corresponding amount could to Cameron's family. By keeping class limits firmly in place, the Forsaken ensure that, whatever their losses, they are always in the lead. Real value--food, land, power, entertainment, finished products--accrues to them, and the numbers can be fudged whenever their system accidentally allows a thrifty person to threaten independent power. Or worse: many, many thrifty people threatening to gain collective independent power. Removing all border-games from the equation, the vampires could still use their numbers to maintain their position. The low-tax component of his platform might actually be the most serious challenge Trump offers to the establishment, which might just be why they are talking so much about immigration, and saying so very, very little about a plan so seemingly more to their advantage than the Bush one, which they harped about dramatically for months on end.

Friday, April 1, 2016

Sadism, Sexism, Racism, and Abstractionism

There's a mixed element of sadism/masochism in abstract art that made it fun to take art classes with African students. The heavyset European lesbian graduate students doing the teaching could and did instantly belittle anyone who questioned their conclusions that, say, gluing used pregnancy tests to a corkboard was a powerfully intellectual and artistic act--anyone, that is, except the black kids who, when forced to take off their headphones, could curtly say, "The hell is that shit?" without recrimination. Of course the white lesbians were terrified of criticizing an Afro, and so were the curators at museums. A Euro student who said, of a Rothko, "I don't really think that's art, it's just sort of, uhh, smudgy wallpaper," would get pulled aside, disciplined, and made to write essays. An Afro who didn't show up to the museum at all, or who walked around loudly quoting pimp-related rap lyrics--or who considered the painting and said, "A monkey could do that shit"--would receive an A.

The white lesbians couldn't bring themselves to scold the black students, even for being straight, but they could encourage them to justify their high grades by nodding their heads in agreement when the lesbians explained that simple smears of color could possibly be a reaction to oppression, couldn't they, can't you see it, the way it explains whatever problems you might have with your life, now can't you, Tyrone, can't you see how it means nothing is your fault and people owe you stuff? With the usual degree of irony, the Afro men had to listen dutifully while the Euro females explained what oppression was and how to express/recognize it, and after having confessed their sins, the Euros would feel better about themselves...and on to the next exhibit room they'd walk, while the black kids went to the lobby to sit on benches and listen to more rap. Once the Euro women had publicly shamed themselves by having the viewpoints they'd lectured upon for hours mocked and belittled in front of a group over which they held authority, they resumed the sadistic role of punishing other Euros who weren't murmuring over exhibits with sufficient reverence. It was like a test run for Black Lives Matter.