emasculation

All posts tagged emasculation

Saw a post of something over on Mullet’s site—here’s the link to the text—that made me chuckle, and then I did something stupid. I started thinking about it, and here’s my apeshit reply below (yeah, crazy shit alert; don’t even bother reading it, seriously).

Heh.

I’m impressed by how accurate that basically is (except that agriculture came first, then beer).

The original liberals were the gatherers; the women. The original conservatives were the hunters; the men. The conservatives were kneeling and praying before the hunt, and painting the struggles of life upon the walls of sacred caves (initiation caves). The liberals were carving stone statues of fat women, who they figured were divine figures of fertility; they were also carving the first tenants of the fertility cults to come.

(Of course, by the time the liberals were able to seize power and create the first city built around a temple, the conservatives had been subdued and were now doing all the stone carving; here is the birth of the Masons, and then Freemasons later. It was said that the Freemasons differed greatly in a few key ways, such as they got paid and had some rights.)

What it is not included in the above version: twenty thousand years ago, the liberals started naming everything and began to observe the constellations (the conservatives dug Orion, who they envisioned as a heavenly portrait of Sky Father, a figure out of the Great Mystery, the Creator, who they felt keenly during the long fall hunts; and they dug the North Star, that was about it), but, in true control-freak fashion, the liberals began making up stories about stuff to do with how the sky moved—soon they started erecting monolithic blocks of rock in certain spots, in certain arrangements, and then made claims of knowing the future.

The conservatives were more interested in the simpler things in life—music and an occasional mushroom vision with the shaman to gain insight into themselves and their place in the world. They had already mastered fire, and the bow, and saw no need for all the rock grinding and shiny-stone-seeking. It was thought among some conservatives that chasing game all over was pissing off some of the liberals, since their stone ritual crap required a stationary sort of lifestyle, and the liberals argued that they could plant more seeds and catch animals, fence them in, so you never have to chase them.

But the conservatives stood firm: they had to keep moving, keep after the herds, along side the lions and wolves. Besides, sitting in one spot too long—they knew too well—tended to exhaust too many resources too soon. It lead to starvation and death. It ended with great holes in the world. Plus, it was not honourable to cage a beast for meat, or for any reason; in the hunt, the game has a better chance of escape than the hunter does of feeding his tribe that day. They’d decided; they would not sit still anywhere for long. And the conservatives were respected.

Perhaps it was only a gesture of goodwill that the conservatives let the liberals make jewelry out of the mammoth tusks from their northern hunts (the conservatives, artists themselves, saw it more as a craft than art, but that was okay, it kept them busy), but after a while the liberals wanted more jewels.

It also leaves out the part where the liberals somehow end up suckering all the conservatives into doing their work on the farm, too. When the liberals convinced all the people that a great disaster was coming, and then it was confirmed (say, a comet slamming into a hill on the day it was predicted) by the elders of far away tribes, the people grew afraid and began to side with the liberals more and more.

Soon there was an agreement to enter into a semi-nomadic way of life; the liberals domesticated cats and dogs, and began planting much grain. Populations grew as never before.

Inevitably the liberals carved themselves a stone goddess and built temples (then stone towns near rivers) and surrounding farms,  eventually forcing the people to offer up their male sons as sacrifice to their goddess. (Astarte; Ishtar—Inanna, Dianna, Isis, etc—which is where the word, “Easter” comes from). Some boys were castrated for blood sacrifice; in some places they were thrown into the fire, and “Sign” was read from their screams and writhing; other sacrifices were also burnt offerings (wicker cages set alight with the males within).

This liberal empire spread from Arabia and Mesopotamia to Persia and India, then to Egypt and Greece, around the Black Sea; diluted versions reached the shores of Germania and Spain, North Africa, China and Japan. Later, strange versions spread back down into Africa, to the edge of Australia, and other versions reached Scandinavia and Russia, and then the British Islands. Some believe (and there is evidence that) it even reached Mesoamerica, where the Aztek (Olmec) liberals established an agricultural system of temple-centric city states, and continued the torture and sacrifice of the children and other captive Natives from the jungle.

At the heart of it all, in Asia Minor, the liberals grew rich and made a great Garden, and more and more the people worked on this Garden, taxed, and having to live in squalor. But the small ruling group of liberals grew arrogant and wanted more shiny stones; they held the secret knowledge, and began to see themselves as superior to these drones which they could order about the farms. Society grew decadent with excess and waste, and the conservatives suffered great poverty of spirit, and stranger and more violent rituals came about. And there were more sacrifices when droughts got bad.

The ruling class of liberals became inbred, trying to keep their royal line pure, and maniacs and human abominations slithered out of the human gene pool. They became more and more cruel, brutal, vicious; diseases sprang from them; and when they had all the power and wealth they craved, they entered into more and more extreme perversions, and extreme experiences. Obesity, hedonism, bestiality, and vice reigned among the aristocracy. They drank blood; they enjoyed raping children and listening to them scream, sob, and plead. This was the perverse, mutated and putrid form humanity had taken that is written about in a large collected work (see: Noah) to follow, same characters, same event, same result, different names, different messages.

And then the Flood changed everything. Entire towns were being wiped out, and the liberal oligarchy could not stop it; hell, they didn’t even know it was going to happen—and they were supposed to know; they held some “divine light of knowledge,” didn’t they? Weren’t they enlightened, illuminated?

The people started not to think so; the world seemed to be ending, and they lost faith. There was a great uprising. The people were told later that the gods were angry with the filthy, cruel, evil oligarchs and the flood was their punishment (one of the liberal oligarchs laments that she should have concerned herself more with living beings rather than riches and objects and pleasure). Later still, in a great book, the people would be told that the Deluge was the result of a wicked, sinful, greedy, evil-doing populace. Actually, both reasons were true.

Good thing the conservatives built the Ark and saved one town—when they resettled the Fertile Crescent later, they would start building large walled cities, to prevent any future flood from destroying their great works.

Around the time of the—last—Flood, 5600 BC, the conservatives took back religion and some degree of freedom (the world’s first civil rights movement) and entered into a covenant with the ruling liberal aristocracy, which was a matriarchy, all of which brought about the age of Kings (Sumer). Gilgamesh was the first; he sold out his conservative brothers to a large degree, but things had improved for a while. Nevertheless, the Kings that followed increasingly became cruel and violent, being swayed by the ever-growing court of liberals around them. Members of this court would grow into a shadow government.

By this time, resources had run out in Mesopotamia (over-farmed; devoid of trees; top soil gone due to pastoral herds eating roots everywhere for many centuries—and the Arabian desert was born), so the ruling liberals began using temple prostitutes (and beer) to draw in the sweaty, hairy, hunting conservatives from nearby woods, converting them into a soldier class, to protect the liberal King’s wealth and to be used as an armed force to conquer neighbouring tribes (and stealing their resources). They would tell their people that bad monsters lived there—demon creatures who must be destroyed—like what Sumeria first did to Lebanon (for timber, since Sumer had none), making slaves out of the vanquished. It was the invention of propaganda and set into motion a pattern of tyrannical, raptorial foreign policy that every nation since has copied (and Rome perfected).

Another condition of this covenant was marriage. It was still based upon husbandry (the domestication of wild animals—which is of course where the word “husband” comes from; old Norse hus = house + bondi = dwell, build, cultivate), but the conservatives were being treated a bit better than they had been before the Deluge, what with the third class status and their slum residences located away from their mates and offspring and all. Parts of this old covenant remain: the ring, a smaller symbol of the golden crown of ruling liberals, and the genuflection (kneeling, which is what commoners do in the presence of royalty, the old liberal elite) upon proposal of marriage.

The fashion of the era changed dramatically for conservatives: before the liberal invention of agriculture, they had long hair and beards, wore leather pants and shirts and coats, as well as furs; and after agriculture they were clean-shaven, perfumed, donning jewels if they were of high enough standing, and they all wore dresses like the liberal aristocracy had stipulated. (The lower in society, the lower the skirt; the priests and others wore the longest gowns. They still do to this day: see judges and the Pope.) It would not be until the early settlement of the Americas before conservatives started wearing pants again.

Some time during this, male cattle replaced male children in sacrifice (even though men were still being circumcised and made into eunuchs); this is why in many places the bull (or ram) is revered, and in India it’s actually held as sacred and not killed (yes, they will eat beef if someone else kills it; it was never “sacred cow;” it’s in fact “sacred bull”), which is common knowledge. Vegetarianism began not as any sort of “healthy lifestyle,” nor was it about eating meat at all; it was originally about what the gods/goddesses of the liberals of old were eating.

However, even though boys stopped getting their balls chopped off for Astarte, male sacrifice continued in a more subtle form: seasonal warfare.

And of course by the time of Jesus, with all the “I am the lamb” stuff, the “I am the sacrifice” stuff, well, this doomed the liberal cult of Astarte and her ilk. The next true conservative social movement began, and the practice of almost all forms of animal sacrifice faded away (although some forms of plant sacrifice remained—ever offer your sweetheart some flowers?—you’re carrying on an ancient ritual of offering life to the idols of the liberal aristocracy).

Male sacrifice crept back under the Catholic Church (once the Eastern Roman Empire absorbed the conservative movement of Jesus, the castrati was eventually formed: the practice of castration of young boys for the Church choirs), with no doubt much liberal infiltration to bring “Mary” (the pig goddess Astarte wearing a nun’s costume) back into observance.

Things started looking grim for the conservatives again, but then Martin Luther came along and another religious revolution took place—and the Protestants were born.

The conservatives did alright for a while, although the devious liberals were at it again. They had begun a secret society called the “Illuminati,” a much more organized and connected organization than the other types they’d tried before, and came up with a plan for overthrowing the conservatives and their pesky Elohim-type one-god stuff; lingering in the Pagan shadows, they had continued their religious rituals and practices, but now they were gaining new minions fleeing persecution from the out-of-control Catholic Church, which they had also infiltrated to a large extent.

After discovery in Bavaria and further persecution, plotting their revenge, they proceeded to infiltrate the Masonic organizations, then later the banks. After all, they had invented money as another tool to draw in wild, good-hearted and hard-partying conservatives out of their forested places and into the cities. And enslave them there doing something called “work,” which remains a sub-religion to this day, now more specialized as a “trade” or “career.”

And we all know the rest—things have come full circle: the conservatives are once more under the cloud of liberal tyranny, whose scientific collaborators have brought the entire planet within their grasp, and they are pressing hard and gaining ground fast as they implement their “New Secular Order.”

There. Just filled in some crucial gaps…okay, but his was funnier.

Show »

    Peace, Love, & Happiness

Part One

The Cult of Peace

Now, before I am accused of being a violent war-monger, let me say first off that I am not “pro-war.” I despise war, but not for the obvious commonplace reasons most people do—I am against materialism, corporate greed or unnatural greed, and the slaughter of men: this is why I am against war. I’m not a soldier, or a warrior, or a pacifist. I believe in self-defense—of my own person, and I believe that anyone can and should defend him-or-her-self—as well as any group of people being able to defend themselves against the hostilities of another group of people. I do not believe in attacking people for no reason. But I am not against violence itself.

(I also strongly believe that women in particular should toughen up (and smarten up) and defend themselves—and that men should stop protecting them; this only perpetuates the poor helpless little girl mentality that most women have. Men should only protect children, not women, who are weak and pathetic because they choose to be, because they gain so much out of being provided for and protected. But this is a different tale…)

“Peace” is a cult. And like all cults, it has its surface, its public face, and it has another hidden face, its true face.

The difference between Peace and Pacifism is that Pacifists will not even defend themselves or people they care about or are supposed to protect. A true Pacifist, when threatened, will allow himself to be harmed or killed rather than fight back; a true Pacifist will, if his family’s lives are threatened, let his family be harmed or killed rather than defend them. If someone points a gun to the child of a true Pacifist and says, “Agree to punch me in the face and I won’t kill your child, but if you do nothing I will shoot” the true Pacifist will allow his child to die.

It’s hard to express the disgust I have for the true Pacifist, the complete and utter lack of masculinity, but I’ll try not to let that interfere here. I just see no “high ideal” at work but rather an obvious manifestation of “survival of the fittest,” for anything in the natural world that cannot or will not defend itself gets attacked, killed, and eaten. Period. Any species that employs any degree of Pacifism in the natural world…well, they will be extinct soon enough. Natural selection?

Absolutely. Pacifism, like homosexuality, is the expression of an overpopulated species sensing (or carrying out an inner directive that) it should no longer reproduce or protect its own life. It is species suicide. Or rather a form of suicide that occurs in the absence of actual predators which exist to (violently) keep the herd’s population from getting out of hand…

Even plants—“peace-loving” plants—defend themselves. Thorns, spines, poisons, acids, et cetera, are developed to deter attack and protect themselves. One might argue that a plant has no will or intent to harm or injure, but what does that really matter? It does harm and injure, it must, else there is no threat, no deterrent, if the attacker does not know that harm and injury will result. The intent is defintely to harm, that is how a deterrent works—the creature remembers the pain, remembers the violence perpetrated against its body, and thinks twice next time.

Besides, plants eat insects, killing them in traps and draining them of life slowly, violently. Plants also directly and indirectly kill other plants. All plants kill in some manner. The competition for sunlight and water results in untold deaths in the plant world, at the “hands” of other plants. This struggle for survival itself is violent.

Every natural creature on the face of this planet wants (a) to reproduce and ensure that its offspring survives, (b) to defend its own life and survive, and (c) to extract from its environment what it needs to continue existing. There are no Pacifists in the wild. No survival technique would work, no species would last if trying to employ some sort of strategy for Pacifism. It’s unnatural. It’s ridiculous.

Back to Peace, then.

The cult of Peace seems to be composed of two principles:

A. an anti-war doctrine
B. an anti-violence doctrine

The Anti-War Doctrine

I mentioned Pacifism above because it often gets confused with having a basic instinct for self-preservation—paradoxically. During the Vietnam War, from 1963 and 1973, well over nine thousand men were arrested and processed through the courts for refusing the draft by the United States Army. Many more left the country to escape this fate—and time spent in a cage for wanting to stay alive rather than be slaughtered like lambs on behalf of rich people.

Could there be more to it? Could it be that they did not want to kill poor Vietnamese farmers, aside from or even instead of, wanting to preserve their own lives?

Sure. Only disturbed individuals and fanatics want to kill people, especially people who pose no threat to them or anyone of their social group.

Having said that, that does not mean these men were automatically Pacifists. Not wanting to murder people and wanting to stay alive does not equal Pacifism, as I stated above. These men, a great percentage of them, would defend themselves if attacked and would defend their families if they were threatened. This is a “live and let live” mindscape, not Pacifism.

But let us ask something right now…

What is war?

In George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four, “war” was described in Goldstein’s book as “the destruction of human labour.” And that it is never meant to be “won” but to be continuous. Also, that the war was waged not on any foreign threat but on the citizens of the nation itself.

In a way that’s quite true. Today, war is really big business. Corporations make a killing in war torn regions; jobs for women are available because so many men have died, and women also get majority voting control if the area is conquered by a “democratic” nation. All sorts of cash-generating things happen before, during, and after the war is over…

But it’s also the destruction of humans themselves. In particular, the destruction of a large segment of the male population.

War is state-sanctioned murder; the killing of a group of men by another group of men, both brainwashed to hate each other or simply given no other choice than to fight one another. Doesn’t matter what the rationalizations or justifications are for war, the result is always bloody horror, destruction and the sacrifice of men.

At times, though, it isn’t: thousands of years ago defending one’s village against another attacking village was a necessary conflict—the defense of the village was right and necessary. Does that mean the attackers were wrong?

Well, it depends. Hyenas in Africa will chase away a pride of lions from their rightful kill, stealing it by intimidation and at times by force. Small conflicts like this occur in nature quite often, and it’s impossible to moralize it, to deem it right or wrong: it simply is what it is, with animals doing what they do.

Ants and termites have a war going on that has lasted millions of years.

However, these natural conflicts are about survival, not greed. The only creatures in the wild who are seemingly greedy are the ones that must hoard, plan ahead for a winter of near starvation; squirrels and bears, for example, show increasingly “greedy” behaviour as the winter nears. Bears eat “like pigs” to increase fat reserves that will sustain them as they slumber, nearly hibernating, for the alternative is starvation and death and extinction of the species—their food sources are absent in the cold winter months, thus there is nothing for them to eat. They must be greedy in order to survive.

Squirrels are similar, except that they do not eat everything in sight and build up fat levels. Instead, they hoard food, large stashes of food, for consumption during the months in which their food sources are also absent in their environment. They, too, must be greedy in order to survive.

Obviously, these creatures know when they have enough; sometimes not (bears, for example, have been known to awaken in their dens and begin eating whatever’s around them—dirt, dried moss, even their own fur), but mostly they do know. Species that have survived for so long living in the same manner that they had done for hundreds of centuries or thousands of centuries (or hundreds of thousands of centuries) obviously have a good strategy for survival going, and they got things going well. Nature has all kinds of sublte and blatant checks and balances, so that even a few greedy species do not upset the overall balance.

So, why do humans need to be so greedy? Rather, why do modern humans? Since primitive “savages” took from their environments no more than what was needed, like the rest of the animals, the question becomes: what the fuck is up with civilized humans?

Well, what is up with them is agriculture. When humans adopted farming, they deviated from a strategy that worked well for thousands of centuries. Since I’ve covered farming in other entries, I will only touch upon it here.

The only real point to touch, however, is that modern warfare developed out of two new “needs” of modern humans:

1. defending the farm
2. acquiring resources from neighbouring regions

Later, a third reason (later to be known as “the Police”—the civil military) came about:

3. defending the ruler’s wealth and property of the land owners (the hoarding instinct employed—but instead of seeds and nuts, it’s about riches)

It is for all these reasons that hunters were turned, perverted, into soliders to defend and to attack, to secure the towns (and then cities) from invaders or raiders, and to steal “stuff” from less-armed peoples in regions close by.

Why?

Because a farm is essentially a great hole in the world, in essence and in function: it sucks in all surrounding material until there’s nothing left, so it must keep expanding and growing in order to sustain its level of consumption. And when this occurs, civilization encounters other people that are living in the regions which house those much sought after resources. And what happens next is war.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, written thousands of years before Christ, we find a group of people being demonized (as a monster that the hero of the story kills) so that their cedar trees (current-day Lebanon) can be cut down for a city in Sumeria (in current-day Iraq). The people were butchered and the survivors became slaves, and the invading state became richer.

Some things never change.

This pattern for “war” remains basically unchanged to this very day. All that is required is convincing men to do the fighting, convincing the public to support it (and pay for it), and coming up with the reason, the cause, including the demonization process to justify the murder of fellow human beings and theft of what they possess.

All for greed. But not natural greed, as we have seen. This is farm greed and is about more and nothing besides. This is pathological when nations abuse one another in this way for no good reason except to make some richer (and many, many more poorer). The nations were well-off to begin with. They are not squirrels, hoarding frantically to get through a lean season; they are not bears needing to fatten up for a long slumber in which little will be eaten.

This is an unbalanced system—this is a feminine system with only very tiny masculine components, which have been twisted and perverted.

Yes, I’m going to get into this here, too. Truth does not recognize sacred cows. It tosses them on the grill and feeds the whole tribe…

Women naturally lean towards a sedentary existence—this is no big secret since they have been gatherers for many dozens of millennia before farming, plus they get pregnant. Being pregnant means you have to stop.

When a small mobile, nomadic group needs to stop, things change a little bit: like a city, as stated above, resources get used up faster, and Nature cannot replace them as fast as they are being used up; this results in having to go further to get what you need to keep the tribe going. Women have a natural hoarding tendency due to being weighed down with small children and being pregnant—in such a sedentary and vulnerable position, they need, much more than protection, assurance that they will have enough resources to support the offspring. This is similar to the squirrel gathering seeds and nuts and storing them all in preparation for a lean time ahead. Women are quite good at organizing and planning and scheming precisely because they had to do this, they had to hoard, to prepare for a time when sitting still meant using up a lot of resources. They had no idea when they would get more of it.

(I’m willing to bet that many times this simply wasn’t enough; areas were hunted out, resources were depleted, and the threat of starvation loomed over the tribe. So, some small-scale farming was the answer. Even hunter-gatherers (the women) planted seeds when they could, but what the difference between this and proper farming was that they didn’t settle the area to become fully sedentary—they moved on and let the area recover. They understood Nature very intimately and knew that continuous farming was disastrous for any environment. But, back then, men were respected and when they said it was time to go, the women packed up and they were off.)

Men, on the other hand, being the hunters and not being tied down to the earth in regards to infant care and pregnancy, have always had a different approach to life in general. Men are pack hunters, carnivores in essence, while women are more herds of herbivores. Men have no real need to hoard (it is not part of the true male set of memes), since it is useless weight to carry. Best to travel light. Besides, they knew where to go to get more stuff. There’s no danger in running out of anything as long as you keep moving and know your environment. Back then, nearly everything a tribe needed could be gotten from big game—food, clothing, shelters, weapons and tools, et cetera.

So, what’s the point?

The point is that war came about due to many factors, all of which are relevant today as they were ten thousand years ago. The point is that war is based on an unbalanced, unnatural material greed that stresses hoarding, as if everything will run out tomorrow. The point is that this is a feminine system of infinite expansion in a limited space and war is fucking inevitable.

So, the ultimate point is: why be “against” war while supporting the system that absolutely necessitates it and even depends upon it?

This is my main issue with the “anti-war” sentiment—it is short-sighted to such a point as to be pointlessly absurd. Absurdly pointless. I am not so much against war as I am against the system that creates war.

Thus I am not really “anti-war.” I am anti-materialism, anti-corporatism, anti-greed, and anti-male-sacrifice—and these are the causes for war which are inherent components of any agricultural system, which has never been able to survive without these components.

The Anti-Violence Doctrine

The doctrine of non-violence has to be one of the most fairy-tale-born ideologies in history. It’s basically anti-Nature or anti-natural. But underlying all of its high-sounding, touchy-feeling rhetoric is a cold, controlling scheme to subdue any masculine behaviour and try to reform it into feminine behaviour.

A non-violent doctrine stresses words over action, self-restraint over self-expression, psychology over physicality, manipulation over force. It is shame dependent. It’s essentially supportive of a feminine way of living and oppressive to a masculine way of living. It is therefore a form of misandry, if we must be technical.

It’s also intensely hypocritical.

Now, I’ve made a lot of accusations here, and I will address them all soon enough. But first we must ask one important question…

What is violence?

The World Health Organization says that violence is

“the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation”

This basic premise is anti-Life itself. All forms of life are violent. All of them. Life fucks and kills and eats itself in order to give birth to itself and feed its offspring—and anything that denies this basic truth is simply anti-Life.

To be clear, I am not refering to some stereotypical brute violence—some deranged gorilla of a man waiting in the shadows to pound the living piss out of you and then run off. All for no reason, other than some obvious mental defect. I’m not pro-psychosis. I’m not pro-frustration-and-rage-until-it-explodes either. But I am a supporter of violence in its natural form and for its own natural sake.

“So if someone hits you, you’ll beat them up?”

No, I doubt I would do anything at all. Why would I?

“Vengeance?! Is that not pro-violence?”

I can’t say I’m pro-vengeance either (or the state-sanctioned version: justice). If I’m walking down along a hillside path, and suddenly a rock rolls towards me and hits my leg, what happens?

Pain, firstly. Then anger—but why? Why the anger? It must be a reaction to pain, perhaps propelling the body (and-or mind) of an organism to motivate itself to make sure another incident (which causes pain, which is a signal to the organism of injury) does not happen.

The anger comes out of pain in order to motivate you to prevent more pain—ultimately to prevent injury. Get you alert and ready for anything, to protect yourself. Noting gets you going like anger, nothing else quite motivates you like pain and anger. There’s a damned good reason for it, as I have just stated. (If you doubt this, stick your hand in a wasps’ nest for a few minutes and come back and tell me how unmotivated you were…tell em how you calmly walked away, no rush, no worries, no elevated heart rate, no sweat, no nothing. Then I’ll call you a fucking liar. Because you’ll be one.)

But what are the odds another rock is coming? And, anyway, I’m aware enough to know that this rock that just bruised my leg was simply rolling down a hill, probably for no other reason than gravity.

Why be angry at it? I wouldn’t be, I don’t think. Some people might pick it up and hurl it somewhere, pissed off. And I might have done that before, too. I’m not so enlightened that I have not gotten angry with inanimate objects, even though the rock never “meant” to hurt me…

For that matter, why be angry if it were someone throwing that rock? And where is that anger directed anyway? At the rock, at the pain, or at the person? And why?

“Well, they’re trying to hurt me. I don’t like being hurt, so…it pisses me off.”

To motivate you to stop it from happening again. If it continues, you either try to stop the person, or run away. Either case is something that’s basically good for you: you’ve been challenged, motivated, and forced to adapt to something, all in a very short period of time. You just became a stronger, wiser human being in a few minutes, all because you reacted to someone throwing rocks at you.

“But I have the right to be free from harm!”

No, you don’t. You have “the right” to go away from harm, defend yourself, or adapt. You don’t have any “right” to remain a little kid and have big strong adults defend you from everything. Jesus…

Yet so few people are apt to view this as a good thing. We have our thinking…a wee bit fucked up, I think. We act like children, spoiled children who are obsessed with some false sense of entitlement for safety, comfort, and overall protection. Anything that hurts is “bad.” Anything that feels remotely like pleasure is “good.” Why? What makes us judge these?

How can we ever really grow as people this way? Our thinking now dictates that we always take the easy way out, never challenged, always having choices and rarely forced to adapt to anything—instead we demand like petulant little girls that everything suit our “needs”—read: wants. Do we actually grow up anymore in this yummy-sunny non-violent politically-correct female-friendly world?

Let us, for one moment, take ourselves out of the narrow bubble vision of civilization and look at a bigger picture. As we do so I will address the shocking points below…

1. Words over action.

2. Self-restraint over self-expression

3. Psychology over physicality

4. Manipulation, diplomacy, persuasiveness (passive-agressiveness) over force (aggressiveness) or directness (assertiveness)

5. Shame dependent

6. Controlling male behaviour

Now, I’m not doing these in any order; they’re all related anyways. Also, I must quote Zubaty here—he’s thought and written more about this shit than I have or most of us have:

“Words are not facts or truths. Words are symbols: broken, bumbling, desperate attempts to capsulize fragments of physical or metaphysical reality. Words are the very things which create the dualities, the rip in the fabric of unity among all things, that spiritual teachers constantly warn us against. Krishnamurti said, with good reason, that words are violent. They tear up perception. Deborah Tannen claims men speak 2000 words a day and women speak 7000.”

Words are violent? Now there’s a revolutionary idea! There’s something fucking controversal…

The non-violent or anti-violent doctrine favours girls and women because that is their way of life. Choosing to be weak and helpless, women have snagged themselves many hundreds of generations of male providers and protectors, securing their way of life and making sure they were taken care of and kept safe and comfortable.

Women tell their young boys to “use their words” instead of using their natural physical abilities. Men are not designed to be talkers. Males aren’t. Males are the goddamned Yang, the active force, the masculine energy, the spiritual-nomadic doer.

Most of the “violence” that occurs between male and female mammals is about dominance, with the majority of mammal species having an alpha male. And the alpha male gets to breed. Most of the forms of violence between male mammals is due mainly to mating—fighting for the right to mate with a female. In essence, we fight almost entirely over females. In human society, today, it is only legal to fight if you’re making someone else money (UFC, boxing).

But animals are physical with one another in many ways that would be considered “illegal” if human males did it.

“Says George Gilder:
What is happening in the US today is the steady erosion of male socialization. From the hospital, where the baby is abruptly taken from its mother; to early childhood, where he may be carted off to daycare and placed in the care of a woman; to the home, where the husband is frequently absent or emasculated; to the school, where the boy is managed by female teachers and excelled by girls; possibly to college, where once again his training is scarcely differentiated by sex and he is often bludgeoned by feminist agendas; to a job, that is sexually indistinct; through all these stages the boy’s sexuality is subverted and confused.

The man discovers that society offers him no distinctive roles. Society prohibits, restricts, or feminizes his purely male activities. It is increasingly difficult for him to hunt or fight or otherwise assert himself in a male way. Most jobs reward obedience, regularity and carefulness (female traits) more than physical strength and individual initiative. If man attempts to create rituals and institutions and secret societies like the ones used by similarly beleaguered men in primitive societies he finds them opened, by law, to women. If he fights he is sent to jail. If he is aggressive on the job he may be fired or accused of sexual abuse.”

Watch boys play, or remember back when you were a boy—that is, if you were not one of those who sat inside the house and rarely interacted with other kids (if so, please find a Fight Club somewhere or join some team sport, or even just get into martial arts). Point is, they’re physical, always pushing each other, challenging, competing, bringing out the best in each other, making one another stronger. Testing for weaknesses. Helping each other grow up in order to face the hard life ahead as a man, even if they have no clue what they’re doing or why they’re doing it. It’s instinctual. And violent.

That is what “play” is supposed to be for males in just about any species of mammal—watching human boys play is like watching wolf pups play. They do the same things for the same reasons. This is how masculine creatures grow.

If this world ever “needed” anything, it is the total masculization of all human beings who are not so right now. Including women and girls. Why not? We’ve been feminized for ten millennia and emasculated for the last 40 years, and look where the fuck it’s gotten us? Before that there was a balance. How about pushing “the feminine” to the margins for once? How about total fucking masculization of humanity? (I bet you never even heard that word before…I haven’t.) I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of hearing how us guys need to be “more like women.” We’re barely men as it is—fuck off already. It’s time women got in touch with their “masculine sides”—has any woman in the history of the planet ever done this? who was she? what happened?—and left us alone to be men again…

For a woman to break out of her psychic stew of verbal props must be as frightening as leaping off a bridge into a misty bottomless canyon. It is not part of her experience; she has nothing to hang on to. Women are biologically disposed to expressing life with words. It is not a fault per se, but neither should men feel inferior because we don’t reduce the vastness of our right brains into words that women understand. That’s expecting an elephant to fly. We’re not made for that. We have other strengths.

According to Patricia Cayo Sexton in The Feminized Male: The feminized male, like Kennedy assassins Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan are “nice guys; quiet, controlled, dutiful sons–whose male impulses are suppressed or misshapen by overexposure to feminine norms.

Though run at the top by men, schools are essentially feminine institutions from nursery through graduate schools.Women set the standard for adult behavior and favor those who are polite and clean.

And what of the male teachers? Undeniably there are many fine men and there need to be more in a country where 85% of all teachers are white women, but, a man who is less than a man can be more damaging to boys than a domineering mother. And the chance of hiring feminized men in schools is fairly high because those eligible and willing are those who made it through a feminized school system in good standing without conflict or failure. Methods of school instruction require little more than passive receiving and repeating. Learning is passive and feminine. The boy sits, listens, reads, writes, repeats and speaks when spoken to. School bores some boys and feminizes the others. They are rewarded for hewing to female norms. Boys who are boys have a troubled time in school.

Most boys have friends and hang out in groups. Gangs of boys are 300 times more common than gangs of girls. Boys clubs seem to know more about how to educate boys than teachers, schools, or child study experts. Boys learn by doing. They solve problems by being “in” them. Boys are united in flocks. It is almost impossible for them to avoid teamwork. Girls seldom get together in groups above four whereas for boys a group of four is almost useless.”

Says Jules Henry in Culture Against Men, in boys’ groups the emphasis is on masculine unity; in girls’ cliques the purpose is to shut out other girls.

School is the place where boys go to be shamed by girls. It’s never happened before in history. Schools set boys to competing with girls in subjects like handwriting where girls have, as we have seen, a biological fine-motor advantage. Girls aren’t required to pass baseball, where boys’ visuo-spatial aptitude gives them the advantage, but boys have to pass handwriting.

On a Sioux Indian reservation, Says Sexton:
“The misconduct condemned by authorities is a badge of honor for the boys.By the time he finishes eighth grade the Sioux Boy has many fine qualities: zest for life, curiosity, pride, physical courage, sensibility to human relationships, experience with the elemental facts of life, and intense group loyalty and integrity — none of which were learned in school. Nor has the school managed to teach any of its values: a narrow and absolute respect for “regulations” and “government property”, routine, discipline, diligence.”

What is the future of these vital human beings? Menial jobs and alcoholism, while women and manholes plot their grief on computer screens. We are making the American man and the Native American man obsolete.

We are killing off the very people who led their families across the land bridge from Asia 12,000 years ago as well as the men who took the ancient Greek ideal of Democracy and made it live again in a New World after 2000 years of dormancy. We have been invaded by the meme which asserts that the more organized society is the better it is. The better for whom?

Women and manholes.

College is the haven of middle class culture and feminized behavior, says Sexton. Boys who survive college are the ones who have been successfully feminized:

“A preschool boy grabs toys, attacks others, ignores teacher requests, wastes his time, asks for unnecessary help, laughs, squeals, jumps around excessively, is more tense at rest, stays awake in naps, breaks toys, rushes into danger, and handles sex organs more than girls. [No doubt the periodic onslaught of male hormonal secretions has something to do with this hyperactivity.] The preschool girl is more likely to avoid play, stay near adults, dawdle at meals, suck her thumb, avoid risk, fear high places, refuse to eat, twist her hair, and be jealous.”

An obvious feminist bias in the classroom is the meme that a physical blow is sinful or uncivilized whereas humiliating people and assaulting them with verbal blows and shame is perfectly OK. Any male would rather be punched than shamed. The punch goes away, the shame doesn’t.

Women turn emotions on and off like tap water. A woman can scream at her husband an hour after dinner and send him off to get drunk, watching TV in his room — then be ready to “give him some sex” a half hour later. These digital emotions belie how shallow the feelings are to begin with, and constitute a daily variety of emotional abuse. Men simply don’t do this to each other. If you taunt the opposing pitcher, he’ll throw you a beanball, not go off and get drunk in his room. We learn that in second grade. Women have ensconced vast cultural and judicial memes to prevent us from attacking them physically, but they think nothing of abusing us verbally and emotionally.

So, that’s a lot to take in. See, I could not have gone through all that stuff in under twenty pages. And I have nothing to add to it.

Next—and finally:

Conversations with women are abominably one-sided. We are supposed to adjust our raw perceptions to fit their mental precepts, their pigeon holes, their TV psychology buzz words. It’s like trying to talk to a gorilla about how to drive a car. If it isn’t yellow and sweet like a banana he doesn’t get the point.

It’s maddening to “talk” to a woman. That’s why a vast territory of intimacy is reserved for silence and sex. Sex is the main form of male intimacy. Why? Because it’s action. It’s something you do. I just got a massage which was a remarkable form of intimacy. Why? Because it was something she did. Men learned long ago that women’s talk about feelings has nothing to do with intimacy and everything to do with control. Our male bodies are tough and our minds don’t work in words.

A firm handshake means a lot, a mushy handshake means you’re dealing with a flake. A slap on the back is even better. It’s a jolt of energy. Tossing verbal darts at each other’s egos is another form of male intimacy. Men who spend too much time around women don’t have much of a knack for any of these intimacies. Ever kid a woman about her hairdo? Ever kid around with a judge about the law? Have you ever seen women slap each other on the back? Have you ever gotten more than a two-fingered, limp-wristed wiggle out of a woman who condescended to shake your hand? Touch, sex, and ego-puncturing are staples of male intimacy.

Have you ever seen a wide receiver get torpedoed ass-over-eyeballs by a linebacker–and then watched him get up and slap the linebacker’s shoulder, saying, “Nice hit”? He respected it. It “touched” him. Men touch each other. Women touch their kids, and, on a good night, their lovers.

Watch children play:
A boy is bending over his dump truck in a sandbox making BRRRBRRR noises, lost in a powerful, satisfying meme of the moment. A little girl comes over and sits on the edge of the box. She smoothes her curls and begins telling him that someday they are going to get married and live together in a big house and have a little baby, and they’ll each have their own car, his so he can get to work, and hers so she can go shopping and pick the baby up from daycare and–

He picks up a handful of sand and throws it at her. She runs off screaming to “teacher” that he hit her for no reason. What has she done to him?

1) She has destroyed the sacredness of the moment by involving him in some futurist plot which instinctively revolts him and threatens his freedom of action.

2) She has yanked him out of the imaginary world of his right brain and thrust him into a left brain verbal construct that leaves him gasping for meaning. She is not considering a single one of his intimate needs in her plot, and his gonads have not yet started raging to the extent that he actually buys into this shit. Finally he needs to shut if off. He throws sand, which no boy makes much of an issue about. She accuses him of wife abuse and he isn’t even five years old yet. Women are always trying to get men to be sensible — that’s their problem.

As time passes she will gain skill and become subtler in her approach, and once he no longer has mommy at hand to affirm him with praise he will be a walking wound in search of a bandage, a weary eagle looking for a safe place to land.

Okay, okay, I’ll end there. Rich Zubaty’s What Men Know That Women Don’t.

It seems I end up quoting that book in every other entry, but there’s so much in it that applies to so many different things.

Anyway, so it seems this exalted “talk culture” we have is really just something else that has another face, an ugly one, that isn’t shown on the text book covers.

We’ve become so entranced by feminine ideals (that is, our minds are so polluted by feminine memes) that we do not touch each other any longer; it’s like we’re afraid to. Well, for good reason: it’s virtually illegal. Watch the movie Demolition Man sometime—there’s our future.

Any activity in which a female touches you is utterly controlled by her. The only impulsive jolt of energy (negative energy?) you get from a woman is an elbow when you’ve said something she didn’t like.

I’m surprised there are no “designated touching areas” yet. Women go to “designated learning areas”—classes, “designated waiting areas”—standing in an organized fashion to wait to do something, “designated freak-out and movement areas for primarily pre-mating rituals”—dance clubs, they send their children to “designated play areas”—playgrounds—and arrange play dates, which are “designated play times with appropriate and pre-approved children.” Want to see your chick? Well, better make a date—a “designated meeting place for good-feeling social interaction and relationship talk.”

Ever get the feeling that women want everything possible organized and controlled, like furniture in a living room? Are the contents of their heads neat and tidy with all the furniture in the right places, all colour-coordinated, too? It certainly seems so.

Ever get a sense that women have no spontaneous impulses or creative energy or imagination whatsoever?

I was lucky; when I was a kid I played wherever the hell I wanted—the woods, ponds, fields, abandoned farms and old deserted houses, just about everywhere but a playground. My friends and I only went to the playground to chill out, to wait for whoever (used it as a meeting place), or to plan some trouble to get into when we were bored. We never actually used any of the silly junk there to “play” with. We were only 9 years old yet we considered it for babies. We had our imaginations and came up with tons of stuff way more interesting and fun than that lame crap. Sometimes we were on the swings, but this was, as I said already, just chillin’ out, and I only recall a handful of times I ever sat on a seat of a swing.

In a way I feel quite spoiled, because my childhood was awesome, when I look at boys today growing up under Mom’s heavy, controlling thumb. Especially stuck in a city, where creative options are extremely limited and so much is controlled, ruled, regulated utterly.

Almost everything—aside from making crank calls, playing video games, drawing wacky pictures, or making our own radio shows on cheap tape recorders—we did was physical. And yes, we got hurt, because some of it was dangerous. So? We learned. We learned to be more careful. (Telling a kid not to touch something hot does not teach the kid anything; he’ll only learn by burning his finger. Then, instead of fearing and not wanting to get in trouble with Mommy or Daddy, he actually respects it. He learns best through experience.)

We never rode our bikes with helmets, and we wiped out a few times but never hit our heads. I think I only grubbed out about five times in my life. Which is amazing considering all the crazy ass shite I did with my bike (s). Still, the places for crazy shite was seldom on pavement—only one painful and bloody wipeout on concrete was enough to teach me to stay on dirt and trails for that.

However, where I grew up there was lots of space, away from city life, before the great pedophile hysteria and paranoia that was to come, where there were no gangs or creeps or drug dealers. There were millions of places to go to get away from moms and adults’ watchful eyes.

It was a great childhood—and yes, I do feel really lucky that we had the freedom to be boys—to be masculine kids. School was exactly the opposite of this freedom.

Back to violence. In later years, we sparred with each other as we got into martial arts, played rough team sports, et cetera, all of which made us tougher and taught us more than we ever learned in school. And there were bullies. I hated bullies at the time, but later it dawned on me that they made me stronger and tougher than anything else did. Wiser, too. You can get pretty creative when avoiding bullies. And you learn a lot about yourself when you just have to fight someone. Now, I never liked fighting, but it taught me a lot about myself—from no other place or person could I have learned it. Even a bully has a purpose in the life of boys.

It was a violent childhood I had, and it was awesome.

7. Hypocritical.

The last point: anti-violence is inherently hypocritical.

Why?

Because life is violent.

We all “commit” acts of violence, every day, and yet we seem to recognize only pre-selected types, determined by others for the most part, and make a strong point to condemn them—all in the name of political correctness. Every time we take a shower, we’re violently killing life that’s on our bodies; every time we brush our teeth, the same; every time we eat something, we approved its violent destruction for our own selfish purposes (meaning our survival). Those creatures (that life) we just ate were killed against their will, all of them, even the plants, whose purpose is to survive and not be eaten, which we just did, and to do something so harmful against one’s will is obviously fucking violent.

Plants and trees strangle one another, moss and fungi grow all over them, and creatures use and abuse and lay eggs in and devour these plants and each other. Not one of them asks permission before it does what it does; not one of the natural forms of life on this planet talks nicely to you before they try to eat you, claw you up, lay eggs in your brain, crawl across your skin, steal your blood, eat your food, infest your bed to dine on your flesh during the night. There’s no discussion, no accounting for how you feel about it. You either defend yourself and prepare—and adapt and learn—or you are fucked. Extinct.

This is how life stays strong and continues. Through force. And force is violent. Life is violent. Sex is violent. It’s all violent. A brief, cursory look at Nature and you might think that it’s all lovely and at peace, but you’d be wrong. Everything is trying to kill or get away from everything else, and if not then everything’s trying fuck everything else.

Rains pours down, flooding rivers, bursting lake shores, soaking your head and back and putting you at risk of hyperthermia. It does think to ask if it’s okay with you. It just does it. Violently.

The winds blow and rip trees out of the ground, sending them crashing upon a bird and its clutch of eggs. The wind never apologizes. You better adapt to it or it will fling you off a cliff without remorse. You are forced to adapt to the weather, which is violent.

Lightning zaps down and thunder crashes, hurricanes roll and tear everything asunder, tornadoes churn and rip the earth to hell, lava sprays up and burns things alive and mountain tops explode, meteors become fireballs plummeting to the ground and shatter apart and start firestorms and evaporate portions of the ocean into steam…suns implode and explode, and none of them smile before they annihilate you.

This world, this entire fucking universe, is one big violent place. Chaos meeting order and battling forever, matter and energy constantly struggling with each other. There’s no compromising with a black hole. You get the fuck out of its way.

One looks at a cute bunny rabbit and might think it is a harmless creature.

Nothing could be further from the truth: it is a creature which violently rips living plant matter and eats it alive. It doesn’t ask permission or even give thanks, and makes no apologizes. It devours living things alive, and they perish as they are burned alive in its stomach acid after being shredded by sharp teeth. Those plants it ate are no longer alive: it just killed them.

Herbivores (and this includes the self-imposed “vegetarian or vegan” kind) kill the same as any other creature. They take by force what they want and eat it alive, not giving a shit about the form of life they’re munching into little bits. They need it; too bad for it. Survival comes first. Same as carnivores—but at least human meat eaters are more honest about what they’re doing. And they don’t try to appear saintly for killin this type of life as opposed to that type of life—nor do they guilt trip others for not following their cult. (And I’m not even going to get into the honour of hunting compared to the despicable and cowardly act of enslaving and controlling utterly a form of life in neat little rows for processing, profit, and human consumption…)

Just because the plant doesn’t scream as it’s being torn in half by a huge set of teeth—just because it doesn’t have legs to try to run away—it doesn’t make this killing any less violent. It’s as violent as a lion crushing the neck of an antelope before devouring its flesh. “Sucks to be you: I must eat,” think the herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores, as they kill….

Pretending it is something else is pure hypocrisy.

To think otherwise is rationalization and deep self-delusion. It is horrendous hypocrisy, and all vegetarians and vegans are hypocrites. It’s a little girl’s mind-set. The “prettification” of the vile, bloody, sticky, smelly, gut-splattered reality of the struggles of life. Pretend if you must, remain a child if you can’t handle the real world, stay a zealot of this Peace Cult if you have no strength to be something other, but face the fact for once in your lie-ridden life:

Life is violent. All life is violent. And so are you.

Esther Vilar, 1971. [Pinter & Martin Psychology. First published in Germany as “Der Dressierte Mann,” by C. Bertlesmann Velag, 1971. First published in Great Britain by Abelard-Schuman, 1972.]

This next part bewildered me for a while. I found myself throwing away much of what I thought I knew about women and why they do what they do. As much as I figured I knew, I see now how mistaken, naive, and silly I have been in so many ways. (Now I understand the bemused, smug little smirks I’ve gotten when I’ve told women a few observations I’d had about them, especially regarding their intentions. Christ, was I ignorant.)

Two reasons: I saw them as equals, and much of the information I’d had was based on things they’ve told me.

“Never, never, never believe what women tell you.”

Indeed. I shall always remember that.

“If women mostly lie, how can you be sure that Vilar herself isn’t lying?”

Thanks for asking.

I sense where a few things are coming from, but I’m not saying for certain or getting into that further, and it’s irrelevant ultimately; however, many (nearly all) of my lingering suspicions she’s confirmed (and I’m only halfway through it). The more I think about it, the more it fits. Each of her confirmations builds more trust in my assessment of her overall honesty (the fact that feminists hate her, wish her a painful demise, is evidence enough, as far as I’m concerned, that she’s very close to the truth). To say she simply hates her gender might be tempting (a) if you’re a retard, (b) if you haven’t read her book, realizing mainly that (c) she also has many unflattering things to say about men.

Anyway, she kicks ass.

Read and learn, my friends…

“a woman’s horizon”

P.31

“Whatever men set about to impress women with, counts for nothing in the world of women. Only another woman is of importance in her world.

“Of course, a woman will always be pleased if a man turns to look at her — and if he is well dressed or drives an expensive sports car, so much the better. Her pleasure may be compared to that of a shareholder who finds that his stock has risen. It will be a matter of complete indifference to a woman if he is attractive or looks intelligent. A shareholder is hardly likely to notice the colour of his dividend cheques.”

This is where I stopped and tried to get my head around that. Half an hour went by, searching my recollections of girlfriends, female family members, thinking, thinking…still nothing.

Could I still be viewing women’s actions and intentions as I myself would act, the reasons I do things?

Had to keep reading…

“But if another woman should turn to look — a rare occurrence, for her own judgment is infinitely more remorseless than that of a man — her day is made. She has achieved the impossible — the recognition, admiration, and “love” of another woman.

“Yes, only women exist in a woman’s world. The women she meets at church, at parent-teacher meetings, or at the supermarket; the women with whom she chats over the garden fence; the women at parties or window-shopping in the more fashionable streets; those she apparently never seems to notice — these women are the measure of her success or failure.”

This struck me. I recall one woman I lived with, Julie, who spent two hours painting and dressing and grooming herself (“For you,” she told me), but when I suddenly didn’t feel like going out…she got mad, implying that she had wasted all that time (for me) for nothing (?). She argued, offered some sex later (I wasn’t interested), and finally threw her arms in the air and called a couple of her friends. She went out with whom she wanted to impress after all (her girlfriends), although at the time I merely thought it odd that if she did all that for me, why couldn’t I appreciate her right here?

Heh. What a dope I was! Aw, bless their little self-obsessed, lying asses…

P.32

“Women’s standards correspond to those in other women’s heads, not to those in the heads of men; it is their judgment that really counts, not that of men. A simple word of praise from another woman — and all those clumsy, inadequate male compliments fall by the wayside, for they are just praises out of the mouths of amateurs. Men really have no idea what kind of world women live in; their hymns of praise miss all the vital points.

“Of course woman wants to please man as well; don’t let us forget, after all, that he provides the material means. But that is much more easily done. Men have been conditioned to react to a certain degree of differentiation: they expect women to conform to certain types of sex symbols created by make-up and other standard trappings: long hair, painted lips, tight-fitting sweaters, miniskirts, sheer stockings, high heels — all done in a moment.”

True. Some compliments I’ve made were greeted with what I figured were humble reactions—but ten minutes later, a compliment from another woman drew estatic reactions, squeals of joy, and random intervals of trivial, childish chatter and sycophantic ass-kissing.

(I doubt women really give a fuck if we notice their “new hairdo”—which looks roughly the same, anyway, or was one she had a few months earlier—it’s most likely only intended as the daily or bi-daily ritual guilt-trip, anyways.

Jesus, what truly shallow, useless, pathetic things they really are….)

“It is those living works of art that are beyond man’s comprehension — those creatures walking the fashionable streets of Paris, Rome, and New York. The skill of eyeliner and shadow expertly applied; the choice of lipstick and its application, with or without lipbrush, in several layers or only one; the compromise to be achieved between the pros and cons of false eyelashes, the matching of a dress, a stole, or a coat with the lighting — all this is an art requiring expert knowledge of which man has no conception. A man lacks any kind of appreciation for this. He has not learned to interpret the extent of female masquerades and he cannot possibly evaluate these walking works of art. To achieve perfection in such skill needs time, money and an infinitely limited mind — all these requirements are met by women.”

Heh. She had me going for a second upon first reading; I had begun to think she was describing all that “art” in a good sense—until the last sentence, at which point I burst out in laughter.

Her humour can be quite sharp and icy, without resorting to sarcasm of course. Great fucking stuff…

I recall my sister doing her make-up once, and I had asked why the hell she bothered with all that nonsense. “I have to look good…”

Another time she complained incessantly about her uncomfortable shoes—I was silly enough to suggest wearing footwear that was comfortable (how absurd!), and she went on a tirade about how the “man’s world” insisted that she wear certain kinds of fashionable shoes.

Christ, what a fucking liar.

Anyway…

P.33

“In fact, when a woman dresses, she considers a man to a slight extent — the extent necessary to hold him and to encourage him to provide (in the widest sense) for her. Every other investment is aimed at other women. Man has importance only as the provider.

If a firm wants to get hold of a specialist in some field, it will flatter and entice him in every possible way until he weakens. Once a contract is signed, his employers can relax. Their leverage over him continues to increase. A woman behaves in much the same way with a man. She gives her man just enough rope to ensure his preferring life by her side to breaking his contract with her.

“A woman may, in fact, be compared to a firm in a number of ways. After all, a firm is only an impersonal system aimed at achieving a maximum profit. And what else does a woman do?”

Go shopping? Act like a spoiled twit? Blame the patriarchy?

“Without any emotion — love, hate, or malice — she is bound to the man who works for her. Feelings only become involved if he threatens to leave.”

Bingo. Give the woman a cigar. In my experiences that’s 100% correct; her “emotions” really come out when you’re about to walk out. (It happens in a lesser degree if you reject her sexually, too.)

(Tears will be last or second-last—sometimes angry name-calling is last, once she’s realized that nothing she says will change your mind, as does the threats, which are often not just empty threats…so watch it. A non-moral creature without conscience, who takes no responsibility for what she does, will rarely be held accountable for what she does (even legally), is extremely dangerous…she’ll suck your best friend’s cock just to get him to pound your face in, then tell the cops that he raped her, fucking you both over—it’s happened. Don’t think for a second that because she’s small, “sweet” and cute that she isn’t capable of giggling while she slices your throat, or—more common—scheming with another to have him do it for her.)

A woman fears not “being alone” but rather—or not as much as she fears—being without a provider, a sucker to pay for her endless shit. Doesn’t matter if she has her own “career;” statistics show that she will always marry up, always be looking for a man who earns more—for what other reason than to quit her “career” at some point and leech off him? Give it a think.

Meanwhile…

“Then her livelihood is at stake. As this is a rational reaction with a rational cause, it can be rationally dealt with and adjusted to. She can also place another man under contract. How different is her reaction from those of a man who finds himself in a similar position. He is racked by jealousy, humiliation and self-pity — but she is emotionless.”

“A woman would hardly ever feel jealous in such a situation, since the man is leaving her only for another woman and not in order to be free. In her eyes he is not improving his situation in any way. The adventure of a man’s love for a new woman is nothing more than a nuisance. She is seeing it all from the angle of an entrepreneur who loses his best worker to a competitor. As far as woman is concerned, the heartache involved is nothing more than a reaction to letting good business go elsewhere.”

Ouch.

More later…

Edit. More now…

“Consequently, it is quite absurd for any man to think his wife is being faithful merely because she does not go off with other men — men who, in his eyes, are more attractive. Provided he is working hard and is supplying all the things that really matter to her, why should she? A woman’s faithfulness has nothing in common with that of a man. Women are, in contrast to men, practically immune to the looks of the opposite sex. If a woman flirts with her husband’s best friend, her intention is to annoy his wife, whose feelings do matter, unlike those of her own husband. If she felt deeply for the man in question, she would never show her emotions in public.”

Well, I feel that has changed. Women are more liberal about cheating, and since laws have been changed over the years (including “no fault divorce” for example), they’ve become more brazen overall. With divorce so easy and so advantageous to women right now, she can grind him into the dust and when he’s had enough and complains, she can split, take everything he has, the kids, get child support, and find another sucker to financially milk in another marriage, while she’s still getting paid from the last one.

Good business sense, actually.

P.34

“In pluralistic sex practices such as wife-swapping, which has now taken over from flirtation as a pastime, it is the other wife who is the object of the attack. History is full of anecdotes about male potentates enjoying themselves with many mistresses at the same time, but there are few such stories about females potentates. A woman would be bored to tears with an all male-harem. This has always been the case and will remain so.”

I disagree. A glimpse into the BDSM world alone, for example, quasi-vicariously through my sister, reveals to me that some women would really enjoy male harems (my sister would…) so long as the men are tied up and subjected to physical stress, humilation and debasement, or out-right torture (what deluded, control-freak, power-tripping sadsacks like my sister calls “sex play”—along the same line of euphemistic thinking that inspires such mangina rulers in communist dictatorships to call their nations “Democratic Peoples Republics”—or haughty effeminate twats in the West to call this sickening corporate clusterfuck a “democracy”).

Two of my girlfriends seemed to genuinely love sex (my first girlfriend didn’t mind being called a slut—she wanted sex twice a day, at least), from what I gathered of their overall relationships (I recall one, a non-girlfriend from my teen years, Melissa, who unconsciously bit her half-smirking lip at the hypothetical prospect of being gang-banged). But, then again, who the hell knows—they were both liars.

I think most women generally downplay their enjoyment of sex, so that the man gets the impression he’s getting the better deal out of it (how hilarious!), but since they lie so much and believe their lies, or mix truth with lies, one really does not know what they like, or how much, or when it’s applicable, and I doubt they themselves do either—until someone (their friends, the TV, a man they respect (rare), a music video, a milk cartoon, or a horde of rich, prissy, privileged, scowling, moronic screeching fembags) tells them what to think or feel.

So, I disgree, but I’m uncertain to the extent with which I disagree, because women are rarely if ever truthful, especially regarding sex (the base of their power). Woman’s shameless and selfish libido has come out of the closet since the 1970s (expressed in boldly misandrist “fuck n chuck” shows like “Sex in the City,” et cetera, un-heard-of even in the supposedly ‘swinging’ decade in which Vilar wrote this), that’s all that’s really certain.

“If women reacted to a man’s external apperance, every current advertisment scheme would be useless. According to statstics, it is the female sector of the population who spends the most money — money men earn for them. Manufactureers do not attempt to stimulate sales by advertisements displaying handsome he-men. On the contrary. No matter what they want to sell — package holidays, detergents, cars, bedroom suites, television sets — each advertisment flaunts a beautiful woman.

“Only very recently have film producers realised that a handsome hero is not essential to the success of a film. Women are quite content with an ugly star — Jean-Paul Belmondo, Walter Matthau or Dustin Hoffman. And naturally men prefer them. With their sense of physical inferiority due to the fact that they only very rarely consider themselves beautiful, they find it easier to identify with an ugly star. As long as there is a beautiful female lead, a film with an ugly male star will be enjoyed by women as much as a movie starring Rock Hudson. For, in reality, they are interested only in the women in the film.”

With the expection of the very last sentence (women only caring about female characters), all that has changed since the 1980s. More effeminate men (like Johnny Depp, for example) became more popular, and then Brad Pitt and company into the 1990s. In Vilar’s decade, their were still movie-makers making movies with male audiences in mind; this is not so today. It’s extremely rare (save the rare Private Ryan type of flicks—masculine themed, usually revolving around WWII, sports—like boxing and football, or cop-criminal cliched tripe, et cetera, but usually with some romantic schlock tossed in to draw in the predictable and unimaginative gender) to find an actually masculine move these days. Fight Club was the last hugely masculine film to come out since The Thing in 1982 (which had an all-male cast and creation team—and which, even back then, received flak from fembags).

As for ads and commercials, well, there are men now in them, here and there, about the same ratio as when I was grewing up under the TV’s glow as a kid in the 1980s. With the exception of shaver and beer commercials, though, the men are typically dumb clucks, goofballs, or dorks, with a wise, sensible, and good-looking woman nearby to set him straight in some way, or to show how buying a lawn chair will increase your sexual chances, of course.

P.35

“The reason men have remained blind to facts like these for such a long time is that they have been misled by the attacks women make on each other. When they hear a woman make derogatory remarks about another — her nose is too big, chest too flat, hips too wide, legs crooked — men, of course, assume that they can’t stand each other or that women are not attracted to by another woman’s beauty.

Yet how wrong they are. Any businessman, for example, who spends his life praising his competitors in front of his employees would be thought quite mad. Before long, half his best workers would have moved to the other firm. It is the same game that politicians play. Of course they have to blacken each other’s names, but if the American President got stranded on a desert island, he would surely prefer the company of Castro to the much praised man-in-the-street who only elected him. After all, they have very little in common.”

Nicely put. Except for Dubya maybe—he’d be content with an intellectual equal: a feminist or perhaps a patch of lettuce.

Here comes a kick to the teeth…

“If women were free of financial cares, the majority of them would probably prefer to spend their lives in the company of other women rather than men — and not because they are all lesbians. What men call lesbian tendencies probably have little to do with a woman’s sexual drive. No — the sexes have almost no interests in common. Wht, besides money, can bind a woman to a man?”

Cannot argue with that. As we are seeing (relationships, divorce), women generally do not need men for much anymore, not that they’ve been installed in business and are earning their own money, even though many who are working would rather be sitting at home, doing nothing much except ordering crap over the phone while watching Oprah. Hopefully, this trend continues (you heard me) to such a degree that men will wake the fuck up and realize that their lives are a series of acts pandering to women; more might get a clue that they haven’t been married three times because something’s wrong with them (other than being pussy-whipped and essentially feminine thinkers) but rather because they’re being toyed with psychologically, MANipulated, only to be financially drained by counterproductive, avaricious, semi-brain-dead whores.

Or not. We’ll see.

At any rate, men need women about as much as they need us now—like a hammer needs a spoon. We have the means to breed more humans without them, so I see no other function they might serve. Except for early death and agony for men, global greed (MATER-ialism) and overpopulation, what practical purpose does woman serve humanity?

An artificially skinned, supple fembot, some sort of cyborg, could replace woman quite nicely, in every way (and would actually help out, work—yunno, like doing stuff). We could have mute buttons unstalled, or simply have them with software, shipping with voice or without…and then man can have a slave for a change and kick back a while (for the first time in 8,000 years). Our combined technological efforts should really be channeled into replacing woman—she is practically begging to be replaced, demonstrating her immeasurable redundancy and consistently historical banality, so this is one last thing to which we should say, “Yes.”

Give me one good reason why not. I dare you. I double dare you, fatherfucker. Just one. Anyone? Anyone at all?

(No, “because” is not a reason, kiddo.)

Until then, we can have a species divorce: separate the sexes and divide up the globe equally, with men on one side and women on the other (boys with us, girls with them—dogs with us, cats with them—meat with us, veggies with them). There. Let’s sort this shit out right and proper.

Christ, think of all men could accomplish! The combined genius of man, without distractions and nagging twaddle, and questions of whether we took the trash out (we could finally set off into the stars, for fucksakes), while women are trying to run their cities (made by men, along with everything in them) without the manual labour that, with not even so much as a single fucking ‘Thank You’ in return, men have generously provided for them over the eons, and hiring some grunting butch to kill spiders for the rest of them, eating nothing but cucumbers with bean curd dip after the microwaves stop working because of mass power failure due to the usual ineptitude…

Heh. I could go on, but I need a rest; looking at what women would have to face (what percentage of women in this Western society have done an honest day’s work in their entire pampered little lives?–huh?–3% at most?) in practical terms (doing all of men’s jobs, plus their own, plus keeping everything—that we invented—running smoothly and efficiently…is just too fucking funny.

“Women make ideal living companions for each other. Their feelings and instincts are retarded at the same primitive level and there almost no individualistic or eccentric women. It’s It isn’t difficult to imagine the paradise they would create together and how exciting their existence would be, even if the intellectual level was appallingly low. But who would worry about it?”

Aye.

But enough harsh, semi-humourous antics for now.

“Girl, don’t go away mad—just go away.”

—Motley Crue.