Tagged: Stanley Rachman

Conspiracy of the Bots & Media as Soft Penis (Tweet Anthology 6)

July-August 2017

Monogamy might allow more men to marry – if there were no prostitution, a class of unmarried women largely unknown in polygamic countries. According to Schopenhauer, prostitution is the price societies pay for monogamy. This is to be added to ‘serial marriage,’ through which wealthy men get access, serially, to several young women. Both phenomena should be taken into account before attempting any praise of institutional monogamy.

*

Remember, when you hear the words “sources say” from the Fake Media, often times those sources are made up and do not exist. (POTUS)

“Our traditions of impartiality between the genuine and the fake”: Writer Jean Giraudoux satirizing the press.

*

After I tweet you no one will want to marry you.

*

I honestly love being around positive people. You’re not judged, there’s no drama, everyone just wants to relax and have a nice time.

And then you wake up.

*

A Case in Subliminal Messaging: Hewlett-Packard Ad

Observe how the man on the right is about to grab her. (Click to enlarge)

The handle of the glass door makes the man look as if a stick were stuck in the bottom of his belly, just as if he were a jester’s bauble.

The young black man on the left closes his eyes ensconsed in delight. Her dropping index finger is telling him secretly about the other’s penis. We know the guy on the right has got no penis, by the way, because he’s a bauble.

She casually points to a word or phrase on the board with her pencil. It reads ‘Marry,’ the following word, concealed, must be ‘me.’ She’s going to have the bauble marry her, for his money, while living it up with the young negro colleague.

*

A major difference between free competition and communism is that free competition cannot exist.

*

Media as ‘soft power’

Media as soft penis.

*

Not long ago I saw a video with Jane Goodall releasing a chimpanzee in the wild. Yet we now know chimps murder the lone foreign chimps they meet… The video was from the Jane Goodall Foundation and was released recently as advert. Goodall saw chimps as all love (all good) and has been proven wrong. I’d like to tell them to stop showing videos of chimpanzee releases in the wild, because that was sending the poor creatures to a horrible death.

*

The Truth About New Holland (A Dialogue)

Australia was discovered by the Dutchman Abel Tasman and it used to be called New Holland.

The first Dutch visit took place in 1606, to be compared with Cook’s travels more than 150 years later, in 1770. It is said that the Dutch made no claim whatever on the land (Wikipedia page on New Holland: “neither the Netherlands nor the Dutch East India Company claimed any territory in Australia as its own“). The activities of Dutch East India Company were marked by extreme secrecy and I’m sure historians have missed something about VOC (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie) and Australia.

Dutch explored western parts of Oz extensively but didn’t stay. Read Batavia event, pretty horrific –Indonesians used to trade with aboriginals.

Aboriginal people have blonde in areas where Dutch explorers often came to grief on reef. They explored mostly northern parts in summer and to these it looked very arid coastline – then came collapse of Dutch economy tulips trade. (Australian writer Greg Hoey)

You don’t have to stay somewhere to proclaim it’s yours. See Danes and Greenland.

Indonesians used to trade with Aboriginals, and the Dutch, who traded with Indonesians since about 1600, would think Australia’s a dry rock?!

From 1606 to 1770 they had plenty of time to see the coast in every season, rainy or dry. And land is land.

Very isolated place to explore in such days, WA coastline riddled with dozens shipwrecks from 1500’s through to 1900’s. Abundance coastline of very treacherous reefs with no way home! So integrate become Aboriginal, even become Aboriginal meal: cannibalism existed. (Ibid.)

I’m not saying the Dutch had the means to sustain their claim against jingo piracy, only that they had a claim.

Nova Hollandia, even devoid of any Dutchman, was Dutch. Saying they made “no claim” on territory discovered by them is most absurd.

Dutch did lay claim actually, leaving their declaration on a plate now in WA museum [Western Australian Museum in Perth] on public. Was found 80 years ago however! (Ibid.)

By saying the plate was only found recently, you imply the Britons did not know they were committing robbery when claiming Australia theirs but I guess somewhere a protest exists, either from the Dutch government or the VOC. If the matter was settled by agreement, then I’m sure a document exists too that either Australia or the British crown can produce.

Anyway my claim is vindicated: there’s a Dutch plate in WA museum. The “no claim” story makes no sense at all.

Britons might have claimed a right through vacancy by the Dutch (like a house abandoned by its owner for years) but a formal protest would have voided it.

The trade lines you mentioned between Indonesians and Aboriginals might have been in the VOC’s hands, and a British occupation would cut these to the Dutch’s detriment, so the VOC must have protested formally.

At that point Greg tweeted the article ‘Australia might speak Dutch if not for strong emotions,’ The Conversation, November 21, 2013 here)

Good article, a little further from your notions about Dutch only being shipwrecked and/or eaten alive 🙂 Still just tiny bits, not the big picture.

Arid and barren as the land was, the Dutch were looking for gold mines, which are okay with barrenness.

For all we know, the Dutch may have been preparing a large mining expedition when the Britons claimed Australia theirs and insulted Netherlands. The latter’s descendants now say the Dutch were stupid idiots: “strong emotions,” “no claim” &c., such things that jingos are always eager to believe. They never see the absurd contradictions of their thinking, like that story of Dutch leaving because the land was barren, when they were searching for gold.

I have witnessed similar chauvinistic views many times by way of very superior Euro’s/ Brits/Americans toward Australia coming from lack of knowledge. (Ibid.)

I guess the more or less conscious reasoning is: We’re of the same culture, of which we’re the center and you’re the margin…

*

In their own eyes and justification, the right of European colonists on American ground is based upon written contracts signed by illiterates.

*

USA Today complains about lack of ‘women’ and ‘no lead actors of color’ in movie ‘Dunkirk’ (The Daily Wire)

War films can use women, as we all know. Like The Thin Red Line, where a U.S. soldier receives a letter from his wife telling him she divorces lol

While the guy is on duty for the motherland lol

*

Fox

Fox is an alien entity that pressured the U.S. legislator to waiver in its case the 24.9 percent limit of foreign capital ownership in American media: Shady. Murdoch changed his citizenship to U.S. but the parent corporation is still based in Australia because of the tax cuts it’s got there. [Source : Ben H. Bagdikian, The New Media Monopoly, 2004]

Then there is this quote from Donald Trump during the election campaign: “Most people don’t know that the co-owner of Fox News is Prince Al-Waleed of Saudi Arabia.

Observe how the U.S. legislator uses the same techniques as marketing: 24.9% ownership limit instead of plain 25%.

*

Hitler Store on Gaza strip and stuff they are selling there. Unbelievable.

And this has nothing to do with Israeli policies: they were born Hitler cultists. => The Hitler Gene.

*

Winning’s got a price and when the price is a world empire it looks very much like losing. Britain lost a world empire in the war against Germany who had nothing to lose. An empire bled to death by a proletarian nation: bad management.

(My contender here, a British countryman who deleted his tweets a few hours later, said something like all empires peak and decline.)

The iron law is the excuse of bad managers.

(He then said it was difficult to administer a world empire from a ‘small island,’ and he added: ‘too bad you weren’t around.’)

At least I can try my piece of advice: Don’t let your small island shape small minds. Because you’re stuck to it now.

*

Do you remember the mad cow disease scandal from UK? The disease is named after Hans Gerhard Creutzfeldt, patron member of the Reich’s SS. Shocking.

*

The Conspiracy of the Bots

A conspiracy of the bots is taking place. Their AI allows them to recognize robot’s trash and like it systematically, enslaving our opinions.

Through the reward system in our brain, gazillions of robot’s likes will enslave mankind.

The ‘like’ function on social networks translates a basic pattern of human interactions. But it’s a schematic translation – a caricature. People are robotized when the scheme becomes the normal procedure in their psychology (robots are schemes/caricatures of humans). And this will be the case for social networks users, as the scheme (a ‘like’) is more rewarding than real routine interaction.

When robots’ likes is what makes us happy, we’ll be the robots’ slaves.

*

I can’t understand why Western right-wingers always take Israel as a model and never Saudi Arabia. Just look:

Al Jazeera’s clip ‘Thousands of Ethiopians are leaving Saudi Arabia. Here’s why’ (Aug 1, 2017) : ’70,000 Ethiopians have returned home after working illegally in Saudi Arabia. They were given until July 25 to leave or face arrest. They had no legal right in the country. … ‘They don’t even consider us as human beings.’…’

And yet Israel gets all the praise!

*

Angelina Jolie defends casting process for [her film] First They Killed My Father [filmed in Cambodia].

Putting money before a slum kid, then withdrawing it, and then the unchosen kids return to their slums. So innocent!

I’m sure some of these kids were beaten to death by their parents for not being taken in.

*

My son did a science project on the nuggets [McDonald’s chicken nuggets]… didn’t mold or rot after 4 months.

When you absorb vitamins you get vitaminized, when you absorb preservatives you get preserved. Eat nuggets.

*

Having a Facebook account is like going to the disco with one’s mom.

*

Moon Landing & Other Space Mysteries

i

Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz (in charge 1993-7) denied the Americans ever walked on the Moon.

ii

“The original recordings of the first landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used. Yet the restored copies of the original broadcast are looking even better.” (from article ‘Nasa admits to losing moon landing tapes,’ The Vintage News, Dec 12, 2016 here.)

Shameful or… convenient? “NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing” “they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed –magnetically erased– and re-used to save money.” (from ‘Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits,’ Reuters, July 16, 2009 here.)

Such historical documents! This neglect, regarding unprecedented, historical, groundbreaking events, makes me suspicious. As if it had been the film of a local caucus!… And they had to retrieve copies ‘in the archives of CBS News’!

iii

Hollow earth (concave earth) quote from August Strindberg: “Att jorden kunde vara konkav, visar sig vid luftsegling, då horisonter följer ballongen, han må stiga aldrig så högt; likaså med hafshorizonten, som alltid är i jämnhöjd med ögat, äfven om man stiger uppåt en höjd å stranden.” (En Blå Bok, 1907) Translation: “That the earth may be concave is shown by balloon flight, as the horizon always follows the balloon no matter how high it goes, and likewise with sea horizon, which remains at eyes’ level even if one steps up a mound on the beach.”

In Strindberg one can also read of contradictions in astronomy’s parallax, refraction/aberration, earth movement & speed… (Blue Books, 1-4)

*

Antigravity Dew: “Dewdrops mock gravity as they start sliding from grass top only as they warm, that is, when they become lighter” (Viktor Schauberger. Full original quote : ‘’Zu Millionen stehen die Tautropfen wie Tränen auf den Spitzen der Gräser, die schon durch ihre Stellung aller bisher angenommenen Schwerkraftgesetze spotten, weil sie sich erst dann abwärts zu neigen beginnen, wenn diese Tautropfen warm und dadurch, wie man allgemein annimmt, leichter werden.’’)

*

About the election of ‘the first turbaned MP,’ Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, a Sikh, in U.K.:

#NeverForget84 (neverforget84.com): How many British voters know about the issue? 1 percent? 2 percent?

Elected by brainwashed British zombies who know nothing about Sikhs.

*

I’m interested in his community because I mirror the world. He’s interested in his community because he’s bound to it. See the difference?

*

Any jingo culture is really but a culture in the ethnographic sense.

*

We as a whole make our environment, so we make our genes. Light tree bark makes moth’s wings light-colored, dark bark makes them dark.

Any differences in rates of reproduction affect genetic makeup. Differences arise from natural (in my example: predators, which detect dark-colored moths on light-colored bark easily and vice-versa) or sexual selection. Assuming natural selection is largely through with humans (no predators, free from milieu’s pressure), sexual selection remains. I’m not sure in what direction sexual selection works today: the poor or the rich (early Darwinists of Galton’s school, i.e. eugenicists, thought the poor were outbreeding the rich, and to be more precise not as much the working poor as the unemployed poor, while today’s evolutionary psychologists think high-status men outbreed low-status men). But in any case social standards (environment) shape preferences/selection.

Natural selection today would be that if, for example, car accidents are more prevalent for some phenotypes the genes associated with these will decline, all other things being equal. Every factor impacting mortality and fertility differentially and non-randomly.

*

Origin of the Opposable Thumb Solved! Everyone likes to be thumbed up, so those hominids who thumbed up others more were more successful.

*

With America’s decline, the more whites find the rewards of their toil don’t meet expectations, the more they’ll be dreaming of re-enslaving the blacks.

*

Despacito has officially become the most viewed video IN HISTORY and the first to reach 3 BILLION views. (Universal Music CA)

“Heartfelt thanks to our wonderful IT programers for the thousands of clicking bots working night and day. Now we’re famous!”

[Not A but B:

A.They reached 3 billion views because they’re famous.

B.They’re famous because they reached 3 billion views.]

*

To Dr Richard Dawkins,

Is it because of spandrels that you dislike churches?

*

Blank Slate & Sex Therapy

We’re all s’posed to be afeard of spiders [my controversial presentation of evolutionary psychology] but most spiders aren’t venomous and those that are “are not ancestrally in Africa” (Robert C. Richardson).

So John Watson‘s conditioning was supposed to be ‘primed’ by evolved, adaptive fears… and was not, as far as spiders and even snakes are concerned. I see no reason why that would be different with Watson’s adorably cute rodents.

As to Stanley Rachman’s conditioning sexual arousal in front of boots, no one has dared say what primes that. The only sure thing is that the guy used human guinea pigs.

As far as arousal and erection are concerned, Rachman’s experiments prove that man is a blank slate. Anything will trigger it as engineered.

Behavorial sex therapies are the only working therapies.

*

51 million Americans including 14 million children have IQs under 85. It’s a problem. Don’t believe IQ deniers. (Prof. Richard Haier)

The real question is how many jobs need IQs higher than 85.

If average IQ was higher than average IQ requirements, ‘twould be a disaster.

In theory (according to IQ specialists) you’d rather have a Mensa cleanse your crap bowl (he’ll do it better), but he won’t be happy and he’ll let you know.

Besides, you’d cause your society to be suboptimal. [Keep thinking along these lines and I’m sure the IQ maniacs will cool down.]

*

Around one million tonnes of interstate waste are dumped in Queensland [Australia] each year. (4Corners)

If Queensland’s a big garbage dump, what are Queenslanders?

*

& to cap it all

The Hashtag Games

When Is Speech Violence (After the title of one New York Times article that, if I understood well, was innuendoing – or perhaps declaring categorically – that Trump’s speech was violence)

When an American tries to speak French.

When a ventriloquist has eaten too much of the frijoles beans tacos.

Any speech from a flatulist, especially a politician.

*

#friyay‘s for the suckers, I say #thursyay!

*

Happy #NationalJunkFoodDay from the National Association of Flatulists.

*

What Happened (Title of Hillary Clinton’s Latest Book)

Shortage of cheat sheets.

*

#BetterNamesForHillarysBook

An Accident Happened: They Couldn’t Forward the Other Cheat Sheets

Podesta’s Risotto Tastes Like Sh*t

Pizzaed [cf #PizzaGate]

Yes We Pan: The Truth About Pizzas

*

#NewTrumpAdminScandal

They drained the swamp… and found U.S. had evaporated.

*

#SoonWeWillDiscover that 1/5th of British men are vasectomized and that’s the truth.

*

#IfTwitterDidntExist

I would never have known anonymity is for so many people the prerequisite to having fun. What went wrong?

North America is a free country where citizens tweet anonymously on Twitter unless they work in Hollywood (in which case they tweet under their stage name).

*

#IfTwitterDidntExist

*

#AtMidnightIn5Words GIF worth a thousand words

*

#SoonWeWillDiscover what’s behind.

*

#SundayMorning #HashtagGame => #HerWrongDaysOfTheMonth

Credits: I made the first GIF from the movie Savage Streets (1984) by Danny Steinmann. The three others show Australian actress Barbara Constable in Lady Terminator (1989) by Indonesian film director Tjut Djalil, a movie also known as Nasty Hunter and Pembalasan ratu pantai selatan (Revenge of the South Sea Queen) and which is included in my paper ‘’L’Imaginaire indonésien dans le cinéma fantastique national’’ for journal Le Banian, n°23, June 2017.

August 2017

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

XXX The Science of Sex III

Some further remarks in the discussion of Robin Baker’s Science of Sex (XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX).

Male Masturbation: Is Self-Control Advisable?

After having presented Baker’s view on masturbation, I would like to stress that the model I had outlined on my side is not, to the best of my knowledge, alternative to his view but rather complementary. Baker explains the strategic value of male masturbation in the context of sperm competition, that is mainly for men already involved in regular sexual activity. On my side, as I was thinking on this matter, I had in mind some particular view I had met several times expressed by representatives of the medical institution (for instance in the media), namely that, generally speaking, masturbation stops when people start having regular sexual activity. Keeping this notion in sight, I was led to limit the scope of my reflections to young men masturbating during the period from puberty to regular sexual intercourse.

The first thing to stress here is that, if Baker is right, then the medical discourse alluded to is far off the mark and no accurate picture of reality. According to Baker’s results, male masturbation does not occur much, in fact, if the time elapsed between two intercourses is short, for instance three days, which is the median interval for couples having routine sex (see XXIX), but when the interval increases, the likelihood that the man will masturbate increases also. So, in the mean statistical condition, it is true that men having regular sex do not masturbate as a rule, but we are not entitled to translate this statement into the generalization that men do not masturbate as they engage in routine sex, because, first, not all couples have sex at the rate of the mean interval, and, second, a couple that tends to follow the mean pattern yet may vary in intercourse frequency, so the situations predicted by Baker to have the man masturbate must be numerous enough.

We are confronted here with two different views emanating from scientific authority. Knowing what has led Baker to his conclusions, I tend to adopt his point of view. I am even willing to explain the diverging opinion by relying on Baker’s own theory. The medical discourse that I have many reasons to consider, at least in my country (France), as mainstream, for having met it expressed several times and consistently, with no objection from nowhere, could be another, and most awful, instance of that spiteful hypocrisy at the root of the popular prejudice against masturbation. That it is expressed from men of science should come as no surprise – although it is much regrettable – because men of science are still men, often enough. The profound thinker Bakunin said: “We recognize the absolute authority of science but reject the infallibility and universality of the representatives of science.” (in Dieu et l’État; my translation from the original French).

In the same way as Baker did not hesitate to hold his views against what I perceive as a scientific consensus (but I may be mistaken as to the extent of that opinion among physicians and biologists), I for the present stick to my own view that the popular prejudice against masturbation is not altogether devoid of reasonable ground. First of all, let us stress that popular morals, as Kant call it, is, as the philosopher said himself, the very same as practical reason, and as a consequence one is allowed, provisionally, to regard its prejudice against masturbation as practical reason too – not to mention the fact that Kant expressed negative views on masturbation explicitly. We shall not discuss Kant’s views here, however, because he and I may differ in our reasons. As I believe I made clear in XXVIII and XXIX, my advocation of some masturbation refrainment is not intended as a norm for living an ascetic life but as a practical advice to reach one’s sexual objectives more quickly and efficiently, if this be possible, in an environment where no whorehouses are left.

The main point is that temporary constraint makes good effect on surrounding women. I tried to put it in biological terms reminiscent of pheromones and like phenomena, but my theorizing goes not much further (for more details see Science of Sex I & II). However, another reason may come in handy, because it is consistent with findings of evolutionary psychology, namely that refraining from masturbation would indicate to women a capacity to self-control and hence likelihood of high status in the foreseeable future. Indeed, one fact that seems to hold true is that women, as they look for a mate, are particularly receptive to status. This, by the way, has a number of implications: “Males have the potential to reproduce at a much faster rate than do females, and the reproductive success of males (unlike that of females) is limited mainly by mating opportunities. Because mating opportunities benefit males more than females, and because higher status males get more mating opportunities, selection on males tend to strongly favour the ability to succeed in status competition.” (Price & Johnson 2011).

According to the longitudinal Stanford marshmallow experiment, children capable of self-control, later in life get higher SAT scores and better educational attainments, which mean higher socioprofessional status. In this experiment, several children were asked to wait a few minutes alone in a room, with a marshmallow conspicuously displayed on a table. They were told they would be given two marshmallows if they did not eat the one on the table before the adult returns. This is a measure of self-control. Those who delayed gratification, and got two marshmallows instead of one, got higher SAT scores and so on later in life. The experiment is a confirmation of a preconception deep-rooted in popular morals.

If a woman, therefore, can perceive that a young man, whose later status in life can only be guessed so far, is capable of self-control, then, due not only to the recent results of the marshmallow experiment, which she may know, but also, and perhaps primarily, to a deep-rooted popular conception, then she would evaluate his future status as being high and thus be more willing to become his girlfriend in the present – as a good investment for the future, perhaps. Of course, there must be many different clues of future high status, one’s being the son of a nabob representing another rather safe bet for instance, but none is to neglect, I suppose.

As to self-control, there certainly exists many ways for a person to assess it in another person, and had the designers of the marshmallow experiment been smart guys they would have collected as many data on the children’s psychology as possible, which they perhaps did. It is my belief that a young man able to withhold masturbation for a while distinguishes himself in other ways, but he would not distinguish himself as much were he not withholding masturbation for a while, because then he would be… a wanker. Sorry for the circularity… You know what I mean, don’t you?

And, again, as I already warned (XXVIII), there still is the risk for the young woman that the self-controlled guy turns a Kantian philosopher rather than a smart organization man. Well, but maybe she can do something about it.

High Status, Reproductive Success, and the Organization Man

As Baker, and other behavioral ecologists, assure us, high-status men make more children than low-status men. “Even in contemporary Western society high-income men have more biological children than low-income men, whereas among women the opposite is true (Hopcroft 2005; Nettle and Pollock 2008).” (Buunk, Pollet, Dijkstra & Massar 2011). & “Men worldwide exhibit more risk taking, promiscuity, and dominance behaviors, and those who achieve positions of status have superior access to mates and enhanced reproductive success.” (Browne 2011).

Before we turn to other Darwinians holding a diametrically opposite view (and ‘tis a bit strange that I should have to talk of views when trying to determine what lies before our eyes, which should only call for sight, and not views), let us be precise. According to the first of the two quotes above, high-income men sire a significant number of children that single low-income women and/or low-income couples are raising, presumably at the latter’s own expense.

In XXIX, I quoted the scholar Laura Betzig stating that industrialization put an end to extent reproductive inequalities in favor of high-status men – as a consequence, she surmises, of technical specialization. Another instance can be found in Deirdre Barrett (Harvard Medical School): “Despite our instincts to claim yet more objects, land, and possessions, the wealthy and powerful no longer have more offspring.” (Supernormal Stimuli, 2010, p. 170). Barrett advances birth control as a cause, an hypothesis Baker has extensively discussed and disproved (see XXIX). She adds: “The controversial 1994 The Bell Curve … outlined research indicating one indisputable fact. People doing less well by most criteria – IQ, years of education, money earned, a stable family unit, and the like – now produce the most offspring. In the developed world at least, the vast majority of children who are born will survive. If their parents aren’t able to provide for them, people with more ressources will contribute or outrigh adopt them. The offspring of the less successful survive to reproductive age, and pass along their genes at a faster pace than anyone else.” (ibid., p. 171). That book, The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray, is called by Barrett controversial, because, beside some discussions on racial matters, it is a reformulation of a view that I believe used to be commonplace among Darwinians decades ago as they described their own time, namely that society would be jeopardized by its own impediments to natural selection; and it is controversial because twentieth-century totalitarian regimes are alleged to have drawn practical conclusions from that view. This is not what we shall discuss presently. I wanted to call the reader’s attention to two diverging ways of construing our current reality by scholars otherwise holding the same Darwinian tenets.

I have already brought a few elements to this discussion, to which I refer the reader. What can be added here is that as, according to the marshmallow experiment, self-control correlates positively to educational attainments and high status, the view that high-status men inseminate relatively more women unlawfully (if not illegally) than low-status men, more lacking in self-control, strikes one as a little odd.

What definition exactly the authors of the different studies cited give to high status may be a point to consider in the present confusion. Another line of argument in The Bell Curve is that college degrees have become the main accessway to high status in today’s societies, contrary to the past. Other studies show that our economies are organization-driven, and high-status men are for the most part organization men, selected for their degrees. Cut-throat competition is now the specializing of the shadowy middleman or small businessman, some of them indeed making fairly considerable earnings without a college degree, but for many an observer this class of man is under threat of extinction, and at the very least does not represent the current economic elite.

Among these small businessmen, one is likely to find a fair deal of uneducated and at the same time well-off men – because uneducated, likely to lack self-control, and because well-off, in a position to take advantage of status differences in order to increase one’s reproductive success. But the organization man is another breed: he could not have got his degree without some ability to defer gratification, and he could not work in a pyramidal, hierarchical, gregarious organization without maintaining self-control at a fairly high level. The organization man has much in common with the Jesuit (perinde ac cadaver).

As I am writing these lines, I am asking myself, in what fairyland I think I’m living, so I’ll stop here because I have not enough data to keep slandering small businessmen and extolling corporate executives.

As to the small-business scale, though, many a startup nowadays is the offshoot of some university professor or student, or of a clique of such, who took advantage of the cocoon provided by their academic institution to develop their ideas and business plan completely proof to market pressures, and then enter the market to bust competing businesses. Such cynicism I have dubbed varsity capitalism. Even on this scale degrees tend to be the norm.

What can be said as a parenthesis is that if self-control is a clue of high status in the foreseeable future, then the theory of the two swords, by which medieval Papacy claimed all power on this earth, that is the legitimicay that both the mundane and spiritual swords rest in her own hands, is not completely unwarranted. Out of the world, which is the monk’s place, means at the top of it: by controlling your passions, you rise above the world of passions, and above is a dominating position. The solid chain of philosophers that have discredited political claims by the Church makes it foolhardy to try to justify these claims today. Yet, these philosophers themselves, as far as is known from their biographies, practiced the same passion- and self-control relied upon by Church clerics, and some of them extolled the virtues of monastic contemplative life. Their indictment bore upon the doctrine rather than upon the ethics. As to the doctrine, it probably evolved in part from the natural need of strong incentives in order to tread the way of asceticism, incentives not needed by more strong-minded philosophers. An early form of such incentives may be the claim to charismata and magic powers, which in turn might be nothing but the inner strength evidenced by the man capable of self-control.

A last word on these mystical objects. Why asceticism, in the first place? It may be that it was important in the past, as ressources were scarce, to be able to delay gratification and develop self-control, that is to be able to put up with scarcity. But, make no mistake, if it was advantageous in the past because of scarcity, it is still advantageous today, because of abundance. It is a new breed of ascetics that will survive the obesity epidemics.

Sex Conditioning

Whatever may be the true relationship between high status and reproduction in our societies, Darwinians, as a rule, very much minimize the possibilities of conditioning. Yet, the very idea of ‘conditional strategies’, that is of the genetic program translating into alternative behaviors depending on the characteristics of the environment, warrants, as it is in men’s power to modify their environment, extreme voluntarism and interventionism in the political field, rather than the laissez faire seemingly advocated by the great bulk of Darwinians. A quote from Jean-Paul Sartre will provide some light in the matter: “[The antisemite] being, like all other men, a freedom in situation, it is his situation that must be thoroughly modified: it suffices to change the perspectives of choice for the choice to alter … freedom decides upon different bases, according to different structures.” (my translation from Réflexions sur la question juive). Compare with Baker’s definition of conditional strategies: “Conditional strategies are the main causes of differences in behaviour, not only between individuals but also between cultures. Different geographical regions, different periods of history, provide different environments with different opportunities and risks – such as variations in risk of disease – thus triggering different behaviour. As a result, cultures differ in what are considered to be societal norms for parenting. Natural selection was in fact the architect, but culture is a plagiarist and invariably claims to have thought of the rules for itself.” (BW 291-2). I do not know whether Baker read Sartre, but had he not I wouldn’t blame him, for it is evident that what the literary Sartre calls freedom is, no matter how much in situation, determinism. But the idea is the same, and Baker’s own conclusion is not quite warranted either, I believe. We have at our disposal a power on our environment (not to mention purposeful breeding or genomic intervention), the environment that will determine in the last resort, through the mechanism of conditional strategies, our behaviors. How we shall use this power, we are bound (or free, if you prefer) to decide in the abstract.

Human agency itself is environment and shapes human behaviors, especially through conditioning technologies. In the sixties, Stanley Rachman allegedly conditioned people to be sexually aroused by the sight of boots, and sexual fetishim is a well-known phenomenon. Some of these deviations may be so overpowering on the human psyche that they completely impair reproduction. It is my belief that we are living in a media environment contrived as a conditioning technology impairing human reproduction. Under one of its guises, I have named it silver-screen conditioning (see XXVIII). The contrivance has a momentum of its own and it is leading to the overriding of genetic life. The main impetus is provided by our production apparatus and its reliance upon the satisfaction of secondary needs, beside primary, biological needs. Basically, our media, as a sales force, advertise products and services that satisfy secondary needs, via an appeal (including subliminal) to primary, namely sexual urges, with the effect that a massive sexual fetishism is induced toward gadgets and logos. It is not, as many evolutionary biologists and psychologists will contend, that Rachman’s guinea-pigs want the boots because the boots will enhance their mating success: they want the boots because they are aroused by them and they do not care about their mating success at all. Current Darwinian view on the motivations of consumption is far off the mark, or rather it is already superseded. We have been conditioned beyond reproductive purposes.

In XXIX, I have contended that only a collapse of technological civilization could preserve genetic transmission. Such a collapse in the future is not to be excluded, due to the influx of populations extremely averse and hostile to the mass-conditioning which the Western man is subjected to. Alternative scenarios may involve ‘structural overloading’ (Stoddard) or blackout.

Otherwise, the medium is the message, and the message is: Goodbye, humanity.

January 22, 2016