Sunday, January 29, 2017

Generations: the Fifth Turning

Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, like many of its peeraging peers, is neither a history of the people of the North American landmass, nor of the people of the United States. It is, rather, a history of selected elite relationships with selected non-elite persons. Which is to say, a history of selected banking representatives and the relationships they represented themselves as having with selected living externalities. Christopher Columbus self-reporting the killing or enslaving of a local subset of a regional subset of the massively widespread Mongo-Siberian groups dwelling in the Americas in the fifteenth century after Christ is, for example, not a history of either those groups, those regions, or those limited tribes, but merely torture porn. It does permit Columbus to expose himself as a suitably Hollywoodian cinematic villain, lusting for power and wealth and Mongoloid pussy, and to show that his "Sephardic" financiers knew and approved of what he was doing--and that they had wanted and expected him to do it--but it says nothing about "the 99%" or "the majority." Telling the story as Zinn does is like telling the story of Occupy Wall Street by publishing some e-mails between NYC cops chuckling about who they got to pepper spray that day; it marginalizes and tokenizes the experiences of the "people" whom Zinn was theoretically exalting, even as it reveals Columbus to be a simple dunce released on the natives, little different than Tyrone the rapist being shut into a cell with an unlucky white-collar criminal.

The Mongo-Siberian-Americans, having been unable to develop written language or a resulting history, provide Zinn little help in this regard, such that he could legitimately claim the only history available to tell was Bank history. This he could not do, of course, for it would mean admitting the thousands-year dearth of record-keeping and cultural preservation caused by the Mongoloids' initial invasion. Yet there it is, the A People's History, seminal folly of "peoplehood." Like older court histories, Zinn's was no more than a peerage, albeit one which presented the peers in a negative, rather than a positive, light. Nonetheless, it was still the same old tale: historical actors acting upon historical subjects, the former viewed as either benevolent or malevolent, the latter viewed, in affirmative-action style, as innocent babes of whom no agency or capability is expected, other than their ability to suffer or prosper as a reflection of their overlords.

This type of perspective is, necessarily, limited. Perhaps it must be so; in a future time during which historians have access to a person's lifetime communications--all their text messages, e-mails, Facebook posts, et cetera--they are unlikely to do any better work than they do now. Most people, like the Mongo-Siberian-Americans, are not able to craft their own history, but instead express various forms of agreement and/or disagreement with what was already "happening" anyway, e.g., what the media-decreed primary historical actors said was happening. Ten million contemporaneous Facebook arguments about Columbus' humane mission and/or brutal exploitation, were they accessible to Zinn, would make his hypothesis no more or less accessible or true. Columbus would still be a dick, the Mongoloids would still suffer, most people would receive a consolation prize of strip malls and smartphones, and most people would be superficially happy with the exchange, though feeling they deserved some kind of payout for either vicariously winning or losing.

The historical perspective, nonetheless, would be unchanged. What Ferdinand and Isabella actually felt and believed, and the true depth of the plans held by their semi-shadowy court Sephardim--the backers of European colonialism--and the cheap motivations of Columbus, and the brutal glee of the internally feuding natives who helped the colonists against their kind for petty personal revenge: all these things are as visible and risible now as they would have been with greater documentary technology and/or access. What concerns us here is the lack of "a people's history," even in A People's History. It is some level of arrogance, some of sadness, and some of callow obfuscation to claim such through primary sources, which exist through preservation of "the victors," who are always in truth the Bank. Ergo Columbus can be alternately lionized and reviled, then lionized again, justifiably in each case, while the Bank remains untouched.

Strauss-Howe generational theory is a similar example of this atrocious stupidity, being something of a Zinnish bible to the western "right," whereas Zinn, Chomsky, and their co-ethnic's Guns, Germs, and Steel, serve that purpose on the western "left." As Zinn uses selected interactions between bank agents and irrelevant people ("elites" and "commoners," perhaps) to claim a narrative theory, so do Strauss and Howe use an even less sound version of the same to make their point, versions of which have become increasingly popular as people seek to conceptualize a deterministic free-will (sic) in the form of ascribing generational characteristics.

Finding parallels between people assigned to any given "generation" is similar to finding instances where a fortune-teller is correct. Any person can be connected to the "generation" in any way, including as "the exception that proves the rule." It's popular right now to say that "Boomers" suck, and of course they do suck, but so does everyone else, including those who made and raised the "Boomers," and those who made and raised anyone of such low quality they would themselves make and raise those called Boomers, ad infinitum.

For our purposes here, and for the comparison to Zinn's People's History, we should view the concept of human "generations" as one of a simplistic, false narrative, which ascribes to preselected groups of commoners the inherent qualities promulgated by the Bank during a given time period. The Boomers are often accused of liking "rock and roll" and "racial desegregation." Those ideas, though, came from somewhere--although it has been detailed in many places how the greatest systematic components of the supposedly-Boomer cultural changes could only have been caused by Silent-Generation parents (because the Boomers weren't yet old enough to vote by the time the most important changes had already been passed), this new homeopathicism/horoscopism that is our highbrow discussion of "generations" ascribes characteristics to consumers based upon products created by corporations. Ergo the Boomers are deemed responsible for rock and roll and desegregation merely because some of them happened to be alive during the times those things happened. They were not the driving force for those things, although the Bank would like it to appear so; not only did "the Silent generation" buy and vote appropriately before the Boomers were even 18, the story of what the Boomers did is only available to us in the form of Bank history.

Ergo "the Boomers," like all other illusory conceptions tautologically foisted through popular media's massive sphincter, are a hypothetical set of downstream variables; the result, rather than the cause, of their supposed boomer-ness. The things which define "the Boomers" are the products released during the time period ascribed to that group; the process of naming a generation of people is in fact a manner of Bank/elites/corporations externalizing social responsibility for their creations onto a certain subset of people. If Epstein created the Beatles, and if a massive feat of IRS-esque payola/media hype established many young Beatles fans as a result, the Beatles are the voice, product, choice, et cetera, of a generation only inasmuch as the most popular restaurant in any given location or among any given group of target consumers--according to net reported revenue and/or media reviews--is actually the most beloved, evocative, emblematic, or in any other way preferred choice of such group. Calling the banking media's reporting of exit polls in a two-party election, where roughly half the theoretically reported eligible voters voted for someone on the pre-printed sheet, would be a more accurate assessment of a national or generational will.

Generational concepts are useful simplifications for people who believe they make their own choices irrespective of any form of advertising. If Epstein had assembled a different group of actors or musicians playing jingly little rock shorts; had schoolmarms in the western world followed overt and subtle federal pedagogy describing the disgustingness of parents and nations, and the necessity of young people challenging and then fundamentally changing them; had the international media ceaselessly promoted the said different group as amazingly popular, good, and subversive; had unlikable church ladies worldwide warned their students to avoid the said group; had concert promoters and magazines and radio stations and record stores worked in near-unison to summon enthusiasm for the said group's product and appearance; had paid and/or hapless pretty girls exhibited their eagerness for group participation in this culture; had all these things happened, what are the chances that most Beatles fans would have stayed home, upset, feeling that something about today's popular music wasn't quite right, and feeling an indecipherable void in their life that could only have been filled by the actual Beatles (located in the hypothetical alternate reality in which you yourself live)? If, by some cosmic impossibility, the original Beatles had actually formed themselves and pressed homemade records for limited distribution in Liverpool, and you showed them to your friends (who in said alternate reality were already huge fans of ___________), what are the chances they'd suddenly realize they loved the unknown "Beatles" (who'd have a different name, and just look like some ugly dudes) equally or more?

In western politics quite recently, we've seen similar trends to what Epstein used with the Beatles, wherein an evil rebel was so thoroughly discredited in unison by Bank media as to become a Paradise-Lostian hero, and his amazing popularity (and the violent and vulgar establishment supposed-counterreaction against his phenomenon) described in ceaseless detail. Yes, the Beatles were a massive phenomenon, and yes, it was actively participated in and well-remembered and thoroughly rationalized by many consumer-subjects as an act of free will, but to what extent can most of these subjects accurately describe themselves or their motivations? Were Michael Bay a lone quack with a computer who made a movie about his old robot toys, and were it to receive press only in the local coffee shop, how many Transformers fans would skip other weekend activities, defy Hollywood, and go see Transformers in the local independent theater, then buy equal amounts of related merchandise, and demand (and attend) sequels?

Without the media, the vast majority of Boomers wouldn't have cared to reach out to British musicians, and, more importantly, wouldn't have known to call themselves "boomers." The new tradition of fastidiously tracking and naming generations is, like incessant war, a creature of the Bank. Strauss and Howe, and their legions of analytical successors, have based an entire science upon the notion that what corporations report about their customers' preferences in product choice are reliable sources. Not that they have any choice; indeed, in a self-defined democracy, the notion that the Boomers were not "the Boomers" because they chose to be the Boomers is fundamentally disquieting, not only to the true democrat, but to the person who wishes to see renewed hope in any new generation, or to take vindication in being a lone (or among the lone) voice(s) defying a "generational trend." Ergo even strident monarchists decry the generations that others laud, wishing to believe that their own choices in ascribing characteristics to such dissimilar and unwieldy groups are themselves acts of independent thought. Sport Utility Vehicles, like the Beatles or Transformers, got suddenly popular and profitable, not because of an intrinsic or internally-generated consumer desire which professional journalists dutifully commented upon, nor because of a marketplace need or technological/artistic breakthrough, but rather in the manner via which banks create movements.

In Zinn's old People's History, we see a mostly-successful attempt to embarrass or shame European-Americans based on implications of their knowing, willing, excited participation in a large number of banking and corporate policies that exacted from them, as from others, a terrible price. Despite its profession of being a new style, this is identical in method to almost all mainstream older histories, in which the actions of banks and royal lines were ascribed to the desire of entire peoples. Like Zinn's work, it is idiotic to assume that an illiterate peasant in old Painswick endorsed or understood Cromwell, anymore than a similar peasant in old Huesca would have appreciated Ferdinand blowing a wad on "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Bank offshoots, be they secular lineages or churches, have a vested interest in crafting histories in which "the people" are remembered as having supported one or more of the ideologies or personas later presented as mainstream or competing. Then as now, the real trendsetters do not want to be known as trendsetters, while those who analyze the trends as evidence of mass will or organic character prove themselves under the same delusion as kings who believe they rule.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Commercials Satirizing Commercials

Kissingers winning peace prizes, Americans telling other Americans to check their privilege, Mexicans insulting border walls, game show hosts decrying game shows, and New Yorker cartoonists lampooning mainstream media... Irony, like laughter, seems to be the least ironic thing in this universe. The unfunniness within the bounds of all of these perspectives; the serious, fanatically ignorant nature of the critique; the spiritually cancerous manifestations existing in the event that any of these things have a truthful following: I'm not particularly interested in sounding the basement to verify once again that, yes, the lower level was reached eons ago, and nothing deeper can be found. Rather, this one notes the continued indicia that television and print media are being re-branded into some still-lesser form of mass communication media.

The image citation above is another minute reminder that this transition is not one occurring through the invisible hand of a marketplace, the inevitable press of technology, a generational shift in attitudes, or any other such banality. Rather, the older power structure is itself transitioning to a more effective--which is to say, worse--medium. Like a political party, a corporation, or a government, CNN sets itself up for failure, and covers the condemnation of its own worthlessness, as part of a marketing program to make its successor--ultimately controlled by and benefiting the same forces--seem different. What we will be given in its place will still be CNN, albeit even simpler, blinder, and more powerfully insulated from what we might like to call, wistfully, reality.

As when we lost human contact in exchange for the telegraph, market day in exchange for the professional merchant, and the game board in exchange for the network computer, we will one day regret the loss of the comparative humanity, freedom, depth, and detail offered by the television news. It goes ignobly, indeed, but with it goes another dwindling echo of something we've already forgotten.

Monday, January 23, 2017

New Racism, Old Correctness, and Intergenerational Rebellions

Since the internet, there have been racist websites, and there has been a shortage of people using them. Even once the internet was made publicly available, racist websites were--like hit men who advertise openly, commoner's child pornography, or the modern-day Ku Klux Klan--primarily the domain of law enforcement, where the shattered nightmares of the United States splinter into a thousand pieces of dark glass, each one glinting with the image of fifteen perverts running a three million dollar operation in search of a gullible fool who will agree to park a rental car under the cameras, specifically state their intentions, or move a bag from this bench to that bench. To run these fake, endless, criminally non-criminal criminal enterprises, the demented un-persons (just like you or me) had to affect grammar and viewpoints similar to what they imagined were those of real not-yet criminals. With the Ku Klux Klan, this largely failed, as racists trying to get together to knit an escape from affirmative action out of dental floss proved mostly unwilling to be sidetracked with leaving their new friends' SUV near some designated federal building; people quickly learned that the KKK was an ideatic honeypot of role-playing with real jail time, and the budget went considerably lower, resulting in fewer people caring about the Klan. Child porn was different, as the projected eagerness of the wordlessly disgusting enforcers led to plenty of documentably successful arrests through virtual and actual evidence planting, the release of viruses and deceptive torrents, and the ability to convict via speculative thoughtcrime alone (e.g., we say he wanted to download it, which is such badthought that it both must be true, and we have no time to consider how true it is, therefore conviction). This had a much greater presence in the U.K., both due to the relative perversity of the security infrastructure and due to Klansmen proving themselves initially more gullible than the I.R.A., ergo the U.K.'s filth concentrated on planting child porn harder and earlier, while the American filth worked on revising their purported passion for Dixie. Ironically, of course, the Americans proved themselves more capable and more interested in entrapping Hispanic Muslim converts into parking cars by the airport, while the British were so anti-racist that they only could try and (largely) fail to entrap the less-trickable Irish that they were forced to focus more on using seizure-inducing moving flash-banners to trick some poor sap into accidentally clicking his way onto their disgusting porn hordes.

The Old Racism

Actual internet racists swiftly learned through word of mouth that anything they put on the internet was going to be infiltrated by the U.S. deep state, whether operating namelessly or via acronymical security agencies, including not only FBI and CIA, but SPLC and ADL. Even when secretive, even when not engaged in any "plots" but merely trying to speak to other like-minded people online, racist websites were filled with law enforcement attempting to illegally escalate conversations. The real racists would discuss things, and learned to quickly insult and ban anyone who advocated for non-verbal behavior of any kind. The deep state could leak proof of racism to family and employers and try to ruin real racists, but this didn't produce much aggregate gain. Unfortunately for discussion purposes, the real racists tended to be stupid or appropriately suspicious, seeking an echo chamber wherein they could employ the publicly banned terminology, or plan the occasional tiny march, but not try any kind of outreach. Outreach was what the deep state prevented: internet hosts would destroy actual outreach, culling the internet of all racism that attempted to be logical or reasonable, funding and enabling the worst expressions of gene-based discussion in order to drown out anything communicative.

For an example, consider Website Pierce and Website Storm. If Website Pierce's domain host refuses to shut down Website Pierce under minor deep state pressure, the government can build Website Storm, hire some graphic designers, preference it in chatroom and listserv listings, push it through undercovers, and prioritize it in the marketplace. The comparison here is to heavily advertising a movie, making sure it appears in all theaters, making sure the book adaption is reviewed by the New York Times, making sure every public library and school library and major retailer has copies sitting by the front of the store, making sure reviewers talk about it on TV, making sure there are special features discussing why it's become so popular, et cetera. This kind of exhibit/book/movie/band has a certain chance of success. Website Storm, upon receiving this treatment, and being populated by multiple government accounts in crypsis, can acquire nearly all of the readers/members who, innocent of the vagaries of the marketplace, believe they've randomly discovered something of interest to them. Ergo by creating Website Storm, or the NFL, or Transformers, or whatever else, one can prevent Website Pierce from reaching people.

Years of this type of manipulative behavior left most earlier internet racism the stupid kind. Bad grammar, misspelled words, weird social rifts that destroyed communities showing other hints of survivability, blacklisting competing organizations, et cetera. Without actually banning or preventing certain speech, anymore than it bans good novels, government(s) was able to ensure that the undesirable speech never attained an audience. How many painters never made it in the twentieth century because most of the available patrons were busy speculating about Pollock? In the absence of the CIA (and all the rest), what might illustration, painting, cinema, literature, or scholarship have become during the twentieth century? In the absence of the Church, what might Europe have produced during those many centuries before?

The New Racism

Near the twenty-first century, a curious trend began: copyists preparing long, detailed, fact-ridden essays on racism. This was in part related to the mainstream publication and marketing of (1994) Charles Murray's and Richard J. Herrnstein's The Bell Curve, in which a wealthy Jewish man gained vast critical acclaim, and a serious non-Jewish partner was socially scorned, for repeating what Northwest Europeans had been saying to a void for the past thousand years: there are some smart Africans, but by and large the average European is smarter. Amazingly, inconceivably, ridiculously, this book came as a revelation to a populace previously prepared through government education to believe solely in melaninary and/or below-the-neck evolution. What was strange about The Bell Curve was not its conclusions, but the fact that a major publisher and distributors had finally permitted such a thing to occur. Academics had previously been denied tenure, been fired, or otherwise quietly disappeared, for trying to study this issue, but now Herrnstein was permitted to share the same information in a major format.

While The Bell Curve was being digested and insulted as the face of the alternative right, the internet began to change. All of the old, once-respectable-but-now-scorned viewpoints about race began to be repackaged and represented by Jewish commentators who seemed curiously immune to bank/government/social destruction. Following up on the Herrnstein work, the post-Soviet age began to permit the acceptability of racism directed against "Muslims," e.g., Arab Semites. The old Semitic trick of Jewish Semite using Arab Semite as a whupping boy was unraveled, as in the Crusades: Jewish voices began to make the arguments of European theorists of old, critiquing nearly in verbatim the social structures that had been constructed by the Jewish central banks in America and Europe the century prior, and not being censored for doing so.

It began to be cool, as the Soviet Empire died, to make fun of Arabs. Rather than being exotic freedom fighters in headdresses who were vital to resisting communist aggression, Arabs became crazed fanatics, and, slowly but surely, it became permissible for Euros to again ask "why"?--so long as they did so under Jewish leadership.

A Jew republished The Turner Diaries; Schwarzenegger stopped fighting Central American communists and space aliens and robots and futuristic white supremacists, and began the open post-Soviet fight against Muslims (a respectable Jewish producer, Larry Kasanoff, was kind enough to employ the assistance of James Cameron in directing the details of the movie); and, on the internet, a conspicuous combination of search-engine placement, targeted referring, and lack of government intervention permitted verbose, sesquipedalian articles to repeat old European critiques of the central banking societies of Euro-populated lands, updated with references to Facebook.

These newly acceptable takes on racism were produced by the most purportedly anti-racist group of the late twentieth century, namely Jews. Yarvin, Unz, Greenfield, and many others, celebrated or quietly having left the stage by now, joined Herrstein and Kasanoff in bringing back an acceptable public disdain for Arab Semites, which gradually became acceptable and open disdain for persons of African, mestizo, and southeast Asian heritage. The new websites facilitated and encouraged that thing repressed for most of the latter half of the twentieth century--rational discussion of racial differences--and they were not only permitted to exist, they were given search engine access, "critiqued" in major media, cross-referenced with a host of supporting sites, and otherwise allowed to grow.

One group remained immune to the criticism offered by these new racists: Jews. Jews, and other purportedly non-Arab Semites operating in crypsis as "Mediterranean" or "Levantine," were conspicuously absent from the new acceptable racism. This force grew into a wrecking ball, as the initial tentative articles and blogs produced dozens, then hundreds, of spinoffs. By now, you're probably somewhat familiar with them, courtesy of Hillary's noble fall to Kushner's father-in-law; for those who had missed the "popular new gentile revolution," Hillary, like any good stage villain, was kind enough to unlikably insist that no one pay any attention to it.

What is this "it"? The new racism has come with a plethora of meetings pamphlets books channels websites, all of which reference each other directly or indirectly, and all of which share the following characteristics: they were founded or are now maintained by Jewish people; they are aggressively race-realist except they censor or downplay any application of racial theories to Jews; and, they are extremely pro-Trump.

American Renaissance still sells copies of Herrnstein's Bell Curve. It mostly compiles articles from other websites, and is designed to build a fear (justified, but caused by Jewish Hart-Celler and deliberate pre-Trump native displacement policies) of black and mestizo crime. Proudly race-realist, the nominal founder, Jared Taylor, acquired Jewish financing to begin his work, and ensures that his compilers reproduce 50 articles critical of blacks or Mexicans for each one brief article talking about how unfair it is that the U.S. can't be just like Israel and have its own border wall like those smart Israelis who've understood the truth all along. Prominent Jewish academics continue to appear at Taylor's events, pushing the idea that science proves differences between whites and blacks, but that Jews are whites, Jews are indigenous Europeans, and yet Jews are superior to whites just as whites are superior to blacks (and Arabs, mestizos, et cetera). Identifying Jewish racial superiorities is permitted, while data or speculation in the other direction is suppressed. E.g., discussing data of a 105 average Jewish I.Q. versus a 100 average non-Jewish European (sic--as mentioned earlier, Taylor sometimes claims Jews are European and sometimes not) I.Q., is okay, and discussing European persecution of the diaspora is okay, but discussing the opposite, particularly the modern opposite, is not.

The Unz Review was founded by Jewish deep state operative Ron Unz, a Harvard/Stanford man who, like American Renaissance, collects a vast quantity of data on how IQ determines a sub-species' success, how Jews have a higher IQ than any other group, and how America and Europe are being destroyed by black/mestizo crime and need to follow Jewish leadership, build a border wall, and expel/eliminate non-Whites and non-Jews in order to survive.

Gates of Vienna, the penultimate neoconservative site, was founded in crypsis by a team of authors who focus on how bad Islam is, and how Europe and the U.S. must unite with Israel to destroy the Muslim world as part of a Dubya-esque conflict of civilizations. Though focused on Muslims, it permits lengthy, detailed rants about African Americans, Europeans of African descent, Mexicans, South Americans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, and Pacific Islanders, but deletes suggestions that refugee and/or immigration policy is now or has ever been related to crime caused by refugees and/or immigrants, or that Jews are in any way different from the "superior European peoples" it endlessly flatters. Targeted at a less intelligent audience than the others, there is no veneer of pretending to critically analyze Jews along with other races, nor to dress up the criticism of Arabs as respectable; accordingly, absolutisms, slurs, and extended verbal praise given to the King of Israel are more common here.

The Jewish homosexual Milo Yiannopoulos has his own vast twitter following, speaking at international events and garnering major media publicity and university speaking engagements to promote intellectual racism. Like American Renaissance and The Bell Curve, but "edgier," he too pushes the idea that White Christian civilization needs to become more like Israel, with walls, restrictive covenants, et cetera (not that any of those things in and of themselves are bad; we're just describing the new social normative).

Andrew Breitbart, another prominent Jewish media figure predating the "print journalism and TV are totally uncool" period, became the Arianna Huffington of the "right wing," lending his surname to a website ( that, like all of the other major-media-critical sites previously discussed in this post, is primarily a middleman trader/banker of selected major media articles. Similarly to how the Jewish Reuters consolidated various journalists' work under the owner's control, and began disseminating selected pieces of it internationally, all of these new sites have produced precious little fresh content, instead regurgitating traditional media fodder to a targeted audience with a slant of, "See? We were right, there's another intra-racial attack, therefore Jews and Europeans are in this together and need to build border walls and fight off Arabs, blacks, and Mexicans."

The Right Stuff was founded by Mike Peinovich, a Jewish programmer (like Moldbug/Yarvin) from New York married to a Jewish transgender advocate, who disparages Israeli hypocrisy in not letting the U.S. be more racist, build its own border wall, and begin exterminating or expatriating non-Jewish minorities. It permits anti-Jewish comments within a framework of understanding that it is unfair that Jews have such perfect nationalism in Israel, and that America and Europe deserve to become more Jewish by executing/expatriating all non-White, non-Jewish persons, and adopting Israeli-style apartheid and a border wall. (Peinovich was in crypsis until quite recently, when his wife's ethnicity was discovered, leading to the discovery that he was Jewish and that his family had also adopted a mulatto child, which he had previously been pretending was a terrible betrayal of civilization. If you follow any of this crap, you already know this.) The Right Stuff is high-gloss compared to many other sites, permitting explicit criticism of Jews with the goal of producing envy of Israel and duplication of successful Jewish strategies.

The beady-eyed, big-nosed Mike Cernovich named his website after a Nietzsche quote in an attempt to appear more white. At Danger and Play, not only does he sell self-help books (and support his fellow agents in the PUA/Trump movement, as discussed in Linking for the Future), he discusses the future of white identity, black/mestizo inferiority, and the necessity of border walls and exterminations. Like many other Jewish race-managers of the PUA movement, he had previously been engaging in pure sex-driven marketing in order to grow the brand that initially became Trump, including counseling black men on how to pick up white women using their superior masculinity. Now, though, he's changed his public persona to that of an almost-white nationalist, for his PUA brand proved successful enough that he was able to switch forms of crypsis, transitioning fully to Trumpism rather than masculinism, without any dissonance apparent to his target market.

The Jewish Roosh, of Return of Kings, has already been discussed before in The Western Patriarchy, along with many of his other wealthy fellow travelers who engaged in the Greek-lettered salesmanship buildup to the Trump chariot-race.

Staged Rebellions

We've previously discussed the concept of staged rebellions at length. Far more immediate in impact than merely empty pastimes--drunkenness, television, tweeting, or whatever's next--the social rebellion of an age keeps the hamster on the metaphorical wheel. Humans do need junk food, because of their as-yet unconquered biology, and they do need porn for the same reason, yet their other instincts--their desire for progress and meaning--need to be satisfied also, lest the bank be assaulted. Ergo the ritual disassembly of an artificial normative framework is quite necessary. Creating, then destroying, then rebuilding, the patriarchy, has been a vital task of successive generations of humanity, like a complexified Sisyphus, condemned not to roll and watch fall, but to build and tear down houses. In our Sisyphean task, we play the role of not only the pusher, but of gravity itself, as we are guided through various forms of conflict. Black Lives Matter cannot exist without slavery, which cannot exist without traders and traitors. In each case, we go through the ritual: assault and retreat, assault and retreat, assault and retreat, forever without end.

The Western Patriarchy, previously cited above, discusses the Jewish role in creating the artificial patriarchy expressly for the purpose of making patriarchy look stupid and spurring feminism, which was created expressly for the purpose of making women's rights look stupid and spurring a counterreaction, which will be (and is now so being) created expressly for the purpose of making its own end result look stupid and spurring a counterreaction. This isn't to say that agnatic kinship isn't useful, or perhaps even necessary for the healthy formation of certain types of societies (particularly those comprised of the post-fallen-Egypt, post-fallen-Rome, post-Charlemagne traitors and rapespawn who numerically predominate in Europeoid populations today); it very much is, given a certain set of genetic and spiritual variables with which to work. Yet the instinctual traces of something being wrong persist, and so something like feminism will return, albeit in more terrible form--aided, perhaps, by surgical body transfers in conjunction with electronic records alteration, so that, for the dwindling thinkers, it will truly be impossible to understand origins or reasons.

That Jewish creation of cinematic western patriarchy is now being duplicated by a reborn intelligent racism, which is only as correct as it is incorrect, and which is destined to meet the same scornful fate as political-correctness, and other pollyannaish nihilisms and universalisms, have been and are now meeting. Right now, many are enjoying the relief from political-correctness by bathing in the putrescent light of a new movement, but that movement was itself spawned by the very same Jewish lines that spawned the prior movement. Europeoids--Whites--were not able to accomplish this. White nationalist literature, organizations, and websites were blithely dismissed for decades, until Jews abruptly began receiving exponentially growing media attention for reciting those same white nationalist talking points. In telling fashion, new gentile frontmen are being selected for future political roles. As Saul Alinsky used his "Weather Underground" organization to prep the career of many future players in academia, media, and the federal government--including, of course, a nominal U.S. president who oversaw another 8 years of murdering Arabs, forcing Americans to endure the resulting blowback, and continuing wealth transfers from U.S. workers to Israeli financiers--today's "underground resistance" organizations are actually sponsored by the same powerful Jewish banks that sponsored the very organizations their followers believe they're fighting against. Reagan armed and funded a powerful international mujahideen, giving Dubya something to fight against; Jews built Cathedrals (to use Moldbug's insultingly deceptive phrase), giving Trump something to fight against. As before, nothing will change, in the sense that powerful Jews will continue to disseminate a philosophy that will encourage one set of gentiles to hate/sue/insult/kill another set of gentiles.

Relevance to Antifa, Fash, Anti-Racists, and Racists

Everyone who believes anything is affected by this shifting of movements. Antifa and/or anti-racists should be concerned that all of the new things they don't like--Muslim bans, Muslim registries, border walls, deportation of undocumented people, grabbing pussies, et cetera--have been and are being scripted directly by a tiny percentage of extremely racist Jews. Conversely, fascists and/or nationalists and/or race realists should be concerned that all of the new things they like--Muslim bans, Muslim registries, border walls, deportation of undocumented people, grabbing pussies, et cetera--have been and are being scripted directly by a tiny percentage of extremely racist Jews. The recurrence of this same trend should give pause to anyone who hasn't already mortgaged their soul to the bankers-that-be: how can this be a true nationalism, a free and bright future for one's children, if it is created by the very same people who created cultural marxism, feminism, affirmative action, desegregated schools, free internet scat-porn, and legal abortion? Or, for the antifa, why is it that the owners of the slave ships were the ones who sold us slaves, their children were the ones who urged us to import the Irish to crush the slaveowners and bring free farming to the continent, their grandchildren huddled in segregated neighborhoods in New York and mocked country folk, their great-grandchildren demanded an end to restrictive covenants and the promotion of interracial marriage, and their great-great-grandchildren demanded a border wall and a return to IQ-restricted societies.

As the saying goes, "What the hell, man?" The very things the antifa are fighting against are Jewish, just as the very things the alt-right are fighting against are Jewish. The usual hypocrisy is there, but somehow goes unnoticed in the storm over Hispanic crime: for the anti-racists, why did Israel spend the second half of the twentieth century racially segregated and murdering darkies, while simultaneously scolding the U.S. for being racially segregated and murdering darkies? That's an old conundrum now that "the alt-right" has caused a bunch of conservatives to stop squealing with glee over going to war against another country on Israel's behalf (they will probably stay quiet about that until Trump realizes how important it is to invade _________, whereupon they will fall back in line with expensive overseas empire). The newer conundrum--the one that needs to be important to blacks, Hispanics, feminists, leftists, anti-racists, et cetera--is, "Why is this new form of racism given mainstream popularity and acceptability entirely because of Jews?" Remember: those ideas were always out there, but they only began to get attention, and to create plausible candidacies, when Jews started pushing them.

A single thread connects every piece of history since the plagued Hyksos people--the mysterious "subversive Asiatics" who'd appeared seemingly out of nowhere--began settling in the eastern villages of Egypt, with their strange diseases and their disruption of the local populace. Every human civilization since then has fallen into decay, every god slain except the echo of the one celebrated for death. Nubia was destroyed, and Mesopotamia, and Egypt and Athens; Rome and Alexandria and Babylon, London and Columbia, and even burning Baghdad and poisoned Persia. More accessibly, a single thread has underscored every action America has ever taken: the panics and depressions against its own people, and the campaigns against the roving Siberians; the sacrificing of its sons on the questionable behalf of others, and the sullying of their souls in the extermination of others yet. Again we pass through a cycle of history, and again America responds like the trained dog. Chain the Negroes, be raped by the Negroes, chain the Negroes, pay the Negroes. Bomb the Japanese, sell to the Japanese, love the Japanese, hate the Japanese, educate the Japanese. Serve the man, hate the man, scathe the man, embrace the man. Mock the old gods and embrace science and observation; reject soulless decay and worship the dead rabbi on a stick; mock the dead rabbi and embrace science and observation; beg the dead rabbi to save you from soulless decay. Bomb the Arab, welcome the Arab, give the Arab your children, bomb the Arab again...

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Retroactively Gay: Empty Bagpersons

The eerie similarity between politics and Potter continues afresh with Obama's tentatively postponed pardon of Manning. Like Rowling's decision to retroactively engayize Dumbledore after all the books had been published and the first billion made, Obama's choice of Manning as the one whistleblower to sorta eventually future maybe set free--not ironically, the one who released the least-unknown, least-strategic information of all of them (I know you don't know the others' names off the tops of your heads, but you're on the internet, aren't you?)--was strategic cowardice and cowardly strategy. Rowling picked "gay" by the end of her books, because it was growing increasingly popular, because she'd run the entire gamut without acknowledging the existence of a non-hetero character, and because her formally-acknowledged fanbase was now as old as [age initially targeted] + [time between first and last publication], therefore she could be the opposite of brave and retroactively out Dumbledore. What cowardice, indeed; not only did Rowling and Obama wait until the end, but even at the end, they chose only the currently popular trend to highlight as their contribution to the progressive legacy. Right or wrong, Obama didn't have the character to free Manning before, but wanted to buy a historical legacy by appearing in later textbooks as the person who pardoned Manning; similarly, Rowling didn't have the character to write Dumbledore as gay, even in the very last books, but had to wait until, so to speak, mere days before the Twilight inauguration.

No particular surprises there, except that Manning's weirdo sex change may have actually saved the soldier from 35 years in prison. The news media covered the Manning case extensively, from the worthless non-revelations revealed by the "leaks," to Obama's inability to act human (either angry or forgiving or rational) during the trial or sentencing, to his pardon in the waning hours. Did Bradley really want a sex change, or is s/he smarter than we ever assumed, and knew that the only way to get a pardon, and not spend the entire rest of her/his life in military prison, was to manifest some media-friendly condition that would get airtime and justify the trinketizing of his/her situation as "worthy of presidential attention"? Other men and women who revealed actually-somewhat-unknown things about Obama's terror network are still in prison, since they never claimed a sexual reason for their behaviors. Manning could be an incredibly brilliant political forecaster who saved his life by becoming a transwoman. It's easy to say you wouldn't make that bargain no matter what, but if the options were 35 years to life in the brig, or going on a lot of talk shows and publishing a successful memoir, then fading into the background and having a free and financially independent life for two and a half decades thereafter, is jacking off occasionally in the MP-monitored shower, never knowing human contact again, still worth a tenuous claim to manhood? Many an accused has faced the indignity of the "insanity plea," but that's old hat, and Obama has proven that he has mercy only on things he finds salacious and salaciously sellable. All the better for Manning if she actually wanted to be a she anyway, but the sudden hunger-strike for SRS after joining the Marines and going into combat would've been an aptly timed political move.

During Obama's term, and in the vicinity of Manning's confinement, we certainly saw the celebrity use of sexuality and sex-change as a tool for receiving presidential approval, e.g., Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner's 15 absurd minutes. If you do anything wrong during the next year or two, ask for a bench trial and, instead of pretending to be an abused child hearing voices, pretend to be a lifelong member of the other gender (diction for the rhyme scheme only). How long until they get to furries? No, seriously. There's gotta be a lab somewhere in Thailand offering plug-tails on a permanent basis, by now. Shouldn't be more than another decade or two before Hopkins finds someone to pioneer it in a serious, non-perverse (sic), identity-based way.

Returning to Obama and Rowling, their use of Manning/Dumbledore is, of course, both comical and tragic. The either cognitively mundane or spiritually broken persona one would have to possess in order to come to believe oneself, or to so cheaply trade in identities, respectively, about such issues as they did, is of cosmic significance albeit microscopic in detail by autopsy. Cowardice abounds in both situations: Obama hideously ignored, then hideously liberated, Manning for political purposes, and Manning's binary-yet-alternative sexual identity (e.g., s/he subscribed to one of the two biological sexes), is just progressive enough to not raise too many eyebrows among the people he wants writing his history books. He wouldn't have pardoned a furry, a slash bara, or a self-identified spirit wolf, but only the tamest sort of trans and/or homo-sexual, in accordance with current normatives. He wasn't brave enough to do it at the beginning of his career, anymore than Clinton, but by 2017, he's able to hop on the transbandwagon. Rowling, by retcontinuitally outing a straight old dead man, harvested Dumbledore for her own legacy in the same way. Once others had forged the path, she followed it to mass acclaim. Our history will show her as a trendsetter, much like Obama.

This one referenced George Lucas in 2011, in particular the way his perspectives on acceptable fighter pilots changed between episodes:
George Lucas would do a slightly nicer permutation of this same theme a decade later. He proved his forward-thinkingness socially illusory, capable only of matching the standard liberal mores of his time, in his casting of the fighter pilots in Episode IV and Episode I: in Episode IV, A New Hope, better known as the first Star Wars, Lucas cast the Rebellion's fighter pilots almost exclusively as mid-40s/50s men who badly voice- and seat-acted their attack on the Death Star ("Stay on target...stay on target...") While neither progressive nor likely (pilots in control of dynamic, aggressive fighter craft tend to be a bit younger, rather than the older "respectable U.S. military officer" type that Lucas cast), this dynamic reflected the popular view of the core of a worthwhile rebellion in 1977: older white male authority figures, much like the traditional doctor or lawyer.

More telling, for Lucas' perspective, is that 20 year old men who fought Nazi Germany in planes and on battlefields in the 1940s would, around the time Star Wars was being prepared, be 50 year old men who gave the uninspired George Lucas an image of what his plucky hero pilots should be. Luke won the day with the help of a wise old man of British descent, who taught him how to master Oriental mysticism, but the core of the fighter corps was Lucas' image of WW2 veterans. A galaxy far, far away indeed.
Lucas' work there was not at all heinous in the matter of Rowling/Obama, and Lucas probably had an "honest conversion" between the 1970s and the 2000s, causing him to realize he "should" insert a smattering of black and/or female pilots to be diverse. Like Mace Windu's forced lines and unnecessary scenes, they were purposeful racial tokens, albeit more numerous, honest ones; Lucas' primary characters retained their original Anglo/Jewish character, demonstrating how superficial was his decades-long racial awakening.

In contrast to Lucas, Rowling and Obama were less cultural subjects, and more cultural operators. Not only was neither of them brave, knowledgeable, decent, or honest enough to defend homosexuality or transsexuality early on--for example, Obama being forthcoming about his Chicago lifestyle and still winning the presidency, or Rowling working Dumbledore's male life partner into book 4 and demanding her fans accept it--but they were not even of sufficient caliber to, after having supposedly realized they'd made a mistake in the past, show that they'd learned from that mistake by addressing their own current prejudices, rather than merely past ones that are now cool to address. Rowling chose "a single homosexual character out of a cast of hundreds, and who is dead therefore can't ever place demands on me to have him do anything which might indicate he actually was or is homosexual," and Obama chose "a single transsexual character out of a cast of millions, and who has been drugged and literally (not the figurative way people like saying on the internet so much these days) militarily gaslighted for years before being released," like the latest lone white shooter getting bombarded with drugs, lights, music, and extended periods of sleeplessness before being pushed dazedly through his show-trial. The heroes they're pretending to be would've been in the vanguard. Obama might have, for example, not freed a single transsexual, but also freed people who'd been interred for mere bestiality or bigamy, and Rowling might have written a new series about Sexual Reassignment Spells for children, rather than declaring one deceased male character homosexual and waiting for several years more before being willing to consider an interracial relationship by blessing someone else's sequels.

This seemingly random behavior in puppet celebrities, like that of medieval kings, indicates not only their inherent cowardice, which is a given, but their genuine uncertainty about what actually is right or wrong, and what will or won't be popular. Not only do they have no principles, they also don't understand what people will find to be good principles next season. Rowling's willingness to be superficially brave about homosexuality and black Hermione (let us recall that the original Harry Potter failed due to a prominent African character) is matched by the earlier void of her soul, when what was "right" was what was culturally appropriate at the time. Obama's willingness to take a stand on gay marriage, and to pardon a transwoman, is equally empty compared to his earlier willingness to take only the opposite stands. Teleport these people to a different time and place, and they would, in exchange for some degree of fame and fortune, adopt or discard any given viewpoint where popular or convenient.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Where are the pedos hiding?

For thousands of years, history records the wealthy and powerful making sexual use of children, both for pleasure and as part of bonding rituals. Clerics, royals, and the mediators who help them operate different states and religions have long facilitated this purpose. Africa, Europe, and Asia have histories of child sex slavery going back thousands of years. So if that particular network of pizza places and orphanages in Washington, D.C. is innocent, fine. But if so, where are the pedos hiding? Or have they, like corrupt rulers and evil bankers, vanished entirely sometime during the past fifty years?

The disbelief that many people feel in the face of "Sandusky" or "Epstein" or "Catholics" or "Pizzagate" is not disbelief in those particular instances, anymore than the disbelief in the destruction of the World Trade Center or the purposeful media campaign to lie about the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq is actually a disbelief in the specifics of those occurrences. Rather, it is a willful disbelief in the idea that the present is in any way connected to the past; a refusal to acknowledge mortality, responsibility, or the heritability of genes and/or institutions. Some people could walk outside their flats right now and find Bill Clinton sweating nude inside a circle of cheering currency-traders, raping a two-year-old to death while the entire staff of the New York Times and the Washington Post filmed it, and geneticists and philosophers from Harvard and the College of the Ozarks, as well as Ken Watanabe and Chris Nolan, verified that it was actually happening, and although they might be willing to admit that Bill Clinton was "a bit of a horndog," they wouldn't believe that the event had been planned, condoned, or could be properly understood by outsiders, and they would think it was ridiculous to either ask or answer the question, "How did everyone know to show up out there at the same time?"

At various times, this one has contemplated whether or not the dominant religion of the age is Second Judaism (Christianity), Third Judaism (Islam), or Fourth Judaism (Atheism), or some universalist derivation and/or blend of all three. Nihilism of course suggests itself, but curiously enough, the certitude with which today's human approaches the question of coordinated behavior is so strong that to call it "nihilism" would be flattering. Rather, the dominant pattern of thought seems to be an advanced form of solipsism, wherein people believe that they exist, and that other people cannot possibly organize or exist in the same way because admitting that other people have imagination and agency would somehow devalue what they perceive as their own imagination and agency--e.g., "If a bunch of people could get together and plan how to rape children and not get caught, then maybe I'm not really so unique or clever for planning to use my 401(k) to take a few trips when I retire." Malfeasance, thus, has to be an accident: "The neoconservatives couldn't have possibly planned to lie to produce public support for a war, therefore, what they did must've been an opportunistic fit of anger."

There's certainly a component to this that is mere wishful thinking, e.g., "I don't want there to be people that evil and foresighted out there." We easily imagine serial killers, but not groups of them. And of course, there's an ethnic and entertainment-media component about whom we're permitted to imagine has imaginations and follow-through, and who doesn't. Yet, when all is said and done, where are the pedos hiding? What makes our institutions so sacrosanct that rapey viziers are suddenly excluded from the courts of brutal warlords, who are themselves excluded by well-meaning but occasionally-mistaken selfless humanitarians?

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Message Transition

Books were resisted at first: the Catholic/Jewish occupation of Europe attempted to monopolize human knowledge for centuries, locking it up in older languages and restricting its use to private networks of child molesting second-sons from noble houses (some of whom did, admittedly, record the occasional scientific discovery and/or copy classical texts for later use). Personal charisma, and the exploitation of traditions of rulership, were used to control normative messaging. This was the Dark Ages, in part caused by the retreat to castles to avoid Muslim pirates, in part caused by the need for the occupation government(s) to restrict the printed word after the invention of paper (then comparatively cheap compared to stone tablets, woven scrolls, or papyrus).

Yet, as we all know, the Dark Ages ended, and in short order, books became an acceptable vehicle for normative framing. The Reformation attempted to spread knowledge of how to read the Bible--ironically, this was done in the name of freedom, but the controllers of the Bible had planned for it to eventually be released, and a released Bible proved able to weather the storm of spiritual and technological advancement, and lay the groundwork for future profitable ventures. As literacy increased, it proved to be a useful weapon: widespread literacy became mandatory schooling, and books--once the bane of rulers who relied on physical ritual, physical force, and firsthand charisma--became a pedagogical tool to justify an even more sustainable rulership, e.g., one that no longer required flesh-encased rulers, but ideological rules.

And so books became the new standard. And things went on as before. In theory, the freedom of anyone to write, then print, and disseminate, a book, should have made these governments vulnerable, but in fact, control of publishing houses, communications standards, and public interest, made books a more powerful version of the control exercised previously. Trans-"national" ideas could be exploited through switching languages. Everything could go on as before. People were less likely to take up arms and (actually) fight over Marx or Aristotle than they were to fight over a physically embodied king or lord. Populations grew more complacent. The books taught normatives, people believed them, and then there was radio and television, which were handled like books had been. As before, everyone could theoretically use the airwaves to communicate, but banks quickly took control of those via governments, and the seemingly infinite freedom of radio and television transmission turned into an even more intrusive banking normative than before. The power of freedom became a power of greater oppression. Not only through army-enforced airwave standards, leaving programming in control of bankers and their governments, but through mockery of non-banking sources, were people able to embrace banks even more than before. The television, even more so than the book, could simultaneously be several types of the establishment as well as several conflicting types of resistance, and vicarious participation in it was living.

The internet now seems poised to shutter television and print similarly to how radio and television closed books, so to metaphorically say. Various intelligence-agency agents are clearly banking (sic) on this; the development of self-referencing public personas who mock television and newspapers as "outdated," thereby harvesting a trend building since the last technology switch but which had been completely barred by banking powers until All Of A Sudden Now (see e.g. Linking for the Future for the social aspects, and CIAdams for a more political take). News was always "fake," and the new news is equally fake, like Whole Foods (sic), astroturf political movements (sic), or popular internet commentators who spend inordinate amounts of time differentiating themselves from their ancestral television demagogues. Martin Luther, C. Wright Mills, and countless other unknowns (may they flow easy in the Spring) observed that sermons/televisions were insider lies, celebrity-reeking bankster crap; human history has been, in its every moment, stuffed full of people claiming that the message was lies and the medium corrupted; the message of escape was panned everywhere, though, until suddenly, at some point during 2016, the bank decided to co-opt all earlier resistances, and claim that TV was biased against savior Trump (the television personality), and people should start getting their news from independent internet sensations whose reach was predetermined by the same banks and deep state agencies that have spent the last century publishing nipple-slips, Rothkos, and Britain's Got Talents.

As in all earlier cycles, we're seeing the same indicia of the establishment of a new means of banking normatives: calls for nationalizing the medium, e.g., nationalizing Facebook or Twitter (which has already been completed indirectly in many parts of the world); exuberant demagogue-stoked fan support for disparaging the previous media as the cause of the sins engaged in by the fans themselves, e.g., mocking television's focus on empty crap while gobbling up empty crap on the internet (which is totally different); an older generation snootily refusing to admit that the old medium was full of crap, alongside a younger generation punkily refusing to admit that the new medium is full of the same crap. The "freedom" of the internet remains subject to the intellectual capacity of the masses to experience information in its own right, rather than to seek the reassurance of self-referencing demagogues and the groups they provide. Put ten agents with a budget into the field, drop references to them on the right sites, and voila, the internet itself is the new New Yorker, conformist and stupid, but adjusted for a new age and a new audience.

Sunday, January 8, 2017

The Utility of Sexual Assault

Everyone loves evolution so much right now, so let's talk about the utility of sexual assault. More and more people claim to be pro-evolution, pro-eugenic, et cetera, but they're shying away from the logical conclusions of those policies. Let's illuminate.

Man Raping Woman

Raping grown-up females is generally understood as an evolutionary advantage, even if an "unfair" one, assuming one adheres to a theory of evolution where the behavior developed before the easy availability of birth control, abortion, and/or social acceptance/encouragement of the latter two technologies. The simplest example is a man raping a woman without being caught: if he can do it, and if they're both fertile, then he might get a genetic gain at her expense: 50% (in theory) of his genes are passed on, while she and/or society at large has to bear 100% of the burden of raising the offspring. The woman gets a 50% gain, too, but not pursuant to her own selection preference (in theory), and while sacrificing 50% of the effort (because by choosing a partner who stayed with her, she would receive 50% of the necessary labor in turn, and could therefore double her genetic output by raising two of her own children for the same theoretical effort, instead of covering 100% of the bill for only the rapist's child).

Man Raping Man

The female one is the simplest. The "man rapes man" angle is less well understood, but still comparatively simple. Besides being indicia of dominance, which has its own evolutionary utility, man-rapes-man is likely to privately humiliate and potentially engayen (made-up word: en-gay-en) the victim, or in some other way make him less likely to reproduce, therefore producing a marginal benefit--but still a benefit--to the assailant, and/or the assailant's genetic group.

...but wouldn't simply killing the man, rather than raping him, produce the same benefit? No. Absent a victim-friendly culture (and, biologically speaking, even inside a victim-friendly culture), the rape victim is less likely (or not-at-all likely) to report the assault than the murder victim's body is to be discovered, but instead to start avoiding sexual contact, kill himself, become a pariah, and/or in some other way become a net genetic loss or drain to his own people. With the assault not reported, and not discoverable (because the embarrassed victim in an "honor" or "face" culture never wants anyone to find out), the attack by the rapist's genetic group is unknown, and the secret man-on-man rape can occur without interfering with the two groups' public relationship. Ergo the rapists' group gains at the expense of the majority-unknowing victims' group, whereas the murderer's group might be resisted by the majority-knowing victims' group (a string of dead men being far more difficult to conceal versus a string of privately shattered men). Indeed, it would be a historically successful evolutionary strategy for any ethnic group to develop a sub-population of bisexuals or homosexuals, cultivate disease among them, then employ them in raping outside men, thereby reducing the genetic diversity available to the enemy population's breeding stock, as well as spreading disease in relative secret.

Many modern institutions, perhaps in particular prisons, could be viewed as an expression of this model: a designated group is fostered and cultivated as a "rapist population," diseased and sexually aggressive, then used to instill shame and/or disease among designated victim groups. Biologically (if you like evolution more) and socially (if you like gender studies more), the rape of women is more likely to be noticed by a victim culture, due to pregnancy, attentiveness to female virginity, implacable male chauvinist self-vulnerability-denial, or what-have-you. Raping women, like killing men, is more likely to be perceived as an attack by the victim group, whereas raping men--while not as directly effective at spreading the aggressor group's genes--is a more effective group evolutionary strategy overall, because it reduces the blowback costs of overt assaults.

(Even more effective would be a primary aggressor group encouraging the killing/rape of a competing group by a different competing group--the "subordinate" or "contingent aggressors"--and then eventually allowing the assault to be discovered, causing the victim group to retaliate against the contingent aggressor group, and therefore destroy the murder weapon employed by the primary aggressor group. To make the cycle sustainable, victim/aggressor groups should be regularly switched; e.g., it should become globally permissible, every few generations or so, to stop punishing one group and begin punishing another. The former victim group will be groomed to become the new subordinate aggressor group, and the former subordinate aggressor group will become, again, the victim group--primed to later resume its role as subordinate aggressor, with seeming justification, against what it perceives as the cause of its harms. When the time for the switch draws near, scientists would be able to observe members of the primary aggressor group begin to speak vitriolically about the crimes of the subordinate aggressor group, and to encourage the victim group to recognize and defend itself from the depredations of those subordinate aggressors.)

Modern cultures' openness toward rape makes the secret-shame aspect of this strategy less viable, but the right cultural engineering can produce a situation where embracing shame itself produces the same effect, e.g., lowered rates of reproductive confidence, higher rates of reproductive refusal, and/or inability to reproduce--all without anything other than "random lust" being formally responsible for the damage to the victim. Individualized, situational, and otherwise non-genetically-motivated "medical issues," including lasting injuries and "psychological issues," can be deemed responsible for the resulting reduced reproduction rates, leaving less-intelligent population groups and/or group-members unable to see the move and countermove of the true genetic conflict that is occurring. In particular, because of a lack of both widespread creative intelligence and time machines, it is impossible for most people to conceive of the opportunity costs of a successful rape.

In American prisons (including "school" and "military" installations), damage to a rape victim's orifice(s) is generally left unspoken but presumed; left unspoken and largely unknown is how many male victims suffer permanent damage to the penis and/or testicles, rendering them impotent and/or infertile as a result of the assault. If male-on-male rape is more realistically understood as "forced sterilization," the notion that homosexuality is maladaptive is discredited. Homosexuality possesses vast evolutionary utility; in fact, because of the seeming incongruity between non-reproductive sex and the birth of infants, Terran scientists have been embarrassingly lax in exploring, or even conceiving of, this avenue of inquiry.

Still fairly easy. Let's take it down a notch.

Man Raping Girl

After discussing Man Raping Woman, this one should be easy. Raping girls within a genetic group may have an individual evolutionary benefit, either in the case of telegony, first-shot at pubescence, et cetera, and in the case of fertile victims, it would have all the genetic benefits of raping a woman. In the case of infertile victims, though--pedophilia--rape's evolutionary advantage in regards victim groups is, besides all of the obvious psychological and sociological factors (which have been massively discussed recently in regards the Islamization of Europe, so I won't re-cover it), a step toward destroying not only the victim group's girls' ability to successfully become impregnated or carry future pregnancies to term, but to scar them psychologically against healthy emotional relationships, sociocultural bonding, and/or motherhood.

Ironically, feminism in the West has helped an appreciation of the awful evolutionary benefits of this kind of rape to be generally understood, even if not always expressed in the context of evolutionary utility. Let's move on to lesser-known territory.

Man Raping Boy

Now that we've discussed the evolutionary utility of men raping other men, the comparatively increased genetic utility of a man raping a boy should be obvious. A younger victim is easier to shame, easier to damage both physically and mentally, and therefore, easier to exploit to achieve a genetic advantage. A genetic group which cultivates and protects a sub-population of homosexuals has the advantage of releasing those homosexuals on a potential competitors' young males, which can then be raped to prevent their becoming successful reproducers and/or providers for the enemy group. Regardless of culture, children are more easy to shame, and more easy to intimidate, making the development of child rape a highly successful tactic: while the adults of two competing groups can come to formal co-habitation arrangements, the rapists of one group can destroy the children of the second, and terrify the children into silence, without the adults in the victim group suspecting what is being done to their children. Boy victims can be traumatized against reproduction, have their reproductive capability destroyed physically or mentally, or can have their vulnerability exploited to duplicate their trauma within the victim society. If a rapist-cultivating group attacks a victim-group's children, and the victims become homosexual and grow up to prey on their own children, the rapist-cultivating group has achieved a twofold success: not only was one generation of reproductive ability directly affected, but additional generations as well. And those victims who become attackers, by being native to the victim group, fully funded their own (in truth, the competing group's) task, calorically and defensively.

Those who understand and control homosexuality, rather than those merely averse to it, have the advantage. The Torah/Talmud and the Qur'an/Hadith are extremely effective in this regard, as they doth protest too much about in-group and adult homosexual relationships, while encouraging child rape and adult rape as a reward for the chosen; the Gospels, by contrast, are naively averse to the topic, thus designed for victim groups who can be preyed upon by rabbis, vicars, and other Jenomic jihadists.

This theory accommodates both germ, genetic, and learned-behavior theories of homosexuality. If germ, then identifying and cultivating the homosexual sub-population provides an ethnic group with a useful weapon to employ against competitors (or their children), with the bonus of knowing that, once the germ has been spread, the infection would take root. The risk of that strategy is that the victim group, once it has cultivated its own homosexual sub-population, might employ it against the men or children of the original aggressor group. Easy to solve: integration for the victim group, segregation for the original aggressor group.

Learned-behavior theories of homosexuality work the same. If a genetic group can encourage a sub-population to learn homosexuality, then have that sub-population forcibly teach homosexuality to members of a targeted outsider-group, the victims will learn it and potentially spread it further among their own group.

Genetically speaking, if homosexuality were wholly genetic (or partly, or potentially-pre-dispositionally), then we now understand the value of having deciding- or trigger-genes for homosexuality: to provide a genetically similar group with a weapon to use against competitor populations. If not by rape, then by seduction, homosexuality genes could activate/trigger, increasing homosexual prevalence among the target group.

(If you prefer to see homosexuality as a personal spiritual choice and nothing else, you can still appreciate the most basic elements of those who might be so wicked as to use their sexuality as a weapon against the unconsenting: e.g., causing anal, penile, and testicular damage to victims, in order to prevent them from discovering their own selves. It's a spiritual assault as well as a genetic one.)

We're seeing here how homosexuality is an incredibly effective adapted trait. All existing analyses of homosexuality are naively Rousseauian, postulating homosexuality only on the level of individuals and hypothetically-pastorally isolated groups, and decreeing it, therefore, maladaptive, when in fact homosexuality is an essential adaptive behavior for surviving between-group competition on a planet that has more than one human population competing for resources. Considering history in this way gives us a view as to how homosexuality could have been used to quietly destroy large groups of genetic competitors, and how mimicry, crypsis, and/or comparative femininity could have been a major factor in evolutionary history. Consider, e.g., the interbreeding dissolution of the neanderthal.

Neanderthal v. Femboi

Posit year 2100. Sexbots and VR have been perfected, and for $200 (or $10? provided free by the United Earth Authority?), every man can purchase a completely interactive, AI sexbot (or fully immersive VR, your choice) with perfect looks, endless optional features, sweet and obedient (or feisty or dominatrix--I said "optional features," right?), et cetera. Effects on reproduction rates? Sure, there are vat-grown babies, but what if the sexbots are so cheap that going to work at the vat factory only takes unnecessary time away from your perfect lifetime companion-bot?

Assume, then, that a couple generations later, the predictable effects on the world's population have occurred. Aliens land, meet minimal resistance, and take over. They laugh at the remaining humans: "Haha, you fools! You were evolutionarily designed to prefer the sexbots' soft features and sweet-sixteen bodies, but didn't you realize, they weren't actual women? Hahahahahaha we win!"

(So that's why they were so cheap!)

But anyway, now posit a similar example, but thousands and thousands of years ago. Thick, strong, intelligent neanderthals are in control of Europe. The males have been genetically designed to mate with bipedal humanoids who are feminine, which they judge based upon smaller size, weaker, softer/rounder features, et cetera. Do you see the evolutionary mandate for the much-weaker humans? Human females have an obvious mandate, and one that, for Europeoid and Mongoloid populations, we know they followed. Human males, though, even the biggest and brawniest, are fiddling twinks compared to neanderthals; neanderthal bone and brain structures show that they had muscles strong enough that, if humans had them, flexing them fully would risk breaking the human skeleton, which is far too weak by comparison. Whatever steroid-laden person you think is strong and manly is a little pussy compared to a neanderthal or a gorilla.

What, in such a situation, can passed-over human males do to contribute to the great homo sapiens sapiens evolutionary project? Here we see homosexuality coming into play: neanderthal males would be mating with both neanderthal females and human females. To prevent the extinction of humans--their absorption into neanderthal lines, rather than vice versa--the neanderthal-only line needs to be destroyed, since it would always be the stronger, and would eventually out-survive the human-only line, as well as the human-neanderthal hybrid (which was to become later Europeoiods and Mongoloids). This can be accomplished by preventing neanderthal-only matches. Human-only and human-neanderthal females would be working on this as hard as they could, while human-only males would face a dwindling number of human-only females to choose as potential mates, and would see their own time ending.

In such a situation, homosexuality produces a positive genetic contribution to the human-line, permitting the disenfranchised human males' lines to continue. By using mimicry of neanderthal female features--e.g., by being smaller, rounder, softer, smoother, et cetera.--human males could break up neanderthal-neanderthal relationships, destroying the pure neanderthal lines, and permitting humans to absorb neanderthal genes, rather than the other way around. Like the sexbot-users in the earlier example, the neanderthal men would be being "tricked," in the sense that they wouldn't be reproducing. Yet, like the sexbot-users, all of the features of "genetic success lottery!" that they'd been programmed to seek out and impregnate would be present. Symmetrical humanoid, soft and pliant, vocalizing and signaling in familiar ways.

Male chimpanzees, far more removed from homo sapiens sapiens, have raped (human) female researchers, and the lengthy, terminal cross breeding of homo neanderthalensis is beyond current scientific dispute. The human crossdressing and transsexuality that endures today today, and the manic and showy way in which they are often pursued, can be best explained in light of these brutal evolutionary conflicts of the past, where every facet of sexuality had to be explored in order to achieve survival.

Friday, January 6, 2017

Life only matters

To say that life only matters because it is short is akin to saying that cake for dessert only matters because you had feces for breakfast. We've discussed the law of contrasts before in Torture, Murder, and Pain Prove You Exist and An Idealized Reality. Let us consider the comment again in light of the common Terran argument that only imperfection can make perfection possible. You may have experienced some of these philosophical poisons before. Contemplate:

"We can only recognize beauty because everything isn't beautiful. If everything were beautiful, we would have no standard by which to judge beauty; therefore, beauty would not exist."

"Life only has value because we are mortal. If we lived forever, nothing would matter."

"God has a plan. His reality only appears imperfect because the free will given to unrepentant sinners whom He knew would sin and not repent makes the beauty of others' repentance more profound."

These all are, in essence, the "cake only tastes good if you know shit doesn't" argument. They are absurd, and absurdly wrong, however, their true strength lies in the subtle conflation of the moral extremes which they present as false opposites. If, for example, fresh chocolate cake could not taste good without the ability to compare the experience of eating it to the experience of eating feces--or, if you prefer, the experience of eating instant oatmeal--then eating feces is good, because it is the foundation upon which cake itself rests. Conversely, under the rubric of the positive mortality argument, massacring preschoolers is good, because it adds value to the lives of the survivors (or of the sheltered unaware set of hypothetical preschoolers) by vindicating the comparatively superior survivor experience. We see this play out in the news, where hypothetical contrasts (whether they physically occur as described or not is irrelevant) permit us to define our own experience as positive or negative, or to identify with a group, experience empathy, et cetera, therefore strengthening our existential quandary--not through anything we do or witness, but through sheer speculation.

The Jewish-Christian Satan makes this argument too, becoming thereby the hero of the false dichotomy between benevolent-creator and malevolent-creator incurred through the corruption of Gospel with Torah. Satan, by sinning and enticing others to sin, permits goodness itself to exist, in a way that God never can. The wretchedness of the Jewish-Christian hybrid religion--a product of planned obsolescence, designed not merely to fail, but to fail in embarrassing and deleterious ways--is most fundamentally expressed in the necessity of evil to define good in this broken world. Due to the flaws in the material world, materialism, and thereby the cursed creator himself, must win the long argument; the Overton Window of Torah-based Christianity means that goodness is a zero-sum game, ergo the edited Gospels' keen interest in the legalistic stipulations of sin- and forgiveness-based negotiation. The Jewish-Christian God has necessarily to be a cuckold and a Flanders, hyper-unrealistically flawed, in order to spend his time in the pillory making Satan's rebellion suitably heroic.

The Law of Contrasts is false, in its own way, and it is a comparatively elementary matter to demonstrate that falsity, as when an omniscient and omnipotent devil giving an infant terminal leukemia is of less concern than a father of three glancing through a dirty magazine. Yet despite its falsity, it is necessary for some--those not bright enough to move beyond it do need to eat a little shit before they can eat a little cake, and would not understand beauty without first witnessing the hideous. It is an intellectual privilege of sorts--a "let the baby have his bottle" moment--to not require the primal validation of opposites in order to experience anything, and it is correspondingly selfish and immature to not, in a rather libertarian fashion, permit others the occasional reverence for the simple tools they require in order to be able to understand that they exist, and to make sense of the sensations they experience using the only way they know how.

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

The Most Pitiful

Some malevolent vessel stuffed full of money decides to destroy something to make the world a little more dead, and so a project is formed.

The most pitiful?

Many machinistically artistic souls agree to whore themselves for money, and the project becomes a product, and thousands of people invest themselves in disseminating it. Its putrescence slides into a gallery, reeking of the stink of the freshly unearthed carcasses of rape victims both recent and generations departed, and its mere existence inspires tremors of excitement through a population of bloated gluttons eager for more. The gluttons take it upon themselves to stoke their own gluttony and encourage others to join them down the grumous path.

The most pitiful?

Averse to the stench, a band of glib rebels congratulates themselves for hating the product. They labor before it anyway, pay witness, and then retreat to share their tales of how horrible it was, and how superior they are for recognizing that horror. Atop a distant peak, leathern wings unfold and beings of pure malevolence cackle in the absence of pleasure as they are rewarded and augmented by their self-proclaimed worst enemies, furthering their ability to poison and ravage not only the gullible, but the hopeless non-resisting faux-resistance of those eager to proclaim resistance by the very act of critical surrender.

The most pitiful?

Some malevolent vessel stuffed full of money decides to destroy something to make the world a little more dead, and so a project is formed. Many machinistically artistic souls agree to whore themselves for money, and the project becomes a product, and thousands of people invest themselves in disseminating it. Its putrescence slides into a gallery, reeking of the stink of the freshly unearthed carcasses of rape victims both recent and generations departed, and its mere existence inspires tremors of excitement through a population of bloated gluttons eager for more. The gluttons take it upon themselves to stoke their own gluttony and encourage others to join them down the grumous path. Averse to the stench, a band of glib rebels congratulates themselves for hating the product. They labor before it anyway, pay witness, and then retreat to share their tales of how horrible it was, and how superior they are for recognizing that horror. Atop a distant peak, leathern wings unfold and beings of pure malevolence cackle in the absence of pleasure as they are rewarded and augmented by their self-proclaimed worst enemies, furthering their ability to poison and ravage not only the gullible, but the hopeless non-resisting faux-resistance of those eager to proclaim resistance by the very act of critical surrender...and then someone reads someone else's critique of Big Movie and goes on a blog to subsidiarily whine about how damn dumb it all is.

The most pitiful.

Indeed, buying tickets, receiving free tickets, or in any other way devoting a portion of your life to any given cultural abscess is about as heady an act of resistance as Trumping for 1488. Being that much more aware than the pitiful Gen-X cohort of desperate IV-fed Hollywood puppets, eager for another hit of Known Franchise no matter the inhumanable discontinuity, means that it's that much worse of you to participate. You're preaching to the choir when you complain: either to young people who will attach, and would have attached, themselves to different franchises anyway, or to older people becoming more selective in their entertainment, since growing up means choosing different soulless repetitive degenerate filth franchises, as though quirky takes on new technology or rereading old CIA cold war space travel novels is a rejection of the terminally declining failure of since whenever you were born.

What use the minority critic when it survives only on the majority wrong; when it is, ultimately, derived from it? So too me, the unwanted minority minority minority critic, who isn't yet in the fortified compound on the Snake River, but is still tragically, even willingly, aware of the things to critique. My sin is the greater for even noticing. This one's pointing out of the problems inherent in suckling Hollywood to have something to complain about is, when all the relevant insightfulness is taken into consideration, a definitively worse act than buying tickets and going to the theater, then detailing to everyone why I'm so brilliant for recognizing why it sucked. I've learned not to go to the theater, but I'm still metaphorically fapping to the verbal sub-porn of the internet critics, a poor substitution for a poor substitution of the real thing, and creating therefore an exponentially worse monster by mentioning it at all. Even if this one hadn't written this blog post, the sin was still there.

At what point is the act of noticing itself a contribution to the initial evil? If we all stopped going to their shows, we would accomplish something, yet without going, no one can analyze specifically what is wrong. Similarly, if we stopped reading the official reviews, it would be another strike against power; even more so, if we stopped reading the tertiary layer of socially-critical and critically-critical reviews, that too might starve, and those people might stop seeing movies to disparage them, and it would be an indirect strike against the total revenues.

Ergo this one sees how this one is part of that system, propping it up in my own tiny way. Anyone who witnesses, even solely in order to object, is complicit in the crime; indeed, knowing that the objectionable is there to be objected to, one who witnesses in order to object has committed the greater crime than one who witnesses innocently.

Another of reality's paradoxes, this. We are all necessarily sinners, because to attempt to do good, one must participate, even to the tiniest extent--but still to some extent--in evil, or one can never understand it or help others understand it. If I don't read some sad fool's complaints about the latest ugly distraction, how can I ever have hope of telling him that not going at all would have been better? And yet, if he doesn't experience it and try to share his experiences with those who don't see the problem, how can he hope to ultimately fix anything? Perhaps it is not our place to do right, but merely to try to do something; something which may, potentially, be right at some point, but which is, here, only a moronic wrong.

Sunday, January 1, 2017

By Context: the Evils of Antitime

Do things really make us think things? Maybe most of us are just too embarrassed to admit we've been thinking.


In some way, we were all assaulted by Cronus through agricultural necessity: sow, tend, reap, wait. We might throw vast amounts of wealth into an ironically hypocritical material expression of immaterialism, e.g., a pyramid, and we might live our beliefs directly, dividing and subdividing each day into chronocontextual buoys, permitting us to express thought with less fear of recrimination. If we feel impassioned, we can blame our thoughts on the local deity, the ikon, or that most perennial of modern holidays, Sunday, set aside for reflection.

Cultural compression makes for omnipresent holidays of even greater power than before. Replacing solar years or lunar cycles with various Roman calendars imposes increased timekeeping requirements on the cattle, more profound than the clock in the substitution of visual conformance for ideatic--requiring the mental recollection of days, and 0.25s in Februarys, rather than the sky's freebie recollection of Time As It Is, perfect annual Terran time. Like substituting cover charges at a bar for a chaperoned village dance, the Semitic-Roman calendars created the time crisis of the age of prisons. The mechanical clock does the same, but its importance is overestimated by chronologians, who blame the social disruptions caused by banking on the improved technology of timekeeping. A sane village already had its constant clock in the form of knowledge of the sun; the hellish stress of punching a timecard and making a vital deadline was brought by willful bankers, not objective technology. The holidays, the conformance, became legalistic, mandatory creatures, with a crippled orc spawning each Sunday and demanding weekly coin for its magesire.

If Yule is gang-raped into Christmas, and Solstice to Easter, there is seemingly no change, yet if Christmas is followed by its sleazy friends from the bus station, as it inevitably must be--Hanukkah and Kwanzaa--the former logos becomes a mystical triumvirate, and the collection becomes, like Jury Duty, a mandatory use of your mental space.

The constancy of holidays in the banking territories has achieved a mission creep oft lamented among storegoers, namely the intrusion of Misters Claus and Chronos into pilgrim territory, and, in turn, that of Mister Valentine and Reverend Doctor King, Jr., into the new year. The profusion of "important times" has reproduced itself not merely into days, but into months, with historical months, historical days, war days, ethnic months, and so forth, merging with the schedules of government and entertainment media to produce an endless succession of holidays. Harvest and All Souls have become, in much of the western world, a miasmatic blend of not only Colonel Candy, Pumpkin Puritan, and Indigenous Indian, but requisite historical and ethnic days and months, blended with television seasons, elections and other moments of civic virtue, NFL kickoffs, dorm weeks and rush weeks, et cetera. Content is localized and targeted, creating the semi-hilarious hells of buying advisories for mail-openers and internet-users, and the egregious corporate self-plumbing of businesspersons, but the regional and national reach of time is itself sufficient to make the point. This was old news decades and decades ago, but now, so many people have been celebritized for doing so very little that there's always a celebrity fiasco, preferably a death, to serve as a stand-in holiday when a day has otherwise managed, on its own, to be significant in merely two or three ways. The investments made by the bank in fluffing awareness of public personae generations ago have produced increasing levels of market awareness of products even less relevant than the irrelevance they held earlier. Culturo-memetically, it's always time to buy.

Mediating Thought

People developing along this path have become time-focused in a way similar to how they've fabricated their own nauseatic personae through which to interact with a world they see as only interested in nauseatic personae. We've discussed how people have begun responding to large-scale tragedies not as feeling humans, but as how they envision media personalities, e.g. typing "My heart goes out to all those affected by ______", and people now do that with holidays also. Acting like the actors they see on TV, typing like the actors they read on the internet, people express themselves as aspects of the greater media whole.

It happens with holidays, too. People provide each other good wishes for holidays using speech patterns bought from the media machine: anodyne "Wonderful wishes to everyone for a pleasant new year," like something you'd read off a national corporation's website. Savvier commentators may mention being at a local event, in the way that a prominent local realtor updates her or his website, but--like the replacement of a Harvest turkey with some vlogger's "seasonal snack platters," a forest clan's Yuletide with a universalist Christmas, or of store-purchased Christmas gifts with handmade--the amount of meaning in the act has gone down. Ritual has replaced reality. It has long been the case that a celebrity domestic violence or public nudity incident garners more attention than a street battle with two deaths in Philadelphia; it then became the case that this same inverse, robotic sensationalism is reproduced by ordinary people--people not being paid to generate banality, but who do it because they desperately need approval for doing it--who have learned that they get more support for being a media personality than they do for being themselves. People speak to their closest friends and family in the dialect of a corporate moderator.

Youth enters the equation here, too, in that the system has become so pervasive that even defiant youth have learned the subtle lesson that defiance doesn't sell--at least, defiance not covered by the media. Anecdotally, most of the vibrant youfs on my Facebook page have stopped swearing or expressing anger; instead, their "heart go out" to everyone on this "momentus occasion" of "this New year" (sic, sic, sic). And when some older celebrity dies, even one they've never heard of and would hideously mock if forced to sit through the person's product, they offer global condolences more saccharine than those of a preprinted birthday card you buy your grandkids at the drugstore. It is a combination of Jerry Falwell's and Steven Hirsch's dreams, where the young become docile, uncreative, and cyclically provocative all at once. The media has managed to wed respectably interviewing respectable porn-stars with getting otherwise "fuck all y'all" populations to type carefully composed messages of sympathy to people who survived that minor bridge collapse in Nebraska--if a celebrity didn't die within the past twelve hours.

Marking Time

What of we ourselves? The profusion of holidays--of important events, discretely chronological, and with a purely ideological relationship to the sun or the stars or the physical world--has convinced many of us to tie our own developments to the ideological timekeeping of the banking world. Forget about all of the simplistic, banal social critique offered above, and focus on yourself, and ask yourself whether your own moments of development or insight are inspired by any given chronological hallmark in the outer world, or if you merely feel the need to tie such developments to such hallmarks as a defense mechanism.

This merits mention because a longer-standing component of banker occupation has been our refusal to develop mentally without correlating said development to issues of (supposedly) larger significance. The terror of Chronos is longstanding. A horde of fools suddenly remembering someone's art, which they otherwise wouldn't have given a single thought to in twenty years, is only a more blatant expression of the ways in which we've all lost some of ourselves to antitime.

Imagine growing up in a time and place free from the holidays. There are holidays, and festivals, and dances and feasts, but without the idea of a cruel, transcendental calendar, you are free from the need to link yourself to any given mini-epoch. Death is a constant, but there are no celebrity deaths; they are all actually personal. And there are fewer of everything. Fewer feasts, fewer grand remembrances, fewer dead poobahs. The ones that come actually mean something; they stir the aether. And if you still feel that about some modernized event, then imagine a signal like that one, but without all the surrounding distortion.

Without all of those events to shield you, when you make a personal development, you have nothing to blame it on. Nothing to free yourself from the terrifying responsibility. If you suddenly figure something out--if you solve a problem, make a serious resolution, or realize your personality has crept up on you and changed itself at an indefinable point over the past whenever--it's all on you. You are free, terribly free, of the need or the desire to say, "Uhh, when I heard Brock Celeb died, it really made me think, I haven't seen Brock's Back II, in a while, and that was such a good movie, and, and my heart really goes out to the Celeb family..." Instead, you can think about it in a more pure way. You can just sit alone with your thoughts, and reflect, "You know, Brock's Back II was actually a pretty good movie. It affected me in a significant way, and if I hadn't seen Brock stand up to that dude in the beach house, I might've never developed the strain of thought that led me to raise my hand in that one meeting, and..." et cetera.

Without a dying celebrity or a bridge collapse, we're forced to mark time in different ways. Is our hair falling out? Has something been wrong with the crops for the past few harvests? Is that smoke from the south getting closer?

Thinking those thoughts, and ascribing them to yourself, is important. A great deal of what antitime expresses by inundating time with hypertime, and thereby weakening it, is distending time toward its weakening, so that when it dissolves, it can be compressed into a single moment of non-time, in which all things are known and forgotten, and time ceases. If you don't like this one's pseudoscience crap, try a more mundane, "The profusion of notable events helps us treat time itself as less important, causing us to deny our own agency in changing things throughout time." We have learned, throughout this process, that it is dangerous to claim ownership of our own mental development, ergo we like to claim that "something" made us think. We can name and cite that something, sort of like deadening our lives by writing them in the passive voice: "Valentine's Day made me realize I'm lonely," or "My birthday made me realize I'm getting older," or "When my brother died, I knew I had to make a change."

We blame the season for the reason, like we blame drugs or conditions for assholery. Something about the media we employ for communication has given us a cheap out from ourselves. We're corporations trying to externalize costs, dieters trying to rationalize binges, using religions or breakups or pride months to make it acceptable for us to adjust what we perceive as our perspectives on being here.

Do things really make us think things? Maybe most of us are just too embarrassed to admit we've been thinking.