CultState

| You are more than your identityDecades of social media and the mass narcissism that predates it has created a technopriest caste that aggressively seeks opportunities to summon their entire cathedral to banish heretics. Any attempt to reason with these zealots requires an initial payment of your public image as you will get branded as a misogynist, racist, and privileged. That’s a fairly heavy buy-in… *but only if you still believe in old public relations*. ProteinWorld’s trolling of is demonstrating a radically new brand of public relations: *if analyzing and penetrating filter bubbles becomes too expensive, provoke the filter bubble and steer its reaction for your benefit*. Here’s how it works.

Let’s say you sell product A that is designed for an approximation of group X. Figuring out where group X is located and how to reach them is expensive. There is also an inherent group Y that will not only absolutely hate product A, but will go out of their way to derail you. More often than not, group Y doesn’t actually *hate* product A, but they hate the idea that the group X that they do hate might have a new tool in their ideological war with group Y. Group Y will then engage in a Bush-style preemptive attack to minimize the perceived benefits of product A as a means of dehumanizing group X.

This dynamic mire of ideological petulance, henceforth known as the * background ideological war,* (BIW) is traditionally handled by public relations teams who try to carefully tiptoe around these landmines as they appear. In the old public relations, spending a tremendous amount of money on market discovery and public relations is the only way to avoid this outcome In the new public relations,

The person who expresses displeasure is familiar with the BIW and has, most likely, already established lines and bounties regarding the rules of engagement. That person might not have identified as group Y, but that is not important since, due to the mechanics of social media, that person will instinctively put out the klaxon call designed to attract group Y. (This impulse is traditionally known as “*raising awareness”*, which is the postmodernists version of praying to nonexistent deities) The old public relations believes this approach to be a problem. The new public relations knows this is the approach saves money, time, and has far greater efficiency in spurring consumption.

Group Y will never be your customers to begin with because they have already associated it with the BIW long before you even got around to making product A. In fact, Group Y and group X might have already self-isolated from one another due to the BIW. By irritating group Y, more of group Y will join in and engage in their daily social media outrage ritual of retweeting, blogging, public shaming, and photoshop work. **This outrage props up your SEO, your trending ranking, and your overall presence at a minimal cost. **

As the outrage circulates, fringe members of group X will catch wind of this and rally around your product as a newest front in the BIW. They’ll sound their klaxon call and attract gradually more moderate members that align with their filter bubble. * Group X will reveal themselves by self-organizing in relation to your product*.

As the outrage permeates the internet, all of it gets logged, analyzed for sentiment, and categorized in ways that allow your company to pick up the pieces afterwards. Instead of trying to anticipate who your market it, **you exploit the BIW to force the market to self-organize in relation to your product and then analyze that self-organization to discover your markets.**

Feb 28 2015

An unspoken and unexplored idea that powers this blog is a configuration of asset exchange I am calling * petrocurrency mercantilism*. This concept has allowed me to accurately predict geopolitical and macroeconomic events since 2005. So what is petrocurrency mercantilism?

It’s when a national bank and an energy producer collude to generate artificial demand for a currency at the expense of the purchasing power of other currencies. The flowchart below shows how it all works.

lntersectionality is the admission that self-identiﬁed identities are fundamentally incapable of describing the totality of oppression. This means that self-identiﬁed identities are Godelian sets: they are incomplete but consistent theories that can never encapsulate their own inversions.

lntersectionality only deﬁnes inversions by relation, which is to say the framework intersectionality provides to measure identity inversions can only be described by what has been previously self-identiﬁed. Thus, no inversions can even exist within intersectionality unless at least three identities have been established.

For example, the feminist and the panda identities intersect in a place that the black identity can no longer predict or describe oppression. (Additionally, if identity 1 and 2 intersect, the non-intersecting regions are not treated as inversions of one another. They are treated as their own identity.) This is a problem for intersectionality because subjective inversions can be equally described as a union between two identity sets. (In this case, it is a union of feminist and panda identities) This implicit interchangeability of function means that a unioned set is both an inversion (Something non-unioned identities can never understand) and an identity at the same exact time. This means that identities and their inversions can be experienced by the same person in parallel.

Once we introduce an extraneous identity that has no intersections, we discover that the subjective inversion requirement is inaccurate. Alter all, the black identity can never predict or describe oppression the way this extraneous identity can, which qualifies this extraneous identity as an inversion of the black identity. This is also true for the panda and the feminist identity. This means the extraneous identity is part of an identity (remember, inversions = identities) while being its own inversion at the same time.

Therefore, in the strive for completeness, intersectionality renders itself inconsistent.

**Proof:**

Let theories be a set of theorems.

Let a theorem be a set of proofs that predict and detect oppression.

Let intersectionality imply inversions (* !*) to be:

- The intersections (
) of the complement (**∩**) of a theory with its overlapping theories and non-overlapping theories.**c** - The absolute complement of a theory and all non-overlapping theories.

Let intersectionality deny complements of a theory as a complete theory.

Let intersectionality treat all intersecting theories as new theories.

Let A, C, D be overlapping theories, thus:

Let D = B ∩ C

Let E = C ∩ A

Let F = A ∩ B

Thus, inversions can be defined as:

!A = (A ∩ B)c ∩ C

!B = (B ∩ C)c ∩ A

!C = (C ∩ A)c ∩ B

Thus:

!A = D

!B = E

!C = F

But:

(A ∩ B)c ∩ C = B ∩ C

(B ∩ C)c ∩ A = C ∩ A

(C ∩ A)c ∩ B = A ∩ B

This is logically false since B ∩ C contains not just (A ∩ B)c ∩ C, but also A ∩ B ∩ C.

Intersectionality’s implications of inversion, then, is false.

To further demonstrate the point, let X be a different theory of oppression that has no intersecting theorems. Thus:

Ø = X ∩ A

Ø = X ∩ B

Ø = X ∩ C

Ø = X ∩ D

Ø = X ∩ E

Ø = X ∩ F

Thus:

X ∉ B ∩ C

X ∉ C ∩ A

X ∉ A ∩ B

However, due to the second rule of inversion, X is part of all inversions. Thus:

!A = D

Ø = X ∩ D

Ø = X ∩ (B ∩ C)

But:

!A = (A ∩ B)c ∩ C

Ø = X ∩ !A

Ø = X ∩ (A ∩ B)c ∩ C

Is a false statement.