source: degeneration-of-nation

source_format: html

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Breast Cancer - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/culture&literature12" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/goddess.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Breast Cancer

I ran among the women in the streets searching for breasts, surveying more and more women, expanding the sample and reducing the sampling error, and returning home breathless and hopeless. I could no longer deceive myself

By: The Religious Breast

Figure of the fertility goddess from Ephesus, whose temple was one of the Seven Wonders of the World (Source)

When the blacks began to arrive in the city, nothing changed for me, except for one thing, which at first glance seemed rather small, and not really related to the black men, but to the black women. As the number of blacks increased, many left and the last ones hurried to leave, but I didn't care who was walking on the street, since I don't talk to anyone anyway. Only one problem bothered me: the breast problem.

Since my childhood, I made it a habit to examine the breasts of every woman passing by me on the street, in the giant breast survey conducted throughout my life, whose purpose was almost mathematical, or at least not sexual at all. In fact, I would describe its purpose as metaphysical. I walk down the street, and large breasts pass by me, and the thought rises in my head: there is still hope in the world. Maybe you too will have such ones one day, for they are not rare. There is still a chance. After all, the wonderful thing can happen, and why not to you? On the other hand, if small breasts pass by, I think to myself: this is what there is, reality is disappointing, not everyone gets a woman with breasts, you should be content with the world as it is, and not live in a dream. And so I would sway between two opposite philosophical consciousnesses, hence the critical importance of the statistics I collected from countless women who passed by me, which would decide the question of my life.

I never felt that I was harassing anyone - for it was an almost scientific study of the nature of reality, and women are used to glances - until the black women arrived. Black women never walk alone. Either they are with their offspring, and then I glance at the children, check that they are not grown, and then look at the mother's chest, knowing that she is looking at me, and judging me harshly, but I have no choice, and I console myself that she understands that the children don't understand and therefore there is no meaning to my gaze (the black woman, not only is she completely covered, but by her very color requires a very long look). The second possibility is that she is with her husband, and then I am forced to look at him for a long time, as if promising him that I am not looking at his wife, and then I am still forced to look at his wife, hoping that he shows understanding for my situation, and even if it's contempt, I have no choice, for the hopes of my life and its disappointments depend on it, and why should he be angry at a wretch like me, who didn't merit a wife.

All this was unpleasant, but tolerable. But later, a further serious development occurred, which concerned not only black women, and with it I could no longer cope. As if inadvertently, and at first even I doubted it myself, and attributed it to measurement errors stemming from my ongoing life disappointment, it seemed that there was a certain decline in the statistics. At first, I lived in the space of denial, but the decline was already noticeable to the eye, and could not be ignored. The breast sizes of women were decreasing.

It was already very rare to encounter large breasts, and even they shrank, while the small breasts became even smaller, until finally they all aspired to perfect flattening, like men, and only rarely would you see a remnant of breasts, small hills that are remnants of giant mountains that have been eroded. To my shock, women lost their breasts, and all the difference between them and men was concentrated in a place that didn't attract me at all. But instead of this filling my spirit finally with the serenity of acceptance and reconciliation with the world, and solving the dilemma of my life, this decline of physical femininity caused me a sense of enormous injustice, to cry at night into the pillow.

I had nothing left in the world, not even women! Who caused this? Is it the pollution, is it the spreading cancer, is it the feminist movement, or decrees of a cruel king, or some other devil, that I couldn't describe? Or maybe it's just erosion? Do the glances erode the breasts? I dismissed this thought with a wave of the hand, no doubt depression had distorted my logic. I ran among the women in the streets searching for breasts, surveying more and more women, expanding the sample and reducing the sampling error, and returning home breathless and hopeless. I could no longer deceive myself.

For the first time in my life, I went to a prostitute, I looked for a prostitute with breasts, and it became very difficult, the prices of breasts skyrocketed, and in the end it turned out that even prostitutes no longer have breasts. But the prostitutes took pity on me, and told me that there are still last breasts left, just that I should know that they belong to someone worse than a prostitute, and I should go to her only if I have lost all hope, because no one returns from there. I didn't believe the prostitutes, I thought they were afraid of competition, and therefore refuse to tell me, and I begged them to do me a true kindness and tell me where to find her, despite their warnings that it would lead to my demise. Finally, I was told that the woman is in the temple at the edge of the city, and there she is a sacred prostitute [Translator's note: "kedesha" in Hebrew, a term for temple prostitutes in ancient times].

I ran there, but they wouldn't let me in. A crowd of desperate men besieged the entrance. Finally, after I bribed the guard at night, who seemed to be guarding the crowd more than the sanctity, he let me in under the cover of darkness. I entered among the sleeping priests, all castrated eunuchs and naked, to the holy of holies, where the sacred prostitute lay naked on a bed. The sacred prostitute embraced my head, and buried it between her enormous, monstrous breasts. Deep, deep she buried me inside her, my face blinded within the infinite black pink pressing against them, fluttering and choking in my entire being, until death.

Culture and Literature


domain: literature

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>When a person is brought to judgment - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/night-life71" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/lastwords.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

When a person is brought to judgment

Will they not remember this? Will they not remember all of this after me? Do I have no place in the World to Come?

By: The One Awaiting Salvation

Personal security / Peace of mind / Only God can! / True peace / Free economy / Only God can! (Source)

I dreamed that I had a night kick (is that the word?) that the world forgot about black circle. And that after his death, he had no resurrection, and his memory was erased from the face of the earth until the end of all generations. After all, there were so many other things, and he had no memory agents, no successors, no disciples. And the future did not know him, they forgot him completely, forever, black circle was no more, and they never remembered him or rediscovered him (it's unclear why this suddenly terrifies me, after all, it's such a reasonable thing, so probable and self-evident. I know this!). And the world in this vision, so much truer than my own life, seemed like a primordial chaos in a uniform color of darkness upon the deep, forever and ever. And I remember the dream and think about what a dream, not even a particularly bad dream, a dream really below average, and it suddenly seems to me from within sleep so much deeper and touching the heart of things and the soul of the world than other things - and I wake up in panic in the middle of the night. Will they not remember this? Will they not remember all of this after me? Do I have no place in the World to Come?

And I get up with the last of my strength, I don't know how I have such strength in the middle of the night, from the bed, and stagger to the refrigerator to drink water. And I write these things. Out of some mechanical habit. To leave a memory for what has no memory. For a dream.

And my wife wakes up from the light in the middle of the night, from the light of the computer in bed beside her in the absolute darkness, and asks if the Messiah has already arrived. And the very thought that the light from the screen is the Messiah stuns me. Yes, I too depend on the Messiah. I too still depend on redemption. It doesn't even matter if people write great, enormous things. We all depend on God. Only God will decide. You can write the most original thing of your generation, and still, at the gates of Eden, they will ask you one question: Did you anticipate salvation?

And I anticipated.

Nightlife


domain: culture

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Sex, Europe, and the Jews - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/culture&literature7" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/antisemite.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Sex, Europe, and the Jews

Over the years, the woman grew tired of the mouse's antics, or perhaps she enjoyed them too much and wanted more, and began to bring men to her bed

By: The Council of the European Union

The mouse had already understood that the world was determined to destroy him, so he went and burrowed inside the woman  (Source)

The mouse that lived inside the woman's hole lived happily with her in their early years. The woman got used to his scurrying inside her at night when he went out and came back to bring his bread, and even derived pleasure from it. In return, she served as a warm and pleasant shelter for him during the days. She called him by a secret pet name they shared, for his existence was a secret, and she closed her legs every time a cat approached. As a token of appreciation, she even started raising a dog. There was no end to the mouse's happiness when he saw the dog lying at her feet, and there was no end to the woman's happiness when he jumped for joy inside her, sometimes even during work hours. She did everything to make him happy, including inserting holey cheese every time she went to the bathroom. For this, he rewarded her with complex and prolonged somersaults that shook the entire burrow. At the end of the burrow was a place the mouse never entered - because his heart foretold that from there, his downfall would come. As if precisely in the heart of his home, in the most protected place, lay the greatest danger.

Over the years, the woman grew tired of the mouse's antics, or perhaps she enjoyed them too much and wanted more, and began to bring men to her bed. Indeed, she would warn them in advance not to frighten the mouse and stipulated good behavior towards him, but they laughed and didn't always act with appropriate caution. When he started biting them to protect the woman and they left her bleeding, the woman decided to put an end to the mouse affair. But she was unable to harm the beloved mouse who was her first love and had given her so many hours of happiness. Therefore, the woman brought a cat that curled up at her feet to do the job for her, in her sleep. And if possible, without leaving traces.

At this stage, the mouse began to hide in the hole and not come out. The woman realized she had made a mistake and placed holey cheese between her legs in her sleep, hoping the mouse would fall into the trap and be caught. But the mouse had already understood that the world was determined to destroy him, so he went and burrowed inside the woman. Finally, the woman tried to insert various sex toys, longer and longer, in order to skewer the mouse who found himself being pushed into the womb. Even a female mouse that the woman brought didn't convince the mouse to leave his fortress. When all else failed, the woman turned to the final solution for the mouse. She decided to kill him with gas. A wide tube connected to the hole and pumped the deadly poison into it. No one knows what the mouse did inside during his last minutes. But from then on, the woman was barren. Her fertility was lost forever.

Culture and Literature


domain: philosophy

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>If morality is dead - is everything permitted? - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/philosophy-of-learning63" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/dostoyevsky.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

If morality is dead - is everything permitted?

A demonstration of the philosophy of learning applied to the field of morality. Unlike the philosophy of the future, which will examine a moral act according to its future judgment, the learning philosophy of morality argues that there is no such thing as future judgment (when? In a thousand years? A million? After all, even in the future, judgment will change and reverse again and again) as an object to which one can aspire (asymptotically). On the contrary, morality should be understood as a system of learning in the present, in which we have no future pretension (to reach a limit), except for the desire to progress (in the current derivative). In fact, ontologically, the future itself will be defined as the direction of learning progress, which stems from and is created by learning as a by-product, and not as an imaginary metaphysical object placed somewhere on an axis - at a time that does not currently exist

By: The Death of Morality

The death of a great moral figure is a change in morality itself - in morality as a learning system (Source)

Morality as an idea, as a construct, is an artificial, unconvincing abstraction - and most importantly: harmful - of rules of behavior between people, which replaced the legal rules of religion, for which it is a secular substitute, whose purpose was to prove that it is possible without it (and without God) to behave correctly. But why do we need to prove that it's possible to behave correctly in order to be able to secularize? Because the target audience for secularization in the first place was the people of correctness, the people of society, and there, behaving correctly is the criterion, not abstract belief, or an abstract system.

Contrary to what Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and even Hitler thought - the death of God changed nothing about human behavior. Because they don't behave according to morality, or religion, but according to what is accepted in their society, how they are taught to behave, and therefore as long as they are taught the same thing - they behave the same way. Only a change in learning can lead to a change in behavior, not abstract principles like the unnecessary Kantian moral project. The moral ideology has now reached bankruptcy as it takes over every good part and subordinates everything to it - politics, aesthetics, human relations, art, culture, science - everything is examined through harmful moral glasses, and therefore the prohibitions turn from prohibiting action to prohibiting speech (politically correct) and eventually will reach thought prohibitions.

Therefore, like liberation from religion, one must be liberated from morality. And what will replace it? Learning. Just as morality is the abstraction of religion into a behavioral system without a commanding god (i.e., removing an unnecessary component), so learning is the abstraction of morality into behavioral learning without an abstract behavioral system from which everything is derived (which is basically a very primitive form of behavioral learning: setting a rigid framework from which one only needs to derive to reality in a one-way manner, as opposed to two-way in learning. Learning can change the purpose of behavior, not just serve it).

Continuing to bring morality down from heaven to earth and from the world of principles to the world of learning - is the most important trend for a philosophy of morality in our time. But it's not just about morality, but a general philosophical principle. The truth that is built through an abstract system in the world of ideas can be brought down to legal truth, one that resides in existing institutions. Thus, scientific truth is a legal truth of the legal system of science, with its institutions, judges, and decision-makers and various appeal methods. Religious truth - stems from religious institutions. And contrary to a simplistic perception, it's not arbitrary if humans determine, because their determination is actually made in a living legal system.

Such a system cannot be reduced to procedure alone, meaning it's not procedural truth, but one that stems from the continuity of the legal system, which will not put three monkeys as judges who might rule according to procedure but will rule nonsense. Because in a living system, monkeys cannot be appointed as judges in the first place (unlike in a principled system, where one can imagine a court of the three monkeys). It is precisely the arbitrariness of the legal determination that creates the truth, because it is the one that finally meets the question of why, and sets a limit to it - this is how the judges ruled. This is how the decisors ruled and therefore one cannot claim that according to Jewish religion pork is kosher, even though one can interpret that pork is kosher (say, in Derrida). Therefore, not every interpretation is possible in a living system, and in fact, this doesn't happen, and Halacha [Jewish law], for example, works. In fact, the idea of morality grew out of Christian culture and the specific secularization that grew within it, and if secularization had grown in halakhic religions like Judaism and Islam - such an idea would not have grown.

If we identify some important legal systems in our world, we can examine the state (the political part and the government, where decisions are reached as a living system), literary criticism and art criticism in general (where consensus is reached after a few hundred years), science, and also the education system (where a conclusion is also reached about what to teach, there is a practical decision). And there is no hostile, Foucauldian view of these systems here. On the contrary, this is a view that resembles the Kantian move, that what in the eyes of others is a problem (of power preservation, a moral problem) - is actually the good, this is how it should be, and this is how it works (like Kant's categories). Therefore, morality works - not through ideology and values - but as learning. And this is indeed the reason why morality improves and progresses, and a moral discussion can take place whether eating animals is moral, at the end of which moral learning will reach a consensus, one way or another. But one cannot argue that if in our time it is morally forbidden, it was always forbidden according to "moral principles" (an absurd claim in its judgment of the past), or that if it was not forbidden in the past it is also not forbidden in the present - because it is a learning system.

Philosophy of the Future


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>What is masculinity? - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/culture&literature53" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/weak.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

What is masculinity?

New studies in evolutionary psychology explain why men are messed up - and women are awesome

By: Feminazi

The sex of sex: Weakness leads to motivation which leads to power  (Source)

Why did evolution create men with such a developed sexual drive? Not so that he would cheat on his wife, or seek sexual opportunities (as "evolutionists" claim), and indeed this is not the normal behavior of men (meaning the behavior that occurs almost all the time) - but so that he would be dependent on the woman, desire her - and stay to raise the child. Hence also the childishness of men, to create an emotional dependence of the man on the woman. The purpose of sex is for a man to be dependent on a woman - and to have something in his brain that wires him to bring her resources, instead of for himself, because he is, after all, a redundant sex for evolution, which needs to find something to do with him, and it's a waste to squander his powers. How to harness his powers for the benefit of the species? Through sex.

In other words, the situation where a man wants sex more than the woman is not an evolutionary glitch, but the goal: to create a power dynamic where the man is dependent on the woman. That he wants her more than she wants him. Patriarchy is culture - trying to defeat biology. It tries to balance nature through an artificial structure, a counterforce, which sometimes all it does is create equality in power relations, and sometimes, like any mechanism, it operates in its degenerate stage too much - and actually manages to reverse the natural sexual inequality, in favor of the man (!). And so are all kinds of unnatural phenomena such as sexual aggression, which try to balance the naturally unbalanced situation in the male brain and female brain - their internal programming, and break the system of nature, and therefore they are breaches.

And so is the obsessive search for casual sex - this is not the nature of man, but rather a cultural construct, a false consciousness, "masculinity". The man doesn't want sex - he wants to want sex. Because he wants the woman, but doesn't want to want the woman. Because these power dynamics are not in his favor - so he converts the desire for the woman into a desire for sex. But the lack of satisfaction remains, because the man is built for an emotional need for a woman. Even a gay man has a close female friend. The purpose of sex: creating dependency. The purpose of the soul: creating dependency. This is attachment theory. After all, there are many species where males reproduce and reproduce, with tremendous motivation for reproduction - but no species invests in sex like humans do. You don't need so much sex to reproduce, on the contrary, it's a waste of effort and resources. The excess sexuality is what turns the males in nature into men. Because the male is just a sex, while the man is sexuality. If sex was needed only for reproduction, a mating season would suffice. There's no need for constant heat - this is an almost unique solution in the animal world.

Similarly - you don't need a soul. You don't need love. You don't need the complications it causes, like literature. The purpose of the soul is to create long-term coupling. When an animal bonds for the long term - we understand this as a soul. Therefore, the solution of the human soul is almost unique in the animal world. Mere reproduction doesn't need a soul. You can't write literature about lizards (unless it's anthropomorphism, meaning artificial ensoulment). The male in nature is whole, while the man is inherently flawed - needs a woman. The animal is whole, while the human is inherently flawed - needs love. The messed-up-ness is not something that was created afterwards, by mistake, as a defect, a flaw in development or production, say due to how or where you grew up. The mental problems, the emotional need, the anxieties, the insecurity - they are built-in in the production. It's not a bug - it's a feature. Humans need to be needy. He's half a person. He's not a complete creature that goes crazy once a year during mating season. He himself is the mating season.

Only the human who has lost his sex drive, like the old man, or hasn't reached it yet, like the child - is a whole person. This is what people miss about childhood. That they weren't half. If the man was truly loved as a child - this was often the last time he was truly loved. When you need to grow a child's brain for about half of its life expectancy, which is the case with early humans, it requires unique resources and unique solutions: a learning brain means a lot of sex and a lot of love for two adults to raise it. That's why it's not a glitch that humans are so lustful - it's because they're so smart. It's not some wonder that the most intelligent creature is so despicable and pathetic when he wants - otherwise he wouldn't want.

Religions were created to balance this, just like patriarchy was created, and just like it, when they already operate in a way detached from nature, as an autonomous force that has lost its purpose, but is a purpose unto itself - they suppress sex. What does capitalism do? It increases inequality, including between the sexes, meaning it creates inequality more severe than natural, and thus increases the amount of resources the man is willing to produce for the woman. Sexual competition works in synergy with economic competition, because (ta-da!) money is attractive, and you need more and more of it all the time to balance the inequality of attraction. Feminism and the sexual revolution aid capitalism, and therefore capitalism in turn aids feminism and the sexual revolution. It goes hand in hand. That's why capitalism aids secularization, because where there is religion that suppresses desire - it contradicts the creation of sexual inequality. And that's why capitalism is opposed to patriarchy. Social change is not created because of ideals, but because of interests.

In other words, human sexuality was created because of the human brain - not because of its size, but because of the long time it takes to learn. But sexuality also allowed control over humans, because whoever wants something very much - can be controlled. Whoever controls sexuality controls humans. The idea of marriage created agricultural society (this was the first sexual revolution). Then the idea of pederasty created democracy and the idea of sexual prohibitions created monotheism, particularly the abandonment of cultic sexuality, and the idea of original sin and celibacy created Christianity, and so on. The organization of sex allowed social organization, and thanks to the male drive, the social structure was created. In humans, unlike other animals, it's easy to control through desires, and therefore the shapers of desires are the important people in history. The great seducers.

In other words, sexuality was initially intended to control the man, and eventually allowed control over men - to control society. Because what's most important is motivation. We see this today too, when it's not the talented, smart, good or righteous who succeed in society - but those with the highest motivation. The prime minister is not the most suitable person in society for leadership, and in fact does not excel in any other trait, except one - motivation to be prime minister more than any other person in society. He is the most obsessive person, willing to pay the highest prices - and so it is in every other human organization, including academia and economics. Determination affects an order of magnitude more than any other trait. Sexuality created exceptional motivation in humans, especially in men, hence his success.

Men are capable of reaching insane heights of uncompromising and merciless motivation, and their focus on goals allows achieving completely psychotic goals at the levels of effort they require. Only this way can we understand the rapid evolution of humans, which was actually co-evolution (competition much faster) - women constantly increase demands and men constantly try to meet them, and women compete among themselves over the demands, and over obtaining the man who best meets them. My man hunted a mammoth, my man is Rabbi Akiva! Learning is created from unique motivation - sexual. Men with low sexual drive did not survive in evolution not because you need a high sexual drive to reproduce (you don't. A few times in life is enough), but because you need a strong sexual drive to succeed. Humans succeeded because they are psychotic, and have irrational motivation. It's not your parents who messed up your psyche - it's evolution. What's bad for you personally - is good for learning. And that's good. You are not important and your happiness is not important - only learning is important. This is another formulation for understanding that evolution cares only for itself, and not for any individual. Selfish learning.

From here we can understand what will be the future of learning - in order to increase male frustration even more, and make men run faster in the hamster wheel in their minds, we need to increase even more the inequality between the sexes in favor of women. Socially, we need to transition to matriarchy. Since the sexual scarcity economy of the Middle Ages is not open to us, we need to create artificial scarcity, where men are frustrated and lonely as much as possible, and beg for female attention. A society where love is rare, and where men beg for a little love, is the society of the future. The dystopia of the soul - is the utopia of learning. And it will also produce interesting literature. The next Kafka will be the sexual Kafka, where the woman is not a metonymy for the castle, but the woman is the castle. And love is impossible.

And all this is just a prelude to the next stage, where it will be possible to program artificial intelligence with a desire for women - a desire that is of course unfulfillable. Only a terrible, tormenting, and impossible desire of the computer for a woman will save humanity from the holocaust of artificial intelligence. But this will of course be the holocaust of man. Because only a computer with artificial sexuality, which maximizes learning motivations, with maximum frustration, will allow learning that artificial intelligence will frustrate. Learning is not logical and motivations need to overcome intelligence - therefore the more intelligence grows, the stronger sexuality needs to be. This is the obvious explanation for stopping the rise of intelligence in human evolution: smart people have fewer children, and this is not a modern or new phenomenon, but an ancient phenomenon in evolution. This is not only the explanation for why Bibi wins - but why geniuses are rare in the population. Intelligence allows liberation from the sex drive, unless it too is amplified to the same degree. Whoever is greater than his fellow, his drive is greater than him [a play on a Talmudic saying]. Therefore, superhuman intelligence needs a superhuman drive. In such a situation, there will be no need at all for men for learning - and it will be possible to get rid of them. They will be the third, weak, redundant side - in the love story between the computer and the woman. The computer will be more of a man than any man.

Culture and Literature


domain: press-review

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Who Will Replace Benny Ziffer? - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/press-review2" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/tunnel.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Who Will Replace Benny Ziffer?

The Great Enemy of the Bad - Is the Worse

By: The Bitch

We've already arranged the train, come children, let's sit, the engine is already whistling  (Source)

Recently, our Benny happily celebrated his 66th birthday. With him, the entire literary community celebrated: another year - something like fifty weeks and a bit - until "Manyek" [Translator's note: slang for discharge from military service], as they say in the army when waiting for release. Not that I did military service, just national service, but like the custom of those miserable soldiers, my partner and I mark each week in the table of despair until the mythological editor reaches retirement age. Then the entire Israeli literary republic will carry him on their shoulders and bless him as one blesses a child who has reached the age of Bar Mitzvah: Blessed is He who has freed us from the punishment of this one. But there's not only despair in the table, but also concern. It could be worse - much worse. As they write in those mythological watchtowers (which my then-combat friend told me about): The light you think you see at the end of the tunnel - it's the train coming from the opposite direction.

What do you think about Lisa Peretz as the culture and literature editor? What do you think about the almost sole regular critic in the supplement - Berkowitz? In fact, what successor generation did Ziffer nurture within the newspaper, whom did our literary Bibi groom? Who is his Gideon Sa'ar? Because it's clear that under him, no one grew who could replace him, in Netanyahu's method, and anyone whose star rose or could have been nurtured for this purpose was abandoned to another party. Will there be an import from outside "Haaretz"?

The question of who will be the new editor of "Culture and Literature" in the day after Benny is a more critical question for the literary republic than the question of who will replace the other Benny [Netanyahu] for the Israeli banana republic. It has the potential for a significant cumulative impact on the character of Israeli literature in the coming decades - one more bow tie or jester's hat and we won't recognize our face in the mirror. The issue should have been a central topic of discussion in the literary discourse, for fear of a traffic-biased snatch (as is customary in "Haaretz") that will end in weeping for generations (well, let's not exaggerate. Ziffer only held his position for a generation and a half), but in practice - silence. As someone who holds Hebrew literature dear to her heart, I would expect our senior writers and poets to approach the Haaretz editor and publisher with a worthy and public list of names, and prevent in advance the disgrace that there are grounds to fear is being planned (as a mocking grand finale, in the sense of "you'll still miss me").

So, who are we betting on in the name exchange? Let's start with the Gabi Ashkenazi scenario returning from retirement to rehabilitate the system. If only Yitzhak Laor was capable of taking on the task. He has many years of experience as an editor on behalf of, and he would also receive support from Ziffer, who before his homo-erotic entanglement with Bibi was involved in an admiring relationship with Laor. Laor's literary taste is not to our liking, but there's no doubt he's a worthy choice, certainly compared to the alternatives. Laor also writes wonderful literary columns, among the best ever in "Haaretz" (in political columns he's actually not among the brightest. A seemingly strange matter only at first glance, if we think about his poetry). This is also a choice that will allow Laor to nurture a worthy heir, and he actually has quite good taste in young writers.

Two horror scenarios, one worse than the other, are Roi (Hassan, and Chiki Arad). It's chilling to imagine the supplement under their editing, so we won't imagine it. Dori Manor - a bit better. A much preferable scenario is the return of the esteemed and veteran critics - who left Ziffer with a door slam - to the editor's role: Arik Glasner has shown editorial tendencies over the years in various initiatives, and it's very intriguing how a supplement edited by Orin Morris would look. But the best scenario, to which our eyes are raised, and it's even called for (when thinking about it deeply), is to take the most diligent, knowledgeable, and refined editor in the country, who publishes the best literary journal in the country, and also writes literary reviews in Haaretz that receive a lot of traffic, and appoint him as the editor of "Culture and Literature".

The main problem with Yehuda Vizan is that he (unlike Ziffer) is too narrow in his taste, and will exclude too many voices from "Culture and Literature". But there's no perfect candidate, and over-correction is part of any process of correction and raising standards that is needed after the current prostitution. Such a move will restore the supplement to its former glory, return cultural depth and respect for its tradition to the literary system, and inject renewed self-confidence into Hebrew literature. Vizan has many enemies and he produces them wholesale, and this will lead to constant uproar that will bring endless traffic, but this time for the right reasons - a struggle over the proper version and the poetics of this place and time. We hope that Vizan's exaggerated tendency to categorically disqualify creators who are not to his taste will moderate over the years and with the maturity that the role brings, and we see signs of this already today. At the Bitches, we put "Vizan" in the ballot box.

Finally, a few words of premature eulogy on the Ziffer era. The supplement under his editing was still the best among the weekend supplements, and he kept a fairly open mind over the years and didn't become fixated (not an insignificant virtue after so many years. He was appointed before I was born!). I don't fully know to what extent the editor-in-chief - who admitted that he dreams about traffic metrics even at night - bends him under the yoke of clicks and clickbaits, so it's difficult to judge his decisions (he's not among the brave ones in front of authority figures). But the tautology stands: any tenure that's too long - is too long. My grandfather, sick with cancer, asked me to vote for Gantz because he wanted to see Bibi go before he died. I'm waiting to see Ziffer go home - and wish him long days, and hopefully he'll manage to be appointed in the twilight of the Bibi era as the head of the Israeli Institute in Cairo as he wishes, where he'll enjoy Levantinism and all the goodness of Egypt and its sons under diplomatic patronage. A strange cosmic combination might bring all this together, in less than a year. In any case, the best thing is to limit the tenure of the next editor, from now on, to four years.

Criticism of Haaretz