The Memo Millennials have missed

Snape was a role model in some ways

This is what happens when you raise children on (everyone gets a) Gold Star permissive parenting schemes.

Little Emperor Syndrome. You cannot get everything you want.
They lust but do not love. They want but do not need. They want their fair share, which happens to be more than their friends. They take without giving. They want data without perspective. The Just World (fallacy) is attainable. I stand for equality, same treatment and outcomes is fair. Government can solve all our problems, like parents, the money never runs out. Who needs to think about the future, carpe diem. Drugs aren’t harmful ‘cos they’re natural but medication is ‘cos Big Pharma is bad unless it legalises my high. The world is my entertainment and I can send death threats to the creators because they owe me for indulging them. Credit is like free money, right? Sleeping around is consequence free, STDs have treatments dude. I can make a $100k living with my postgrad in Medieval Madrigals.

What’s the ideology of the parental generation? Oh yes, hippies.
We have adults with the minds of spoilt brats and we should be wary of the tantrum when reality sets in and they discover Bank Mummy spent the inheritance on a series of sex cruises with toyboy Rodrigo.

Drugs #101: Addiction and Physical Dependence

They’re completely separate things.
A drug is a typically organic substance that can impair physiological functioning or kill when given to the healthy population and a drug as medicine is a chemical composition that will repair your improper bodily functioning or you will die without it in an individual body, long term. Addicts may develop non-medicinal physical dependence but medically-obligated physical dependents are not addicts per se.

A drug user with medical physical dependence only can take a processed form of their medicine without the psychological effects (commonly a high) very happily whereas an addict would require the high, the specific form of drug is merely a trigger for the brain created by past memories of use by the amygdala. These extreme-intensity usage memories create many of the symptoms of withdrawal (psychosomatic) and delude the brain into believing it genuinely needs the drug e.g. claims marijuana is as healthy as a vitamin and the push to normalize (the societal danger of addict populations, social contagion and acceptability).

The sole cause of addiction beyond a doubt is beginning use in the first place. It is impossible to be addicted to (or physically dependent on) a substance the body (and brain) has never experienced. This is a self-selecting type of stupidity (hubris/arrogance) regularly found in teenagers (immature prefrontal cortex) because such users do not think or disbelieve their mind could be compromised by addiction. Their brains already create this illusion to necessitate the anticipated reward (high) prior to initial use or they wouldn’t take it (such as the processed form with no high). The foolproof layman method to test for addiction is simple: substance deprivation for a year. Prepare for a list of excuses.

A physical dependency is often created by doctors to treat patients with chronic conditions, usually chronic pain symptoms (ongoing). Addicts try to ape this category (some sincerely, others deceptively) but are increasingly thwarted by processed (reward-weakened) variants of their poison. Specific advocates for drug legalization ignore the essential fact of escalation and compensation. As part of the brain’s hedonic treadmill, it craves increasingly more of the reward from use, compelling drug users to harder toxins (harder reward, creating deeper addiction and physical damage) and this is the biological component of addiction that makes the habitual behaviour of use so challenging to physically extinguish from the brain.

Physical dependency creates withdrawal symptoms too but the patient’s individual physical needs (inc. not dying) and substance type distinguish this from addicts e.g. insulin to a diabetic.The human brain is connected to facilitate the reward response feedback loops because they are evolutionally guided by the basic needs to survive (food, water, sex) and this is why there is no such thing as a food addict, water addict or sex addict, merely people with impulse control issues seeking a social ‘displacement of responsibility’. Beyond these essential elements for the sustenance of our individual life and species general, anything chemical creating a vacuous boost in the reward system is a drug, whether you like it or not. Drug users resent the stigma for their activities whether or not their poison is legal (ethanol/alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine etc) because the positive emotional response loop (dopamine, serotonin release) caused by their usage memories creates defensive dissonance when challenged by non-users. Even polite persistent enquiry can sometimes trigger a psychotic episode where the patient is completely detached from reality and VERY DANGEROUS. This is why trained professionals intervene. In the latter stages, the drug/s become integrated into personal identity and extraction or therapeutic measures become unlikely to resolve the issue without constant medical care (rehabilitation facilities). Moreover, this reduces the risk of sudden death caused by the somatic shock of going ‘clean’ and allows overall physiological strength to be built up (reverse what the drugs did) while the problem is gradually resolved.

If a substance exists in a natural form within, say, a foodstuff, it is not addictive because food reward circuits are natural and normal and can never be extinguished. This is why milk (dairy), sugar, chocolate, chilli, coffee and caffeine ‘addiction’ is a misnomer. However, a person habitually needing a purified artificial version of these may constitute a non-medical physical dependence or perhaps a behavioural addiction e.g. alcoholism. Behavioural addictions require holistic (whole life) perspective for diagnosis e.g. someone who works online cannot be an internet addict if those hours online constitute their occupation (add to their success and life) and they can easily disconnect for a while. Behavioural addictions where they do exist are more accurately termed compulsions and relate to personality disorders or obsessions created by unmet needs. Substitution is the norm where one behaviour is broken, another is taken up. Social contagion is a significant factor for poor impulse control. Behavioural or result-based addictions when positive are discounted for lack of stigma nor bodily harm e.g. ‘high’ grades, promotion (power/status boost), painting. However, they can display withdrawal symptoms from endogenous neurotransmittor levels e.g. low serotonin creates acute compulsiveness completing the cycle to repeat a rewarding behaviour and low dopamine creates psychomotor agitation including pacing and fidgeting, also apathy, chosen social isolation and anhedonia (nothing is enjoyable and everything fast becomes boring).

 

By most definitions, Sherlock Holmes is not an addict. However, he qualifies as an addictive personality with a high arousal threshold and high need for cognition.

By most definitions, Sherlock Holmes is not an addict. However, he qualifies as an addictive personality with a high arousal threshold and excessively superhuman high need for cognition.

Related terms: Dosage Response Curve and (innate) Arousal Thresholds causative of addictive personality tendency.

Post inspired by this video, Sherlock Holmes’ withdrawal symptoms

Mark the positive addiction withdrawal symptoms from endogenous behaviour-triggered stimulation.

And yes, you can be addicted to love.

We’re Different – But the Same.

Online activism irritants are the scourge of the internet. A little-known selfie trend has unusual implications for Affirmative Action. The best two Universities in GB are Oxford and Cambridge aka Oxbridge aka Camford. They were among the first Universities in the world and seldom place low in global ranking. “I, too, am Oxford” was a selfie trend by attention-whoring minorities holding up whiteboards with trivial ‘microaggression’ complaints when they’re at the best institution for learning possible. Yeah, spoilt much?
Refreshingly predictable, the feminists didn’t like competition and began “We are all Oxford”, here’s the tumblr (yes tumblr again) http://wearealloxford.tumblr.com/
We are ALL Oxford – yeah, why would they complain, they all got in. It is entirely feasible they might have failed to, were it not for the diversity targets set by the British government. Why? To look good for the European Union, who set diversity targets to shut the feminazis up.
One boy’s sign in particular struck me: “Your brain not your background open Oxford’s doors” – Err, no, Flying Spaghetti Monster haired bro.
You need to pay to even apply (I almost applied but decided against for these reasons, I know the system) and then there’s prep for their admissions tests you need a privileged upbringing to pass (posh word test), transport, marking, face-to-face interviews because looks don’t matter, early application (poor schools miss the deadline by default) and compulsory emphasis on extra-curricular requiring your parents have surplus funds e.g. taking time to do charity work for free, travel the world and throw some inspiring anecdote to dazzle interviewers, start a company to help inexplicably starving women with gold earrings and freshly ironed clothes in Africa.
How the hell did he get in? ~ a question everyone who’s been to University has asked multiple times in our heads while present. Post-hoc delusion? Probable. Brains are the standard for Higher Education. The entire level, assuming we’re following the narrow convention of rote memorization over flexible useful knowledge but it’s Oxford, of course we are. Still, thick-skulled aspirants and even the genius poor need not apply. Them’s the breaks. Oxford has targets and they are paid by the Government to meet them. If the money dried up, most of those applicants would be out of the ivory towers in the cold like the rest of England.
When do the targets stop? When will the factors beyond control (birthplace, melanin level, sob story) be left to the TV singing competitions where they belong? Certainly no society claiming to be meritocratic could support these policies. If they’re good enough, they’ll get in or it’s our loss, right? I have asked around including some rather high-up feminists. They say never, never will these policies cease and call enough, we’re done! Disturbingly, they have zero problem with this (while their own White middle class are a majority, allowing them a high horse for Little Princess, but demo changes are a sweet irony of power structures). While you take into factor these pointless, culturally-coddled details, it is discrimination against unprotected classes. There isn’t positive discrimination, it’s an oxymoron. If your biggest problem in life is a microaggression, you are too sensitive to survive in any cut-throat academic environment and have no real problems. Let’s be pragmatic about this: Doesn’t a white majority country logically necessitate a white majority populace in its own academia? Or is that national majority up for changing, too? Shall you push them down to the poor quality Universities or do the clever but poor or statistically ousted natives (not oppressed enough – snark) not deserve their cultural legacy and biological heritage? The one their kin and forefathers built and earned credibility for? It’s bad enough when Beyoncé appropriates Nordic European culture to push her tacky show. There are no definitive answers given from the Utopic Unrealists on these questions. Didn’t Camus say Utopia is that which is in contradiction with reality“? [Yes. And it was beautiful.] They have no responsibility for the results and no personal stake, no one should take them seriously, it’s their saviour complex dream and they squeeze people into their narrative.
The cure? Involve them and see how fast they change their tune, “But my family’s always gone to Oxford!”, yeah well now you’re disinherited, don’t let the big doors your ancestors carved crush your body and your dreams on the way out.
Feminists will never stick up for (support) the poor, they look down upon the working poor as inferiors and simultaneously immoral for being common (yes, that level of classism). Coincidentally, I have never met a working class feminist, everyone from that class I’ve asked turned the air blue (swore profusely) at the “accusation”. Bravo.
They’ll only begin to see their error when they personally suffer and the demography of their bubble changes completely, by then it’s too late. At present, it is the poor and genuinely creative who suffer for the follies of the deranged. Why else do you think so many entrepreneurs forgo Higher Ed? It doesn’t want them while the targets are juicy veins of taxpayer money, funding the betterment of non-taxpayers. Admitting targets and limits and standards involve unhooking their claws from Political Power and believe me, they are drunk on the stuff as the students they brainwash with “The Real World is Evil” ~ from people too scared to enter it.
I can see why the accepted students fall for the ruse, the experimental group is wholly biased. Wouldn’t it feel extra-special to say “We accept you for what you’ve had no hand in earning but we actually love you for all you earnt! Including us! £££! Everybody wins!” Janusian tactics when we have no control group to compare results with. What do they do with their precious raw results? Grade inflate, extensively. The diverse student body is so naturally talented, they need their degrees puffed up as their egos in a sad bid for alumni funding.

There is no sexual double standard

 

This is why The Woman had no chance with Sherlock Holmes. She wielded her sexuality as an additional weapon to surpass him. She cheated and brought a gun to a boxing match.

This is why The Woman had no chance with Sherlock Holmes. She wielded her sexuality as an additional weapon to surpass him. She cheated and brought a gun to a sparring session.

Eggs are expensive and sperm are cheap. This is a generic rule for the majority. Funnily enough, when a woman mates like a man (sleeps around) she is being treated exactly as her behaviour implies, namely, that her reproductive standards are cheap – like a man.

The true double standard is expecting to be treated as a good girl while acting like a bad one.

The Fight for Realism and Natural Beauty

Abstractions can be wonderful, if taken in small doses. What happens to a craft (as artistry, once named for years of technical skill) when All is Art, and abstraction is an excuse for commercial quick buck shock value?

How many pieces in a modern gallery will be valuable in a century? How many will be considered pretentious scrap metal?

Image

When the shock value of the most gasp-inducing pieces (some politicized, crass and immoral to every normal person, it is no coincidence artists have high sexual deviance rates) have subsided completely, what shall be considered artful? I bet 99% of the contents of these so-called galleries will be giving them away. I realized we have devolved our own former Arts, worthy of the name, to the plain, crude tat of primitive cultures. It’s an outcome of multiculturalism, that Europe has diminished its own standards to random “found” objet.

You may well accuse me of speaking in abstractions on this, but the enemy has defined the terms. Part of my process is to meet their home ground and entice it back into reality. For context, I was reading this article about gallery purchases and am frankly alarmed at the still-increasing exponential amounts being poured into “Modern” “Art”. What could be causing this now? I looked around and found a truly beautiful article about the Art Market I would recommend anyone with a passing interest study closely.

Short version: The transferal of global wealth from the ailing Western economy to expanding Asia (core China) is causing a flurry of demand in the art market because of taxes/status/longevity et cetera. They have a preservationist mentality and strategize for a store of value with flexibility and versatility of easy sale, profit potential and aforementioned, status of ownership, Special Snowflake in sculpture. I understand this perspective entirely, truly I do. Yet their entire plan and billions in the market swishing about have one egregious and a second minor flaw.

1. The valuation at purchase is true, let alone increasing. This is patently false, anyone with eyes to look can see a bubble has been forming over the decades of prattle but the unique properties of art have kept it at bay for this long.

2. When you wish to sell, there will be a buyer. Assumes a good economy where buyers have interest to keep the bidding high and pay its appreciated value.

There is absolutely no reason to believe either of these, connected priors, have the slightest semblance of truth or reason. They are pure faith. I don’t exaggerate, it is a literal logic problem. High intelligence people should KNOW this and its singular Achilles Heel of the Art Market (the fact we have a market maintains we handle it as such).

Image

Relevant: Dying Achilles, Achilles thniskon

This shall be the fate of the present Art Market, a cataclysmic correction, unless a miracle from Olympus occurs and they fall back on the Art Tradition (remember that? me neither) and Realism, sworn enemy of frauds.

You may think I am bitter. However, I can paint to the highest standard (were this the Renaissance, I’d apprentice at a studio easily), and find abstract pieces too cheap to produce to be worthy of my talents. My last canvas, an abstract, took under an hour and in spite of my efforts to draw out the production time. I speak from a bounty of experience.

Image

Famous Example? Picasso was a hack. It is an open secret that he used to paint normally i.e. well, until he found his works didn’t sell (no one cared). He painted/designed random shit in frustration after his love of African savagery (see above) and Communism’s epic lowering of standards, it became famous and sold handsomely and now we’re lumbered with Cubism. He was a known prick during his life, stating the likes of “The academic teaching on beauty is false…”, “It is not what the artist does that counts, but what he is” and bitterly complaining repeatedly “Everyone wants to understand painting” – gee, almost as if it’s an artform, Pablo??

“Art is not made to decorate rooms. It is an offensive weapon in the defense against the enemy.” Hello, Cultural Marxism, nice to see you at the heart of cultural desecration and promotion of mediocrity.

A Happy Ending

You disagree with any of this? Wait. I’ll be proven correct on the market and in taste. Galleries find their “Traditional” wings most popular for a reason – regular people aren’t falling for it. Backlashes are forming. In California, Nouveau Realism is an ever-growing style. You see, talent and craftsmanship do not simply disappear, however much they are suppressed. There will always be artists, true to their ideals who produce beautiful work. As Wilde said in his glorious novel, “An artist should create beautiful things, but should put nothing of his own life into them.” That includes politics, economics and moralizing, pretentious twaddle.

How many artists need to be learned to be loved? The description beside a work has become a substitute for the philosophy which should be clear in the piece itself.

Joss Whedon is into femme BDSM and other Issues

Every project includes a minimum of one female of precise Type, shoehorned in no matter how much it jars. Preferably, the entire project and plot is shaped around them and their humiliation (physical and verbal) of the men. Let’s go through a few character profiles and see if you spot a pattern. Or skip to the bolded conclusion at the end.

Yes, that is a whip.

Yes, that is a whip.

spoilers ahoy, duh

Buffy – the prototype plot

virginal schoolgirl (alarm bells should be ringing) develops special powers and uses them to beat up men (evil vampires) every night

She sLAYS them

She sLAYS them

She has a gang of orbiters including a lesbian and a sexy father figure character whose title is Watcher. For her. Out of every girl in the world. She defends her lovers when she acquires them as if she were a jock with ‘roid rage.

You don't own him, he isn't a puppy.

You don’t own him, he isn’t a puppy.

She discovers some vampires can be good (in bed) and spares them until she finds something better and they leave town on her orders. She saves the world multiple times despite being a complete ditz with emotional instability issues and has a literal death wish. She chooses to die to protect the world and runs her mouth for entire episodes on how she wished she had stayed dead. This happens twice.

Zombie Jesus: Feminist Edition.

Zombie Jesus: Feminist Edition.

There’s even an entire musical number on it. It is psychologically disturbed. Naturally, she beats up demonic entities, who all happen to be male. All the evil guys are male, ever. Spoiler: Any female evil isn’t really evil, she was forced or misled or is doing it for a secretly noble reason. I’m being serious, those are the plots of Whedon stories. He can’t even get Monster of the Week right.

It’s times like this I feel the Borderline Personality criteria were based on this type of crazy bitch. One episode, she’s in an asylum. Prima role model.

Sure, great characters.

Sure, he’s a ‘genius’.

Now you have the gist plot-wise and the appeal to loser men and feminists, his female characters and co. display…

Arrogance

And the fans wonder why Firefly was cancelled.

And the fans wonder why Firefly was cancelled with hipster dialogue like that.

Superhuman Power

TK is sexy now. As are death threats?

TK is sexy now. As are death threats?

Sexualized Baby Talk

And she's one of the best characters, trust.

And she’s one of the best characters, trust.

Leader, minus the dirty work

You can tell she's cool because she's got kooky hair.

You can tell she’s cool because she’s got kooky hair.

Sexually dominant female

Notice she's of questionable race, vaguely Asian for the fetishist in the target male demo!

Notice she’s of questionable race, vaguely Asian for the hentai fetishist in the target male demo! Plus spaceships!

Body part humour

This is where hipsters picked up their ironic sense of humour.

Is this musical intended for adults? This is where hipsters picked up their ironic sense of humour.

Disrespectful Attitude towards men, as a good thing

Why did no one slap her in this scene? Just tying her to a chair. No actual beating, like every male counterpart?

Why did no one torture her in this scene? Just tying her to a chair. No actual beating, like every male counterpart in an interrogation ?

Never gets hurt

This scene made no sense.

This scene made no sense.

Of course, search all you please for other examples of Girl Power in Whedon’s work (i.e. women fucking over/fighting men and always metaphorically winning) but you’ll notice the Strong Female Character wins in the literal sense too. Black Widow closed the portal in Avengers preventing further invasion (Freudian vagina joke?), Stark’s sacrifice meant nothing to the plot (one pump chump?). Snuck that one past the fanboys, didn’t he?

like I believe that tosh

Stop asking awkward questions.

Stop asking the awkward sex question.

I theorize this exertion of domination over men enjoyed by the beta/below demo of his works are a means of projecting the alpha qualities they subconsciously wish they had themselves and rationalizing them as a sexual release. Psychologically, it makes sense and explains why certain Modern Males like “bitches”. They’ve been trained to.

When is Cultural Appropriation encouraged?

When is Cultural Appropriation encouraged?

When it erodes white European pride in our heritage: our arts, science and history. You cannot buy membership into one of the best cultures the world has ever known, especially with fakery.

Click through gif to explanation of what appropriation is, from feminists.

Pictured: Beyoncé, at the beginning of her crash into The Wall.