The only thing more terrifying than this culture’s ability to forget the past is its grotesque missteps when it attempts to regain knowledge lost.

At one point the natural relationship model between men and women was a thing of common knowledge; now your fumbling attempts to regain that dynamic have resulted in the monstrosity commonly known as the ‘BDSM community’. You discarded hierarchy and roles; leadership and submission; power and responsibility; now you seek to regain them but you haven’t the faintest clue how to proceed, and your guidance to one another is often madness at best.

Meanwhile the folks who have a natural apprehension of these means are oppressed by the yoke of society, for it is only groups who deliberately marginalise themselves under the auspices of some “sub-culture” which are accepted; the path to right thinking, on the contrary, must assume that what one does is both correct and universal in application– one is not a ‘special snowflake’, and rules which work for the right reasons will work in the general case. But that presumption is a threat to a pathological and self destructive society; they cannot be told they are wrong, because their entire existence is predicated on nihilism– a self contradiction which can lead inevitably to but one conclusion.

The connection may not be obvious, but it is worth remembering that fecundity has been a reliable measure and predictor of cultural health since the human race crawled out of apedom.

It’s all about me

In reading upon the defence of abortion I came across the following phrase: “It simply means that no one, including and especially the government has the right to tell me, or any other women what she can or cannot do with her body.”

The interesting thing is that this phrase could be applied to ANY action, since any action is, by definition, “doing something with one’s body”.

So torture should be legal because, “no one, including and especially the government has the right to tell me, or any other [person] what they can or cannot do with their body”?

The argument assumes that the desire to do something outweighs consideration of the consequences.

Which is typical of the people who make this argument: personal whim outweighs responsibility and consequences in their warped little world; and the society you live in today is so wonderfully reflective of that maladaptation. No wonder it’s coming down around your ears.

Post-modern gibberish

I read this mewling heap of drivel just now; I cannot decide which is more infantile: the writing it criticises, or the reply thereunto.

The author does not comprehend the foundations of terms such as ‘good’ or ‘positive’; he can’t even use ‘altruistic’ in a sensible fashion. He forgets that a machine successfully inculcated with “good intentions” might simply drive us to hell the more quickly, as its capacity for mistakes will be exponentially greater than ours.

Of course, the entire premiss of singularism/transhumanism can be summed up thus:
1. Increase computational capacity
2. ???
3. Profit!

Singularists forget forget that no system will ever be smart enough to modify itself predictively: “If the human brain were simple enough we could understand it, we would be simple enough we couldn’t.”

In other words, the holographical presentation of the system which constitutes the “mind” of a given entity must always be an abstraction of the underlying mechanical system; that is obvious to a child, even if it isn’t obvious to transhumanists.

Put another way, a complex system operating in a non-linear fashion cannot be made to understand itself, because its understanding is by definition less granular that the system which comprises it. Humans collectively may understand the human brain one day, but they will never be able to understand the conjunction of the systems they devised to do so: the collective mechanics which thus effected the understanding of a thing now obsolete.

Does this mean that we must remain human forever, as a species; that we will never become something greater than what we are? Not necessarily–simply that in their gusto to plumb uncharted waters, and their dastardly defiance of conservative wisdom, the singularists and their ilk ever decrease the odds that we will collectively survive to see it happen.

When All Think Is CrimeThink

Prejudices are a good thing.

I have a prejudice against pain, for example, and against people hurting my family. I tend to be prejudiced against people who are thoughtless or inconsiderate. I carry definite bias against slobs, sloths, or weaklings.

Judgement is a good thing.

Judgement is what teaches us that touching fire is a poor idea, or that rapist inclinations are not a desirable quality in one’s friends. It’s what allows a sane and healthy person to differentiate between a promising new friendship and a terrifying descent into an Kafka-esque scene of impossible mind games and poisonous manipulation. It’s the difference between taking a cab home from the bar and downing a 5th of vodka before playing chicken on the rail-road tracks.

Judgement and prejudice are blades we can use to divide the world: good from bad, desirable from undesirable, safe from dangerous.

The problem you have is that every metaphorical blade has two edges–you wish to judge, but not to be judged. (Remember! Judging those who judge is itself a judgement!)

Ten thousand years of civilisation were born of judgement, of prejudice, and of bias. Group identity is what keeps a society whole–without it, a culture becomes a nihilistic collection of hedonists becomes a mindless mob which tears down the erections of their forebears and pisses upon the ruins while eating one another. For a group to have an identity, it must have defining characteristics: qualities which, when lacking, disqualify one as a member of the group. It seems self evident, but apparently must be said: a group with no identifying characteristics is not a group.

Atheists hate religious people (don’t pretend you don’t), religious people tend to hate religious people of other faiths, blacks hate whites, whites hate non-whites, Muslims hate everyone . . . the litany of prejudice goes on, and on, and it is only the fools who pretend this has nothing to do with human nature.

The problem with much of progressivism is that it tries to excise human nature from humans–it is, in effect, saying, “If the problem were completely different from what it is, this is what the solution would be.” This is a common rhetorical method used by politicians and crooks (but I repeat myself) when they do not like the actual answer to the question they are being asked.

That is not to say progress is inherently bad: just that the direction we have moved is not forward.

But it requires judgement to see that.

Delicious & Nutritious

There are an increasing number of products on the market which might be termed ‘pseudo-food’. Indigestible noodles1. Artificial sweeteners. Wood.

But there’s one little flaw with all of these things: they just keep costing you money. And for what? It’s not like eating these things is causing them any harm; they come out of you in more or less the same shape they went in–or, at least, that’s why people buy them.

So I have devised the final solution: reusable food.

A combination of various modern marvels, these fraught cuisine items would be composed of a self healing plastic compound which would allow them to be recomposed into their original shape after digestion. Being impermeable and organically inert, a simple high-temperature spin in any modern dishwasher would restore them to their factory-fresh, quasi-edible state–ready for another exciting trip through your quivering digestive system.

But who wants to go through all the trouble of fishing through their bowel movements to retrieve these indigestible pieces of plastic? Ah, but I have the solution! A handy-dandy, combination toilet/dishwasher will automatically collect, clean, and compose this exciting new product into the Food of the Future2! The all-purpose dishwasher detergent with added artificial flavour will ensure that it’s ready to eat as soon as you open the door–and since you’re already accustomed to eating disturbingly huge quantities of detergent in the form of residue from your old dishwasher, you won’t even mind the implications of what you’re eating!

Now all I need to do is find an investor who’ll give me millions of bucks to make this bright new American Dream3 come true!

1I know it’s a traditional food, but the Japanese didn’t traditionally eat it specifically because it failed to nourish them.
3For a given, all-too-horrifyingly-modern value of “American”

And they is us.

I read an interesting article by Ted Dziuba. It’s not entirely wrong; the amassing of weapons by the US gov’t and by private citizens does amount to an arms race–from a certain point of view. However, his ‘solution’ is untenable and, ultimately, deluded.

The first problem is that it’s not, ultimately, just the police one has to worry about–it’s the USMC, and the Army, and the Navy, and the USAF, and the National Guard, and the Coast Guard, and the FBI, and the Border Patrol, and every single other gov’t organisation in the United States which arms its members.

If the US gov’t were willing to consider disarming the military, the notion of mutual disarmament might be tenable–even if it was still wrong–but that is categorically impossible for many reasons, some of which are even good ones.

Besides, there’s a bigger problem: guns aren’t the problem and never have been. There is no such thing as an ‘evil’ object which should be banned. Guns are a non-issue, except that they are slightly more convenient than, say, explosives in inflicting violence. The problem is people; the problem, the screaming white elephant in the room, is us.


Our culture; our society; our community. World wide.

We are the problem.

Craziness is contagious. Not in the sense of a flu, or a meme, but it is contagious; it spreads and it mutates and it comes from that inexhaustible reservoir known as the mass consciousness. The only thing which differs from time to time is the state of health of that mass consciousness; right now it’s looking a little under the weather–in the same way as an Ebola victim looks a trifle peaky.

Minds operate singularly, in the sense of individuals, but they also operate collectively; anyone who has ever been in a business meeting probably knows that the collective IQ of the group is usually the lowest IQ in the group divided by the number of people present. Groups inevitably trend toward stupidity; imagine the collective IQ of a city.

The ‘crazies’ who have committed these bizarre and impossibly evil crimes in our lifetime are simply more susceptible to the feedback loop between mass consciousness and individual consciousness; they’re the canaries of the mind: the ones who couldn’t numb themselves with TV and Facebook, or dope themselves up strongly enough on prescription meds (or who suffered psychosis from taking them), and hadn’t the fortitude required to simply stand above the sickness in every single one of your black and rotting hearts.

When guns are taken away, they’ll use knives instead. Or fire. Or explosives. A garbage truck could make a real mess of a kindergarten in the wrong hands.

But we don’t hear people talking about banning garbage trucks, do we?

No; because that would be glancing around the room, which carries the risk of us noticing the elephant–noticing that no matter what we ban or legislate or control, there will always be us. Perhaps we should ban independent thought; if everyone’s on enough pot and enough Zoloft and never logs off Facebook, perhaps we can simply stop functioning as human beings; that would stop us from engineering these disasters.

Or we can own up to the failures of racial integration, of feminism, of suffrage, of radical religion (including atheism), of gay rights, of modern divorce laws, of pension laws, of modern wealth distribution systems, of industrialization, of the news and media complex, of every gov’t we’ve created to magically fix our problems; and instead of always pushing the blame onto some fiction (comic books, reefer madness, guns, video games, rock’n’roll, alcohol, drugs, Irish Catholics, Jews, &c.) take a hard look at ourselves instead.

But that would be looking the elephant in the eye, and you’re too cowardly to do that.

“Rape” stories

For ‘traumatised victims’, the women who write stories about being raped are incongruously pornographic in their descriptions.

When people are legitimately traumatised, they do not generally talk about their experiences in loving detail. This is for two reasons: first, it’s unpleasant enough to live through such an experience the first time; second, having suffered so, one is generally hesitant to inflict vicariously the experience upon others which they knew themselves. When the dam does break, as may be necessary to find peace on the matter, it is done with confidantes–trusted individuals with whom the speaker feels comfortable sharing sorrows–rather than in some orgiastic circus of narcissistic exhibitionism.

For rape to have value as an especially traumatic experience, there must be some exceptional aspect to the crime–some loss or damage which is absent from more mundane physical assaults, such as mugging or battery. Thus, for a complaint of rape to have legitimacy, the woman must be able to demonstrate that she possessed some virtue prior to the act in question; as an analogy, consider a ghetto-dwelling degenerate, who has obviously been in a recent fight, asserting that he was mugged and robbed of $5,000. If he failed to give some proof he actually had that kind of money, law enforcement would assume that, at best, he was trying to inflate the complaint against his opponent, and, at worst, that he was actively engaging in fraud–perhaps, in reality, the bum had been the aggressor against a moneyed target, and was trying to induce law enforcement to help him finish the job he couldn’t himself; and who would take him seriously if he bore no signs of violence upon him at all!

As a consequence, when a woman complains of rape, the first action should be to examine her prior reputation and behaviour; obviously, as in any criminal pursuit, one must presume her innocence in the absence of evidence to the contrary; but if she has a demonstrable history of sexual wantonness, infidelity, or the kind of utter carelessness which is categorically incompatible with a concern for her own virtue, then her complaint cannot be taken seriously as per se rape; it is simply an assault which happened to include fluid exchange–which is hardly noteworthy, since even something as mundane as punching someone in the teeth can cause an exchange of blood between the two combatants. If such a complainant can provide proof she was assaulted, she deserves whatever remedies are available in her jurisdiction for the victims of aggravated assault, but no more. It is when her history and character do not fall under question, that exceptional treatment is warranted; then can the assault be taken as being an attack upon her very womanhood.

It is difficult to imagine such a woman publicly discussing the violation of her most sacred essence with the world at large. In contrast, most of the “rape stories” online are loudly and publicly averred by women who seemingly take pride in their very lack of good character! Such women will discuss their infidelity, their dishonesty, their lack of care and their carefulness, and their complete lack of concern for those around them, in so stridently brazen a fashion that one can but assume they take pride in their sluttish conduct.

This makes the very magnitude of their complaint all the more hypocritical–they seem to specifically think that they are above accountability; that they can engage in behaviour far more degenerate than that they were forced into by their supposed attackers, and then make complaint that they were ‘violated’; that they can flout the system which exists to protect them, and then run to it the moment they find themselves in a situation they find distasteful.

Such slatterns and harlots are beneath contempt, and serve only to further destroy the legitimacy of the crime ‘rape’ in the eyes of the common man; for though women have been prized throughout history for their virtue, for the first time men are beginning to wonder if women are capable of love or virtue at all–and this author weeps for the future in which their suspicions are escalated to belief or dogma.