Thursday, June 30, 2016

Palestine as Unification

Palestine should be the Occident's first outside partner in removing invaders from Occidental territories--not because the Palestinians, or Islam, are necessarily moral, but because the realpolitik of saving the Palestinians from genocide could inspire Arab communities worldwide to go home and save their kin and religion from not only Israel, but Saudi Arabia. The toppling of the two most visible heads of parasitism, who've been cooperatively fleecing the rest of the world while charging rent for their rebuilt cathedral and moon rock, respectively, could be accomplished in a crushing mass of righteous Arabs on their home turf.

Even more importantly, the morality of saving Palestine from Israel could be the balm that helps hundreds of millions of Euros finally crack through their conditioning. It's the perfect exploit of the invertedly hypocritical western schooling forced upon them, which taught that there were no races but that brown races were the best, and that there were no sexes but women were the best, that there were no religions but Muslims get special privileges, and that there are no fixed sexual identities but that gay is the best, because Israel is so openly whiter, more patriarchal, punishes Islam and bans gay marriage.

This could, so honestly and genuinely, be the greatest unification the Occident has ever seen. If you're seeking social justice, Israel and Saudi Arabia are the worst places on Earth. Similarly, if you're seeking nationalism, Israel and Saudi Arabia are also the worst places on Earth. From a nationalist perspective, Israel's nationalism is an abominable parasitic falsity based upon a deracinated sub-blend of partially Khazarian, partially Mongoloid rapespawn, and its aping of the routines of a nation via a wall and DNA tests is not merely laughable, but conjoined to the reason it cannot exist without constant subsidization from every other race from which it stole the pieces of its zombie self. And from a post-racial SJW perspective, Israel is a homophobic patriarchal hell where Jim Crow laws are exceeded in every degree, and nearly all non-disabled citizens have served proudly in KKK darky-lynching squads. Israel is even heavily into GMOs, destroys local farms and co-ops, and has many other facets that should make it the number one enemy of SJWs (aside from the endless piles of dead people of color), as well as of proud racists and traditionalists (who are aware that Israel's agents have been working to destroy and/or replace all northeast Asian & western European communities since before 1948, but at least since 1965).

This is the pivotal issue that can unite the rest of the decent world. For those who see, it should be a given, but even for those who do not see, the necessary flaw in their educational curricula--their need to portray segregation and lynching as ultimately evil--mandates busing Palestinian children into Jewish schools at gunpoint, integrating the armed forces, permitting interfaith gay marriage, welfaring Palestinians into having more kids, and setting up a century or two of affirmative action that excludes high-scoring Jews from Israeli universities and Israeli jobs in favor of underprivileged Palestinian scholars.

For the nationalist, this is not only a practical tactic, but a moral one. Absent the work of (((Moses))) and (((ISIS))) and the (((House of Saud))) and the (((CIA))), Muhammad and the Qur'an would have never occurred, and the great drive to crush the Occident never have happened. It's certainly possible that, in a non-echoing alternate history of the world, there would have been a lot of tension between Europeoids and the blended Semitics of fallen Egypt and Byzantine, but absent the influence of the Torah and Qur'an, it's highly unlikely it would have been anything like this. The explosion of violence against Europe that happened after yet another Semitic rewrite of the Torah could have been entirely eliminated in favor of a bunch of bedouin raiding intertribally rather than unifying under a Chosen icon. The adherents of that new religion, like their predecessors the pagan-slaughterers (who were also sent into Europe by the fiscally Chosen at Nicaea, breaking up local communities and replacing them with so many inbred kings, who had plenty of internationalist financial advisers in tow), are certainly to blame for what they've done then and since. The practical nationalist can also recognize that Islam, absent Chosen-mandated support from the Occident, would probably collapse, for Islam has never been tested in an environment where it wasn't being constantly enriched by Jewish support. The last several American presidents well exemplify this trend, with Reagan and Bush arming & funding the mujahideen to fight the Soviets--a brazenly obvious setup for post-Cold-War profit, just as Reagan & Bush's work in South America spurred the immigration that Clinton would turn into NAFTA to invade California et. al.--and Clinton arming & funding the nascent Taliban, and Bush II arming & funding al Qaeda in order to fight al Qaeda, and Obama arming & funding ISIS to overthrow Syria, et cetera. We can follow this trend into the distant past, to the great Jewish Ottoman viziers financing rape-raids deep into Europe, to Muhammad's mysterious ability to network across large distances and turn a small Jewish-based creed into Islam. Perhaps someday Islam will have to be removed, but it's highly probable that, absent the support of its wealthy and well-armed patrons, it would either become as watered-down as the Pope kissing Muslims' feet, or simply turn to so much infighting that it never bothers anyone else again.

In either future case--removal or drifting away--the instant issue of Palestine, and its potential for use as a unifying issue between Occidentals who've seen past their mandatory education and Occidentals who haven't, should be recognized.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Trump as Fellow Traveler or Useful Idiot (Updated)

Updated: this issue can be approached from both a "believes in race" and "doesn't believe in race" angle. This post more closely adheres to the "believes in race" angle. The great thing about Jewish policy, though, is that, from the pro-diversity perspective, it can be unpacked for intersectional analysis using critical race theory. Accordingly, to that end, I've appended the following video of Jews "removing kebab," as they call it:

If you previously had any difficulty understanding the manner in which global Israeli policy affects impoverished people of color, the video should help assist you better consider the points made in the post below.

In Hollow Scarecrows and Trump is Hitler, we explored the possibility that Trump could be either a Shabbos Goy or a Manchurian Candidate. Like Hitler, Trump is resisted by a vocal majority of Jews while assisted by a minority of very hard-working Jews, both of whom use the exact same reasons to oppose or support him, and both of whom, critically (as always), use highly-charged racial and ethnic arguments to either support or deny, against all parties supporting or resisting Trump except other Jews.

Jews who support Trump, for example, laud his supposedly Israel-style plan for a border wall, no Iran deal, and harsh anti-immigration measures, while never mentioning the specifically Jewish nature of the past one hundred years of relaxing immigration policy in order to achieve the state of affairs where Trump seems like a radical nationalist (when in actuality his immigration positions would have made him, in 1964, an extreme leftist). The occasional shot against someone highly publicized, like George Soros, is permitted, but never identifying George Soros for acting as a Jew, or noting that George Soros' policies of destroying Europe and America are merely the modern day continuation of a century of similar policies, which at inception and throughout and right now enjoy heavy majority Jewish support.

In less public fora, these Jews are not merely hypocritical, but openly and proudly racist, connecting themselves to "human biodiversity" websites and promoting themselves as wise, helpful, understanding partners in the drive to protect Europe and America from Islamic or Aztec crime. Addressing current and historical immigration policy and politics in America and Europe without addressing the original initiators of change, the consistent yearly funders of change, and the vast international cultural coordination of opening boarders, alongside the equally consistent and equally massive hypocrisy of the Jews--who want DNA testing and F-35s in Israel/Palestine, and barbed wire and machine guns in Mexico/Guatemala, but flowers and amnesty in U.S./Mexico--is telling. It suggests that the Jews who are now cozying up to white nationalism are not actually believers in ethnic nationalism anymore than they were when they worked with the German NSDAP to establish both a German homeland in Germany and a Zionist homeland in Palestine; rather, they are pitting different outside racial groups against one another for the ultimate benefit of only one racial group: Jews.

Like other violent Jewish projects of the twenty-first century--the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq through U.N. proxies, or the mandatory tolerance for rapists--it is mind-bogglingly ridiculous to claim that America building a wall on the U.S./Mexico border is akin to Israel building a wall to keep Palestinians out, or that America ceasing birthright citizenship means that America and Israel are natural allies. It's unbelievably, atrociously, Big-Lie-style ridiculous to suggest that, by resisting Jewish Somali-resettlement programs together, Jewish nationalists and white nationalists have become allies.

...and yet, it's working. The E.U. and the U.N., which have condoned and supported Israel's mass murder of the Palestinians since 1948--so enthusiastically as to arm Israel with nuclear bombs and send billions upon billions of dollars of the most advanced aid to Israel year after year after year after disbelievingly impossible year--are now being considered "anti-Jewish" by one side of Jewish political operatives, for the crime of timidly permitting some very minor citizen-driven campaigns to buy non-Israeli products. The U.N. and the E.U. are, of course, notoriously Jewish, having leveraged member nations' armies to destroy numerous enemies of Israel without compensation, and having issued binding resolutions to sanction or punish Israel's enemies, while taking decades to begin issuing only the most minor of non-binding, non-punitive, weak-willed double-hedged requests that Israel exterminate the Palestinians a tiny bit slower.

Amazingly, it's working. It's working like Colin Powell's "yellowcake" speech to the U.N. worked on a bunch of people who claimed to be against colonialism. The anti-television, anti-NYT, anti-Hollywood, anti-Israel (sic) component of European and (White) American nationalism are, in large part, getting so flattered and impressed by suggestions of Jewish support that they're allying with Israel. White nationalists are blushing and giggling at the thought that Jews might use their positions in the media to vocally support African crime statistics, the identification of Islamic terrorism, et cetera, and in return--that quickly and easily, like pocketing thirty pieces of silver--racist Jews are being considered allies and supporters of emerging European nationalisms. Some of these Jews are cheering on #Brexit like it's their victory, and advocating for the expulsion of Muslims or the purging of black immigrants to Europe--positions that, whatever their merit, are only issues in Europe because of Jewish influence. If you don't believe that people act with group interests in mind, that's of no concern to you, and there's no connection there. For the new nationalists, though, all of the science they claim to support, and all of the policy positions they claim to believe in, are about how successful peoples do act in the interest of their group. Ergo it is indicative of Henry Ford's old prediction that Gentiles are simply not able to play this game as well as Jews.

Whoever wins this battle--emergent nationalism or bankster globalism--Jews will win. Like the wars of latter-century Europe, Jews have a long history of support for each side, which will ensure that either a walled-in, tariffed, Trumpian America, or a wide-open, bleeding, Clintonian North Brazil, will be a welcoming home to the Jewish community, even though it will not and will never be a welcoming home to either White Nationalists or Blacks & Muslims. Many parties will lose in this upcoming game, but one special party--the reason for holding the game in the first place--will not lose, because it is both globalist and nationalist, racist and racially blind, an ethnicity and not an ethnicity, a religion and not a religion, a poor wandering traveler and a soiled traditionalist, a pitiable victim and an authoritative militarist.

Friday, June 24, 2016

I Wish I Could Use Magic--the Potter Period in Occidental History, Part 1

There is a deep and abiding connection between Harry Potter and modern governmental structures. Heavily saturating electronic media to nearly professional sportsball levels--most noticeably in Huffington Post, but drenchingly elsewhere also--the Harry Potter narrative goes well beyond the traditional panem et circenses, attaining heights more tantamount to sequential Mohammed Attas or Games of Thrones than to Yet Another World Cup. Its seamless integration from childhood mindscripting to adulthood infotainment is like the transition from vaccines to boosters to regular checkups to long-term care insurance in the loving hands of benevolent government; later Terran scholars will be able to more fully chart the course of the internationally coordinated media positioning that not only popularized the initial normative-inducing product, but ensured that the product would remain a lastingly relevant thought guidance system once its audience believed itself to have graduated childhood and moved on to higher things. After the infection of Europe cum America, the successive celebritization of the inbred traitor-royals, followed by that of the infested media royals, and then the media franchises themselves, the Potter process would mark the first time that all spectra of the creative process itself would be celebritized. It is through Potter that the soulless branding of the superhero franchise extended, becoming a brand not only of the story and its name, not only of the characters in the story, not only of the creator of the story and the fandom of the story, but of the entire integrated process of selecting, fabricating, promoting, adapting, filming, viewing, buying, merchandising, aging-along-with, sharing reflection with, and active and ongoing collaboration with selective world events and political participation.

The politicization, both self- and mass-, of the artist is nothing new, to be sure. Dostoevsky was not furtive about his excoriation of malignant pustules like Rowling in his Demons, and he and his contemporaries shared, to some extent, a dialogue about the destruction of land, blood, and spirit, which, as Khan and Yellen and Rowling show us, continues unheeded to this day. It is not wholly the pithy "real-time" nature of "the internet" or "FaceBerg" that distinguishes this process as new or remarkable, nor is it entirely the infantilization of artist and audience, which makes Potter unique. All of these things have been, and are, present to some degree in not only the mass infotainment phenomena of today, but of yesteryear. Rather, the standout feature of Potter is the same that marks political modernization in many other aspects today: the Mephistophelesian, trans-hostian nature of the relationship between Potter and its audience.

Dostoevsky might curse invading nihilists and the weak-willed Slavs who succumb to them, and Goethe might epitomize the flaws of Germany in a determined researcher, yet in each case, be it through Myshkin or Gretchen, the artist pays homage to an inherent goodness of blood and spirit upon which the story of downfall can be, like so many merchants, successfully hosted and given life. Potter discards any of this as worthless, finding value only in the manner of behavior of the Peoples Temple's preferred path to salvation: quietly dying in penultimate shame for having existed. To Rowling, the nihilists have become the unabashed protagonists, for in the world of Potter, Pyotr Verkhovensky's vision is the heroic ideal.

Rowling was the perfect medium to employ in such a venture: an adequately functional one, but more importantly, self-obsessed to the point of avoiding the necessity of doublethink by being able to genuinely believe in her own responsibility for her fate--she was a living failure, surviving on the government dole, with few-to-zero filial and social ties. The perfect subject for either a tragic or heroic example from the hand of mass media directors: if male, she could've been tapped for a lone-wolf perpetrator; if female, victim; if she had been a more coherent unscripted speaker, she could've been one of those random corporate board members who comes out of nowhere to grace the pages of Forbes. Luckily, she wasn't that dynamically bright, so she ended up much wealthier. It's likely that she structured the plot and dialogue of all of her novels, with only a bit of editorial input as to plot foundation and message. Her penchant for seeking reassurance from the editors, directors, screenwriters, and actors portraying her characters is well-known, as she attempted to feel part of a creative process that she could understand only by interacting with others; as she made herself believe in the role by playing it to excess.

One thing we must take away from the Potter Period is that the necessity of "group work" and "team building" in modern pedagogy is not only to permit the middle- and low-functioning to be carried along by the high-, but to encourage the low- and middle-functioning to believe that they are not being carried. For hundreds of thousands of reasons, it is important that Transactional, Physical, Spiritual, and Performance celebrities believe that they are responsible for their own success. Everyone can't be a member of the Skull and Bones, but you can't have a bunch of people turning on their deathbed and admitting that they were paid to pretend. Their limited intellects often attempt to do this--ergo that now-ancient trope of the awards ceremony, the tearful confession of all the people an artist wants to thank for their "role" in the artist's success; all the people without whom it "couldn't have been done," including not merely God and Mommy, but "my producer" and other such telling revelations--but the artist herself is not able to appreciate that she really didn't do it. Accordingly, the Potter Period is characterized by unaware operatives like Julia Roberts or Halle Berry or George W. Bush, who believe they are rarely talented actors rather than attractive-enough figureheads with the right backgrounds, who can be painstakingly coached through wooden performances by a prodigious team of support staff.

The precise nature of any of the nine-hundred-page blends of riddles and pre-/intra-pubescent adventure that coat Rowling's decreed message is unimportant, making public faces delightfully interchangeable in front of the shallowest of readers. Rowling has indicated that she always knew that the books would end by repeating themselves, with the protagonists' children attending Hogwarts, but that appended epilogue is, like the rest of her contributions to the work, the fan-fiction that dresses up the more important aspects of structure, which she did not herself create. Rowling is the less-intelligent, less-insightful answer to Stepan Verkhovensky: able to repeat shallow forms of things she's been taught, but unable to fully enunciate their philosophy, nor to do more than direct group laughter or pity after the currents of fashion. How unfortunate to think that, after Mephistopheles won the day, he subcontracted the task of justifying himself to those far less verbally skilled! What a conceit we had those centuries past, to fancy that the devil might argue the great questions with us directly. But no, even his customer service is screened behind interactive recordings!

This one wonders what Goethe would make of the sad reality wherein the fundamental debates of existence are passé to the very Father of Lies. Nonetheless, in the present, we see "Rowling's" answer--rather, like an American president's answers, the handlers' answers (or, more dizzyingly yet, the answers given by the silent partners who speak to the silent partners who speak to the public partners who give directions to the managers who manage the handlers)--to this pitiable existential conundrum: Harry Potter was selected to destroy Europe. There is plenty that must be said about its Chosen (sic) successors--Twilight, aimed at the teenage tingles of Potter-conditioned readers, followed by 50 Shades of Grey, the concession to both the legal adulthood and the repressedly miserable virtual spinsterhood of the joint halves of Potter's readership, followed by the "must act like an adult now" Game of Thrones (Yahweh only knows what horrors await us when the original Potter-readers reach retirement age and want a retrospective, youth-demeaning swords & sorcery product)--but, for now, let us return focus to Potter.

To understand the nature of Potter's attack on Europe (and the world at large, but stick with Europe for purposes of discussion), we must consider the way Rowling's (for simplicity's sake, we'll stop air-quoting her name and referring to her handlers' handlers' handlers from here on out; we'll also not italicize Potter, referring to the Potter Period rather than the series' title) work developed from the first book to the last. In keeping with the Potter Period's traits of the celebritization and generalization of the crafting process, we'll tie in, also, Rowling's pre-Potter and post-Potter service to her handlers. A verbal graph of the rate of change, and type of change, which we'll see throughout this process, will reveal to us what Rowling initially believed, and how Rowling's contact with her handlers changed that belief. Her (same disclaimer: no air-quotes around "her" or other possessives or allusions of responsibility, which are henceforth deemed to include all parties involved in the Potter product) craftwork is distinguished from other human works in that it was created as a malleable expression of extemporaneous desire, rather than an artistic statement, and her ongoing involvement with it is meant to make "it"--not only it itself, but the phenomenon caused for and caused by and generated by and generated for it--something that not only can, but must, mean anything it is meant to mean at the time it is cited. Ironically, Potter itself is rather a Mirror of Erised--a creation that, like Rowling's amazingly WASPy, male-dominated original cast of professors and, more importantly, chauvi-WASPy fictionally-historic figures--reveals the endless flexibility and, ultimately, falsity and meaninglessness of her work. Because it was created without the ability to stand alone, and constantly reconfigured whenever social convenience deemed it necessary, Potter has become a wreck in the style of a post-Talmudic Judea or post-Nicean Christianity, where so many ultimately authoritative sources have internally conflicted with the muddled and re-presented source materials that it takes a constant exercise in faith (and attention-paying) to know what is right to believe at what time. Since Rowling is God of Potter, her continued presence in recasting the kraftwerk to satisfy ego and handlers makes, for believers, the original text impossible to translate without the benefit of her input, like when Muhammad issued new revelations about his share of booty from any given battle.

Part 2

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Anecdotal Muddle, Part 2

In Anecdotal Muddle we discussed the ability of westerners--not just "liberals," so much as "white people in general"--to dismiss the mass murder of children as less important than whatever idiotic Game-of-Thronesian television event they thought was important at the time. As I said then:
Yeah, McCain bad, but Obama is complicit in an international murder cartel and it's so very immoral and personally damaging and wrong to support anything like that.
What I didn't include in that post was one of the rejoinders I offered to the Obama/Hillary people at the time. Aware of their penchant for being anti-racist, I would say, "You know, if Obama had voted to drone-bomb white children in Ohio, instead of little Arabs in Pakistan, then you'd finally react." To that, they'd get a little weird and cagey. You could tell there was something strange there--some recognition on their part that, if Obama combated Crip terrorism by blowing up a black church, rather than combating Muslim terrorism by blowing up an Arab mosque, they would react differently.

But it turns out I was wrong. I was completely, totally wrong. The rape epidemics and mass child sex-slavery rings in western Europe are still an ocean away, so the American dismissal of that could still be written off as due to distance. But my wrongness was not confined merely to distance; it turns out that all the American SWPLs I had challenged have actually proven themselves just as carefree about the brutalization of white American children, not an ocean away, as they were/are about Afghani children. As the invader rape epidemic sweeps the U.S. itself, those people still don't care.

My mistake here was not remembering the Reagan years. When Reagan was building up black gang power in American inner cities by setting up cocaine networks to finance his various secret operations in South America, he encountered situations where the mestizo side of his operation were gang-raping and murdering white Christian nuns. Frighteningly young and unbelievably old, these little girls and Christian seniors, completely European-blooded, were getting broken broom handles and disease-laced cocks shoved up their vaginas by sub-Mayan jungle thugs who pretended to be "anti-communist" in order to be supplied with cash and booze and M-16s and CIA supply-drops. A continent away, if not an ocean, but American conservatives didn't care, anymore than American liberals now care if the same thing is happening to little girls in California. All the SWPLs hated Reagan and Oliver North, but then they voted for Clinton, who--in a precursor to "bomb the Somalis, then invite the Somalis to rape us" fashion, used NAFTA to release Reagan's armed jungle rapists on the women of California.

Holding Patterns and Colonialism

Anonymous writes of an acquaintance saying:
I'm all for accepting refugees. But they must consent to adopt the culture of their new home - this will make their upward trajectory in the new society that much easier to navigate, and make them contributing members of the society that much faster. I am a great example of that.
This is a triptychially racist statement, highly indicative of transmodernity, combining as it does traditionalist elements from the three planets' offspring into one vulgar blur. "I am a great example of that" is Negroid, "consent to adopt the culture of their new home" is Mongoloid, and "upward trajectory in the new society" is Europeoid. An old-fashioned racist from, say, the 1600s, released from a successful time-machine voyage to the year 2016, would be able to easily pick out those combinations of character-based posturing, while an older-fashioned traveler from, say, the pre-Jenomic years, released from the time machine at the same time, would be easily able to point at the statement and say, "There's the Aphran collective will, the Maran drive forward, and the young Terran self-absorption. Put them all on the same place and they're still themselves."

The dominant normative frame of the presentation is modern Europeoid, in the sense that the memetic infection of the Yaldabaoth/YHWH, superimposing itself over European paganism, blinded Europe to all powers save its own willpower, making it equally vulnerable to external and internal colonization over the next several thousand years. The fatal flaw of the perspective is not merely narcissism, which occurs in such doses around here now that it's almost pointless to comment on it; we might as well say "2016" or "air," rather than pausing each time to add, "which includes narcissism," or "which includes oxygen," respectively. No, the fatal flaw is not merely narcissism, but the combination of narcissism with solipsism--again, a nearly omnipresent ingredient of the 2016 Terran climate--which produces the centrally dangerous belief, "Everyone is really like me."

This is the Europeoid's arrogance and naïveté expressing itself as Yaldabaoth would prefer it. The willpower itself can't be removed, but it can be harnessed, ridden to centuries of colonialism (outward-focused overdrive) and centuries of suicide (inward-focused drive). The great sin of Europeoids since whenever, as extremely well documented by their successor-counterparts, was racism, but not racism as we now know it. Colonialism, manifest destiny, acceptance and employment of slave-trading practices, missionary work, genocide: all predicated on the belief that, either, "Everyone is like us and can be made, through sufficient effort, to be like us," or, "We are so strong and marvelous that we can adopt any system and make it work for ourselves in our way."

This one presumes that we all know enough about "racism" by now, right? Again, colonialism, slaves, et cetera. The principles from the end of the latter paragraph exemplify this, writing the lengthy tale of arrogant Europeoid failures: the small-scale heritage- and battle-based Europeoid slaveries, characterized by versions of moral obligation (however immoral they may have actually been), were discarded in favor of the Semitic mass trading slaveries, characterized not by moral obligation but by the assumption of profit obligation. The Europeoid thinks, "Look what they're doing, surely I am so cool and amazing and incredible that I can make it work for me, too," or, "Look what they're doing, surely this can be a means by which I educate and uplift until they can be like me," and becomes privy to, and responsible for, centuries of horror. Colonialism, too: "Look what they're doing, surely I am so cool and amazing and incredible that I can make it work for me, too," or, "Look what they're doing, surely this can be a means by which I educate and uplift until they can be like me." Europeoids earn no bonus points for having been so dumb that they assumed it would all work out nicely; their sins are well-known.

That tired old refrain returns again, though, in the hands of our contemporary Europeoids. In fact, it never left. Eased through the gears by a Jenomic will with a manual transmission, Europeoids now look upon the world as they have since impact, approaching problems of cultural and genetic difference with the underlying assumption that everyone is like them. It is another layer of boring irony; it is the same arrogance as colonialism and traditional racism. Regard any exhibit from the circus of the now and apply that old Europeoid refrain. Transsex, Muslim rapefugee (Ashkenazi people-smuggler), Aztec invasion (Sephardic people-smuggler), pro-pedo articles, free lunches, IQ scores: "Look what they're doing, surely I am so cool and amazing and incredible that I can make it work for me, too," or, "Look what they're doing, surely this can be a means by which I educate and uplift until they can be like me."

So many of us, in our desire to resist the bullshit of 2016, attempt to return to the past. "Our ancestors understood that, when dindus or kebabs were allowed access to unescorted white women, there would be a rape epidemic, and no amount of instruction or hand-wringing would change it." Indeed some of them did feel that way, but even so, they lived in a time where the wealth of nations was being spent sending mountains of blood and treasure to foreign lands to instill Christianity and produce future interchangeable laborers. Any government agreement with their attitudes at the time was as dishonest and as invalid as any current government pretension of agreement about the rights of the individual. Yesterdays racists were, like today's social justice warriors, partially correct about a few cherry-picked pieces of history, but they were likewise being employed in the service of the same colonial aim. Heralding the writings of old-timey conservatives as being "race realist" is all well and good, but those principles weren't being played out by those societies as a whole. The era of colonialism, both without and within, is still going on, and like always, the Dutch East India Company is not being funded by healthy families, and those disgusting, infested, Anglo-like monstrosities serving society's ideology are on the same mission as the orcs.

Later histories will be able to regard Cameron, Obama, or Merkel as being essentially contemporaries of Phillip II, Francis I, Mary I, or Isabella, from that dark and blurry period between 0 and 7800, J.E. Clinton, Castile, what's the big difference? There might perhaps be a sub-unit specifying the identity-denying nature of both plantation colonialism and internal resettlement colonialism, with study questions asking the student to consider why the Europeoids were so horribly arrogant and ignorant as to think that they could or would or should force the Negroids to adopt their culture and their maths and their social patterns, replete with pictures of an army of conquistadores leading Hillary into the valley...and a little girl will raise her hand, and say, "It's cause they're infected," and the teacher will say, "It was because they were infected, and yes, Miss Jones, everyone knows that from last cycle, but what we're trying to do in this cycle is understand, in a bigger way, how the infection interacted with what was already there, and what it tells us about ourselves that it happened the way it did down there."

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Trump is Hitler

Everything seems to be going well, in the sense that everything seems to be going terribly, in the sense that the Taqiyyabama boiled the frog too swiftly and may potentially induce a desperate jump. Retrospectively, though--and considering our adversary--doesn't it all seem a little too predictable? The brownshirts can be called into service to protect meetings from communist attacks and imported rapes, an unstifled national economy can restore the blessing of life to children and develop marvelous new technologies, and even after decades of horrible occupation and centuries of pointless war, the march to freedom can unleash the intrinsic power of a species and take on nearly the whole world.

Hitler and the NSDAP were Zionists in the sense that they wanted to remove the Jews to Palestine, for which they were suitably rewarded, not only by the retrospective crafting of historical narratives, but by the coordination and mobilization of truly ridiculous, inconceivably and unknowingly conjoined allies fighting under the banner of the Nihilist Bank. Any practical attempt at restricting the Bank's ability to crush Terran labor, initiative, and freedom, must take into account the undeniably marvelous, necessarily foreseen nature of Hitler's rise to power: namely, what will be used to destroy the Bank's enemies in a conflagration that will justify another wasted century of frenzied trading? Knowing Russians, knowing Americans, knowing the British; knowing Chamberlain, knowing Roosevelt, knowing Stalin: it was possible, but laughably fantastical, to predict the kind of peace-resisting invasion force the Bank would not only cobble together, but coordinate such to spread NATO and the Warsaw Pact over the globe for nearly half a century.

A thousand years of merchant-nurtured jihad did not topple the resistance, for even the inbred crypto royals, with their pallid faces and weak chins and broken minds, were unable to crush all the petty barons and counts; the bonds of Europe continued producing inventions, even ideological ones, crippling the power of their own kings and churches when they began to perceive the suggestions of infiltration. Fitzwalter and Luther probably believed they were taking ideological stands, rather than genetic ones, when they demanded their political and religious reformations--they looked to honorable rules of logic to protect them from the whimsies of kleinen Karl Alexanders, perhaps never seeing the Oppenheimer behind the curtain or inside the mitochondria.

Presume Trump closes the border, and that he does so not because Israel needs to keep the money flowing, but because he actually cares. The Bank will deal with him, as it dealt with Hussein, Kennedy, and so many others who have attempted to develop alternative means of exchange. Presume, though, that he is well protected, and that Canada and Mexico are too weak to begin massing T-26s at the Polish northern or southern borders.

Who, then, will be the hammer? Who will provide the chattel manpower to shatter the walls of tariff and community, choice and independence, and the potential for serious space travel and developing entirely resistant colony strains that might later wholly liberate Terra? Who will ensure that colonists on Mara never find evidence of the original attack; of the original source of infection?

Will it be China? Russia? Russia would, of course, be infinitely preferable to the Bank. Will Putin be quietly overthrown and made into the next century's Chamberlain, butt of endless VR sitcom jokes, his name associated with the flagrant idiocy of peace and freedom? Or will Putin's rapport with Trump prove to be Rooseveltian, dare I say, Wilsonian posturing, designed at the behest of his patrons to ensure another eighty million bodies when Putin is reluctantly forced to assist China?

The seeming quality of the immune response here is positive, in a way, but we must accept that this has no doubt been foreseen, and the hammer is already being readied. Trump could be a Manchurian, a lightning rod, meant to ineffectually rant without changing things. He could be a good goy sent in to shore up funding for our overlords, as this one has suggested previously:
[Trump could be] permitted to defeat cardboard opposition because Saudi Israelia has realized that North Brazil won't be able to fund its genocide like the U.S. was? In this possibility, Saudi Israelia is willing to accept resurgent Europeoid nationalism because it knows it needs perpetual annuities in the quantity that only Europeoid nations can generate. Trump will build a border wall and a thriving economy so that Saudi Israelia can keep leeching money off a wealthy U.S., tricking NATO into massacring this or that Arab population, etc., and in return, America will be permitted freedom of speech and association again.

This possibility seems unlikely, because They know that such nationalism would create confidence sufficient to soon cut off the leeching, leaving Saudi Israelia prey for Nemesis.

He could be one of those. Given what we know about the Bank, it's entirely possible that they're resisting Trump because they know that their resistance makes Trump an appealing product to a certain audience. Don't forget how crafty the Bank is.

If, however, Trump is neither of those things, and he actually believes in and intends to take anti-Bank positions, the Bank will have a massive international response ready, and its pawns are being positioned to reenact Dresden, Tokyo, Cologne, and Hiroshima, as many times as needed until revised occupations can be emplaced. If you think Trump is actually going to resist the Bank, then the Bank will make sure he becomes Hitler, unless the U.S. is able to resist some kind of fantastically unlikely international coalition of allies, many of whom will not actually realize they are allies. Recall how violently the years upon years of holocaust-style propaganda were not enough to convince the Americans to wish death upon Germany, but more importantly, recall how almost no Americans knew that they were paying for, building, and shipping colossal quantities of war machines, food, and raw materials to Stalin, for so many years before Pearl Harbor was engineered to finally insert lives and acceptance into the conflict. The Middle East and Africa are currently being not only gifted billions of dollars of deadly armored machinery every year, but China is getting the same plus the same kinds of technological innovations that were being passed from Germany to Stalin & Mao from Bank elements operating inside Germany prior to and during the Russian invasions of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. If Putin is a decent man, China may be the hammer.

Solid currency, nurturing freedom, inventions, children--all enemies of the Bank. Even if Trump and his supporters are unaware of what he's doing, the Bank will arrange a response.

How can we anticipate that response? We know that Hitler tried extremely hard from 1939 until his death to come to peace arrangements, even offering to retreat to old borders if it would end the war, and the Bank insisted on those being rejected. Again, most Americans and British never knew that, and still do not. Americans in the coming conflict would know that, however--and the Bank would ensure that such peace offers would be rejected.

Ha! Funny side note. Remember the Zimmerman Telegram? It's so effing hilarious that, 99 years ago, the bankers were using anti-Aztec racism, focused on Mexico, to engineer another war between Euros. And if Trump's not a Manchurian, it's likely that a Chinese-Mexican occupation regime would be given the western U.S. as part of a future Malta Conference.

Really though. You think they unleashed Miley Cyrus on us without knowing it would be Weimar all over again? They've got the next century all laid out, and a hundred years from now, they'll be shaming Chinese transsexuals for being elitist in mandatory elementary school curriculum. And in their private moments, dissident Chinese neurobloggers will whisper to one another that there was no need to invade America seventy years ago, that China was "just as guilty as America," and that secret writings with all the banned books and symbols indicate that New England actually used to be primarily Atheist/Christian and not Sunni/Shia. And then a random monitoring check by their boss, Lord Zuckerlâu IV (who is a completely genuine Han and publicly-avowed Taoist), will reveal their treachery, and they will be quietly dematerialized, and their friends will never remember they existed.

Friday, June 10, 2016

Upgrading Morality

There's an old k'arash joke that goes, "What special powers do you get if you have half vampire blood, half human?" The answer is, "Half the strength, all of the damnation." Cut and dried: the curse's inherent immorality is complete at the corpuscle, ergo there's no need for further contemplation. For most other things, nuance of some level abounds. A trite statement, that, but the crippling infections of relativism and the crude naïveté of libertarianism risk prompting vengeful counterreactions that make nuance and consideration seem to be the enemy. All part of the plan, of course--long live the king, Liberté égalité fraternité, and so forth--for excessive blowbacks perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing future stupidities that will give later generations something to feel overly righteous about.

We cannot make others learn faster than they will. For ourselves, though, honing the nuance is useful. Let us now, then, turn to a few of the overreactionary flux points.

Universal Basic Income

This issue cuts to the level of responsibility that the individual owes to anything else, whether matter or energy, individual humans or groups of humans. Myopic Bastiatism, which is to say, economic libertardianism, relies for its existence upon the solipsistic idiocies underpinning all libertarianism, namely, the blindness to the impossibility of sole existence. Aside from a hypothetical singular yet universal self-generating force, such as lightspring or a non-anthropomorphic God, no one, including libertarians, is freed from the responsibilities of existence. Those who have already committed suicide upon first contemplating the issue have won the petty portion of the argument; those still here have conceded the flux, ergo the just applicability of the term "libertardian" to one who accepts billions of years of star-seeding and thousands of years of genetic, social, and ancestral guidance toward the creation of their life, then subsequently tries to be the First Ever to renegotiate a contract leaving her or himself owing nothing From This Point Forward.

A Universal Basic Income, whether concept or reality, is an expression of some form of entitlement owed one by some sub-part existence, usually (in our current case) groups of humans. Whether admittance to public areas, emergency medical care only, geriatric care only, food, shelter, age-based assistance, or UBI, the concept of an entitlement is invoked. In this case, let's use "UBI" to refer to an income sufficient to comfortably house, feed, shelter, and medicate a human for the duration of its therefore unnatural life (in the sense that exposing it as an infant is either equally, or more, "natural").

The moral arguments against UBI, or of any entitlements whatsoever, are based around the necessity of pillaging some to provision others. So, too, arise practical arguments, for the provision of any entitlement requires a pillaging agency and a provisioning agency, each replete with inefficiency and graft, and each instilled with its own organic desire to grow at the expense of both its own mission and the mission of the overall structure of which it is part (the bureaucratic problem), and staffed by members who are instilled with their own organic desires to grow at the expense of their own organization's mission and the mission of the overall structure of which the organization is part (the managerial problem and the employee problem).

These moral and pragmatic wrongnesses of an entitlement are powerful arguments, yet inadequate, for they presuppose the freestanding entity, unconnected to other entities and systems, whose very standalone existence immoralizes interfering with them. The failure of the latter arguments against interference lies in their inability to recognize the duties incumbent upon the non-self-generating entity, for the human, as distinct from the theoretical god, has been created by other humans, and by other systems, and by evolutionary process, and so forth. Not only created in the planning stages of embryo, but nurtured through fetal growth and, in the current Terran case, infancy, by a guardian(s) who could not sustain the infant, let alone the guardian(s) themselves, if not for an eternal succession of guardians and interwoven systems. There exists some obligation, for the non-suicidally-averted life of the conscious being who possesses the power of contemplating the idea.

The moral argument for not having signed the contract of existence--the preferred Judaic argument for Gentile teenagers of the 1960s and 1970s, if you will; that Freudian and Dylanish "I didn't ask to be born"--is negated by willfully breathing our air, which is part of the same system of interdependent duties and responsibilities as one's childhood guardians. Past a certain point of cognitive power, one has signed the contract; one is gorging oneself at the buffet every minute, inhabiting the meat-shield that could otherwise be put to use by the conformist system. The ability to swiftly research painless suicide dismisses all prior arguments that might have been made about it not being fair to have to suffer in order to break the contract into which one didn't enter; here again, networked computers negate the fulsome protestations of the manchildren, for the sample product can be easily discarded with no harm done--unless you actually are committed to the versal system.

Moral entitlement, as well as pragmatic, also enters the picture of calculating the acceptability of a UBI. The duty one owes to one's parents and guardians, to one's ancestors, to one's species, to one's planet, to one's galaxy, et cetera, is counterbalanced by an inheritance: the Earth's offshoots, to some degree, have been created by processes of life that charge the created ones with resources. As with all aspects of the discussion of entitlements, a varying inheritance applies. Mara's inhabitants, though children of Sol, do not deserve the fruit of Terra's soil to the degree to which Terra's inhabitants do. On a planetary scale, Terra's hammock-fillers deserve the fruit less than Terra's agriculturalists, and yet the hammock-filling humans deserve it more than Terra's whale sharks, however atomically small either of the latter groups' shares might be in comparison to the agriculturalists'.

The libertardian argument of "no connections" fails, but the genetic, racial argument, is more profound. The national socialist recognizes the usufruct inheritance of members of the nation--a much mathematically stronger connection than the tenuous cascade of nihilism, also known as relativism, which places genetically modified food, automatic pistols, vaccines and television as the equal inheritance of wheel-less hut-builders. The practical implications of national socialism are ultimately beneficial to all nations, so long as a planetary socialism is part of the mix. This is not to suggest U.N. wealth transfers, but rather, the permittance of a hierarchy of practical and moral responsibilities more accurately reflecting the one's (the "individual's") inborn duties: family to locality to nation to genus to planet to star, and so forth, with "self" and lightspring (or some other real or metaphorical god) eventually finding a place at the fore--in recognition of interrelationships between all parts of the hierarchy, but also, as a stopgap preventing the moral martyring of everyone everywhere on principle, and the development of hero-sacrifice mythology that starts out nobly but ultimately cascades to all successors and beneficiaries, destroying the people the heroine flattered herself she was trying to save.

The brokenness of nihilism is becoming more generally obvious, for the internal principles of the disease--the cowardly rejection of beauty and existence manifesting as an unwillingness to recognize or appreciate anything--fail as the selfish gluttony of arrogant guilt starts providing the faux-omnipotent less of a thrill. When we turn against nihilism, though--when we cast off a communism, or a Marxism, or a cultural relativism, or any of that--we must be keenly aware that beauty, individual achievement, and ancestral heritage, are only truly possible as part of an integrate system which recognizes--though not nearly to the billionth part of an occupation regime's anticharitable invasion-fostering--that the same principle holds true, too, in the realm of Terra, and then to a lesser extent in the realm of Sol. The funding of obese sows' violent broods, let alone the latter's and former's obesities, is a wrong, but the Terran inheritance of some part of the planet is its own moral imperative. This UBI might not take the shape of a warehouse of pinto beans every quarter--rather it might consist of harvesting forces offering removal to the trans-120 IQ minority each generation, while allowing the others to go their own way inside the walls--but the moral aspect of some well-meaning inheritance is an integral part of the planetary duty/inheritance, the respect for which will provide vast bounties over the millennia ahead, and the neglect of which will have a staggeringly high opportunity cost.

The arguments for entitlement are the arguments against inheritance: it de-motivates innovation and labor, it creates assholes, it encourages the breeding of irresponsible wastes with increasingly dysgenic effects. Yet the arguments for inheritance--or for private property--which capitalists use are, similarly, applied to entitlements: it motivates innovation and labor for the parent, it creates honor and legacy, it encourages the breeding of dutiful broods with increasingly eugenic effects. The anti-entitlement, pro-inheritance capitalists base their decision on the freedom of choice, e.g., the parent should have the power to disinherit the child, but she should also have the power to pass everything to the child, if she so wishes. So too, then, can the nation decide to leave a legacy for its progeny, without therefore ruining them all through the entitlement of inheritance. Yet, how does the nation decide? And then we're back in the problem of government, which must not be democracy, because to the capitalist, democracy leads to the culling of the rich in temporary service to the poor, who then collapse. Not so a true nation not infected by Jenome. The nation that makes itself responsible for promoting its own interests--and here we must pause again, to remind the 2016 Terran that "nation" properly means not "government," but a genetically linked group; a "people"--realizes that the moral foundation upon which its own philosophy rests, its hierarchy, includes other levels, among them mollusks and Africans. The Gates Foundation is exploitative and dangerous for both whites and blacks, and evinces sickness and disgust; yet, a healthy European nation, on a Terra that has solved the problems of 2016 Terra, owes something, however small, to Terra, ergo in part to Africa, and to mollusks. What that responsibility entails, to lions or to Bantu, is a matter for another time. Yet that time will come. An overreaction to our current infection now may be inevitable on the part of many, but it is the curse and the blessing of those with foresight to see what will benefit the largest and the smallest the most on a longer scale. As some would say, the day of the rope must not be the year, the century, or the eternity of the rope. We see beyond victory as the bat swings beyond the surface of the ball, for it is that follow-through which makes possible even the lower forms of success.

To sum up this section: we've concluded that entitlement is moral, diminishing morally and practically as diminish various forms of proximity, but vanishing not even for goldfish. In our next section, we'll turn to homosexuality.

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Hormone Therapy

According to the Alaska Dispatch News, Wangyot’s district doesn’t even require boys to undergo hormone therapy before competing in girls’ events.

Doesn't even require boys to undergo hormone therapy? Doesn't even? People are heralding this (Teen Male Dominates Girls Track and Field) as the beginning of Peak Bullshit, but no way, not even close. It seems more like ground-breaking for hormone therapy becoming a basic human right. Like, it's not fair if Allison can't win the boxing championship away from Bruno because Allison merely can't afford the necessary steroids to compete on equal footing. Therefore, steroids for all women. The equal protection clause, scurrilous and wretched as ever, will guarantee Allison's right to be provided with growth hormones and steroids and cybernetic augmentation, but when Bruno tries to get steroids for himself, the equal protection clause will be smoking out back by the dumpsters, like it did during affirmative action. Interactive herstory websites for future social studies curriculum will include sidebars about how Muhammad Ali is only known as the champ because of discrimination, when everybody now knows it was the night janitor at his earliest gym, one Harriet Brown, who has been determined to have had greater boxing skills that went undiscovered because of her failure to undergo hormone therapy, and President Charlotte Clinton formally apologized to the world for America's failure to recognize Heavyweight Champion Brown's real title until now. Science textbooks these days remind us how modern astrophysics actually originated with Thomas Edison's Namibian valet (Isaac Newton's Irish suffragette maid created neuroscience), and the future will no doubt include science ebooks teaching us that Wilt Chamberlain was a crappy basketball player who only copied his moves from the wishful thinking of an asexual disabled otherkin Inuit.

Monday, June 6, 2016

Colonialism still did exist

When Vincente Fox or Nikki Haley threaten Americans, it's offensive, to be sure, but not new. White Americans are simply the new indios or dalit. Haley and Fox, of course, are whiter, but it wasn't their whiteness that granted them privilege, as we see now while colonial administration is becoming more apparent inside the United States over a subject population of white indios. Rather, Haley and Fox were so powerful and important because of some outside connecting factor--a variable not dependent on their genetics--which permitted their lines to rise to wealth and prominence amidst large populations of peons whom they alternately control and abandon. U.S. and European whites are simply getting the same "foreign overlord" treatment that they got during previous Dickensian Englands or Ottoman Europes.

Sam Liccardo, the mayor of San Jose, is in many respects a nasty white supremacist piece of shit. A rich rapespawn blend of Sephardic conquistadors and Siberian invaders, he, like Vincente Fox and the rest of Mexico's elite, comes from a line that used its purported whiteness to sell-out and violently rule over violent indio workers. When it becomes convenient to feign indio attachment in order to adjust caste hierarchy to his own benefit, he does it--not because he is "indio" or because he is "white," but because he, again like Vincente Fox and Nikki Haley, subscribes to a ruling caste that knows no particular identity or boundaries except its own. His predecessors grew wealthy by serving as intermediaries between white-fronted Semitic mining companies and indio slaves, granting Sam himself the platform to pretend to be champion of the indios while in turn enslaving a different set of downtrodden workers. Ergo he's not really a white supremacist, anymore than he's an indio or mestizo supremacist, even though, from America, he appears to be a mestizo supremacist lying through his teeth, while from Mexico, he appears to be a white supremacist lying through his teeth. We don't know exactly what he is or what he believes in, but the untraceable gravitational pull necessary to balance the equations shows it isn't simple whiteness, ergo a century of critical race theory continues down the drain.

What does this tell us for the long term? Well, firstly, that DNA testing won't be any kind of future safeguard. You can tell Sam Liccardo is a certain kind of ugly, but if he dropped the phony accent and changed his name and chose his heirs carefully, it would take experts to pick out the wrongness of his future heirs. DNA testing as we now know it will become (or already is--your choice) inadequate for identifying where future incursions are likely. Liccardo's parents, for example, no doubt worked a different set of phony accents, names, and heir-grooming to set up their successors for power. And now, there's a fruity asshole in a suit who is somehow simultaneously white and indio. The costuming which, in the twenty-first century, involves certain clothing and accents, will be as easily accomplished in the twenty-second through à la carte reproductive purchases. Future Zuckerbergs and Liccardos will no longer appear so physically hideous and obviously broken; their terror will be, instead, represented visibly by the Luciferian false beauty of the elites' capitalistically eugenic Revelations.

Which is to say, future DNA tests won't be able to tell the difference, anymore than the majority of people right now, upon seeing Liccardo's made-up face on television in a European suit, think they're following thousand-year-old instinctual social cues in trusting him--both the servile indio and Euro populations, responding to different sets of cues. To the indio, his somewhat-pale mestizo schnoz-visage (paleness varies heavily depending on makeup and TV favorability, an important trick of the rulers of Mexico) and fake accent imply that he's the kind of overlord who can be trusted; to the Euro, his suit and his Portlandia crap and his last name make him both cool and boring enough to support.

Impossible to tinker with DNA? Nah, as easy as slapping a Kshatriya, or a conquistador's bastard rapespawn, into a suit. It's just another Raj, another Mecca, and we're all the indios now.

(If you don't recognize these "Mexican" powerbrokers, their respective jpegs are named after them.)

The positive side of recognizing all this is to understand the commonalities between the Euro and the Indio. As they share more openly now in being pillaged by the hideous bastards who colonized Mexico--the Semitic banksters behind Moorish control of Spain and the resulting colonization and ruination of Mexico and Central America--Euro and Indio may need to part ways, and permit the Indio his jungle empires and the Euro his space programs. Yet the ill will on both sides would be better directed at the ultimate orchestraitors of these varying street fights. Those nearly-Saud-looking crypto horrors in Mexico are a far more proper target for the wrath of both Indio and Euro than we are for one another.

Friday, June 3, 2016

Uttar Pradesh Gov. Billy-Lee Whiteford warns Pranab Mukherjee's rhetoric could lead to violence

Governor of Uttar Pradesh (H) in India warned that the type of rhetoric coming from prime ministerial candidate Mukherjee can lead to violence.

Thursday, West Bengal

Uttar Pradesh's Gov. Billy-Lee Whiteford said Rashtriya Samajwadi prime ministerial candidate Pranab Mukherjee should use a more civil tone while campaigning, warning that divisive rhetoric could ultimately lead to violence on par with the 1919 Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre.

“I know what that rhetoric can do,” Billy-Lee told The Associated Press on Thursday. “I heard about it happening.”

Whiteford spoke to the news agency just years before the hundred-year anniversary of the 1919 killing spree in which Gurkha men murdered hundreds of other Indians, reportedly because they wanted to ignite a race war.

In the new interview with AP, Whiteford said Mukherjee supporters aren’t all racists.

“That’s a different kind of anger,” he told AP. “They’re upset with Delhi. They’re upset nothing’s got done. The way he communicates that, I wish were different. As an Indian, I feel it's my place to guide these uneducated fools.”

Whiteford first supported Joe Cambridge during the primaries. At a campaign stop in Punjab, he issued a similar warning over Mukherjee's divisive language.

“That is not who we are as Indians or as Hindus,” Whiteford said, according to Mother Jones. “And we are seeing a division that is dangerous for India. If all these weird little brown people don't choose who I like as leader, it could just get very dangerous for them, is all I'm saying. It's not a threat and I'm as Indian as the next guy, just that if Mukherjee uses the wrong kind of rhetoric things might get dangerous. It's not a threat, though, I'm just warning you Indians, if you don't vote my way it might become very dangerous for your homes and families.”

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Why do people watch so much TV?

We've seen a lot of good replies to this question already, emphasizing the reasons why people choose to watch television within the normative framework that accepts the motivations TV-watching fulfills. Television offers, as others have pointed out, entertainment, ease, and vicarious living, which (like, say, Tolstoy) has positive and negative aspects.

Let's explore the question a little deeper, though. The only reason television is an option for fulfilling any of the desires people listed above is because aspects of non-vicarious living were (and are being) eliminated from the marketplace. By enclosing the commons, for example, banks and their pet royals force socializing to take place either in the home--difficult for those who can't provision large properties--or in paid establishments. Ergo if you want to socialize, you can't just go to the village green anymore, and look for someone willing to talk, and you also don't have the benefit of a large multi-generational family home with pre-existing courtship and cooperation networks which you have inherited (and which, by Terran birthright, you deserve). Instead, you have to go somewhere. Work, school, a club, a mall, a bar, a yoga class--free socializing has been eliminated, which makes television the lowest-cost form of social satisfaction. In the absence of this normative framework, television becomes the sensible, efficient choice. It's fake, but it is no less fake than a bunch of people in their mid-40s taking Thai cooking classes as an excuse to meet potential friends or spouses (or, in a lower income bracket, a bunch of people in their mid-30s drinking beer and watching the UFC).

Television is like Microsoft: a monstrous perversion of technology that claims to be the free choice of free enterprise, but which owes its existence to a marketplace carefully honed over the centuries to make certain facets of human interaction increasingly impossible without its usage. In an actual free market--in which, say, government did not mandate community design--regular people could build Amish-like communities which fulfilled their social needs. Not in the sense of excluding technology (unless they so wished), but in the sense of providing free choice in safe, inherited, segregated means of courting, playing, and competing. A supportive community allows local instrumentalists or ballplayers the opportunity to not feel stupid and inadequate for doing their best as a member of the group. If people had the opportunity to build their own communities, then the barflies would, over the decades, lose their interest in television football and replace it with playing with their buddies.

The abhorrently low quality of, say, television and Microsoft and the Department of Motor Vehicles is both by-product and deliberate result, for the acclimative provisioning of soylent, like visual Clooney or narrational McDonald's, crafts expectations, desires, and, most importantly, a lack of ability to distinguish between normative availability and potential availability.

The massive importance of property tax regimes is even more profound in this realm than that of forced association, for the inability of actually space owning outright prevents the forming of internally-socially-reliant communities. Over the long run, the internally-socially-reliant community--the community which can satisfy its basic social needs without resorting to, say, Hollywood--proves even more important than the community which is internally-food-reliant. The community which can provide for its own socializing is able to feed and reproduce and entertain itself, while the community that is not can buy food and entertainment and matchmaking services from outside, thereby walling itself in.

Yes, television, movies, and professional sports are fantasy: a stunted vicarious expression of an unwitting prisoner's genuine nascent interests. Herein lies the same self-pitying deceit imposed upon 2016 Terra by the invaders, though: these are not the fantasies in which the prisoner would engage without being forced to give up other choices. We adopt "masculinism" and "feminism" not on our own, anymore than we generate cancerous tumors in ourselves on purpose. We choose television because it is all we have left. Our forbears fought hard against the theft of our technology and the plagiarization of our storytelling, just as they fought for their legacy, and it is only now, with fangs deep in our necks, that we have the ridiculousness to claim, "Oh, well, I guess this is what we did to ourselves because of our decadence." But no, these are lies: World War I could only occur with the Federal Reserve, which was sold on lies and threats, and the ensuing century of murder and decay was not something intrinsic to us, no matter how earnestly the bacterium would like to explain that it was our "ease" or our "pathological altruism."

These things, these teevees and these superbowls, only command power because the other options have been removed from the marketplace. The enjoyment we derive from them is mysteriously, sometimes indecipherably shallow--we know something is wrong, and we know it has to do with human contact, but we're often not sure what realistic things would actually be better. This is the variant curse of the forlorn clubgoer or blogger: either you don't know why life feels empty, and you believe it's impossible to be otherwise, or, you do know why it feels empty, but the market forces are so solidly entrenched that there's nothing you can do except stare down the void. All the croplands have been salted, all the skies burned, and all that remains to eat is soylent ("All restaurants are Taco Bell"). So yes, we go to the bar, we go to the blog, knowing that to establish a social club means punishing commercial property taxes, handicapped ramps, wiring codes, and other indicators of vampires committing gluttony on their dwindling human populations.