Thursday, December 28, 2017

Metaracket Modality with Leaden Feathers Plummets Gravely into the Abyss

A quick grab from the tree as I ran by it today yields content which translates formally into metacontent in a way fruitful for illustrating modalities of racketeering pertinent to modern fifth columnry and its predictable, inevitable and catastrophic future.

Watch this woman Grandmaster of chess get beaten on time in a game which is much shorter than the time controls for normal chess in which she earned her title, and which longer form she may prefer to play.  Look at pattern of the attitudes in the comment section where are the replies to the statement that she doesn't play like a Grandmaster, even accounting for shorter time controls detrimental effects on calculation.  See the arguments and see both sides and transcend the issue wherever it falls short of evidence and reason, to include the surrounding issues and consequences if it were to be true (might require some imagination, but not much, to get beyond the discussion's limits of discourse).

Maybe she was distracted by jianwen flirting with her under the table the whole time. That'll mess up your calculation coefficient under time pressure. What a fun time you had there, jianwen (the lance). Or perhaps it was his aura of fawning for attention that disturbed her intuition toward the endgame. I would like to see the full scope of the interaction from all relevant angles. Now if covertly manipulated internet topologies were operative, I wonder if the AI could understand the subtlety of my phrase better than the average human reader and parse it better in terms of raw coherence or raw differentiation in content in terms of both syntax and semantics.  That could be seen humorously, or it could be seen as a potential case depending on the presented evidence, which would then also be used as grounds for an investigation of the matter in proportion to significance of the case in the greater consideration of things that might be worth investigating.  There are many issues which might come up in any thoroughgoing investigation of this matter.

Let alone is there interest in the different ways that female and male human minds operate in playing chess, whether apart or with one another. But given the objectivity of the nature of chess, so that there are definitive intuitions about the values of material versus other features of the position, AI could be programmed to better mine qualitative aspects which are encoded in the quantifications of positions right down to the centipawn. Similar big data analysis by something tantamount to Vesuvius running some specialized AI through various quantum, metatronic, and electronic processing circuits which translate fluidly between qubits and classical bits, and bring results that might even seem godlike in accuracy and detail of modeling real world phenomena. Now if big data acts as a quantified weigting of qualitative information in the syntax and semantics of ANY human behavior, then that could be applied so as to steer a mass mind through covertly and sometimes openly manipulated topologies of interaction between both real and simulated internet nodes. That would make the internet the most powerful surveillance/propaganda/subterfuge platform that has ever existed. 

And that is not a welcome application of AI nor of intercomputer communication networks. That's conducting a racket plain and simple. It would also be a racket to use such a system, for example, to influence in any way what sort of research is done on the science of sexual dimorphism in brain structure and function, behavioral differeces and their causes in such a context, and so on, in such a way as to suppress any of it to include by crowding some out by overpromoting others, having envisioned, or simply carried out as an instrument who should have known better, a racket.  Definitively and literally a racket against the Truth by suppression of a lawful and sane study of reality. That's quite a racket. 

And on top of that already stupendous problem among others, it would have multple evolving facets of problems and complexities to express on its own beyond that which could be modeled as easily as a black hole is modeled in the formulations of relativity theory. It could be found on the balance of evidence by the right heuristic of examination of ANY evidence in ANY form, in fact. But the problem is that such a system focuses specifically on eradicating the communication of THIS INFORMATION across any topologies which reasonably count as open communication.... It's like instantiating the null set of a sort of logic of deception. I cannot reasonably expect this information to reach interested others who do not know it already. That is the right end of Shannon's Curve? 

Yes, I think so. Specious with reference to the intended audience, but consistent with its own premise.  Specious in that the information is inhibited in direct proportion to its relevance and intelligibility toward the middle of the curve, but forcibly, through a blatant racket, restrained to encounter topologies full of real or staged idiots and trolls, some actual "other end" real persons in an open topology, or antagonistic persons who already know the content.  The illusion will swell in the middle, and the trickle, if any, would be at the extremes but in a way so that there is only a trickle that will not enable any reasonable propagation of the information to reasonable people.  That is part of the reason I included practically significant information concerning such a thing, to see what sort of feedback will be artificially constructed and compare that with expected parameters.

Concerning matters of free speech, this weaponry has obvious ramifications for any debates or discussions whatsoever, but certainly it would be significant as a directly relevant meta-issue to any debates or discussions on matters of social importance to anyone, such as sexual and gender identity issues, or race relations, whatever seems important to anyone.  It may not be important to everyone, nor everyone in the same way.  The freedom to disregard some issues in favor of others is even more fundamental than the freedom of speech when considering the sovereignty of an agent in claiming, exercising and defending said agent's own rights.  This will always supercede the de dicta issues pertaining to the expression of this very fact. De re sovereignty always supercedes particulars of de dicta claims based upon such. Claims must be recognized and acknowledged.  That is more important than the particulars of protocol for their expression, as in this case form must always follow function in ways that may not agree with the preferences of others without equal claim, which is to say any claim.

Everyone has the right to express themselves freely, and everyone has the right to listen to anyone they prefer, but if you want to listen only to what is in your own head you have to wear something in your ears in public or else retreat to privacy. You can't control such things except on your own property.  Now if a university wants to rewrite the rules of using English as such, they better think carefully about the problems that is going to cause in practical terms.  First off it makes them insipid for thinking that people can't see that this is a specious distraction from the proper role of a true academic institution, which of course may always be in the grips of various biases.  But it will not change by enforcing specious cases of exceptionalism to various norms such as how language is used.  Especially when the interests are clearly ideological in nature and proposed by a spearhead that is clearly motivated by something other than a proper understanding of justice.  This is cultural warfare in a way that is blatantly a subset of agendas that are not purely motivated by a concern with what is "truly fair and just".  Real debate and discussion is what changes cultural artifacts like language, not legislation or violence. 

In a comment section of a video about this specific issue, someone had the gall to throw out there for obseration the quote from Orwell that if thought corrupts language it is also true that language corrupts thought.  First off, langauge is an instrument, thought is an activity.  The former is based strictly on convention as a means to express the latter.  These emergent attitudes about the way language changes over time is not consistent with how language changes over time except in cases where fallacious arguments are used to reinforce dictatory power of one will over another without proper justification, period.  That's the REAL point of Orwell.  If language had the power to corrupt thought, it is because some people are determined to manipulate the expression of some people's thought by forcing them to filter their language.  If you want me to address you, and make that the main thing, that is clearly in and of itself a distraction from more important issues.  He, she, it, who, what and which.  If you really want to bitch about what gendered words entail, then bother French or Latin, leave English the fuck alone. The onus is on demonstrating the "corruption", regardless. 

The default setting on that judgment is to defend your own use of language when it is attacked, not control other people's use of language like a parent.  Language is used by thinkers or the thoughtless.  Either way, they are agents each with the right to think or not, to express their thought one way or another, and valid corrections of this should be sorted according to a table of priorities.  Someone's obsessions based upon their insecurities about structural violence is not a justifiable reason to harp on pronouns in everyone's eyes, just in the eyes of a few.  You can whine because I don't glow with joy watching you dress like a bafoon, but that's just tough shit.  Same with your inability to accept that I'm not jumping on your bandwagon for people with a penchant to change English to suit their feelings about their own way of identifying their own inner gender or their outer sex.  If you are a convincing enough display of the feminine fashion plus the female persuasion, you will get admiring glances from some, disinterest from others, disgust from a few.  Just how that works, you have to live with it.  Freedom of your expression entails freedom of everyone elses.  You have to show actual harm done that is not simply subjective, then also show that any subjective harms also claimed are strictly dependent upon that, let alone that some other agent wittingly engaged in that harm, let alone was negligent of avoiding it as a violation of a proper norm for due diligence or vigilance.  Please, this is some cut and dried shit right here.

But if hijacking the rule of law and inflicting violence are the preferred or chosen methods of changing culture, then what would make such agents even flinch if they had the opportunity to utilize weapons of warfare that distort the mechanisms of communication and the development of processes that are supposed to be informed by a free exchange over instant communication networks?  What would make them even pause to think other than the risk of getting caught at such a crime?  Their main focus would be on using such a system of manipulation first of all to prevent it being seen that they are using such a system, that would be the "steady state status quo" of their control equilibria.  That's their "metagoal".  The ultimate aim of deception is to perpetuate itself forever.  All other agendas are secondary which depend upon deception as a crucial factor, literally, by definition.  The only time that ceases to matter to the deceiver is when their agenda which required that deception is fulfilled.  

So certainly, these tactics must be understood and considere just in general when considering matters of social significance, especially where communication is the main venue of catalyzing change, and especially when the platforms of communication used have a potential to completely script huge swaths of that process, and to do so covertly. You'd think that everyone would be concerned about that.  Of course, that is barely an item of people's thought, and it comes in specious forms that viciously avoid the major forms that can strategically affect everyone and tactically affect anyone.  Just keep dreaming that it can't happen, and/or that it can't happen to you.  I bring this up because covert manipulations of settings in spaces that are presumed to be of transparent public use in certain ways, is thoroughly illegal and immoral.  If a racket of any sort is conducted, it basically makes you slime.  It doesn't matter how many people like being around slime, or cognizantly working with slime.  They simply are accessories to slime.  If you want to pretend you are operating a public place to drink coffee and meet people, but in fact you are operating aas a front in that whereas you are actually wittingly serving as a depot for organized criminal activity, that is a racket. Doesn't matter if it is just the local regulars ostracizing an individual per whatever protocols, or if you are running guns for local Antifa cells.  Whatever your racket, it is a racket.  You are not a business in the proper sense.  You are not a fair dealer to the public.  You are not in good faith.  You are cowards atop all that, and perverters of society.  This goes on throughout society, with its sanctimonious self-righteous endeavors laid bare, regardless of its identity obsessions or belief-system clustering, or political activities.

So that would go for any spaces of social discourse and intercourse, physical places of human action as well as electronic domains of action, especially as pertaining to public discourse, however riddled with whatever content, however manipulated by whatever interests.  It still remains that the transparancy of such platforms and venues concern a common interest in avoiding covert manipulation that overpowers the rights of any individual or group in their exercise of their rights.  This, or you have NOTHING but spaghetti on a wall counting as art, facades of order sheltering chaos counting as civility, and a slow motion train wreck of evil counting as the expression of good custom and reasonable norms of coexistence.  How's THAT for "structural violence"?

I, like anyone else, am interested in when things go wrong.  When the go metawrong, you can bet someone interested in metaeverything will perhaps notice while traipsing through the facades of an open air supergulag-become-metagulag of the future.  They've found a cure for sanity, and made it a crime not to accept it, whilst simply gaslighting the sane, insane, or anyone else who gets in the way.  All gaslighting amounts to is openly eschewing someone to be interned at some sort of gulag of alienation.  That is the prerogative of anyone to do to anyone, I suppose.  But if they have to do it in person on just grounds and don't have the guts in the first case or the grounds in the second, then we know that people resort to passive and other forms of covert or covertly deployed aggression.  Known to be true facts.  What the African woman says about ideological colonization indicates how it is subversive to culture and to all within that culture.   Global Citizenry equals International Fifth Columnry as a vehicle for special interests in a world who wish to rule over it like its citizens are mentally retarded and morally vacuous.  The Global Citizen Brigade is just one of many levers of influence by which this is attained.

When one considers the way information-system rackets operate, it is more of a metacrime even than the cultural aggression just proposed, because it could be used to magnify the power of the crime she describes while even simultaneously making people proportionately less aware of or less outraged by it. This is a single aspect of all the distortions possible in changing the spaces of the way individuals fulfill roles, especially in their relations to groups and the way they continue culture, and the very species per se, in terms of both bare sustenance and also further development.  And these are not the only issues at stake.  

Social engineering is a very broad idea, and it doesn't mean simply what people differently estimate it to mean.  It has has many senses as there are means and ends in such an endeavor.  If it turned out that any of those ends were as evil as some in Hollyweird have discovered and professed, then it shouldn't be a surprise if it would be a motive that would drive such people to seek a means to "colonize" society with their evil while insulating themselves from backlash for it. They would want an equilibrium in favor of their continuing to do their evil metarape (the evils they do to children and infants). 

There are many other such metacrimes "in themselves", but even normal criminality is aggravated in a transcendental way to its former status as a crime when it is subducted by, conducted by, or even inducted into metacriminal conditions such as any form of fifth columnry or other meta-structure such as covertly deployed superior technologies to the status quo's familiarity or understanding or use, to include covertly manipulated intercomputer networking topologies and psychotronics technologies. These are truly metacatalysts in that they create metacrimes directly and even transmute mundane crimes into meta-monstrosities. Metarape was just one, but many forms of meta-assualt exist.  Even their attempts when failed are, over time, as bad as any mundane form of success within their normal form.  I can prove that if it weren't intuitively obvious how that would be the case.  But shouldn't the case in which that is proven already speak to the conscience of intelligent sentiences?  The fact that my drawing attention to this reality has likely been completely subverted by its mechanisms with deliberate intent that is porportionate to the duplicity and evil foolishness of the lackeys and turnkeys used to make it happen, that just exposes this world's version of "humanity" for exactly what it is.

There are things not meant to be delineated, although their details must be understood if one is to truly grasp the significance of what they are, and they happen to be such that a science of their understanding has been established called "ponerology", but it has a broader sense than the typical theological approaches which had earlier monopolized the discussion.  But what is clear regardless is that if those things were going on that's bad enough.  But if instead of embarking on doing whatever it took to stop them, those with the capabilities to surveil how I shit couldn't focus instead on those who needed that same quantity and intensity and duration of interest, then it comes down to a grave situation.  That's not even normal incompetence.  That's right, it's metaincompetence.  If you think that is a joke, you are a metajackass.  It is metaserious.  The world that presents these symptoms of evil is too corrupt to proceed into past futures, the present, or any future futures since that corruption began in a progressively intensifying field over the whole world under its influence.  They should save the pissing contests and the snark for when they find themselves headfirst in a crevasse in hell.

It turns out that noticing things going wrong in personal life in some way always matches up with things that went wrong in the world in which that life exists, and sometimes in ways that are not simply specious to the individual's experienced circumstances, to the identity of the individual in any sense, and even to the medium of communication between individuals and events.  But that "metawrongness" which covertly steers normative channels or individual peculiarities of existence in the realm of human action have grave consequences on too many levels to ignore.  Wrongs which intensify at an exponential pace, bringing harmful conditions and harms themselves in each instance which should never have even been able to exist had duely diligent moral agents stood in to do something when they had the chance.  Looks like too many men lacked the guts or the grounds to take action against too much evil, too vast, too well-equipped.  You might have talked it up after the fact if you survived it, such as some who survived the last seventy years might.  But no one who knows what the Truth about this world IS can just cheerfully and gallantly declare a bright future for what is already dead in the past.

Let alone what died stillborn in the futures which procede from the metacrimes of the present and its own pasts.  Grimmer than grim.  Metagrim.

No comments: