The battlefield of the future

Let's set the stage with a paragraph from a recent - and excellent - Chris Ballas piece :

So Randi goes to Davos, never once asking why they would want her there? Convincing her demo of underproducing hyperconsumers that capitalism-- controlling capital-- is pointless and mean, but globalism-- doublespoken as "progress", "human rights", "everything is connected"-- that is a noble cause. Remember that the "culture" she thinks she speaks for, including those that hate her-- "the startup culture"-- is premised on starting a business in order to sell the business to someone else. Of course the idea is to get rich-- which sounds like capitalism, if you're retarded, but observe the message that is being taught: that the necessary correlate to getting rich is to give all the capital to someone else. The power is traded for the fetish of power. That's not capitalism, it is madness, and apparently Davos and Randi think women especially will heart it. It'll work for a handful of well publicized people pictured above the caption, "$100 billion! You could be next!"-- followed immediately by a story about how worthless the business turned out to be, so of course the goal for you is to sell out ASAP; but the vast majority who have aligned their psychology with this vector will pursue an impossible fantasy at the expense of their labor and their lives. If you don't believe me, believe Lori Gottlieb. This logic recommended to her to drop out of Stanford medical school to join Kibu.com, and now she's a relationship expert.

I would like to undersign on this general evaluation : not only Randi the Clownⁱ, but more generally the VC & conference freakshow (ie, pretend-finance), and the legion of despicable niggersⁱⁱ stuffing their face with someone else's fried chicken (ie, pretend-politics), and the masses of Pulitzer prostitutes (ie, pretend-academiaⁱⁱⁱ) all work on pretty much the same general script :

It's true that we don't produce anything of value, and it's further true that we have no interest in increasing the value of our production, but nevertheless it stands that we expect to be regarded as valuable and we further expect to be regarded as more valuable in the future than today.

This'd be it, of course, the upper bound of a socialist regime : once a wealthy, successful state is taken over by they inclined to promise public largesse out of the tax chest, the only way things can go is up. Up up up! To the moon. Which of course means... pop!^iv

First some are given some freebies. Then more are given more freebies. Then at some point the freebies exceed the available resources, which pushes the state into borrowing, which pushes it into irrelevance.^v The carousel however does not stop, because it's an ideal phenomena with no real bounds. Stuck against the physical limits of reality, the state will move into sweetening the package (for it must always be constantly sweetened!) by giving out promises along with its actual dispensations. And these promises must grow and grow and grow, and slowly lose all contact with reality, and then with themselves. And even so they must continue to grow. How else do you think it'd be possible for your average US born twenty something to narrowly avoid depression, in 40% or so of cases ? This and Prozac barely manage, and soon the dose will have to be increased again.

That's globalism : the hope, eagerly swallowed, the promise, readily offered, that somehow somewhere there exists another Earth, which works not on real but on ideal principles, and on which every voter, every citizen, every sack of worthless flesh will have it all. Everything they could dream of and more, forty beautiful young maidens, restraining the modest gaze of their wide and lovely eyes, like pearls, companions of equal age, splendid, voluptuous, non-menstruating nor urinating nor defecating and childfree (or else being able to bring to term within an hour), with bodies not affected by pregnancy or breast-feeding, about 60 cubits (ie 27.5 m) tall and 7 cubits (ie, 3.2 m) wide, transparent to the marrow of their bones, eternally young and hairless except the eyebrows and the head. Plus pure, beautiful and much more besides.

And why not ? It worked just fine for the Arabs, why shouldn't it work again ? The emperor of Christianity, back when that meant Constantinople, ruled over a small dingy old "kingdom" of sorts consisting of seven or eight villages lost among the mighty fortified walls of splendors past. But he also ruled over a most magnificent and resplendent kingdom of pearls and music lost in the clouds. Why not ? What's to keep him ? Do you really care whether the prostitute you've bought by the hour and whose asshole you're currently ripping to shreds is dreaming about how it all takes place in her triple-Platinum R&B video hit ? Maybe she is, or maybe she is dreaming of how you're happily married and celebrating your fifth anniversary with champagne, gifts of precious stones and smartphones and a little anal pounding.

The problem, for there obviously must always be a problem, is Bitcoin. Because Bitcoin quite prominently does not give a shit, nor does it even jokingly entertain these and similar delusions. Put it in writing if you can, sign it appropriately if you control a signature that has such a power. Else ... it doesn't exist, and it will never become part of the blockchain (which is really just a byword for history, by now). What's worse... it's always had this attitude. In fact, that's why it's so powerful, precisely : because of this attitude.

Obviously this makes Bitcoin racist, and anti-humanitarian, and terrorist, and child pornographist and money laundering-ist and everthing else bad-ist. It has to.

So that'll be the battlefield of the future : some bearded guys with very long numeric strings ripping to very real shreds the anal orifices of dreamy eyed globalists, in a most racist, chauvinist, reactionary, evil and uncivilised manner. Forcing the kids of today into quite abject servitude tomorrow for their guilt, fault and deadly sin of having believed their parents, and their leaders, and their culture. Forcing useless yet impudent cocklets and cuntlets to confront their uselessness, and their impudence.

And their worthlessness, and their pointlessness, reduced to quite bare things - for without solid anchoring into a functional culture, without comfortable egress into a working system of representation man is not at all different and definitely not more than animal. The value of a random sow is her body weight multiplied by the price of sow flesh on the open market. Perhaps a slight premium may be added if anyone's inclined to keep it as a pet. So run off to the bathroom, strip naked and weigh yourself. Pork bellies go for ~$1 per pound, and so do you (provided you were frozen, trimmed, and added up to enough of your peers to make a 18`000 kg package). If you've a mirror you could perhaps try and evaluate yourself to a premium, but bear in mind that two digits is likely unwarrantedly generous, try and keep it between nothing and 10%.

That's you, on the open market, fifty to a hundred dollars' worth. Your clothes cost more to make, let alone what they retail for. Your college education is not worth fifty thousand merely because it's cost you fifty thousand, just like the shit you just took isn't worth fifteen dollars on the grounds that that's what the McMeal you ate to produce it cost. Your college education is not worth fifty thousand merely because it's got you a government job^vi - the continuation of that job is dependent on the continuation of that government, and fifty thousand in confederate dollars isn't part of this discussion in any shape or form.

This is your moment of truth, really, naked in front of your bathroom mirror. Is your pound of flesh actually worth more than the difference between your debts and your assets ? Actual assets, not pretend assets, not promised assets, not governmental debentures. Actual assets.

Because if it isn't, you've no option than to push for "globalization", this current repackaging of the notion that the Messiah will show up and erase all difference between the world as it is and the imaginary world the weak live in. Good luck with that.

But just to be on the safe side... start carrying some lube on your person. You never know, the road is long, the Messiah may be delayed en route...

1. "Who's Bozo? Bozo the Clown, that's who Bozo is. When I was a kid, Bozo the Clown was the clown, bar none." [↩]
2. Before you get too excited, mark that nigger is a term of art and review the link for its actual definition. Or if you're too much in a hurry and would rather rage, I guess that works too. [↩]
3. Note that at least in the United States, "Academia" is an amalgamate of press and college, with the press pole dominant, which explains why ridiculous nonsense a la "Global Warming" is the chief product of the entire system. As far as the US cultural space is concerned, there's nothing to be gained by class attendance that's not equally well conveyed watching TV or clicking through social media sites. [↩]
4. The problem is explained in this older article :

   Also among those major challenges, the well documented and widely understood loss-gain asymmetry. It is a fact of human psychology that we hold dearer to that which we lost, above and beyond its actual value, while we disregard that which we’ve gained, deeming it worth less than would be factually correct. This flows out of necessary biology, seeing how the maintenance of life requires material consumption, and so the mammalian brain can’t reasonably be expected to view the matter in a strictly neutral perspective. An influx from the outside to the inside is the zero level of biological survival for purely thermodynamic reasons, and because of this situation an ounce lost could mean death whereby an ounce gained does not necessarily mean life, and if it does it’s only temporary anyway.

   From the perspective of governance, this state of affairs has the following unfortunate implication : should a collection of people each produce p units and immediately consume p units, their per capita contentment will be p. Should however a collection of people each produce p units, be taxed for k units (where k < p), benefit from government prestations worth exactly k units, and as a result consume p units, their per capita contentment will be p - nk, where n > 0 (though hopefully < 1). In other words, even in the socialist ideal society where everyone produces exactly the same, and even if we throw in capitalist ideal methods, where government waste is exactly 0 and k = k, nevertheless there's a loss through the simple workings of the different psychological treatment of loss and gain.

   These fundamental considerations among many others, more minute, more intricate but perhaps as dangerous in aggregate, explain why any attempt at implementing Statally Organised Pseudojustice Systems is a doomed enterprise. The only way these can be operated in practice, and indeed the only way these have been successfully operated in practice, is as extraction engines, whereby the nk factor and the difficulties of translating ideal into practice are overcompensated by despoiling a larger, oppressed group.

   [↩]

5. You think Obama has anything meaningful to say to Putin ? Putin's country owns its means, including its very own military equipment. Obama's country does not. [↩]
6. As per another great Ballas article,

   The system not only pays poor people, it employs lots and lots of almost poor people. I'm not saying this is a good thing, or a desirable thing, I am simply stating a fact. Some of these are direct government jobs (e.g. staff down at the SSI office) and some are pretend private sector jobs. If you're a psychiatrist at an inner city clinic, you may think you're an independent contractor, but you're really working for The Man (but with no pension.) That's the system. Cut SSI payments and those docs-- and nurses and etc-- don't get paid.

   You're not an independent contractor just because you think you are or you'd like to be, or you were told, promised and made to believe you were. [↩]