27 07 10 - 18:24
Breaking from the tradition of assuming that every human choice is logical, I choose to instead assume that every human choice is personal -- meaning that it's all for the gain of the individual at the expense of the people and objects around them. (Unless you're Schopenhauer, this is probably a reasonable assumption.)
People pick beliefs to get themselves ahead. This blather about ideology and helping others -- it's all horseshit. When someone tells you they're really interested in helping the poor, ask yourself: what's the real action here? The action is that they can tell you, and you're socially conditioned/a sap so you'll believe they're the better person, and give them leeway or higher social status for it
When it comes to liberalism, we see a movement that spreads much like an infectious disease. When enough people in the room have it, others knuckle down, too. This is mainly because it's a competitive philosophy of appearing more altruistic than others. "I want to help the poor" sounds really good and if you don't have something to compete -- I help the environment, I wash the shorts of Manchester United -- you're going to sound like a heel.
Of course, this has nothing to do with reality; it's appearance, no different than what you dress, the car you drive, the products you buy and the fancy things you say to girls so you can poke your weiner into them. Dongs.
My guess is that liberalism is composed of two groups:
(a) The sophisticated manipulator
From an analysis of iPad owners:
Consumer research firm MyType conducted the study, in which opinions of 20,000 people were analyzed between March and May. The firm's conclusion was that iPad owners tend to be wealthy, sophisticated, highly educated and disproportionately interested in business and finance, while they scored terribly in the areas of altruism and kindness. In other words, "selfish elites."
They are six times more likely to be "wealthy, well-educated, power-hungry, over-achieving, sophisticated, unkind and non-altruistic 30-50 year olds," MyType's Tim Koelkebeck told Wired.com. WIRED
These are the people who know how to look good and stay on top of the heap. They're using iPods because these are status devices. You're in the big leagues now, boys!
(b) The clueless ingenue
The other group that feeds into the liberal bandwagon are self-described victims.
Inevitably, this skews toward the young, because until you've seen how the world works, you assume most things work for nonsense or corrupt reasons. And often this is true, but not always, and the ones that youth tend to attack (war, violence, inequality, business) are rarely those; it's the ones they don't criticize, like their own entertainers and their big opinions, that are most corrupt. But the end result is like the old adage: a little information is dangerous. Youth, and people who are stuck in bad situations like entry-level jobs and tiny city apartments, feel like victims because they know their place in the universe is powerless, and they don't understand why things happen as they do.
This group is perfect fodder -- "useful idiots" -- for the first group, because they know how to be savvy and say the right things to come across as knowledgeable and having an "alternative" to how things are, which the victim assumes is bad/evil.
Together these two groups help lead society away from having a goal toward having pity for individuals, and thus spending all its effort being inward-looking, and therefore missing out on how it has stagnated and is in decline.
26 07 10 - 09:03
It's impossible for us to know what's going on behind the scenes, but this is mighty mighty convenient:
Three news organisations had advance access to the records, which also show Nato concerns that Pakistan and Iran are helping the Taliban in Afghanistan. - BBC
For a whole huge news article, it boils down to one simple fact that people are going to remember:
Pakistan and Iran are helping the Taliban
They're not going to remember the dead civilians or the corruption or the foul-ups over the ammo. Nope, they're going to remember that simple phrase: Pakistan and Iran are helping the Taliban
. It worked for the last war, and several before it. Identify the bad guy, claim we're a victim, and then attack because we're innocent and they're not, so we should win.
It helps to justify sending in the resources of the world's biggest military power to crush some third world country whose real problem is that most of its citizens are idiots. Look at the average IQ differential
between the US and Iran:
Should be another slaughterhouse like in Iraq. Vietnam was an exception to this rule, in part because the Vietnamese were (a) already geared up for war (b) had good leadership and training, including Chinese and Russian instructors and (c) had access to an unending supply of weapons from Russia, China and the Eastern Bloc. Vietnam may have been all told an American win because it helped bankrupt the Russians, and forced them to reconsider indirect action in favor of direct action, with disastrous results in Afghanistan. Soviet armies only work when the machine guns are at the rear and the objective is Berlin, apparently.
In the meantime, the smoking gun is now here, and it wasn't trotted out by the government deliberately to manipulate us
. Nope, it slipped out through the mysterious Wikileaks, which is fortunate for all of us. I won't go so far as to say Wikileaks is a CIA project -- who knows? -- but a smart intelligence service would make use of it, and I suspect more will in the future. The dead civilians will be forgotten. What we're going to remember is:
If I were the CIA, tasked with finding a reasonable justification for dominating the Middle East, I'd be patting myself on the back. Mission accomplishment. It's not our fault the proof slipped out, but now that it's here... watch for B-52s. - TUT
I won't go that far, because this could just be the proverbial slap on the wrist for those other nations. But there does seem to be a buildup to kick someone's ass lately, mainly because if you're a superpower, the best way to prime your economy is a good, hard war -- not a pansy police action like Vietnam or Iraq, but some kind of massive fight like against China or a unified Middle East. It could be an entertaining shift in world hegemony.
25 07 10 - 13:04
ANUSians worldwide celebrate our presence as not a trendy rising meme, but an enduring symbol of resistance to the condition of modernity:
Modernity is a condition that occurs when the death-stages of a civilization coincide with technological prowess. Having dispensed with the healthier times when benevolent genius aristocrats ruled, the society is now commanded by a lynch mob that has demanded all aspects of society become personally convenient, at the expense of having a civilization which is disorganized, ugly and crass.
You can recognize modernity by its tripartite attributes:
- Equality. There is no hierarchy except money and power within the bureaucracy, because the holy myth of modernity is that we're all equal -- not just in political representation, but in ability and social role. A beggar is equal to a genius, since they're both human. Naturally, this leads us away from finding smart people to rule over us, and leads us toward rewarding those who flatter the crowd, which means rule by entertainers, charlatans and hidden oligarchs.
- Consumerism. Because people have an ethic of personal convenience, they demand products to make them feel good about themselves. They demand these be ultimately convenient, which means cheap and adapted to the lowest common denominator, no matter what the consequences. As a result, piles of toxic junk, sweatshops and gigantic profits pile up. Modern people like to think of corporations as the victimizer, but really, they are just serving a need.
- Disorganization. We have no beliefs in common, no cultural consensus, because that would interfere with the absolute autonomy and convenience of the individual. As a result, society becomes disorganized because there are never clear answers to the question of what our goals are. We can only reject actions that violate our dogma after they've happened. But when it comes to picking a direction forward? Each to his own, and we'll blame someone later for being out of line.
Modernity has caused the expansion of humanity at a record pace, aided by our technology, and in the process, we have begun in earnest to trash planet earth. We have cut up natural ecosystems and choked off species, polluted our oceans and airs, and polluted ourselves with an endless series of feelgood emotions and happy images while we consume junk food, buy disposable products, and think a personal ethic of convenience is "liberation" although people seem lonely, isolated, narcissistic and yet without a sense of personal gratification.
Modernity is a dead-end path to doom, but it comes disguised as liberty, fraternity and equality. 1789, 1917 and 1968 were its victories but they have brought us in exchange for convenience a long term prospect of deep spiritual misery, ecocide and utilitarian existence in ugly cities made of advertising and disposable, generic ideas. Fight back against modernity and tag the world with ANUS wherever you find it.
24 07 10 - 10:04
Have you ever wondered what life must be like if you pretended to be retarded? It seems like the perfect way to deal with modern humans to me.
Imagine this: you're walking through a park, relaxing and enjoying whatever graceful beauty a park in the middle of a polluted city or town can offer. Then suddenly behind some trees you notice a modern human coming near! She's wearing a pink and grey jogging suit, is about 15-30 kilos overweight and is listening to Joan Osborne on her ipod. She's clumsily jogging in your direction, you can already hear her heavy breathing disturbing the tranquility in the air -- yet it's not too late! She hasn't noticed you yet!
Quickly you bend forward slightly and tilt your head a little to the left, you open your mouth and flex the muscles in your face to look as retarded as possible. She's now just a few meters away from you, her eyes cross yours â there's contact! Now comes the moment! She lifts her right hand and waves it at your direction. "Hello" she says as she passes you. Then just when she's behind you you turn around and call out "HHNNUUHHH!!"
She looks back at you and smiles, then nearly stumbles over a branch that she didn't see because she was busy being nice to the retard. With her face forward again she continues her jogging. You too continue your walk, content in the knowledge that you've fooled yet another of the modernized monkeys. You drop the retard act until another modern human comes near.
Seems great doesn't it? Besides avoiding contact with undesirables you could make them uncomfortable by wildly staring at them if they stay too long in your vicinity, even bite them or just spit at them. Maybe get a wheelchair to boot and annoy the hell out of people who are waiting in line at supermarkets by taking as much time as possible when paying for your candy bar. Hey you're retarded: the modern world is wide open for you!
Walk into the ladies restroom and urinate in the sink, chances are you'll get away with it because after all, you're retarded. Block the top of the escalator with your wheelchair, cause disturbances at speeches of politicians, smear ketchup and mayonnaise all over the McDonalds playground! Cause chaos by becoming a retard terrorist! HHNNUUHHH!!! - Umbrage
21 07 10 - 09:14
When we talk about social design, we mean people clearly assessing the consequences of any action.
Instead, we do what's convenient and only later stumble over the obvious -- we should have considered its impact:
Women who regularly use household cleaners and air fresheners are at double the risk of developing breast cancer than those who never use the products.
The study of more than 1,500 women found that solid slow-release air fresheners and anti-mould products had the biggest effect.
The biggest effect was with solid air fresheners with those who replaced theirs more than seven times a year twice as likely to have developed beast cancer. - The Telegraph
So it turns out that many of our handy products aren't just a little bit toxic, they're downright carcinogenic
. Add that to our Bisphenol-A debacle, the can liners that feminize us, and the high degree of radiation from our gadgets permeating our homes. How did we use our technology to make health hell out of homes?
These products were profitable, but that alone wouldn't explain it. Nope -- legions of morons wanted them. Air fresheners are easier than having a clean house or dealing with the usual bodily and cooking odors. They're a slob-ass band-aid response to a problem only handled by greater air circulation or greater hygiene and housecleaning, which requires actual time and effort. A $5 solid air freshener does not.
Even more, when you're Steve Jobs consulting on the new iPhone, you think, "Gosh, I really should see if it emits too much radiation. But that means we'll get our product to market later, and it'll cost more, and most importantly, NO ONE CARES. None of the big newspapers are comparing the radiation of phones or even measuring it. The consumers don't know and don't care (until they get cancer, then they care). Even 'science' is unsure, since most scientific papers are published for cash money by vested interests anyway. So, screw it -- bury this issue as if it were as inconsequential as worrying if the phone tasted bad to a rhinoceros."
See also this handy list of carcinogenic chemicals you might have in your home
21 07 10 - 07:05
BLACK PARENTS WHITE BABY
screams the media:
A black couple living in the U.K. were shocked by the birth of a blonde haired, blue-eyed girl.
Ben Ihegboro must have briefly questioned his wife Angela's fidelity after the birth of Nmachi, and he conceded: "We both just sat there after the birth staring at her".
As there is no known mixed-race background in either of the parents' families, geneticists are baffled by the newborn's surprise appearance.
The article is careful to say it's not albinism:
Doctors rejected the possibility of the baby being albino.
Yes, but what about other causes?
(a) An unknown white ancestor on both sides
(b) Other types of mutation that cause reduction in pigment:
Leucism is a condition characterized by reduced pigmentation in animals and humans. Unlike albinism, it is caused by a reduction in all types of skin pigment, not just melanin. - Wikipedia: The Pedophile Group Blog (Leucism)
They were careful to only say it wasn't albinism. Just don't mention that there are related conditions and the audience will never know, which will let us insinuate, passively suggest and hope to deceptively lure you into thinking whatever else our big media agenda demands...
19 07 10 - 14:01
Muslims are most commonly represented in the Western media as transparent caricatures. Depending on which side you're on, you'll see one of two cartoons:
- The populist right-wing tries to play them off as terrorists who are incompatible with democracy and thus, Our Freedom.
- The socially savvy left-wing tries to present them as the classic victim minority who possesses some kind of spiritual enlightenment and exotic truthfulness we've lost in the West.
And of course before the curtain falls, out come the hardline Islamic fundamentalists to remind us that they want us all dead -- or, if we can't die quietly, at least cnoverted to Islam. In this deck of cards they're the Joker, which true to form shows up rarely in the steady diet of stereotypes fed to us by our televisions, politicians, advertising, friends and pub conversation.
It's important to understand the game these groups play. The purpose of terrorism is to cause fear and disruption in society, to eventually fracture a whole country and lead it into chaos. When the World Trade Center was attacked on 9/11 the Islamic terrorists achieved such a division between muslims and non-muslims in Europe and the USA. The destruction was twofold: Muslims were suddenly feared, but as a result Muslim immigrants were also discriminated against. This way the host countries in the West see themselves as both victim and aggressor, just like they see their enemy as the same. This prevents any clear mandate to warfare or tolerance.
Diversity makes a hard decision for the Muslim immigrant. If they join their host culture, they are seen as decadent sellouts by other Muslims. If they resist assimilation, they will be hated for appearing to be the enemy. The tension of this borderline position further forces radicalization and explains why many of the most radical voices in Islam come from Muslims who have been educated in the West or at least lived in the West or one of its colonies.
The populist right plays into this situation by further demonizing Islam. Fear makes loyal voters and is a convenient excuse for war. The neoconservatives successfully managed to stage a grand invasion of Iraq but they lost the media war that followed it. After a spectacular start with high-tech precision bombs being dropped on Iraq as fireworks and of course the famous Iraqi "minister of information" thrown in for light entertainment, the occupation of Iraq quickly turned to out be a media disaster.
Iraq grew more and more unstable than it was under Saddamâs reign. Terrorism became frenzied and US soldiers were often portrayed by the left-wing media as reckless youths who considered war a videogame. With more and more people in the west losing faith in their government for their involvement in the war the neocons soon found themselves cornered and were forced to retreat in the shadows. In came a new light: Barack Hussein Obama. A mulatto with an Islamic background who became president of the United States of America in 2009.
Meanwhile in Europe in the last ten years the populist right has gained more power and slowly but surely a more repressive climate is rising. And if the threat of terror isn't enough Europe also has the current financial crisis as a stimulant to run to the voting boxes and vote as right-wing as possible. Many left-wing parties have even caved in to the pressure of competition and adopted stances that would have been considered "racist" less than a decade ago.
The populist right can currently claim they're defending freedom of speech more than any other political party. But the left-wing has adopted a new strategy, which we could call Bonoboism: bend over and let the other dominate us. They have Obama to set the example of how we can all get along as long as we blend in nicely with each other. Where the right seduces with war, the left seduces with peace, suggesting that if we just give up being who we are and blend, we can create a perfect peaceful ideal society where no bad things happen. They're not the first to promise this in history, although such a society has never occurred.
Underneath all these current events the game is still the same: the populist right-wing wants a uniform society of suits and ties, the left-wing wants a more diverse society where rastafaris and hippie girls walk hand in hand (and later get bred into a uniform shade of tan). Both parties are too busy with their own agenda to see the bigger picture: one party only cares about monetary gain and the other is obsessed with equality and political correctness. And so both plod along through the vast desert of democracy arguing with each other over which direction they should go. It's business as usual, with no focus on changing our direction for the future -- unlike an act of terror, or a sudden emotional tantrum for peace, long-term planning doesn't go over well with the voters.
In this desert of truth, the happy oblivion party of Democracy, Freedom and Consumerism got ambushed by a gang of Muslim pirates. And now the right-wing calls for less tolerance towards muslims because of terrorism while the left-wing calls for more tolerance towards muslims because of terrorism. Because of this dualistic approach, Islam has entered the deck of political cards as the Joker, to be played by either party whenever possible. We can expect both more terrorist threats inspired by cartoons and more Islamic Miss USAs in the future. The game that is played is politics and nothing else -- while ethnic and religious clashes remain a way of life, these are merely pawns for the political parties who are too busy fighting each other to think of our future.
The underlying circumstance of this situation -- which no one will mention -- is that as globalization increases, as a result cultural differences are exposed more every day. In their thirst for power neither the right, the left nor the fundamentalists seem to realize that they are pushing the same globalist agenda that has led to these clashes in the first place.
Ancient cultures have become corroded and are replaced with modern icons that promise more that they can deliver. Blinded by their own arrogance and greed the motives of all parties have become increasingly questionable. Can't we live in peace without having to adjust to a stranger's standards? Can't we keep our own standards, and not blend everyone into an average, an aggregate that destroys every culture equally? That doesn't go over well with the voters. They respond well to big emotional symbols, like burning twin towers or first non-white presidents, but nothing else.
We are now 10 years into the 21st century; pick a spear and choose your side. Meanwhile the big boys will be busy at the table playing their old card game, conquering the world by dividing it more and more. This form of genteel corruption will never be exposed by the democratic process because it profits too many. However, it's possible that a fourth force -- not Right, not Left, not Islam -- can keep the balance.
If all those who want the traditional order to survive despite the closing of global distances were to unite, they could push back this tide of stupidity. After all, we want the same thing: "Europe for Europeans" is a localized variant of the statement "Muslim lands for Muslims!" What unites thinking people who like tradition is that we do not want to be averaged and for our cultures and heritages to be destroyed. We want to be who we are, and we see how globalization is destruction and want to oppose it.
If Islamic conservatives learn to work together with Christian conservatives and manage to get rid off the stigmata of terrorism there might be hope for them in the western world. But as long as western Muslims play the part of being the spoiled and whining adopted child of liberalism and capitalism there is no future for them. We might as well give them a Sex Pistols CD and a squat to live in so they can join an equally dispossessed Western youth in futile rebellion, with no actual solution in sight. - Umbrage
15 07 10 - 10:55
Every society has values, including taboos. If you love kids, pedophiles are going to be taboo, unless you can prove that pedophilia improves kids.
When it comes time to unite an equal mass in politics, you motivate them with dogma, or very simple symbols about what's good and bad. Some people will tell you that one symbol leads to "peace" (a condition that does not exist in nature) and another leads to "war" (as if one could have a predilection for constant warfare to solve all problems).
Let's review America's recent wars:
- The American Revolution: They are elitists who hate our freedom, so they're bigoted against us.
- The Civil War: They are States' Righters who want to be able to escape our control because they think they're above us, and they're racists.
- World War I: The European old regime are elitists who do not accept absolute democracy, so they're bigoted against the common man.
- World War II: Hitler is a racist and bigot who doesn't accept that many people want Bolshevism, and this interferes with our use of democracy to pacify Europe.
- Bosnia: The Serbs are racist against Bosnians.
- Iraq: Saddam Hussein is racist against Kurds and gasses them.
Possible future wars:
- Iran: The Iranians are anti-Semites
- Israel: The Israelis are elitists and racists against Palestinians.
There is no peace symbol. There are only symbols that can manipulate you and even if they seem peaceful, they may be a gateway to unending war that is also counterproductive.
12 07 10 - 12:22
There's a lot of fake green out there. People want to think that by buying "green" energy, they've fixed the problem and can go back to living for themselves with an ethic of convenience.
Real green means altering your lifestyle and political outlook to ensure that nature has "rights" on par with those of humans. That's both personal, and political.
- Buy whole foods only. By this I mean raw vegetables, meats and grains. Do not buy pre-processed food. Avoid all fast food. This eliminates over 2/3 of the waste you will generate.
- Buy only quality products. It's $100 for the blender that lasts ten years, and $20 for the blender that lasts two. Which do you buy? Same cost, but one way produces a lot more landfill.
- Buy real offsets. Forget carbon tokens; buy five acres of land in the country and let it fill with tasty forest. This will offset most of the carbon you create and preserve natural creatures.
- Buy smaller cars. You don't need the SUV or full-size Mercedes. Get the Toyota and keep it for twenty years. Avoid the hybrids and electric cars until they're more reliable; you'll end up throwing them out in eight years and they are actually more of an environmental holocaust, thanks to their batteries which are hell to recycle.
- Reduce your electronics footprint. Instead of getting that $400 Dell every three years, buy a machine that will last you for six to eight. That means you spend an extra $350 to have a more powerful machine and in the last three years of its life, it runs slowly. Oh well. Buy a quality stereo. Don't buy much else. You don't need a breadmaker, iPod, smart phone, or hemorrhoid massager.
- Avoid unfiltered engines. Generators, law mowers, leafers, blowers, trimmers that are gasoline powered all generate raw exhaust. Go electric or avoid, or even better, get a push mower. It doesn't work as well but do you really care how perfect your lawn looks?
- Recycle in the product stream. If you have something you don't want, and it's still working, pass it on to your local thrift shop. They have retards and ex-cons who will sort it and re-sell it. Also, shop at thrift stores and get anything non-vital there. You can save money and prevent the cost of new things being made.
- Downsize government and de-regulate. Regulation and government both produce mountains of paper and employ tons of dumb and useless people. Throw out these regulations, throw out the bureaucracy, and make business and government leaner. They'll use less paper, gasoline, etc. and those people will have to find something useful to do instead.
- Destroy public education. Most people in public schools are there for babysitting. They lack the IQ to perform any kind of educational task, and they don't want to be there. They want to be on MTV, and will end up working in food service anyway. Cut 'em free and stop the boondoggle that is education. It has failed us.
- High tariffs and end foreign aid. Foreign aid builds more industry in areas where it isn't. We want to stop that so we'll cut pollution. In addition, it will reduce the population. Do not give to aid agencies; let people die in disasters, or starve if their nations are incompetent. Put up a wall of tariffs to stop people shipping products overseas. Build locally, buy locally.
- Oppose immigration. Every person you let in to this country is going to want to live the full-on American lifestyle, which is environmentally costly. Stop letting them in. The result will be a lower footprint for the country, instead of an ever-expanding one.
- Favored nation status. Any nation that does not have a sensible environmental policy should be ignored politically and we should block their businesses from working with us. Let them starve until they get it right.
- Ban the welfare state. We subsidize people for being incompetent, and then wonder why we have too many people. Stop the handouts; let nature fix the problem. There are too many idiots already.
Most people won't do even one of these things. They'd rather keep living exactly as they are now, except that when it's time for a new product, they buy the one that says it's green -- a dubious assertion -- and pay the extra $5 in guilt tax. And the problem continues unabated.
10 07 10 - 06:38
I had a favorite pet, once, who had a type of game he played. It was a serious game however, not like chase the tail or throw the stick. It was a game that most conscious organisms play.
He would wait until I was comfortable, resting or working, and then come into the room and sit just enough out of reach that I would have to get up and go to him, pet him and comfort him. The question was implicit: am I more important to your consciousness than whatever you're working on there, or your rest time?
It was a daily affirmation of a simple question and answer response. Do you love me? Yes, I do -- enough to stop what I'm doing and come to you. It didn't need to happen every
time, just once a day. Since then I've observed the same thing in my own creatures, the creatures of others, and the creatures that are others.
You can even observe it here on our forums.
In addition to all the regular tardation that goes with the internet, there's a relatively constant repetition of people who come in and either say outrageous things, or deliberately insult others, or just behave like (intelligent, quasi-autistic) retards.
But first they'll do something -- the human equivalent of coming into the room when you're all in a virtual space. They'll make an offering, usually of an idea, observation or some project of theirs (music, writing, art). This is their equivalent of being just out of reach: here, you have to stop what you're doing to see this.
The question is the same, although in our modern world we've redefined the vocabulary to make this seem vaguely gay, pedo or unseemly: Do you love me?
I think all people, especially atheists, have an implicit vision of God. They believe that somewhere, somehow, there is a deliberate narrative to life. Part of this is the sorting of people between the lovable, and the discardable. Our minds invent this narrative because we need to believe it to think life is non-pointless.
Our implicit narrative of God has us wanting to be assessed as lovable by someone, as if we're looking for proof to use in the court of the hereafter. We need that judgment passed on ourselves, and the best we've come up with as atheists is to replace "God" with "my social group" or in extreme cases, "myself after two cocktails."
Do you love me?
When people asked, I am always tempted to begin the story. That I am neither theist nor atheist. That linear thinking science has utterly failed to explain the origins of the universe. That we still lack a plausible explanation for the beginning of existence -- the possibility of matter, then space and then time -- itself. That inevitably, whatever construct enables spacetime and matter has some form of precursor that exists outside of not just time, but the linearity that demands events have cause and effect. It simultaneously existed and did not exist and made itself occur.
I am the biggest believer of causal logic I have ever encountered. That every event has a clear cause, and that we shouldn't conveniently attribute another cause to its eventiture, and that every random cause will have a certain degree of effects, fascinates me. So does the harmony of polycausality, where multiple events occurring proximately -- the old man leaves his seat, the pretty girl sits down, the scam artist lies to the young man who then gets on the last seat on the bus, next to the pretty girl, and just happens to have read the book she's holding, last week even -- makes an event occur like the bell-like ringing out of multiple notes at once, their internal harmonics enhancing one another like the millions of tiny girders that make up the Eiffel Tower.
However, causal logic does not mean causal logic dependent on space and time exclusively
. There is a possibility that more is afoot: that something exists outside of time and space, but with the holographic data construct (don't try to parse that: just meditate on it) that space and time afford through iteration and proximity. Lacking time, however, it is its own cause and effect. It is also indetectible like all of the truly good mysteries in life.
When someone asks, Do you love me?
I look into their eyes and I see this same founding force staring back at me. I see it in my own eyes; for all practical purposes, I don't exist. I am an oasis in a desert that someone else had the wit to put there; when you drink of the water, you are drinking of someone or something else. My intelligence is inherited, my personality is inherited as are my notorious rugged good looks. Everything that I am is the result of a long chain of cause-effect relationships that started with -- well, whatever founding force(tm) I'm describing.
What I say to the cats, dogs, ferrets, humans, and online simulacra (many of our best users are Perl scripts) is this: Yes, I love you.
You have some role to play in this game. Like me, you don't really exist. We are the pieces on the checkboard that determines the outcome of the game of life. When a loss or draw occurs, some great force upturns the board and tries again. But now that we know that, we can see that we have a sacred role, each of us, in this game.
If you are a Roman soldier, make sure you stab and mock the Christ well; if you're Judas, betray well! -- if you're Christ, simper and lie well. If you're the Buddha, make sure you negate people's brains so they shut up and let you think (this is the probable origin of Buddhism). If you're Plato, or another truly enlightened thinker, fill your role of struggling harder than anyone else to make sense of the world and interpret the founding force not as a symbol to replace reality (religion) but as a series of principles we can derive, understand and use (philosophy...errr, "science").
When we talk about sacralizing life, we talk about this view. We are no longer in the moral world of yes/no decisions -- am I OK?
-- but in the hazy space of causal links and having a purpose to what we do. It's not about you, personally; yes, I love you, but that's not the question you need to be asking. The question is What is my role in the great game of life?
and now that we've stopped worrying about the false things (socialization, morality), how do I play?
09 07 10 - 22:19
Unless your drip coffee maker is a feeble piece of junk from the 1970s, you're buying the wrong ground coffee.
I was hanging out at a Kroger today, noticing that in the pre-ground coffee, only one brand -- a luxury brand -- offers fine ground or anything close to it. Every single option is "coarse ground" which they spin as "works in any coffee maker."
There's a sleight of hand going on here. If you grind your coffee finely, it brews more easily, making stronger coffee with less ground coffee. But that's not so good for business, which wants to sell more coffee.
So the excuse becomes "well, someone might still have one of those old coffee makers that chokes on finer grounds" but the reality is that outside of 40 people who can well grind their own coffee, that's not needed. In the meantime, everyone else is drinking watery coffee and spending a third again as much as they need to.
Smart, these justification monkeys. Clearly they know something we all do not: that people are stupid, that you should screw them over for you own profit, and who cares in the meantime if you erode a million details of our civilization, slowly turning it from being a nice place to live into a rapacious, distrustful, negative hole?
09 07 10 - 10:10
Humans don't love truth. Truth is inconvenient. It reminds us that we're small, that we die, and that the solutions to our problems involve getting up off the couch, making sacrifices, and accepting ideas larger than the ones already conveniently in our heads.
I've learned that humans love several things. One is illusion ("that forest fire will never reach the house... back to the sofa") and another is distraction ("look, an eight-track version of Stevie Nicks' Greatest Hits
... that's rare!" as flames crackle nearby). In fact, we are the anti-truth: we want what affirms us as we are, affirms the convenience of us continuing to do what we were doing. We are inertia and solipsism at once.
We write about a number of difficult topics here on ANUS:
- Environment. No, we can't just recycle condoms and buy low-wattage light bulbs. There are too many humans, and too many dreams. Everyone dreams of a 2500 square foot house in the suburbs. Everyone wants two cars, to own a business, the kids going to college, and modern appliances. Education doesn't work, and the 50,000 hippies who live in portable toilets and eat their own waste are not going to offset the 9 BILLION humans who all want the same thing. We can't just cut our carbon and tax the SUVs. We need a rollback of humanity, starting with a loss of the thoughtless, stupid, cruel and directionless.
- Civilization. Civilizations are born, get old, and die. Ours in the West is dying. We are no longer producing great art, architecture or learning. We are producing ugly buildings, lots of advertising, plenty of consumer products, garbage pop music, and lots of academic papers about trivial differences in how we use language. We no longer lead, and no longer have goals; we react to what "most people" think they want to buy, or illusions they want to pursue.
- Natural Selection. Humanity isn't finished. Evolution is either perpetually ongoing, or it finds a niche, but we're not at that stable stage. In fact, our problem is that individual human beings are generally disorganized, lazy, corrupt, dysfunctional and delusional. Instead of trying to make our people more like the exceptions to that rule, we're working on re-defining the game so that everyone is accepted, defects and all. We've stopped trying to evolve and in fact have made evolution taboo through our insistence on equality.
- Linear thinking. As part of our drive toward technology and democratization of knowledge, we have made a bad habit of taking complex situations and distilling them to a single factor. We then use that factor to fuel our confirmation bias and ignore all the associated "details" that are in fact part of the causal relationship involved. We are like drunks looking for our subway car in the midst of the forest, stumbling over bears and roots and then getting up, saying, "it's not here, it must be somewhere else" and staggering on.
- Individualism. The modern time has been a steady regression into ourselves. We have stopped looking out to the world and searching for a way to revere it, understand it, and desire it. Instead, we have taken our technology and used it to seal ourselves off from nature, and finally, from reality itself. We can go to our make-work jobs and move paper around, then use our credit cards to buy houses or nuclear missiles, and retreat into our comfortable living rooms and distract ourselves with television.
Let me be clear: the above are the big problems. Our addiction to race as a distraction, and as a convenient symbol for fixing our situation, is an effect of those big problems. But it remains an American addiction. It's a surrogate for fixing our society. Instead of taking on the difficult task of actually, you know, fixing our problems, we just look for this one indicator: is it good for our minorities? Are we fighting oppression?
It's a myth that oppression exists by itself. Oppression arrives when there's a huge group of clueless people, as in 1789 in France and 1917 in Russia, who want to believe that it's not their fault that things are bad. It's not that we were drunk and forgot to harvest the beets; society did this to us! The aristocrats, large corporations or even Satan himself are manipulating us! We were used! It's not our fault! Oppression is the natural response of power structures to the incompetence of their citizens.
But looking through the world through that lens is difficult and upsetting. First, it means getting off the couch. Second, it means we're not perfect or OK just as we are -- we need to struggle, sacrifice and possibly die (although the actual impact will be much less, maybe on 1-2% of the population). Finally, it means setting aside the comfy nonsense worldview in which we live, and going to a place from which we can't come back again. Once you awaken, you can never see the world through that simplistic everything-is-just-fine out-of-sight-out-of-mind viewfinder. You've seen the problem and you have to tackle it.
But back to race: as in the early 1990s in Los Angeles, and many American cities in the 1920s and 1940s and 1960s, we've got race riots again!
The Los Angeles jury's verdict raised concerns of a repeat of the rioting that followed the shooting on New Year's Day in 2009 on an Oakland train platform. The trial was moved to Los Angeles following the riots.
But the protesting appeared to be much less severe than the rioting that hit Oakland after Grant was shot, although police did not immediately release a damage estimate.
At least a dozen businesses were damaged, including a looted Foot Locker store and a ransacked jewelry store, police said. Protesters also smashed the windows of a bank, set fires in several trash bins, and detonated a small incendiary device near a police station that caused no damage.
Police said they made 83 arrests throughout the night for violations that included failure to disperse, vandalism and assaulting a police officer.
Cleaning crews began sweeping up broken glass and debris from the sidewalks early Friday morning. Graffiti on one building declared, "Oakland is our amusement park tonight!" - AP
As mentioned in an earlier post
, this is the inevitable consequence of diversity. One group is perceived as being on top, and if anything happens to the group not on top, it becomes the fault of that majority group. There's no way out of this downward spiral: it's always someone else's fault, and the solution is always to spend more effort trying to lift up the group that isn't succeeding.
Because even if you take two populations of bean plants -- and separate them and subject them to different climates -- one will come out ahead, this means that anywhere there are different groups there will be constant conflict. Diversity is dysfunction, and diversity means constant internal conflict leading to the collapse of your nation to third world status.
The paid panderers who are our talking heads, politicians and academics have come up with two solutions. The first is to mix everyone together into one generic population
, destroying what is unique. The other solution is the downward spiral mentioned above: keep giving things to the minority group, making them dependents, destroying their autonomy and also, buying them off.
They don't say it that cleanly, of course, because you never want to reveal your hand before it's played. Here's what they say, but it translates to the same thing:
Eddie Izzard finds it bizarre that no one has ever gone to war over eye color.
Izzard laughs, but is serious about what prompted the comment: the delicate topic of race.
"Race" concerns black and white law firm partners and their associate (played by Afton C. Williamson, who replaced Kerry Washington) debate the merits of representing a wealthy white client accused of raping a young black woman.
Izzard, who dreams of a world reminiscent to how the astronauts viewed Earth from space.
"They saw no frontiers or borders," he says.
"If people come from another planet, they'll say, 'You're all humans.' And are we going to say, 'Oh no. He's a black man. He's a white man. This man's an Asian.'
"No," he says. "It's just all human." - AP
What pleasant, comforting, happy, peaceful, selfless, lovely, kind, gentle, good feelings those are.
Or are they? Good feelings are after all a surface trait, a result of the underlying structure. If that structure works for good, we get good feelings. Or we could just fake the surface, and claim that there's a different cause of it than the underlying structure. We need to do that, because the only underlying structure that produces peace is one without diversity.
Oscar Grant -- the man shot in Oakland -- was a criminal. He was fighting people on a public transit platform in the midst of a mob of people who were shouting at and threatening the cops. In the midst of that, a cop mistakenly drew the wrong weapon and fired, and was unlucky to do it on a concrete surface so the bullet ricocheted up into the arrestee's heart. It was a tragic accident, not murder.
But in the world of race addiction, it has to be murder. It has to be oppression. It must be a cause of riot. As long as diversity exists, there will always be this ugly underlying tension, and our desire to space out with some happy hippie kumbaya horseshit about all bleeding the same color, which is a symbolic way of denying the reality of biological and aptitudinal differences between racial and ethnic groups
. Instead of being mature and saying, "we're different
and need to live apart
and pursue each our own futures," we're creating the groundwork for the next hundred years of riots, killings, hatreds and injustices.
08 07 10 - 18:53
Cop subdues man, then inexplicably shoots him in the back. He later claims he was trying to use his taser on the suspect, who was struggling and had been detained for engaging in violent acts. Jury agrees with him; should be open and shut -- except that the cop is white and the dead man is black.
Result? California braces for riots:
Police in Oakland, across the Bay to the east of San Francisco, moved to a tactical alert status in preparation for potential civil disturbances.
Demonstrations were planned in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, where many commuters left work early.
"I'm concerned about riots. I don't want to be hit by a bottle," said accountant Francisco Raygoza, 30, as he headed home. "Our office manager said leave as soon as you can."
The killing unleashed charges of police brutality and a night of civil unrest in Oakland, where demonstrators smashed store windows and set cars on fire. Police arrested over 100 people on charges of vandalism, unlawful assembly and assault. - Reuters
If this killing were white on white, would we be having riots? Or black on black, Asian on Asian, Hispanic on Hispanic?
Under diversity, there is always one group who is perceived to be ahead. As a result, ethnic tensions never end. Even in diverse nations like Brazil and Mexico, racial tensions persist after centuries. Even in racially-mixed India, caste and ethnic tensions persist. In fact, everywhere diversity -- more than one ethny, culture, religion or radically different caste in the same nation-state -- has been tried, this kind of conflict has existed.
People call us "racist" for pointing this out. Somehow, they gloss over the other 90% of this site which is about the necessity of spiritual discipline, the need for a lack of inherent meaning, the importance of aesthetics, the need for environmental conservation and, of course, death metal. All they see is a binary: if you don't agree that all people are equal, they say, we're better than you -- and we're going to show other people how much better we are by denying reality while we denigrate you.
Other thinkers have noted the same thing -- the problem isn't the ingredients of diversity (black, white, Asian, Hispanic) but diversity itself
The following year, his opinions changed when he heard a crowd shouting "Death to the Jews!" in the aftermath of the Dreyfuss Affair, in which a French-Jewish military officer was accused of treason. This changed his outlook from one of Jewish independence to one of Jewish nationalism.
In June of that year, he wrote in his diary: "In Paris, as I have said, I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism... Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism." He came to consider the idea of Jewish sovereignty as a political response to what he saw as an international political problem, which was a lack of national identity for the Jewish people causing them to be perceived as enemies of other nations, and saw the solution as the creation of a Jewish state with the consent of the great powers.
In Der Judenstaat he wrote:
"The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countriesâsee, for instance, Franceâso long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America."
Herzl believed that Jews could never assimilate, as the majority in each nation-state determined who was native, and by exclusion, Jews would be seen as alien. To end this permanent outsider status for world Jewry, he proposed that Jews have a nation of their own, to the benefit of Jews and Gentiles alike. - Theodor Herzl
Herzl spotted the problem: any nation is united by language, values, culture, customs and heritage. This means people are roughly moving in the same direction, with the same values system. When any outsider fragments this, the civilization because to destabilize and part of that instability is civilized people doing horrible things (like the Dreyfus case, the Holocaust or the KKK).
To deny the failings of diversity so that you appear of elevated social status is brattish immaturity. It's also sociopathic: like any other form of corruption, you are using society against itself for your personal gain, like taking profit out of the system and not giving back.
Instead, I suggest people stop thinking about themselves and face reality. History is a lesson, let us learn from our mistakes.
07 07 10 - 09:50
So the Hollywood shucksters
came out with another stupid movie, and this time it's the usual religious solutions to big symbolic problems. That's the opposite of art, which is finding practical solutions to tough problems through discovering a greater significance to the (moral) struggle
. But I digress.
The movie sells well, probably because its main competition for "mystical bullshit to distract you from your failing civilization" is the latest doughty turd from the Twilight
franchise, but a number of people have objected to the movie's casting of Caucasian actors for obvious Asian characters. The greebo
paranoids out there are sure it's part of the Vast Racist Conspiracy, but more savvy minds recognize that Hollywood is simply selling to the majority demographic. If most of your nation is Caucasians, you want them to have movie stars who look like them so they can lust after them, imitate them, buy stuff with their faces on it, etc.
The missing story is that Airbender
is yet another installment in the Hollywood fascination with the "exotic," mainly because if you're a degenerate filmmaker -- and actors and directors, as people who take on the fantasy of others, are by definition without souls -- you want something to take your mind away and distract you from the issues you should be exploring, fixing or at least understanding. No movies about reality, please -- take us away, to someplace entirely different
. Then we can go around thinking how we're like those people in Differentland, and none of this here is our problem, because we're mystical beings from elsewhere.
Because I am a consummate troll, I dispatched the following letter to the racist activists
who are upset that Asians are portrayed as Caucasians in the movie:
I enjoyed your web site and thought it rang true. Hollywood is simultaneously pitching us "exotic" Asian cultures as an ideal, and then
using people who look like their majority audience to act out their weird fantasies.
However, I think you should look at this situation from another angle: diversity doesn't work. In a diverse nation, one group will always be on top and the others will either be victims or play victims, causing an ongoing cycle of ethnic strife.
A more sensible solution is nationalism, where each group gets its own nation -- and its own Hollywood.
These people are having trouble facing the trouble with diversity/multiculturalism: no matter who you are, you're a racist.
Support diversity? Then you support the eventual blending, through breeding of convenience, of all people into one gray race. That's racist.
Support your tribe? Then you're trying to avoid being assimilated, and so you have a preference for yourself, so you're racist. Normally, this accusation is only leveled at Caucasians, but Asians as a successful ethnic group might get it too. That is also racist.
Support someone else's tribe at the expense of your own? There's no reason why ethnic self-hatred is not a form of racism. You're racist, too.
There's no way to win. Right now, the vast conspiracy for the ethic of convenience -- otherwise known as mutual human individual laziness, dysfunction, stupidity, disorganization and obliviousness -- is OK with the racism that says we all blend into one gray race. If you're thinking of no one but yourself right now, why do you care about consequences to your civilization as a whole? Just hope to die before it implodes.
Instead of accusing each other of racism for simple marketing decisions, we should probably instead just face the fact the in diversity, anything you do will offend someone because there is no right answer for everyone.
05 07 10 - 07:00
A reader asks:
You were lurking/posting around The Genius forums a few years back (Solway, Rowden, Quinn). What are your opinions on their thoughts to spirituality?
I am not so thoroughly versed in their worldview that I can give a complete assessment, but I think we agree on the basics: when we escape the barriers of our own consciousness, we can perceive reality as it is, which has aspects of the infinite to it. When we perceive the infinite, and its earthly conduit the highly-ordered thought or thinker (genius), we achieve a transcendent state in which we realize life has purpose and our own deaths by fitting into this purpose make sense. In this transcendent state, we are both realist (perceiving tangible cause/effect) and idealist (recognizing the patterns of cause/effect that are not visible), and many thinkers dance around this state of mind as Nirvana, seeing Ultimate Reality, having clarity, Plato's forms, etc.
The interesting thing is that old school Hindu thinking takes that even further: consciousness is not our own. We are all little slices of God's intelligence, or to be more scientific about it, the intelligence that "is" the universe whether conscious or not, and it is our quest to discover it and enhance its degree of organization so that we can outpace its entropy and constantly create new objectives, goals and struggles to keep our minds active.
What I like about the view I saw at the Genius forums is that the kumbaya/we-are-all-one happy horseshit was not present. If God is a giant calculus, then we are its numbers, not its answers. Most people find that terrifying, because it means that all of our wars, conflicts, struggles, etc. have a purpose which is to reach a higher state of evolution, and we're not there yet. That thought hammers home mortality, insignificance and everything else we like to deny as half-enlightened chimps.
As a monarchist, I also admire their clarity on the topic of genius. We cannot write enough laws, procedures and set up enough "checks and balances" to turn dishonest monkeys into great leaders. All we can do is find leaders (probably men) of great genius, and then give them the ability to be semi-arbitrary but to shape their societies as a sculptor shapes clay. Some will be bad; that doesn't diminish the fact that as a method, aristocratism/monarchism is superior to democracy and everything we've tried since.
It's an insightful outlook. While I think I'm leaning more toward Schopenhauer than Weininger, it's probable that most of what they are saying overlaps. Good to see some people here who also visit The Genius Forum.
05 07 10 - 06:42
With our media and fellow citizens desperately scrabbling for any form of fantasy in which to lose themselves, the topic of UFOs raises its head. Some say they exist, and point to dubious "proof"; others claim either that the proof is invalid, thus no aliens exist, or that it's impossible for aliens to exist.
A smaller group quietly maintains that while we have no smoking gun, it's unlikely aliens do not exist. This group often also notes that if aliens do exist, and they've come here, they're ahead of us and we are unlikely to detect them or even notice them. After all, they probably evolved as we did through war and colonialism, and so are undoubtedly versed in camouflage, deception, stealth and strategic thinking.
Naturally, any intelligent being coming across this planet will be a bit skeptical, because they recognize it as a stage in evolution through which they have already passed
. Much as Europeans came upon the savages in the New World, Africa and South Asia and said, "Aha! They've made it to the spear, and the bow and arrow, but not reading, writing, mathematics or philosophy" aliens coming by here are thinking: "Aha! They've made it to nuclear technology, but not to transcendence of self."
When you see something less evolved than you, your inherent response is fear and distance. It doesn't play by the rules you did, and in going through evolution, you bypassed many of the cruder behaviors it will visit upon you. This is why we are especially wary of monkeys, because they're like dumber, more violent and less predictable versions of us. You can't reason
with them, which puts us at a disadvantage to the well-thrown poo or sudden bite.
I don't doubt most of the UFO sightings are fake or mistaken. While I don't accept the media rationale that because one crop circle is faked, they likely all are, I think it's telling that most UFO and related sightings fall into the following category of logic:
- No replicable proof.
- Requires belief in a conspiracy to hide the truth.
- No clear purpose to the activity
- Assumed motivation of some vast, symbolic importance
If you read this correctly, it's a type of religious-dogmatic approach --one that we also apply to our nascent Science, but more often use for cults, sects and the kneejerk dogmatism of dying empires. The UFO cult is based on making assumptions first, and finding the data later, so we don't trust them. Of course, if we were as insightful about all our activities, we'd see that too many conform to this backward rationalization pattern.
The reason many UFO sightings are faked is simple: we live in a chimpanzee mob that is disorganized and of a flat hierarchy, and as a result, each individual humonkey is doing whatever it can to draw attention to itself. They need partners to breed with, friends, even social notoriety to help them feel better about their insignificant lives. So they do the social equivalent of jumping up and down and screaming "Pick me! Pick me!" One good way to do that is to find something rare, unique, interesting... like a UFO sighting with religious implications, such as the aliens coming to earth to tell us to live in peace.
But this same monkey mob mentality causes us to deny the obvious: this universe is absolutely huge, and whatever fortunate confluence of events caused earth to be hospitable to life can occur elsewhere. Even more, if it occurred at all, there's probably a mathematical reason for its existence -- it will conform to the normal distribution on some level or another -- and so it is probably occurring elsewhere. Now you may ask: would it be occurring just now, or since the dawn of time? Probably the latter, which means that out of the uncountable planets out there, it's likely there are many which could support life and may have been doing so before Earth did
This line of thought leads us to why people deny UFOs, and refuse to accept the sense of their existence:
- If life exists elsewhere in the universe, it too is evolving
- Much as on Earth it evolved into sentient species, it will evolve into sentience
- Its history will then mirror our own, as any thinking creature will face the same problems/triumphs as humanity has
- In turn, this life will eventually get mobile and explore the stars, and even show up here
- This means that we are in competition with this life form
And with that final bullet point, the reason for denial of the possibility of extraterrestrial life becomes clear: much as we once found it difficult to believe the universe rotated around the sun, and not earth, we are not the center of the cosmos. In fact, we are insignificant. Much as each individual human being wants to believe they are an immutable center of all existence because that is how their consciousness spins it to them, we as a species want to believe that somehow Earth is the exception
and that we've stopped evolving because we're divine or as close to it as we can get.
So we see how our denial of the extraterrestrial has a terrestrial origin: our fear that there is something we should be doing, as a result something we're missing out on, that puts others ahead of us. Until we are able to see, smell, touch and taste them, we're not going to believe that we should have any goal or be pushing ourselves to greater heights. Instead, we will return to the mob monkey mentality and focus on how we're going to divide up earth, so that we can deny our future in the stars and with it, the troubling knowledge that we are not Gods flexing immutable wills but lonely animals simply trying to adapt to their environment.