All posts tagged femininity

“Love is a fog that burns away in the first light of reality.”

–Charles Bukowski.

“Love is what you want it to be,
“Love is heaven to the lonely,
“Show me what you want me to do,
“Cuz love is what I got for you.”

–Alannah Myles.

“Love doesn’t come unbidden; you must work for her.”

–Roman saying.

[March, 2012 edit: I began writing this back in early 2008, back when I was with my ex-girlfriend and we were “doing well.” It was one of those “doing well” times in which one feels as though he’s going to be with that person forever, and I certainly felt as if I could spend the rest of my life with her, and have kids, all that. I’d cared more about her than I had cared for anyone else, and felt I’d had more of a “connection” to her than anyone I’d ever met. I never thought about all this much—what is between a couple shoukd be done and not talked about…when it’s being talked about much constantly, it means nothing is being done, nothing is developing, growing; “talk” is not sharing or understanding or communicating (there are better ways to communicate—talking is just a clumsy left-brained way), is it dissecting, controlling, using words as tools and words to rip minds apart.

At any rate, it was the perfect time to write about “love” since, if I’d used such words, I would have said I loved her. And thus I could be taken seriously without being instantly dismissed as someone bitter or hurt or (“You’re trashing love just because you don’t have it and want it!”) *whatever* knee-jerk attack or whichever label is used to judge and dismiss someone writing about “love” with anything but a glowing, smiling, glorifying attitude. To be sure, one who is alone and speaks unkindly about “love,” well, obviously we tend to examine motives rather than look at any potential meaning there. “Love” is definitely a cult; we go through it religiously and respond to attacks of our “Faith” with viciousness, coldness and brutal cruelty. Its followers are more terrible than those batshit-crazy religious zealots, more pigheaded than any Flat-Earther. The deeper we are a member of the cult of “love,” the less we will look at objectively; the more we are a slave to the one we “love,” the less we will see and wish to see, the less will understand or want to understand. We long to remain oblivious, blissful in the chemical reactions entreating our brains, being validated and accepted and praised by another, being freed—if only temporarily—from constant shame…and we don’t want to face reality, hear the truth, or lose this drugged out feeling; we certainly don’t wish to hear about what fools, liars, and slaves we are, how “love” is the most horrible lie ever perpetuated, how we are all willing servants to its ongoing stranglehold on human consciousness….]

    Peace, Love, & Happiness

Part Two

The Cult Of “Love”


Yes, El Nordo finally worked up enough thought power and courage to tackle my least-favourite subject. (I’ll park this in my Politically Incorrect section and suggest that any feminine individuals should really, seriously stop reading now—nasty words and a big meaty, cylindrical ego-slamming is coming up for you, my little smooth-skinned, sweet-smelling, precious, gentle readers, …so leave now and you won’t have to think. Stay safe!
***winks and cuddles*** )

Why least-favourite? Because one can only talk “openly” and “honestly” about love EXCEPT in some popular or positive (or mystical) manner. That’s the truth, folks. As a concept, it’s as religiously defended as Catholicism still is today.

As far as women go, anyway; guys usually don’t do that with other guys who talk of “love;” they at times shame them in some way to never talk about it again (it’s kinda fruity, I suppose, in some people’s minds, to discuss subjects that are entirely feminine, of course), but when they do talk about it, it’s far different and less prosaic than the way women talk about it. It’s less cliched, perhaps. I’m not exactly sure.

The moment you say anything negative or even truthful about love (because let’s face, nothing is 100% “good”—not even “love”), you’ll be picked at—your “love life” will be dissected along with your character to find out what personal reasons you have for such a belief. (In effect, you’ll be seen as a lost sheep whose run astray from the Walmart-Smilie-Face World of the “relationship herds.”)

[Now…out of that little beginning light-herded onslaught, I said three heavy things—1: it’s like a religion. I believe this is so for most people, most women in particular, and their notions of “love.” Get to that later. Second and third coming right up…]

See what happened there? (2) Unless your thoughts on love are the usual ooie-gooie-sickly-sweet variety (or at least neutral, scientific, which is ignored most often anyway—no one wants to hear what science says on love…that’s like a politician talking about art—monkey pooh), you’ll basically be labeled as something (bitter, biased, angry, or some other, similar short-cut to actual thinking, that invalidates everything you say and think and leaves it all at the floor of modern pop-psychology, as meaningless “problems” of yours, unsolvable except through submission to or agreement in some doctrine or common theory—which is not scientifically based at all—psychology = another religion), and it’s something that female armchair shrinks enjoy like nothing else (save shopping, masturbating, and eating), “debating” with men on subjects like love and attacking them and not their points, for what you think, feel, or what you’ve observed over the course of your life matters more to them than what you say—which they don’t listen to at all, merely hear and strike like a tennis racket back at your head. Yes, you have “problems”—that’s why “love” smells like a box of Fecal Hoax Flakes to you. It’s all your fault, sir.

No, it’s not. Don’t listen to them. They probably know less than you do, which is why they’re being so dismissive in the first place. I mean, think about it—how many feminists are happy or in “healthy and mutually satisfactory relationships?” (How many people are in general? How many are actually honest about what they have with the person to whom they’ve bound themselves?

“Things are fine!”

Right. Until you spend some time with them and their “significant” other and you begin to see; their phony public facade can’t be kept up %100 of the time; they dismantle it at home, albeit partially when company is over. But it always comes down eventually and the truth can be seen. Every single one of these “relationships” are “dysfunctional”—because female-male “relationships” have not functioned for thousands of years and cannot function in this setting, this environment….But that’s another story. Point is, we’re all grand liars when it comes to “love.” Like any religious person, we have to lie to ourselves to keep the bullshit rolling along and “be happy.”)

Taking a serious position on love means to unravel its “mystery” also, and that’s another unrecommended thing to do. It basically depends who you discuss/debate with this stuff; women seem to feel they invented love and know all about it. (They do—by the time they’re in their twenties to early thirties, most women fancy themselves as experts on love, especially if they’re single and hip on women’s magazines and the usual generational books that shares with them all the mistakes of their mother’s generation, which they promptly repeat.) They don’t know “all about it,” and they didn’t invent it of course, but it’s typical, I find, that they need to build themselves up into something more than they really are (and I understand why, so that’s not really my point); but that’s more deception. Women don’t know more about “love” than you or any man does; they just act like it. They convince themselves and each other that they are, but even the most blockheaded male hesitates to trust a woman especially if she claims she so adept in love. Why? Had she been so adept, she’d be in a 60-year marriage or “relationship” or common law. I’m sure some do, and are in healthy, so-called “loving relationships.” But most aren’t, hence most know little of love.

(Did you see what also took place higher up?—3: “in some people’s minds, to discuss subjects that are entirely feminine, of course…”

Yes. Whatever notions exist today of love, we seem to know or only care to know the female side (as usual—this is entirely a female world, so “love” shouldn’t be excluded from the list of things they ultimately control or strive manically to control, in every possible way); meaning that a question needs asking: what is the “masculine side” of “love?” Yet even that question is too soon to be posted.)

It’s a tangle—to get into or discuss. I’ve already insulted some women, a few times, and everyone in general just getting into what happens when you start talking about “love.” People who gear most of their adult lives to “love” are obviously going to be insulted if someone comes along and brazenly calls them “fools.” But after a few “relationships” they already know what fools we are all. But I wonder if they know what a religion “love” is…

Biases must be revealed with this subject. And it must be approached in some manner of structure, so I’ll start again…

1. What is “Love?”

This seems to be the most important question, the most relevant.

Seems to me that everything begins with that. It seems there many types of love. Everyone knows what love is—we do, but what we know is hardly ever expressable or even understandable (I can spend twenty years buying various items, tucking away bits of rope in my trunk, a few years later finding a knife and cleaning it, sharpening it, all the while living my calm and productive life…and suddenly use these items when something “clicks” in my brain and take an airport hostage and get twelve people blown up in a premature bomb explosion. Just an example—the mind works in unconscious ways only the most aware can see—and still not completely understand.) There is so much we know but only fractions we ever understand, by the time we’re dead.

Love, I think, is one of them. “Love,” I should say. What the fuck is it?

Let’s check the dictionary…

love “luhv” – noun, verb, loved, lov·ing.
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): “Would you like to see a movie, love?”
6. a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7. sexual intercourse; copulation.
8. (initial capital letter) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid.
9. affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one’s neighbor.
10. strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books.
11. the object or thing so liked: The theater was her great love.
12. the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.
13. Chiefly Tennis. a score of zero; nothing.
14. a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L.
–verb (used with object)
15. to have love or affection for: All her pupils love her.
16. to have a profoundly tender, passionate affection for (another person).
17. to have a strong liking for; take great pleasure in: to love music.
18. to need or require; benefit greatly from: Plants love sunlight.
19. to embrace and kiss (someone), as a lover.
20. to have sexual intercourse with.
–verb (used without object)
21. to have love or affection for another person; be in love.
—Verb phrase
22. love up, to hug and cuddle: She loves him up every chance she gets.
23. for love,
a. out of affection or liking; for pleasure.
b. without compensation; gratuitously: He took care of the poor for love.
24. for the love of, in consideration of; for the sake of: For the love of mercy, stop that noise.
25. in love, infused with or feeling deep affection or passion: a youth always in love.
26. in love with, feeling deep affection or passion for (a person, idea, occupation, etc.); enamored of: in love with the girl next door; in love with one’s work.
27. make love,
a. to embrace and kiss as lovers.
b. to engage in sexual activity.
28. no love lost, dislike; animosity: There was no love lost between the two brothers.
[Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE lufu, c. OFris luve, OHG luba, Goth lubō; (v.) ME lov(i)en, OE lufian; c. OFris luvia, OHG lubōn to love, L lubére (later libére) to be pleasing; akin to lief]

—Synonyms 1. tenderness, fondness, predilection, warmth, passion, adoration. 1, 2. Love, affection, devotion all mean a deep and enduring emotional regard, usually for another person. Love may apply to various kinds of regard: the charity of the Creator, reverent adoration toward God or toward a person, the relation of parent and child, the regard of friends for each other, romantic feelings for another person, etc. Affection is a fondness for others that is enduring and tender, but calm. Devotion is an intense love and steadfast, enduring loyalty to a person; it may also imply consecration to a cause. 2. liking, inclination, regard, friendliness. 15. like. 16. adore, adulate, worship.
—Antonyms 1, 2. hatred, dislike. 15, 16. detest, hate.

Blah blah blah. There we go. Essentially, it could mean anything. Any fucking thing! I love garlic shrimp, and I love dogs…but not in the same way. Context, levels, personal experience.

Conclusion: the word is simply and completely meaningless.

That’s why I don’t talk often of it and why I cringe when I see people use it as a name—such as: “Well, Love is great.”

Sorry, but it’s not a person or such. Hence: “I don’t ‘Love Pizza.’ I don’t think pizza is divine and so do not capitalize it, or ‘love.'” You can see tell a lot about people by which (and how many) words they capitalize. The resolve to make something a big deal—a bigger deal than it is…think about about twenty years of putting that extra effort into capitalizing a word, one word that you type, what? A few times a week? A day? Say, it was “Day.” Every Day, typing and capitalizing that special word, “Day,” each and every-Day, even ThursDay…

(I will sometimes capitalize “Nature,” for one reason: it’s the total sum of all life on this planet. If one capitalizes “John” because he’s a living being, why should we not capitalize all Life on the planet? That’s my point here, merely. Even though “Nature” isn’t a deity, not “divine,” nor is it a person or female figure or dude with a goat’s head or bird’s head. Nature *comprises*—like All comprises, except Nature does it in small, “Life’s Franchise on Earth,” for our planet and was around far longer than humans and thus has *nothing* to do with us. Masculine and feminine are not human inventions either. That’s biology, too—Biology even. Big “E” on evolution even; these are massively old systems, part of a far older one called Life, in which we’re only recent and very, very minor members. That’s what I reason, anyway—so get a grip, I say, on this bloody ego-tripping where humans are concerned…)

You get the point; so, the more you write, the more accumulated effort goes into that extra effort to make certain words “divine.” Deification, objectification. This is religion in operation and nothing besides religion …

(A million tiny shift+”D” add up, yunno, so consider a million people doing that for a thousand years, every Day, and we now have an accumulated “extra effort” that equals an avalanche crushing clean the side of a mountain, don’t we? Eventually, we do. I’ve seen religious types write about God is this way: “GOD is great!” I’ve seen people capitalize nearly every word in every sentence they write. Anyway…)

So, we’ve established that “love” is many things. Generally, I see human love as no different than love in nature…let’s consider…

2. “Natural love?”

What is the quintessential difference in social behaviour between humans and other mammals? Let’s review the three major differences between human animals and non-human animals, for that purpose. There are only a few key differences between homo sapiens (sapiens) and our common (extant) ancestor, chimpanzees, in no order…

A. Humans have written, spoken, and symbolic language.

B. We are fully bipedal, housing a large neocortex which has grown large under such locomotion.

C. We have opposing thumbs. (Tool-making, manipulating matter in environments.)

That’s it, physically. Metaphysically, the biggest different is consciousness, self-awareness, sentience—“being aware that we’re aware” and for all we know, other mammals have this too—and we know we’re going to die…as far as we can discern, no other animal comprehends its own mortality, not actively. But here is the problem because we barely understand consciousness—because humans are only barely conscious, newborns, themselves. So we don’t know an animal’s dreams…does a dog dream of dying? Does he fear it? Probably fears the dark, the end, pain, injury, bad smells, disease, death, all the things in symbol and sense form that point to its demise; but there just isn’t any good evidence that a dog, or chimp, is aware of its own death.

Hence only humans kill themselves?

There are more similarities between human and non-human animals—and the similarities are all subjective: we simply do not and cannot know what other animals think, dream, or conceive.

And love? What differences…?

Let’s look at similarities. Every mammal species that I’ve studied, every social species, like mice, dogs, have similar behaviour to that of humans. I see no distinction between “love” in dogs compared with humans.

1. Both care for young. Each mother and father of both species is capable of great affection towards offspring (as for dogs, they actually display *more* “love” because there are no orphans in wolf species, for example; the same cannot be said of all human cultures).

—Humans also harm their babies, infants, at far higher degrees than other mammal species; the abortion rates in humans are far higher than any other ape species or any mammal species (reptiles seem to be more like us, or vice versa, but they lay enormous numbers of eggs and only a fraction make it—predators take them and parents, like crocs and gators, don’t guard them for very long once they’ve hatched; no, human female mothers seem much like insects, actually: spiders are the only other (natural) example in nature of a gender of a species which kills its own offspring at such high rates).

(For example, do a bit of research into non-abortion deaths of children—a wholly female crime, you’ll see, in nearly every country on this planet; into the high 90s percent-wise, female to male ratios tipped asburdly in favour of mother murderers. Every year, we see infact mortality rates in humans at levels higher than it would be proportionate for other species with our numbers. Mice probably out-number humans, on Earth, and only here have I witnessed (as with rats, other heavy-breeding, large-litter mammals), yet they have predators to naturally curb their ever-growing numbers, at the lower of the food web. I wonder if domestic mice kill their young in greater numbers than do wild mice? Domestic mice have no predators…

With humans, our “love” notwithstanding, our treatment of our children, collectively as a species, is enough for any thinking person (who has studied most other mammal species or has at least a vague understanding of how dog and mice and wolf and alligator parents behave in their environments—if not, the person might think humans all oh-so-superior here “too”) to wonder if the differences between how humans love and how animals love…might be lopsided, not in our favour (but then again, I wouldn’t want to put forth any radical ideas here…).

—Humans abuse children. Period.

(This doesn’t occur naturally in other mammals; where it does, it is extremely rare and linked to an extraordinary set of circumstances (a father lion may kill cubs that aren’t his—this is not evil, or abuse, though: this is ensuring that his genes get passed on and that he’s not wasting resources caring for children that aren’t his; females “sleeping around” in nature is widespread, actually, and males do it too, but not as much; it’s “normal;” human females don’t, either, nor males, take naturally to monogamy, which is not that common among mammals. Only in social mammals does it get into couplehood, and even then, as in humans, a (very) kindly estimated 30% of all fathers, human male fathers, in the world are raising kids that are from another man, and their wives didn’t tell them.) But as far as abuse, no other species is so barbaric with its young.

Fathers abuse, yes, but mother abuse their kids (especially boys) moreso as infants; I can’t understand why this isn’t a bigger issue—abortion has a nice politcal built-in excuse, I get that, but I cannot tolerate mothers getting away with murder and sexual abuse and physical, and psychological, abuse with their kids, while all the vile negativity gets spewed at fathers, fewer in number than abusive numbers, who give all fathers a bad name. It’s gotten worse over the last three decades in which we’ve observed 50-60% divorce rates and 50% fatherlessness among boys and girls. I judge a species when I must on one basis: how it cares for its children. This is not “love;” this is politics, cruel feminization, social engineering, and clear evidence that animals in natural settings know more about “love” than we could ever dream…

So, I’m not too impressed with “human love” thus far. Let’s continue…

2. Both have sex—consentual?

—Saying that human animals and non-human animals both do the funky mombo is a no-brainer, sure, but what’s the difference? We both screw—“lust” is what it is, of course, naturally, the hormonal and chemical attraction betwen genders that Nature set up to continue the various species. A big difference is that it works very well in nature, and it worked (past tense) very well in humans…until we started farming and overpopulating—then it got managed like everything else got managed. Marriage.

—Hunter-gatherers had three things modern humans do not have:

i. Social balance. (Men kept to their strengths, women kept to theirs. In Inuit societies, men switched roles regularly with the women—girls were given the exact same education as the boys, initated as hunters away from moms, got. Boys were given domestic training—how to sew, skin, cook, and such.)

ii. Interpersonal freedom.

iii. Lower numbers, of course (which, for one thing, increased flexibility overall, and let smaller tribes move around freely with little crime and war, compared with civilizations, naturally. The more nomadic, the less war. It’s as simple as that—the more farming, the more “civilized,” the more war (whose root is materialism—the more want for “more”) and hence more barbarism. Less troubles all around in society and inbetween men and women. Strange how we got that backwards…)

(Am I saying we should bo back to hunter-gatherer life? No, I’m simply pointing out that “love” seemed still natural to us long ago. North American nomads are among the most devoted to family, community, and are children-orientated as well—there was no common term for “orphan” in northern North America before Eurasian expansion.)

But even women in hunter-gatherer groups controlled sex. Or it was mutually arranged or settled into, and it became tradition.

In the natural world, sexual consent is not a communication piece; females use chemicals and body signals to display to males when they’re ready to breed, mate, pair up, whichever. “Make love.” Fuck.

Scientists are discovering more and more that other mammals have a better system going for them—males don’t “rape” because females aren’t in conscious control and their bodies tell the males when it’s time; when it’s not time, the females fight off, aggressively, advances and the males back off. It is not to their advantage to fight for something another female can offer, if he wants it bad enough. So, he leaves her be. That’s how it works in nature. Females have teeth, but males don’t seem to force the matter anyway—there’s “tail” around other places, and his feet work, I guess. If he’s an Alpha male or not, it seems he won’t risk injury, the way some mothers won’t risk themselves to fight off a predator who’s going after her infant; she can always have more and will often let the predator have it. Nature plays by some cold rules, but humans play by downright vicious ones.

Even sex has become moronic among humans, and it’s no one’s fault, really—it was the cost of bigger brains and “civilized” lives. Men are pretty much slaves now to the whims of women, and have been since dogs were first domesticated, then us—why? They control sex. They control its advertising, its distribution, its access, and everything that follows intercourse. Mainly, it’s not sex at all that enslaves men; it’s the potential for sex that women use to get us to do all sorts of things, as we all know and don’t discuss that much, because there is nothing we can do but resist, ultimately.

(It’s no secret the human female controls whether a human male “gets laid”—she’s the gatekeeper, right? He, the keymaster, awaiting orders. He’s got to pay her price to do what his biology drives him to do, but she’s pulling all the strings. She’s replaced former chemical signals with her own conscious rules—and now we have approaching 7 billion humans on the planet.

He has no birth control pill to prevent his seed from getting her pregnant…so, guess what? He has to trust her, with that, as well… once more he must trust a gender who’s track record with the truth, is, well, not as good as his, to be mildly kind here.)

Men, we can only scratch our heads and wonder, ultimately—there’s no chemical signals we can use to determine when she’s (really) in estrus, if she’s faking it, if she’ll change her mind halfway through, if she’s been drinking too much (and if he has too, and if he’ll be charged with rape, jailed and then really raped, where dicks really aren’t supposed to go), or if that other kid is ours or not (and why it’s becoming illegal for us to check through paternity tests, as if feminists really want ‘female ethical oblivion’), if she’s really taken that birth control pill.

She can always kill it, in utero, or smash its head in when it’s born and cling to a “depression” defense, and get off after a year in therapy, after which she’ll likely do it again—stats show, anyway.

Lipstick? No, that might not mean she’ll take an equal role in sex, guys, it could mean something else entirely (“I wear it for me!”); the clothes, perfume, hair, bras and thongs, finely polished appearance? No, they’re not at clubs painted up and air-humping for you, pal, that’s for some other reason they can’t talk about…

A smile and batting eyelashes? Hair twirling? No, there’s lots of guides about female signals, but no good ones—they’re all pretty much useless as much as they’re good info, because it “all depends.” It’s a game, her game, and it’s all deception, innuendo, flirts and winks. Kid stuff, I say, but that’s only an educated opinion.

It’s a world of female rules and games, “modern romance” is, but we were talking about “love.” Not social groups of dubious intentions. In other mammals, it takes a fraction of the time and the males don’t end up paying so much to be “so blessed” by female companionship.

That’s what I like about Nature—a wild dog can walk up to a female, wag his tail, sniff her ass, and find out her entire story, how healthy she is, how many kids she’s had, how long ago she’s eaten, had sex, all that stuff human males have to ask about and filter through their various “bullshit-o-meters.” A wild dog can cut through the shit and there’s nothing hidden from him—no lies he must wade through, no books he must read. He just knows, and she can hide nothing from him. It’s all truthful, simple, and out in the open. That’s what we’ve lost, guys—truth and openness.

And now we’re trimming our hair and shaving our faces and spending all our money on products and clothes and cars and crap to impress females…confused and wondering and hoping. We are now idiots. Dull slaves with no clue what we’re really getting into anyway…

Nature is honest when it comes to love. A black widow male knows that hideous sexy black bitch is gonna rip his head off and eat it if he doesn’t fill her up (I’m sure he caught the joke sometime about the praying mantis…), pay the price for her “love,” her presence and companionship, such as it is, and the future offspring after the fleeting moment of copulation (and the offspring’s perilous plight away from her indiscriminately hungry, web-flinging digits); mostly he’ll get away…if he doesn’t love her too much and stay—if he runs away, he’ll live.

Think about that.

Why? A black window female is intensely feminine—that is the primal “feminine made flesh” in Nature, in small, going way back to simple arachnids that crawled onto land from the sea (from simple crab forms over 75 million years back to 70-80 million spider species worldwide, today, in every ecosystem, on every continent, in nearly every climatic zone or terrain region or nearly every elevation you’ll find one type; an average Boreal forest has hundreds of species in a given square foot of underbrush—these species are far more adaptable, of course, is what I’m getting at, but they don’t “love,” obviously…).

Its nature is wholly feminine but at an older, much more streamlined level in terms of evolution. All the base, primal things in Nature that helps “the feminine” survive (as one half of whatever gender) can be found this non-hunting (non-masculine) species of spider. Reptiles and amphibians have this insectile feminine, too, and so do human females—on the left sides on their brains, I expect. That said, males have “half” this nature as well. Not all mammal males are hunters, and not all human males are, either. (In case you’re wondering, an example of a “masculine spider” species, well, any hunting one that doesn’t ensnare with webbed traps; a scorpion is an arachnid that is extremely masculine…it hunts, hides, ambushes, runs after and attacks with an extra digit (a phallic one, of course), a stinger—which is a poisonous spear. A ranged killing arrow, entirely attached and organic. Masculine hunter, that one. A black widow spider is feminine…it sits in a cozy web and waits for dinner to come, not see the trap, get stuck, signal her to come and cocoon it. A feminine spider passively manipulates objects to bring it what it needs; a masculine spider actively chases its prey, runs it down and eats it. No objects, just spirit.

Sometimes, if she’s full, she’ll cocoon it up. It could sit there until the next day, paralyzed, slowly dying, captive food-in-waiting, a prisoner, before she comes to suck the fluids out of its body, giving it eternal peace.

So, she builds webs and ensnares prey. She lives alone and doesn’t play well with others—asocial insectoid, black widows are—it’s exceptionally selfish, self-centered, self-absorbed, and obviously very poisonous. Deadly. It attracts males with a bright red symbol near its sexual places…it wants children, but it doesn’t know why (it tries to eat them once they’re born, seeing them as food, seeing them not as children but prey of course—so, in this respect, in has little relation to higher mammal femininity concerning nuturing offspring, except where it does) of course, because it’s just a bug obviously, and doesn’t have an actual ‘developed’ brain—this has worked so well, however, that black widows didn’t need to get more complex or change much, or at all; hence this is primal behaviour, over 400 million years of evolution at work.

Even among the savagely brutal matings and “love” in the insect world, the rules are clear and everyone knows them—that’s my point. The females know, the males know.

But humans are mammals, so let’s look at a “masculine feminine” hyper-specialized and odd-ball mammal example—hyenas. It’s “oddball” because the males cannot dominate the females in any possible way—even the young are above the males in the heirarchy. Sisters run the whole show; they hunt and keep mangy males around to screw and that’s it. The males get scraps and look horrible. They’re smaller, less aggressive, and eat last at feasts or scavenging sorties. As for breeding, the females select a male and “allow” him to mate with her—she has a genital system that prevents penile entry totally, so only when she’s physically submissive can he mate with her. This is actually the most extreme female control over sex that we can witness in the natural world.

Not even a monstrous gorilla, Alpha greyback, will risk his standing and the social harmony by beating up a female of standing or forcing himself on her—if she’s not ready. Beating up women doesn’t happen a whole lot, in primates especially. Chimps are agreeable genderwise as well. Most cats and dogs and some other species (minks, ferrets, weasels) have the “scruff of the neck” that is used by parents and mating males on females. She’s ready to mate at any rate, but the male will sometimes get a good bite on that area while he’s giving it to her. Apparently, chomping that area releases some chill pills to the brain.

Yes, but humans aren’t like apes—females are not so submissive. We’re more aware and bipedal—sex is multi-positional. She can even rape the male—human females are like hyenas in their periodic extreme control over sex, aka Sumerians, Goddess-worshippers, Wiccans, Victorians and Christians, feminists, but they surpass them in the ability to have sex with the male when he doesn’t want to. In no other species can a female get a male drunk, take him to a room and mount him, stealing his seed and leaving, which happens in human society. It’s no big deal, as long as the male believes this is a good thing, to his advantage (losing his DNA, as a female would lose her egg if a man did this to her—so, as long as he sees this as “gettin’ sum” and not rape), it’s all fine. I only mention it as an aside on the differences.

So, let’s review.

Mammals and humans both raise children, both have sex and make more children (and handle over-population differently), and both have consentual sex for the most part. We do it in different ways, as I’ve blathered about above, so our ways of loving each other (3) on an interpersonal level is quite different too:

3. Interpersonal “love.” (One on one “relationships” and such; marriage, kids, love affairs, whatever. Romance, too, I suppose…shudder…)

I quote that because it’s new and I never did care for it. “Relations” are what go on between any two beings—a piece of wood crashing into dirt is having a “relationship” with that new environment and creatures there. You have a “relationship” with the person who sells you newspapers, or tea bags, or cars or food or anything. We have relations with others all the time. It’s a specialized word invented within the last 30 years and I don’t buy into it—same with “dating”—and other female names and games.

Men and women on intimate levels? Yeah, that’s more than some paltry and clinical “relationship” category—“bi-weekly mutual or nuclearly exclusive partnership?” Ugh…so tedious.

Women run this world, like I said, the world of “love.” They apply the meanings (“relationship” was a word that popped up in the feminist wave of the 1970s, for crissakes; before that, we were still “boinking” and banging and fucking and screwing and getting married—“relationships” and “common laws” replaced marriage, of course, over the last three decades), the definitions, terms, even the literature that women soak up in books and magazines and use as hooks to sink into single or married men.

What about “dating” is a guy thing? Do we go off on motorbikes for first dates? Do we meet around far away fire pits in dark hours of night? Do we strap on boxing gloves and have a sparring match with Cupcake? Do we do anything masculine whatsoever? Anything but sit and talk and sit and talk and answer her questions and fill our faces with some cultural snack, meal, or liquid, at a designated meeting area?

No, we go to school and learn what females want—everything their way. Houses and fences and gardens and safe streets, malls and shopping and comfort. *Of course* “love” is as feminine as anything else.

That’s why I snarl at it; it’s all hearts and flowers and chocolate, lying poetry and pink cards with fancy writing of empty, hideously untrue, flowery words. Rubbish. No soul. Just a bunch of words that evoke shallow recollections or cheesy sentiments. Emotional Twinkies; no meat there. It’s not working between men and women for many reasons (overpopulation is a big one), but feminine control, when unidentified, is a disaster. Look at the last thirty years of “whatever women want.”

Men aren’t getting married anymore—a good thing!—“Marriage Strike” is what it’s called, more underground really, across Western nations. What does that tell us? That men are not keen on marriage any more—and over 85% of divorces are initiated by women, so women don’t like it either. Each for totally different reasons? Some, yes. Anyway, what did marriage ever have to do with “love?”

I’ve “loved” all of my girlfriends; regardless of how long it was, or where it was headed, or whether we or I or just she wanted kids, or if we didn’t want any, or if we didn’t want to get married…none it made any difference, because each time love is different. Affection is a creation that is unlike any other type. I think it’s that individual.

One on one, what happens, in modern love? Dating, back and forth between flats, apartments, houses, rooms, dorms, boxes. Maybe we sneak arond, having more fun if it’s forbidden, or maybe it’s all by the book. Only “who wrote the book of love?” No one did. “Love” as an evolutionary “thing” has not been around long—Earth wasn’t “loved” into creation; it was pounded and violated by volcanic streams, violent tectonic activity—storms, floods, mountain ranges crashing together over thousands of eons, ice piling up and causing shifts in the planet’s axis—giving us seasons. This planet is not kind and gentle—“Mother Earth” and “Father Nature” and are teddies on pillows in a Disney theme. They’re brutal artists; creators and destructors, and they love nothing but that. They are not humans, of course.

So, how exactly do mammals love? And humans? Is there really any difference? Is “human love” so much overrated tripe when we really start getting into how other mammals relate and care for one another?

How can we tell? Well, look at the worst of non-human animals and compare with the worst humans can do to each other. I already covered murder, abortion, child abuse—and I have gotten into the equal spilling of blood in domestic violence situations (women growing more violent with weapons, and more likely to kill defenseless mates; read: sleeping). Then we have rape, which, in terms of the actual numbers of men who do this, is, as feminists tell us, about power—or, as evidence suggests, actually, powerlessness.

In Nature, non-human males do not experience anything near what human males experience in our society. Women are of course quick to pooh-pooh this, but I’m a bastard enough to enter into any subject with my trusty sledgehammer. So, let’s consider:

Picture a male dog in a pen surrounded by females in heat—say, twenty bitches. Here’s a kid in school. In school, boys are shamed because their hormones are flying and their sitting around chicks all day with budding tits and wearing lipstick and perfume and tight jeans. Hmm. A dog would go fucking crazy—even an expertly bred, “champion” bloody German Shepherd would be growling and trying to hump one of them—and if they fought him off? He’d go into a corner, and await another opportunity. But female dogs are not so cruel to tease that way—if they’re in heat, ready to mate, he’ll get at least one of them.

It simply blows my mind how utterly moronic the modern education system is, and I think this is a big reason—we certainly wouldn’t tell the girls or their parents to conform to some standard (their rights omg!), even a reasonable one, nor could we pull our boys out of school and give them the same opportunities. Home-schooling sometimes works, though, if it’s not the fundamentalist religious weirdo stuff. But that’s so passé…

And splitting the genders up is only done in private schools. So, why don’t women have any clue what it’s like for boys, especially teenage boys in the most inane invention of the last hundred or so years, high school? (What simpering hen conceived of “high school” anyway? Of all the needless, cruel, mundane, pointlessly tedious things to do to children…spoon-fed regulated info clusterfuck boxhood in a public middle-trash fashion-obsessed pop-culture cliquetry…we could have kids able to do anything in society by age 15, I mean, holy shit…we piss information into their brains, 90% of which they forget and never use again, over how many years? All so they’re suited to work at McDonalds and haven’t learned—experienced—a fucking thing about life by age 20, or 25? Nevermind…)

(No. I changed my mind: I guess women can never understand the problem because it’s all so very one-sided. Which feminine men attract a lot of females? Few rich ones, popular ones. Rock stars. Politicians. Doctors. Lawyers. Masculine ones do, too, but in different ways.

Imagine a group of horny teenage girls in a cage…surrounded by naked studs…wait a minute, not a fair comparison, because, as Vilar pointed out in The Manipulated Man, it’s just not the same deal at all. Women begin learning at a young age to control their feelings, grow cold, and suppress their sexuality. I’m sure not all do it on the same level, but they all do it to some degree. They have to.

Plus, sexual attraction is just different for women, who are not as stimulated visually.

Still… You stimulate anyone enough and that’s just cruelty. Expecting them to restrain themselves in spite of biological impulses is not only cruel, it’s creating a future pathology in that “repressed” individual. That’s my point. That’s why women can’t relate—they’re stimulated only when they want to be stimulated. Men, especially young men today, are stimulated almost all the time. Females are an addiction, and hidden away it gets weird. Men get weird when they are forced to suppress their libido and are being constantly stimluated. And the ages of the sources for stimulation just get younger; not even feminists like that. (14-year-old? 13-year-old? 12-year-old?—just how young do we feel it’s okay to dangle this “jail-bait” around and expect men to adapt, always?) Ah, back to men controlling themselves…

Seriously, there are ten-year-old girls wearing make-up. Ten. Year. Olds. Eight years earlier they got out of diapers and now they are dressing like prostitutes. Apparently few agree, but I don’t think this is a good thing. But then again, I don’t see the point of make-up (or alluring clothing, or other “beauty power” flexing of the “weaker sex”—males are pussy-whipped quite enough), and generally think that getting young boys addicted to female sexuality by age nine is going to create more problems then whatever its initial point was…freedom? Rights of teenagers to become sluts? Okay, I guess, whatever gender sells the clothes; I say it’s cruel and absurd, but I suppose corporations and governments and women’s organizations know better than I do what’s best for my non-existent kids, and your children, our children…also, then again, my opinion and fifty cents won’t get me a cup of coffee, so I’ll leave that and get back to—“love…”

Well, it’s boring so far. Love means absolutely nothing. What matters is how one acts, right? What’s the function of love?

Protecting children, “loved-ones,” providing, caring, nursing, tending, tucking in and giving a kiss goodnight? Seems easy, but it’s not. Both men and women can do those things, and more, but often do not. Why? Not sure.

Perhaps what baffles me about “love” is that is means something different, because it is; it’s personal. I don’t see “love” as separate from “hate.” I see them as one and the same—two sides of the same coin, as it were, and not quite opposite, for love is seriously overrated and blurry. They are passion. How we use that passion, to create—and for what reason—or to destroy—and for what reason—determines the function of love.

What do I mean?

You have two children and one has the Plague; you live on an island in the 1500s and can’t save his life, say. What is a function of love here? To allow the small boy to go on suffering, as no doubt a mother would, trying hard to fix him, or put him out of his suffering, as no doubt a father would? Both parents use empathy and want to help the child in different ways—freedom from sickness, or freedom from needlessly enduring sickness.

Yet, out of context, it would appear that the father is cruel—but his love is no less for his son, and he’d make him well if he could. The cruelty, from the father’s point of view, is allowing it to go on. Sometimes the mother will spare the child, and this goes back to what I mentioned of abortion and infant mortality, two female-dominated past-times since before history; it, too, spares a life of suffering. But mothers who kill their children do not often do it to “spare” them; it’s almost always a selfish reason the mother has. Abortion is on a fuzzy line because it kills before technical human life begins; before consciousness of pain anyway, so it’s “humane” but it’s still a little tailed human cellular form, living and breathing and determined to be a baby…rights, right?

Anyway, I’m growing weary of all this and getting nowhere…I’ll leave off with a quote from Zubaty:

“Men are stupid to imagine that women think the same way they do, or even that they have men’s interests in mind. They don’t. That’s what gets us into trouble. When a man says “I love you” he’s thinking about what he can give her. When a woman says “I love you” she’s thinking about what she will get. It’s a perfect match, as long as you understand what’s going on.”

And three from Esther Vilar:


“The majority of men prefer to subjugate themselves to an exclusive deity, woman (they call this subjection love).”


“Man has been manipulated by woman to the point where he cannot live without her and therefore will do anything she asks of him. He fights for his life and calls it love. There are even men who will threaten their idolized female with suicide unless she accepts him. Not that this is much of a risk for them – they have nothing to lose.

“Woman, nevertheless, is incapable of living without a man. Like a queen bee, she cannot survive on her own. She, too, is fighting for her life, and she, too, calls it love. They each need one another, in fact, and it seems therefore that they share at least one sentiment. The cause, nature, and consequences of this sentiment however differ as much as do the sexes.

To a woman love means power, to a man enslavement.”



“I love him.


“He is an excellent workhorse.”

And leave off finally with one last quote:

“Love is gay.”

–me, 1992.

[Heh. Well, that was four years ago. Weird how fired up I still was about many things—things that don’t really phase me today.

But my basic idea of “love” hasn’t changed much. As someone dedicated to truth, I can’t associate myself with “love” of course. Being alone and being free are one and the same, so, as with lies like “love,” I can’t go back to being caged up in some “relationship” obviously. “Love” is not something I desire. “Peace” is not something I want. “Happiness” is definitely something I will avoid—and thus avoid “unhappiness” as well.

For most of my life I was convinced I had to be “happy” and the only path to “happiness” for a man is to “get a woman.” And women are expensive. “Happiness” and “Love” are not cheap—you need lots of money. “Peace” is not cheap either—but instead of money you just lose your balls. Thankfully I’ve learned that none of this shit is true—that “happiness” is just another modern cult, another exalted lie, along with “peace” and “love.”

I might continue the third part of this (“Happiness”) in the next entry with some more of Esther Vilar, whose other book I’ve recently read. This will at least provide some more up-to-date writing on the subject of “love” in relation to “happiness,” since they are cults which are dependent upon one another.

Later, peeps.]

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
― Leo Tolstoy

    Why Am Not An Anarchist.

Truth is, I *almost* used to be one. I was confused and saw my anti-civilization/pro-nature thing as the equivalent to anarchism. I guess I tried to be quite a few things to belong to something, before I gradually stopped trying to be anything, and will now strive to be more at peace with being nothing at all. Just a man, I guess, struggling to be free.

The Theory & “Practice” Of Anarchism

Anarchism Now

Anyone would didn’t know me or what I’m about would effortlessly label me an “anarchist.” Well, I’m not. In fact, that would be like calling a mountain lion a Siamese Twin…just because Siamese cats are cats, and so are mountain lions. There’s a huge (crotch-ripping, ball-rupturing, scream-inducing) leap of logic going on to try to connect the two in any meaningful sense. A human who is sometimes attached at birth to another human—its twin—is unrelated to cats, especially wild cats. And that’s the whole point here.

Ya see?

Well, it would be easy to confuse this, just looking at a definition for “anarchist…”

1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.

2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.

3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

1. I do not. Yet this begs one obvious and important question: what is anarchy and what is anarchism? More on that later…

2. Now, here one actually has a case—since I might, in theory, support violence into a type of “revolution.” But what exactly are we talking about here? A revolution means to overturn a system of control and hop into the big chair yourself. Revolutions have happened all through history, and I neither support the former or replacement regime or system.

In theory… Really, though, a revolution is merely taking out the driver of the limo (the driver = government; the limo = a nation; the structure that enables that driver and limo to speed down the road = civilization) and replacing it with another driver. A better driver? Does it matter? The new driver is still taking Miss Daisy anywhere she wants to go.

Civilization itself rolls along unbothered by such inconsequential changes; revolutions do not change civilization itself in any way whatsoever. If one would call (the pathologically material and control freak) civilization “Mater,” then she is affected by revolution in the same way a person is affected by a bit of indigestion; some slight discomfort, and passing of gas, and it’s back to normal soon enough.

But here: “with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed” would also cause confusion. And it’s probably something as close to what I would, in theory, support. Except I really wouldn’t—and neither do anarchists, because that cannot work…and I’ll tell you why later.

3. This does not actually apply to me or anything I do or believe in either—even though I’ve said in the past that I’d love to see the world (civilization) burned to the ground so that the natural world could recover and the surviving humans could return to a hunter-gatherer way of life…I knew this to be impossible.

I’d love (or, I used to desire) to see the world burnt asunder and humans along with it, so that the natural world could recover and go on with life without us. As I’ve said before, anyone who truly cared or “loved” about this planet would kill themselves immediately. To “love” is to absolutely forget yourself and give to and care fully for something else, or someone else. “Love”—apparently—is self-sacrifice and total compassion—which is it is impossible to “love yourself!”

You would rather end your own life than cause pain, misery, and perpetual suffering to another. That, they tell me, is “love.”

No one still alive loves this planet. We just say we do and try to control it in a kinder, gentler way…

But, anyway, as far as returning to the hunter-gatherer ways…

In reality I know how naive, idealistic and utterly futile this is. In fact, it’s nearly impossible and would never happen—not going by any “anarchist” dogma. Seven billion people with a global cement and steel and plastic high-tech infrastructure cannot and will never give it all up and try to return to a system that worked nearly perfectly for a population of five to twenty million human beings (in the entire world). Futile to go there, so I won’t anymore. And I just don’t need to…

Truth is…the world is going exactly the way it’s supposed to go. One striking difference between myself and all other “anarchists” is that I don’t see anything that “needs changing.”


That’s right. I’m quite serious. The horrible tragedy (in that a green fertile world has become dominated by greedy, evil, agricultural apes, and it is all on the verge of total destruction) of the planet must be played out as it’s happening right now. There is no other way it could, would or should be happening, and it will become what it’s going to become regardless of what we do. (This is a hard, sandy pill to swallow, and even I have trouble getting it down sometimes. But no one ever said the Truth was gonna slide down easy and make you smile afterward…)

Nothing we do really matters?

I’m not saying that. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t resist and fight—we should. It slows down the inevitable control of the entire earth, and without it we’d all be cages in a very short period of time. Plus it kills time doing something other than blindly obeying and conforming to a female way of life.

Every anarchist you’ll ever come across, hear about, or read about, shares a common theme with the rest of them—that “change” is needed. Now, a very few number of them are actually willing to go out and fight and die and sacrifice themselves for this “change”—

—they’d rather talk or write about it and do virtually nothing. Some other poor slob can get a bullet in his guts. They’re stuck in a deep-seated—deep-seeded—control meme, our inner control freak, which is arguably a feminine meme, and if it isn’t, well, it’s positively, no bullshit about it, a left-brained meme.

They’re keen to tell others or demonstrate through argument what we all should do, how we should be—meanwhile, they do the same thing as everyone else. They sit and talk and tell others what to do. Like an old aunt sitting on the sofa, trying to stop the boys from playing cars on the coffee table, too lazy to get up and pinch some ears, too control-freakish to leave them be and let it work itself out…

When it comes to the “practice” of anarchism, it turns into some Marxist state, some communist regime. Every time. Marxism has deep roots through modern “anarchist” ideology. Same as feminism. In fact, the three are just old rotting peas in the same pod.

Show »

Marx Shit

Why anarchism never works is because the system (the Master System = civilization) eventually swallows up all the revolutionaries and puts them to work for her or merely digests them. Anyone trying to change a system “from the inside” unwaveringly becomes a part of that system. There are never any exceptions; there are no examples from history whatsoever. It happens every time. He gets corrupted or he gets vampirized—made into one of those he once despised. Things might change, for a while, but then they change back. It is inevitable.

Now, I don’t need to write a 1000-page essay on the Russian Revolution—

Russian Revolution

—to illustrate this. Every revolution in history ends the same way—the old is overthrown and the new, sooner or later, becomes the old again.


The preoccupation with “change” has been around since Sumer, which underwent a revolution and became Babylon. Whether these revolutions occur within a state or are precipitated from outside of it, such as an invasion or occupation, really makes no difference. The end result is always the same. And the effect on civilization as a whole is nominal.

Slaves inevitably rise up, organized by intellectuals and leaders, who then take over the system and become it; and the slaves simply have new masters and go back to doing what they did before…except perhaps with a few more perks. Less slave hours to work; a bit more food; whichever. No matter how honourable the men or the intentions, initially, this is what happens. It cannot happen any other way, never has, and it never will.

In the end they’re still slaves. What the West has mastered in the last few centuries is making slaves not feel so much like slaves, giving them more and more chances at acquiring crap, giving them the illusion of freedom and pretense that they can have a say in what’s going on. In essence, you make a cage comfortable enough, and the prisoner won’t really feel like a prisoner. And he won’t want to leave it.

Movements get hijacked every time.

Show »

Commie Mints

In the West, “Change” became an obsession in the 1960s; it became a lifestyle. There were protests and activists, as masses of people aggressively begged their governments for things like “rights”—a slave’s concession: something you’re granted (to shut you up) when you do not actually have freedom. And then there was something about stopping some sort of war in Southeast Asia.

Women’s Libbers hijacked the civil rights movement, and Feminists hijacked the Women’s Liberation movement. And, as is typical, the first thing you do when you get your way is to betray those who helped you get where you’re at—you kill off your allies. (For an example, see Joseph Stalin.) Feminists initially were allied with black men, in the 1970s, but when they were no longer of any use, they turned on them, too. They were, after all, men.

But none of that really mattered anyway; those hippies were appeased and they became yuppies. No “revolution” ever occurred as a result of the 1960s stuff; they were all bought and sold. Some things “changed” and now they’re changing back. Those involved were absorbed into the Master System or else destroyed by it. Feminists were appeased and now occupy positions of power (control) and influence all over the world; the difference with Feminism is that it was only ever interested in taking over and had no desire whatsoever to improve the lives of “the people” or help make them “free.” Women are less free today and have fewer choices in life compared to 40 years ago. It was all about money (funding) and power (a code-word for control).

The funny thing about “change”—something the left-brained control-freak meme has fits with—is that it happens all on its own. Things always change, whether we try to manipulate an outcome or not, directly or indirectly.

Change is constant in the natural world; nothing really stays the same in the wild. Everything is continually changing, and the animals—infinitely wiser than we are—simply adapt and overcome. Those species which do not end up extinct; which is a change that makes room for new species. And all through it, the surviving species stay strong and go on.

Weather changes, seasons change, the earth’s plates move, the world heats up and then cools down, plant and animal species disappear and are replaced by new, different ones, mountains rise up and then get eroded into hills, lava spews out of the ocean and creates islands, barren, which get eroded and colonized by life, all to be destroyed by an earthquake in a thousand years and sink back into the sea…

Vegetation changes, interactions between plants and insects change constantly; a species of dog develops webbed feet to swim in marshes after prey. A snake changes and develops a special hard barb in its throat to puncture the eggs it eats. “Evolution” is the bloody change measured in the adaptive process of plants and animals (it is not about “getting advanced” or even getting “better”—it’s only about adaptation for continued existence).

Did dark birds once upon a time, staying in a wintery region, group together and start a movement called “The White Feather Revolution?”

In a way, unconsciously, but not really—it just happened. It was their “will”—if this is the right word—and the collective will of Nature. Perhaps necessity is more apt than “will.” Necessities get granted, sometimes, in Nature; wants seldom ever do. Obviously, none of them bitched about it and started protesting Father Nature; no “White Feather Manifesto” was ever written. However, collectively, their biology and time began to produce white feathers. Apparently—no one was around to witness and document this event, but it does make sense (how else would one explain the fact that winter birds turn white in winter and dark/speckled in summer?); regions that became colder quickly, and contained animals which could not fly away, forced the survivors to either change or die. If no one changed, there would be no life on this planet today.

So, change is just about the most important aspect of life.

But modern humans, narrowminded and self-obsessed (homocentric and civiliocentric), try to force it, control it, and hardly look at the bigger picture and what’s going on, and has been going on, in the natural world for any sort of example or perspective. And they sure as fuck don’t look at any examples set by “primitive” peoples. Because such peoples are not as “evolved”—or advanced, or, let’s just call an asshole an asshole: divine—as us smart, modern, sophisticated city dwellers are.

Show »


Like infants, we have no patience, and no faith in change.

Yes, I said, “faith.” Faith is trust that something will happen unrelated to what you do. Like when you go to sleep and leave your watch on the dresser—you have faith that it will be there when you awaken. There is no evidence for it to remain in the same spot, but you believe it will be there.

When you start up your car and set off for work, you have faith that the tires won’t fall off and send you skidding into oncoming traffic. When you flush the toilet, you have faith that it goes somewhere other than the floor under you. When you drink water from the tap (or a bottle), you have faith that it’s safe and not crawling with deadly bugs. Or radioactive toxins. Or growth hormones. Or estrogen.

We have a lot of faith in many things; we have faith in billions and billions of things each and every day, and they’re all irrational. We hardly think about any of them. Because that’s what faith does—it relieves the worry and thoughts about every little thing we’re doing, freeing us to go about our business and consume ourselves with other things, usually ego-inspired things, material things. But the point it is: we all have faith. No one alive is devoid of it.

So why don’t we have faith in certain other things? Why do we attack Faith (religious faith) based on logical arguments that do not consider all the myriad varieties of faith that we all have and employ every day, which are quite illogical? Why don’t we have faith in change?

Because we’re hooked into an agenda, one that will deny anything to get what it wants. A raptorial and uncompromising idea will use any means necessary, will destroy all in its way, and will never deviate from the fanatical hard-line, or Party Line.

Like a virus, it is a meme (an idea that colonizes your brain) that wants to spread to new hosts and is not open to questioning, debate, evaluations, or opposing ideas (countering memes). One could say we are all infected with memes, but it seems that some are especially tenacious; the ones with the most diabolic agendas seem to hang around the longest.

Zubaty had a lot to say about memes:

Seeking an analogy to the word gene, British biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 coined the word meme (rhymes with ‘theme’), which he defined as a self-replicating information pattern that uses minds to get itself reproduced. According to Dawkins, examples of memes are: tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. (And concepts such as Feminism or Discrimination.) Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called “imitation”. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain.

Such as concepts like “Paganism Was Earth-Friendly” or “Mother Nature” or “Ours Is The One True Government.” This is a complex thing which is not easily understood—or explained. I’ll quote a lot ahead simply to save time, without me bumbling through it, since it’s already been said best by someone else, more concisely…

As a concept, memes are a little subtler than gravity but certainly more apparent than “democracy”. We recognize memes through their consequences — the real effects they have had on civilization.

Says Hutchinson:

    “The evolutionary value of memes is clear. The ability to pass on complex bundles of information, such as the right way to chip a tool out of a piece of rock, make pottery, hunt down different types of animals, or find water or edible plants, was an enormous advance over the potentially lethal method of trial and error. Memes freed
    humans from “hard-wired” biological programs by enabling us to “think” about reality, to consciously choose to override genetic drives — choosing celibacy, say, in response to religious memes, or choosing to obey the dictum Thou Shalt Not Kill. [Or adopting the meme that women are equivalent to men in every way except for how they have been raised.] Since the capacity to transmit memes has such a high survival value, individuals with that capacity would tend to become more common in the gene pool, while those whose brains did not have the capacity would tend to disappear. The result is that our brains have been molded by the forces of natural selection to ensure that we have a highly developed receptivity to memes.”

Indeed, N. K. Humphrey, a colleague of Dawkins, argues that memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically. When you plant a fertile meme in my mind, you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme’s propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanisms of a host cell. Others have been struck by the similarity between viruses and memes. Like viruses, memes are infectious. Whereas viruses use cells to get themselves copied so that they can infect other cells, memes use minds to get themselves copied so that they can infect other minds — memes use minds to reproduce. They are “infectious information”. For this reason students of memetics speak of the “germ theory of ideas”.

Memes have an enormous impact on our lives — from such statements as “the curved surface on the top of an airplane’s wing creates lift” to “There is only one God and Mohammed is his prophet”. Memes are a vessel of interface between mind and body and Hutchinson.s explanation for the mechanism of meme propagation is nothing less than stunning.

Says Hutchinson:

    “Because sex is the key to the process of gene propagation, the forces of evolution have ensured that humans would want to engage in this activity by providing them with a reward for doing so. When humans have sex, neuroscientists have discovered, their brain and nervous system reward them (or “reinforce” that behavior) by releasing large amounts of extremely pleasurable neurochemicals. Among these are the euphoria-producing endorphins, known as the body’s own opiates.

    Memes are spread through a similar process: The activity of implanting a meme in someone’s brain is a lot like having sex with that person. The similarity is one that humans have long recognized, at lease unconsciously. It is no coincidence that we speak of “seminal” ideas and “disseminating” information; that teachers speak
    of their students as fertile minds; that certain ideas are spoken of as being “seductive” and others as barren or sterile.”

But the relationship is more than just metaphorical. Neuro-scientists have recently discovered that the places in the human brain that produce the most endorphins and that contain the largest concentration of endorphin receptors are those involved most intimately with learning, which is to say, with receiving new information — new memes! We get an opium buzz when we learn something new, that’s why a lot of writers and intellectuals become alcoholics or druggies — they get hooked on the buzz.

Scientists have even mapped the “reward pathways” or “pleasure centers” of the brain and found them tightly connected with the learning centers and pathways.

Says Hutchinson:

    “It’s a truth we have all experienced: we are presented with new information, a new idea, that doesn’t quite make sense, doesn’t quite fit into our brain. We resist it or we play around with it. Then, suddenly, bingo, it slips in; we understand. The light bulb goes on in the brain. Aha! The new idea or information makes sense, and we are filled with a flood of pleasure, a sensual feeling of satisfaction as our body flows with warmth. We have just received a new meme, and our brain is rewarding us by releasing large quantities of endorphins and other pleasure-producing neurochemicals.

    And after we have received the meme what happens next? We want to spread the meme. We have all experienced something that seems tremendously important to us — that we must eliminate nuclear weapons, or that abortion is murder [or Our Bodies Our Business, or all men are rapists]. We become alert, looking for likely individuals
    around us to whom we can transmit this crucial meme. When we find one — or a whole crowd of them perhaps — we transmit the whole bundle of information. If the listeners’ minds are fertile, which is to say susceptible or receptive, they are inseminated by the meme. They cry Aha!, they cheer, they agree with us. They are infected by the meme and immediately want to transmit it to others or help us to transmit it to others by contributing to our cause, signing petitions, attending demonstrations, purchasing our record or book. The meme has been propagated. We are filled with a rush of pleasure, satisfaction, a sense of having fulfilled a mission, as our brain pours out rewarding neurochemicals.

    It is this sense of mission and its sensual reward that compels ideologues, preachers, actors, artists, entertainers, writers [and feminists] to devote enormous energies to speaking or performing from every soapbox, stage, pulpit and podium they can find. This is the reward that keeps many school teachers passionately engaged in what are otherwise pitifully underpaid and difficult jobs. This is the erotic reward so many people find to be better than sex. Meme-spreading — hormonal intoxication.”

Meme spreading is “idea orgasm”, a mental concept that induces a physical response in our brain.s pleasure centers, but is not necessarily keyed to anything else we do. Haven.t we all met people who crinkle their nose at pork but admit they love bacon, or gush about saving whales while they douse their yard with petrochemicals, or rhapsodize about rain forests while they change their baby’s paper diaper. Haven’t we all done it ourselves? It’s called hypocrisy — not walking the talk — and our lives
are riddled with it.

Well, the same is true for anarchists, and most other kinds of “-ists,” including “Primitivist” John Zerzan himself. (No, I can’t leave this guy alone; I won’t.) He complains about civilization and stays in it; he preaches a return to hunter-gatherer ways of life but sits in a city, telling others what they should do, writing and doing nothing but being a part of that civilization, adding to its economy, supporting it with his own fucking blood; he claims that agriculture enslaves women and not only offers no evidence for this but completely ignores the fact that agriculture is organized gathering, which is a female way of life—later he tries (and fails) to demonstrate that Man The Hunter is a myth and that women have hunted too in ancient times. In some cases he uses quotes out of context, or just out-rights lies. Women have only “hunted” when they had no other choice (no men around), and even then it was mostly trapping, not true hunting. Woman is not suited physically or mentally or biologically for hunting, and she never has been, since it requires so much intuition, and all the quoting and analyzing and theorizing won’t change that.

Women invented agriculture (rather, they were duped into doing this by the ruling order of ancient times) and coaxed men into labouring away on the farm—not the other way around. Zerzan would have us believe that while women, wearing dresses, gathered leaves and grains and berries, doing a little planting here and there…that while that was going on the smelly forest-dwelling men, wearing pants, who knelt and prayed to the Deer God and then went off hunting for deer, who painted the animals they revered and hunted in ceremonial caves, who did this for untold millennia, suddenly stopped, got ‘cleaned up,’ put on dresses, shaved off their hair, and told the women,

“We hate hunting now and want to just plant seeds, so you women can consider yourselves our property—now get to work in the field!”

Zerzan, you’ve got to be fuckin’ joking…

But enough of this lying hypocrite (I’ll get back to him in another entry); could it be that he, too, is infected with some rather unsettling and invasive memes…?

Culture is comprised of memes. In fact, that’s what culture is: an assortment of memes. Memes are what we maxi-brained mammals have to work with, and the whole point of this book is to introduce some new memes to American culture because the old ones aren’t working. Women and men are not equal. The divorce rate is 60%. The American family exists only in cereal commercials and novels from the 1930s. We don’t have one moment to waste getting our thinking straight on male/female issues. I’m thrilled to hear that certain new experiments in education are posing imaginary relationship difficulties to young boys and girls, and asking them to offer solutions or approaches to the problem based upon the varying sexes of the participants in the problem.

It’s time for us to wrestle with some concepts which may not seem
just or fair, but which may, in fact, be the truth. I don’t want to live in a world run by Japanese, and I don’t want to live in a world run by women — and for the same reasons. Computerized meme-spreading has organized the world vastly beyond my ability to appreciate what is happening. Life is NOT better when it is more organized. Life is better when people leave each other alone. That is the male meme. We don’t need to nurture the planet. We need to leave it alone.

[My bold emphasis.]

Communism and Feminism [and Anarchism] are soul brothers [or sisters]. Both are systems devoid of God. Both are programs for organizing society on the basis of glorious egalitarian philosophies but which, in fact, benefit only an elite group of people — the party bosses or Feminist Media Celebrities. No woman’s life has been improved by going to work a “job” for forty hours a week. The richest country in the world should be perfecting meaningful ways to NOT work — and what are we doing? Sitting around computer terminals, hacking information, burning out our eyeballs and irradiating our gonads. Father Nature doesn’t like that. And what is all this information about? Who cares? More information is not the solution to our problems. Living with less, instead of TALKING about living with less, is the solution to our problems. The Third World has told us they’ll stop cutting down their forests when we turn off our air conditioners — and that’s the point, isn’t it? We cannot have infinite expansion on a finite planet.

I can’t really expand more on that, he banged us all over the head there. Rich Zubaty, from his masterpiece, “What Men Know That Women Don’t.” If you only read one more book for the rest of your life, make it this one.

“Leave it alone”—“let it be”—the “male meme,” he calls it. What’s curious about all these memes around the globe today, is that very few of them can be honestly called “masculine ideas” or “male memes.”

The urge to manipulate and control everything around us was and still is very much a feminine meme; hunters and fishermen have no desire to control anything…they’re off remaining still and quiet, hoping, tracking, adapting, thinking on their feet, trying to persuade Father Nature to feed him and his family one of His own. (No, I’m not calling “Father Nature” God here—just countering the oncoming Gaia worship and “Mother Nature” horseshit that has infected humanity for a few thousand years. I know that nature is not a deity or divine—the Creator made Nature, father and mother.)

You cannot manipulate a fish out of the water; you toss in your line and try to attract it with a lure, but there’s so much more going on here, so many subtle nuances to fishing that cannot be summed up in any text. You cannot order and control a deer to enter the range of your bow. It’s nothing as logical as putting seeds in neat rows and waiting a predetermined length of time, adding certain amounts of water at certain intervals. Then harvesting at the allotted moment. This is a female way of life—organized, practical, controlled.

Hunting and fishing—the first male occupations—are intensely instinctual, intuitive, and require often more “luck” than skill. Nothing is certain. You have to “know” the fish. You have to anticipate the deer. And the whole thing is completely irrational. Men are naturally irrational.

The female way (devoid of any masculine thinking) of fishing would be to catch their eggs and raise them in closed-in ponds, then they can just scoop them up of the water and into the pot. Forget all that silly, nonsensical fishing business altogether. This is far more efficient and sensible. No fuss, just a logical and practical solution, a system of control—the cruel enslavement of another species of life.

The female alternative to hunting would be to capture those animals and pen them up. Fence them in. And breed them. Why go around chasing them? It’s illogical—hunting is barely 50% successful, even though that allows the animal to live naturally once more. No, we’ll just keep them nearby, stay (sedentary) in one spot, breed the right ones so we have more meat per beast, and butcher an animal whenever we want dinner—the cruel enslavement of another species of life.

The female gatherer way of life changed when we grew sedentary—more time in one spot meant the forests and other areas could not recover fast enough, so women had to go further or start collecting seeds, and planting them nearby. Which is what they did. And as populations increased, agriculture was born. Instead of letting plants go about their business naturally, they trapped them on one piece of land and began to manipulate them, breed them, control every aspect of their existence—the cruel enslavement of another species of life.

So, what does any of this have to do with anarchists?

Well, men revered animals, especially the ones they hunted. They never worshiped them, but there was absolute respect. They prayed not to (their prey) the animal but the mysterious creator of the animal so that he might feed his tribe; in some cases they said prayers that were wishes to the animal to go in a specific direction, such as West Coast Native whalers.

The point is these men had a lot of honour, and interfered little with their environment; leaving it be was their way of life.

They were filled with masculine memes, and they had a value system. They were spiritual creatures who were humble and respectful in the shadow of Father Nature.

When agriculture took over, new memes took over; and the Pagan religion began as cities popped up around rivers, along with human sacrifice in the temples and in the fields. And slavery. And domestication. And government. Greed became the prevailing meme, and underneath was the disrespectful, nearly hateful attitude towards life. I think it formed into a consciousness that began in Wiccan/Pagan religions and got twisted and putrid when monotheism finally ended human male sacrifice. It became malicious and cruel, horribly decadent and absent of all conscience—and has no adherence to any rules of normal human conduct.

Then it went underground. Witches, Satanists, and other occultists formed secret societies, to carry out their sick twisted shit in the dark. I’ve done a bit of reading on this, and it is quite disturbing.

At any rate, I think this mentality is not only still around today but also helped inspire ideologies like Marxism, Feminism, and of course Anarchism—three heads of the same beast, so to speak. Now, this is just a theory I have, and I’m not going to get into fifty pages of research on Masonic symbols and rituals and ancient gods still worshiped (and sacrificed to) even today.

All I’m saying is that it’s quite likely—I sense there’s something really ugly behind these concepts…


There is a funny play on words with Anarchist and Anti-Christ, and a less funny similarity. The Sex Pistols noticed it; it’s really not hard to miss. I don’t know if it was intended, but that’s irrelevant. The similarity is an underlying belief system. The same meme infection.

An Atheist element has tendrils throughout every Anarchist ideology. Every Marxist, communist, New Age, Feminist ideology contains atheism.

Let’s look at an example, shall we? George Barrett wrote “The Anarchist Revolution,” so let’s give it a go…


An Anarchist is a man who does not believe that government is a good thing for the people. He is, in fact, a man who believes in and strives for liberty. Liberty is to him not a superstition, or a god of which to make images, but a practical theory or plan of action. The first step necessary in establishing liberty will be, clearly, the abolition of government, and this will mean the organisation of industry by the workers themselves, not by any outside power — in other words, the Anarchist Revolution. For the moment this may seem wildly impossible; but if we give it a little consideration, a new side to the question comes into view.

“Practical”—“plan”—“step”—“organization”—and of course “not a superstition, or a god of which to make images.” Could it be that certain memes are more receptive to to the left-brain and not the right? Could it be that the controlling, organizing, uncreative, rational and language-centered left-brain is more at risk of infection by many memes?

Why doesn’t a masculine meme, such as “let it be,” fit very well and take hold in someone who is left-brain-dominated?

Well, I don’t think it needs much explanation—how could a control freak suddenly not be a control-freak? What’s involved with getting out of your mind, out of your ego, and leaving something alone rather than endlessly attempting to arrange and control and manipulate and tweak and fix and change and re-order, or just bring order to something which is inherently disordered? How could a control freak suddenly not be a control-freak?

I dunno. She will never stop being one as long as her left-brain is dominating her, as long as her ego is steering her left-brain, and as long as her entire head is infested with memes which compliment her nature. Shopping is just gathering; it’s something she’s done for many thousands of years, and 80% of today’s marketplace caters to this female nature. Very few women can fight through their natures and stop shopping; ever heard of a woman who never goes to a store, is completely self-sufficent in every aspect of her life? Ever heard of a woman who builds her own home, makes her own clothes (after gathering—not buying—the materials to do so), grows her own food?

Not since the 1600s-1800s have women even come close to this. At least, modern women, Western women. Other gatherer women, such as in the Amazon, still live this way, and they are the strongest, least left-brained (or more right-brained) women on Earth. Why? Because they live with more masculine memes than feminine ones. And she has a value system and believes in a ‘Higher Power’ and is superstitious (irrational).

There are no atheist hunter-gatherer societies and never have been; and there are no religious hunter-gatherer societies and never have been.

Anyway, back to the Introduction…

In the first place, is there not something quite wrong and mixed up in your ideas, for I assume you are not an Anarchist?

No, I’m not an Anarchist, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with seeking Truth, Freedom, and striving to do so living a Natural life.

You believe in Government as a necessary part of our social life, and yet you will not like to say that you deny and reject Liberty.

I do not “believe” in government as necessary for anything but control. I do say I deny and reject “Liberty,” for liberty is merely what a slave wants; like “rights” themselves, it is something granted to those who are not free.

The Aboriginal peoples around the world gave no thought to “Liberty;” hell, they probably have no word for it. They lived free, so why would they even consider something they instinctually did every single day? Only a prisoner seeks escape, and only a slave seeks “Liberty.” Or someone wanting to manipulate the slaves into revolt will use trigger words like Liberty.

This is so with almost all people who are not Anarchists — they spend one half of their intellect apologising for their belief in government, and the other half in excusing themselves for their love of liberty. They are in just the same position in regard to their political beliefs as the Christians are in regard to their religious ideal. The Christians build churches to the glory of Christ and worship him; should any man speak against him, they are horrified; but when it comes to practical life, they do not in the least apply their religion. “Take no thought for to-morrow” they translate “Keep a good balance at the bank.” “Thou shalt not kill” becomes “£60,000,000 annually for the Army and Navy.” “Judge not” and “Swear not” is written in the book by which they swear in the courts of judgment. “Call no man your master, for ye are all brothers,” is interpreted to mean that the soldiers must protect their masters by shooting their brothers during a strike.

Well, Jesus was not a Christian. Every Christian can quote every single word Jesus said, and interpret it any which way, but none of them live as Jesus lived. Not one.

Now, what I used to be doesn’t matter anymore; I’m not agnostic, I’m not atheist, and I’m not “Anti-Christ.” I’m not really “Pro-Christ” either; I just think Jesus was a righteous dude.

Seriously, I have no problems with Jesus (oh, I used to claim I did, as many already know, but those problems were with the organized Church and State systems, and their mindless followers). I admire what he did, not what he said or what others claimed (spread feminine memes over) he was (some son of God, or King, or Lord—a bearded lady in a glimmering white dress who floated about with a golden halo and healed people and said “love” five times a minute—nothing but fucking rubbish to impress women and draw them into Church). For a sweaty, dirty, hairy, ballsy wandering guru fisherman who stood up for his beliefs and suffered and died by the hands of an evil empire, I can’t help but admire him. He did a number of things I think are cool.

But I don’t worship him or go to a building to praise him. I’m not a Christian either.

Besides, the entire Church was a construct the falling Eastern Roman Empire used to put its state on crutches for a while; like pissed off peasants of the Communist Revolution, the state used poor people (with a set of memes) and exploited them into keeping the elite in control.

So one could go on till it is proved that every point taught by Christ has been rejected by those who worship him. Exactly the same thing has happened in regard to Liberty. As a people, we worship it. Our boast is that “where the Union Jack floats Liberty is supreme.” We erect statues to it, our poets sing in honour of it, our politicians stir our blood with rhetoric in praise of it; but when it comes to practical life, none of these in the least applies his ideal. “We must have a Government, we must have some one in control,” they say; and behind these words are hidden the policeman’s bludgeon, the wretched prison system, and the Army ready to shoot down those rebels who dare to attempt to overthrow the politician’s ideal of society. Liberty is a fine thing to make speeches about, and to which to erect statues; but for practical politics they demand government.

Civilization cannot function without the absence of Liberty—which is to say, if we were free, there would be no civilization. It’s oil and water. You cannot have them both be the same thing; civilization, from its earliest beginnings, was about control, and nothing besides.

Control of the environment, control of the local animal and plant life, control of the minerals in the hills and mountains, and control of every detail of the lives of its slaves (I mean, citizens).

You cannot have control and freedom occupy the same space because they are opposites! Like matter and anti-matter, like a positive and negative. You cannot have an open field inside a prison cell; you cannot have a flowing river from the mountains inside plumbing systems; you cannot have migrating birds or caribou inside a zoo.

We begin to see now where the Anarchist comes in. He really believes in Liberty, and, as I have said before, he sees that this means the abolition of government.

No, he just thinks he does. He’s wallowing in several memes, overlapping ones, ideas whose edges meet and form concentrated spots in his understanding; yes, he’s a fanatic.

After the abolition of government, then what?

Ask an Anarchist sometime. Or ask an Atheist (which I used to be) what happens when all religion is eradicated.

None of them have any new ideas. They begin postulating, turning back to their dogma, thinking about some great way to organize society based upon the work of someone else (some pro-Marxist types), and so forth. Maybe they have some good ideas. But all this “shit” we’re in was all started with similarly good ideas—work, school, agriculture, government, and, yes, even religion. None of these are hostile, evil entities, anymore than the United States had a mind to become the giant oppressively imperial force that it is today…back at the time of the Revolution, that was exactly what they were fighting against.

But the abused become the abusers; they enslaved become the new masters; and look, meet the new boss, just like the old boss.

This is where their entire doctrine always falls apart, because an Anarchist doctrine is a negative doctrine, like atheism; it’s anti.



It tries to be pro-something, but that something becomes the new religion (like many Atheists worship Logic; like many Feminists worship themselves; like many Anarchists worship Liberty or whatever) of the new state. It changes…and then later it changes back.


Because the Master System does this; civilization absorbs and re-absorbs everything. All it needs is time. Sooner or later, the status quo is resettled, the balance between slave and master restored, and the relentless subduing of the earth and the organization of all life continues…

Those who believe in government, then, are a trifle muddled in their philosophy; but the reader may yet be of the opinion that it would be entirely impossible to overthrow it. The fact is, anything else is impossible.

Does not all history show us a conflict between the dominant or governing class and the people to whom it tries to dictate the conditions of life? Does it not also show that the march of progress is away from government towards liberty?



Every Anarchist I’ve ever read is just a Marxist with a mask on, re-presenting him-her-self with a less “red” face, but it’s all the same shit. The same ideology, the same terms and phrases, mechanically spewed forth as easily as religious folks do when quoting the Bible.

I doubt the average Anarchist “worships” Liberty; I’m willing to bet it’s in fact Revolution. The noble idea and the exciting notion of it.

But where is the Soul in their worker’s paradise? Where are the spiritual gurus wandering the dusty plains and forests? Will there be room for any type of Faith, for those who still believe their religious ideas?

Are you fucking kidding? Absolutely not. Zero tolerance for that. There will be no beliefs, no value systems at all, just price tags. Whether Anarchists take over, or New Agers take over, or Feminists (completely) take over, or if everything stays at it is, the status quo gradually but increasingly speeding forth into the Almighty Progress….The resulting world will look exactly the same.

Every time I hear or read an Anarchist talk about the future without this government, it’s all about logical control and management, practical solutions, organization, and I get flashes of Nineteen-Eighty-Four through my mind. Because it’s the same mentality (the same memes at work). The same memes, the same underlying, unsettling current in modern human consciousness.

“We control life, Winston, on all levels.”


You know, this will be a first for me, but given a choice between a religious kingdom in the Middle Ages and a future Nineteen-Eighty-Four type of collectivist oligarchy (which any Anarchist/Marxist/Feminist revolution will undoubtedly become, as do all Marxist theories would when put into practice), devoid of all values and any spiritual life, just bland dreary controlled existence and ordered obedience to the State, to the Party, or the Communist Ideal, or whichever—I think I’ll take the religious freak show.

And maybe it doesn’t even have to be a freakshow like it was back then…


Sure as hell beats the Borg…

Show »


At least it’s not corporate, not progress-driven, not bankrupt of any value system, irreverent, diseased, decadent, decaying… and at least men were somewhat respected—sure, sinners and all that, but a man could still live pretty much the way he wanted, as long as he was married and followed the Scripture. Men were not utterly miserable in that situation. Neither were women. It was only when the Kings and Queens started sticking their dicks and clits into everyone’s lives, it was only when the Church flexed its holy imperial might, did the people really suffer.

Left alone, the people settle into societies and communities that are healthy and sound, that turn out to be based on sharing, taking care of one another, and not fucking with every goddamned thing in sight. This is what free people do.

I could debate the pros and cons forever, but something instinctual within tells me that this would be a far better choice…a lesser evil, albeit.

Anyway, let’s skip ahead. I have not read ahead in this essay, and I’m growing weary with the form-letter “viva la revolucion!” build-up; heard it all before, and so have you. So, let’s skip it and get to The New World Order…

The New Society

“Master and man! Some up and some down! It always has been so and it always will be. You cannot alter human nature.”

It is so easy to talk like that, and, if you are of a contented disposition, it is so comforting; but, of course, it is absolute nonsense. Man himself has developed from the lower animals, and surely there are few who would care to boast of any particular resemblance to the cave-dwellers of prehistoric days even.

Divine, I tells ya! We is.

No longer “lower,” we are upper!

Sigh. We never dwelled in caves—this myth (meme) will never die, it seems. We might have used them for temporary shelter when we could not build our own, but for the overwhelmingly most part, we built shelters like the Aboriginals have done since recorded history…

Calling our ancestors “Cavemen” is like calling the Sioux or Apache, “Cavemen.” We lived exactly the same way as these so-called “lower animals.” Caves in Europe were used for ceremonial, ritual purposes, initiations.

The fact is, human nature is never alike in two parts of the world or in two different ages.

I love it when someone says something beginning with, “Fact is,” and then does absolutely nothing to show how this is indeed a “fact.” Frankly, I’m growing tired of this guy already. His arrogance and ignorance and dogmatic rhetoric is all beginning to irritate me.

What evidence is there that “human nature” differs from place to place or “age” to age? What is “Human Nature” in the first place? How do you define it? How do you recognize it? How do you put it into any sort of context? How do you tell it apart from tightly controlled, generational conditioningdomestication/socialization/feminization?

Is a dog’s nature indicative of the coyote’s nature? Don’t they both do different things, behave differently (in terms of eating and sleeping, mating, et cetera), live in different environments? Isn’t one domesticated and one wild, but they’re essentially the same fucking animal? Except with two separate natures—based upon the human conditioning—the enslavement—of one and the natural existence of the other? Is not one separated from others of its kind with an artificial pack and one is with his own kind, amid his actual, natural pack? Does not one go to a bowl to eat processed garbage, while the other hunts and eats natural food? Does not one have no freedom, must follow rules or get punished and caged up, with just a few “rights,” while the other is beyond all control, free as fuck, and can go wherever it pleases? Does not one lie about in a sterile box all day, looking depressed and growing neurotic, while the other is healthy and invigorated, trotting along excitedly ancient paths in ancient forests, sniffing and stopping and sensing life all around him?

And why is there never any distinction offered in regards to Modern Human Nature and human nature? Because there definitely is a difference.

Real, actual “human nature” has been the same for many thousands of millennia; Modern Human Nature (minds infested with the feminine farming, government and religious memes—control memes) has only been around for about 9 millennia, and it’s distinctive for it lacks almost every prevailing masculine meme that native peoples enjoy…

As to the master-and-man relationship, it has been so pulled about and buffetted in a comparatively short period of history that to-day many people seem to have a difficulty in recognising it to be the same thing as the more crude slavery of the past. Soon Time will so beat it out of shape that it will become the relationship of man-to-man. The last blow that will reforge it into this form will be the Anarchist Revolution.

What is this Anarchist Revolution?

So that this question may be answered fully, let us suppose that we are agreed on all that has been said in the previous chapters. Let it be granted that we are robbed by the capitalists and the ruling class; that there is no hope of reform from the Government, which is inherently a reactionary force; and that this capitalist and governing class is entirely dependent on us, and hopelessly in our power.

It’s the same as the Communist Revolution, merely repackaged for the next naive, angst-ridden generation that needs an “-ism” to cling to, to belong to something, aside from a corporation or political party. Most of us seem bent on identifying ourselves as something (“I’m an American,” “I’m a vegetarian,” “I’m Christian,” “I’m a Jungian,” and so on) in addition to their race or sex or regional location or, especially, occupation.


Will we have to go back to talking about memes…?

Michael Hutchinson:

The central law of meme evolution, as in gene evolution, is survival of the stable. Our intellectual universe is populated by memes that have survived, or maintained their stability, through their power to make copies of themselves by leaping from mind to mind. This power is related, first, to their tolerance for competing memes: memes that carry intolerance messages regarding competing memes will soon carve out a larger evolutionary niche in the meme pool than will memes that contain tolerance messages. For example, a meme that carries the message that it is the absolute Truth, that this Truth must be propagated, and that any memes carrying competing messages are false and must be eradicated, would have evolutionary advantages.

In addition, the survival of memes depends on their ability to replicate themselves without copying errors, that is, on their predictability. To maintain their stability, memes must be intolerant of error, violation, or mutation; alterations become heresy. Memes that generate incorrect copies of themselves — that get “misunderstood” each time they leap from mind to mind — would, like the message passed along in the child.s game of “telephone”, tend to degenerate rapidly and disappear from the meme pool.

Now Zubaty:

So there is a curious irony here. The very evolutionary breakthrough that liberated us from slavery to our genetic programs — our skill at manipulating information — simultaneously shackled us to another master. In freeing ourselves from the domination of our genes, we became subject to the domination of memes. That’s why we’re pigheaded — all of us. That’s why we resist changes in our thought and why we get intoxicated with causes.

Well, the Anarchist “cause” must be one hell of an opiate for these types of people…

Back to Mr. Barrett:

Even so it may be questioned: “What can we do? Smash up the institutions of to day, and what have we? Simply chaos until something similar is put in their place.”

This is true in one sense, but it is an argument that cannot be used against us. It is true that the various institutions of slavery which exist to-day are there because people upon whom they depend are slavish in their thoughts. If, therefore, some great hurricane swept through the country, destroying all such institutions and their leaders, it is quite certain that the people who still believed in such things would set to work to rebuild them. On the contrary, if this “hurricane” took the form of a movement of the people themselves, who had outgrown their slavish attitude of mind, then there would be no restoration of the old, but a reconstruction on new and revolutionary lines.

Yep. Same old story; reconstruction—“but this time it’ll be betterer!”

Sorry, I’m not going to swallow this crap. Say “Fuck no!” to opiates for the people, or the intellectuals who seek to enslave them…

Show »

Drugs 4 Kidz!

How many fucking times has this happened? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million? Since those Sumerian city-states 7 thousand years ago?

And what happened every single goddamned time?

The Master System absorbed and perverted them all, and within a generation or two or three, and things were back to where they were before.

Don’t we ever fucking learn!?

Or, in Orwellian terms: the Middle manipulated the Lower into overthrowing the Upper, and the Middle became the Upper, which became the Middle, while the proles, the Lower, the force that always gets used in every single revolution, well, they stayed where they were and began serving their new masters.

But for these froathing-at-the-mouth Anarchists, there is no such thing as the “end” of the Revolution. It’s an anti-belief, not a real belief system at all; how do you start “reconstructing” anyway when you’re entire mindscape is geared towards Revolution, making sweeping changes to what you conceive is a power structure that’s oppressing you?

(Remember, to “oppress,” folks, means: “to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power.”)

For the Nazis, the Germans were oppressed by Jews; but even after the Final Solution, they’d keep going. They’d keep finding and fighting enemies who would oppress them again. They had to try to conquer the whole world, and they still would not have stopped if they’d gotten that far—they’d have turned on the Japanese, and anyone else…and, finally, themselves.

So, don’t you swallow it either, kid!

Show »

Just Say No

That’s right. Spit it right the fuck out…

There’s no end-game to a fanatical dogmatic ideology, there’s no final anything when you have an anti-belief system, which holds no real value of anything really, for anything, it has no value system at all: it is always against something else but never for anything; it keeps rolling and consuming, because it cannot stop its own momentum; it needs an enemy. It creates its own orbit around its enemies and cannot deviate. It cannot stop any more than one can prove a negative.

That’s a good analogy for these anti-beliefs—they seek to prove a negative.

The feminist movement is another example (first of all, it should be a “humanist movement” if indeed it were “for” equality—which it isn’t, it’s simply anti-male, misandrist, which makes it about the least honest movement ever conceived); even to those who grant that this movement was necessary (and there’s no evidence to suggest it ever was—because it’s not), it would seem to be sort of redundant now. If, as they say, they wanted equality in this respect or that respect, and now they most certainly have it, why are there still feminists around? Isn’t it “mission accomplished” and time to find some real work to do somewhere, like read to blind kids?

Because feminists don’t give a shit about blind kids—they only care about more—more for themselves, like any victorious leader in a revolution; “more stuff for me!”

Or us.

Show »


“And less for you.”

In the series, Star Trek: Deep Scape Nine, when Odo finds his control-freak changeling family, on their own planet, and discovers that they are in fact “The Dominion,” he asks the female changeling something like why do they need to bring order to the Alpha Quadrant and she says, basically:

“Because things that you control can’t hurt you.”

What a profound statement.

I think this is the heart of feminine control meme; why a frightened, physically weaker creature tries to control everyone and everything in sight. To have security, to stop being so afraid, to have “power.” And power = control.

Their “revolution” will never end, either—until all women become an aristocracy and every last (actual) man on the planet has been imprisoned or destroyed utterly, the pussified, enslaved survivors left to worship them as goddesses. Again the question: And after that?

They’ll keep going, waging another war upon their own gender, those who aren’t “feminine” enough. Ask anyone of these types one question: “And then what?” and after each answer, keeping asking that question…


…sooner or later they come to the end of their slippery frayed roped and will not have an answer—they will have exhausted their brainful of dogmatic party-line answers and will then have actually think for themselves…and they’ll pause, and start grasping at straws. Or they will start screaming and pointing at you…like the pod-people from Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Show »

Because Anarchists do not think for themselves. Like all fanatics, they just don’t think—they don’t question, they don’t come up with their own ideas—at most they change the central theme a little bit (Marxism—> Marxist-Leninism—> Marxist-Feminism—> Anarchofeminism—> et cetera); at worst, they are nothing but muppets.

After feminism “wins”—but it will never really win; it simply cannot—it will continue to order and control and manipulate every human and every animal and every blade of grass into a global tomb.

Point is, revolutions never end. They get twisted up into the structure they once detested and then get overthrown by someone else.

And Mater rolls on, smiling at all this silliness, undaunted…

Why am I am not an Anarchist is the same as why I am not a Communist or Marxist or Feminist, or for that matter, a Liberal, or Conservative, or Republican or Democrat, or American or Canadian, or English or Welsh or Russian or Irish or German, or a vegan or Neo Cubist Deconstructionist…

Show »

Commie Dogshit

To be free is to be absolutely free—of designations and labels—of memes, which are the real enslavers here.

The problem isn’t what Zubaty expressed—that we need new memes. No, the memes that have been propagated since the dawn of agriculture are the new memes; it’s the older ones we need now, the ones long forgotten, the ones cast out, the old wise underdogs of memetics. The masculine ones. The new memes we need are the oldest memes that are no longer used…

No; the revolutionary change must be brought about by an overthrow of the controlling power, not by changing its personnel.

That is what all revolutions do—change personnel. They are one and the same, overthrowing the controlling of power (those losing control) and changing personnel (those gaining control). What is the difference?

He does not get into that; instead, he rambles on rhetorically about the future utopia, like Communists in Russia did a hundred years ago.

Some of us never learn…

Anarchism is often brushed aside by the politicians with the remark that it is a beautiful dream, but quite impossible. It is for this reason that I have taken here a purely practical view of it; and now, in order that we may be quite sure of meeting no insurmountable difficulties in running our new society, we must first examine it a little more in detail.

It may be said that, in taking bread-making as an example, I have chosen a subject about which there is little room for a difference of opinion. Every one agrees on the necessity for bread, and practically every one as to its method of manufacture.

Well, I suppose I am devoid of the agricultural meme, since I am against bread. It’s a terribly wasteful food source that was one of the first divisions of labour, it’s an agricultural food product that’s made from grain, grain that’s grown in vast fields, fields that require slaves—and where did they get the slaves to work these fields? From the forests that were destroyed as a result of the “need” for grain. We traded ancient old growth forest for gluten intolerance of today. We traded great herds and wolves for a captive grain species that has pervaded the human mind for thousands of years, helping to form religion and government. We traded ancient hunter-gatherers for global pollution and the enslavement of animals to help work the ground or get slaughtered in pens (if they’re lucky, outdoor pens).

I am fucking against bread. It is not necessary if your population isn’t a bloated pig of consumers, cash cattle, “labour.” It is based on the complete conquering and detailed order and manipulation of life—agriculture is sedentary and destructive and evil.

I’d rather hunt and be a carnivore again…I’d rather leave things be, and adapt, improvise, and overcome, and let the chips fall where they may.

Change comes, all on its own, without our rat-in-a-cage-like meddling. But only those who seek power (control) the most speak most loudly of the need for change. What they’re really saying is they need control—over you. Over everyone. Then everything will be glorious.

Perhaps they’re projecting their own life onto the lives of everyone; perhaps they can’t seem to change themselves, or their lives, so they figure they’ll try to change everyone else…

Is it not now evident that this Anarchist Revolution is the revolution towards which the Labour movement has been working so long? It was in spite of the most savage laws that the workers first formed their protective Unions against the brutal exploitation of the capitalists. To-day it is the same struggle, for it is still the representatives of the Government who are bludgeoning the workers down into the mines and back to their factories, to work on the terms that the masters dictate.

Well, I’ve had enough of this Marxist gospel—and it’s really not worth any more of my time. I am against “work,” “labour,” and “unions” and “governments” and “capitalists,” and “anarchists” and “feminists” and “communists…” and gospels. Thing’s that never adapt to anything—they manipulate everything and everyone to adapt to them. They absorb everything, like the Catholic Church did, and assimilate. This is anti-freedom. I’m also against “intellectuals” who just pervert shit that makes kids cry…

Show »

Anarchy Made Him Cry

[This is not a natural way to be. I’m not saying how anyone should be or has to be; I’m not telling anyone what to do. And, though this is still a work in progress, I’m trying hard to not say there is anything wrong with anything. I know there’s nothing wrong with the world; it’s doing what it has to do, and so are we. The small control freak within, the piece of tissue on the left side of my head which is also fighting off memes that reinforce the urge to manipulate and order…well, it’s still whispering that there’s something that needs fixing. Something is broken. The world ain’t right.

No, it ain’t right; it’s left. But that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with it. It is what it is, and I must do what I must do, because I am who I am. A practicing non-ist. A Sunday Whicheverist. A fully ordained Yadda-yadda-ist Monk.]

But unlike all those “-ists,” I am against them because I am against civilization itself; but that is not my belief system. I am pro-Nature, pro-animal, and pro-hunter-gatherer. I am anti-mater because I am pro-pater = the spiritual. I am pro-energy. I am pro-righteous. Pro-Jesus. Pro-Buddha. I’m pro-freedom. Pro-truth. Pro-faith. Pro-life. Pro-man, pro-boy, pro-girl, pro-woman. Pro-masculine—and pro-feminine…but mostly here I am pro-balance.


Everything that is in opposition to these, I am against. If nothing was in opposition to these, I’d still have the same belief system, so it’s definitely not an anti-belief system, like theirs. It’s not cobbled up around a negative.

And that’s why I am not an Anarchist, or “Anti-Christ.”

I don’t know know if this was intentional, either, but that there anarchist symbol looks like that other symbol…for, uh, I forget. Lucifer, or “the feminine in all things?” Forget which. Interesting, though. Later, people…


[Yes, that’s “Meh,” not men. As in, Bill: “Hey, Bob, how your sack hanging?”—-Bob: “Meh.”]

I haven’t written much in this deal lately. Not sure why. Nothing much to say, I guess, recently that would sound very different to (yet pale copies of) other entries, and aside from that, I haven’t been able to wind myself up, mood-wise, to get pissed about anything. (No, been out of weed for a while; that ain’t it.)

Translation: my mood’s been even and it’s been hard to get worked up. At times I get worked up when I see something stupid—

*It Is My Solemn Sworn Duty In This Life To Point Out All That Which I Find Foolish, Hypocritical, And Utter Bullshit*

—or provide an alternate view on something, or, obviously, insert the so-much-needed masculine or male point of view wherever it’s lacking, and it’s always lacking in this completely lopsided world.

Further translation: it’s been difficult getting angry lately because I feel pretty ‘good’ (this word is so worn-out and silly) all around, and am gradually getting closer to being in the exact position I need to be in, in order to leave for the Coast.

“Why do you need to be worked up or angry?”

Because I believe that human expression is best when it’s passionate—this doesn’t mean sexually, to which most people seem to limit its meaning, but rather…I dunno. I call it “fire.” Fire within; spark, drive, aggressively but constructively forcing your energy out, like skin cleansing its pores. “Cleansing” indeed, because that’s what it’s like. There’s scarsely anything I hate more than bland, dull, mediocre blather, small talk and chit chat; trivium. Or, as my sister would say, talk about “happy stuff.” It’s like a flat-line on a heart monitor; monotone, tedious, irrelevant, lifeless and soulless. Spiritless—even better.

“Doesn’t that increase blood pressure and stress, isn’t it unhealthy?”


“SO…don’t you want to take care of yourself?”


“Why!? Um…I dunno, so you can live a rich and fulfilling life maybe…?”

1. Why would I want that? 2. And why is that relative to health?

“1. Because that’s what humans are supposed to do! 2. Because we should live as long as possible and ty to be happy while we’re here, how ’bout?”

1. Who says? And what wisdom is so grand that I should obey such a rule?

2. “Should?” Again, who says? If I want to absorb every speck of information in the world before the age of 45 and ignite it like gun powder within my mind to create something other than what we see every single prosaic day, in every single prosaic way, then that’s far better. Far better to live short, hard and fast, and blow your mind through the stratosphere than live a long, comfy, safe, boring existence as a human drone; sheep. Slaves watching TV…hampsters running on wheels…dogs chasing rubber balls in the backyard, barking at shadows…

I prefer quality over quantity.

3. How ’bout not? “Happiness” is simply meaningless; a word, which is an illusion, that leads one—absolutely without fail—back to unhappiness and sadness. It’s a drug, and you always come down from it because drugs aren’t real and never last: drugs and addictions are an unwise basis for deeming your average mood or, in particular, overall human “state.” State of being. I’m striving to limit my addictions ultimately to food, water, air, before I die. When I am empty, here, at last, I’ll be complete—hopefully just before I die—when I have utterly nothing left but these three things, wanting and needing nothing else, that’s when my life transcends all other versions of my previous states of existence. No one seeking “happiness”—an extended period of joy—has ever “reached it.” Are you kidding me? It’s called chasing the dragon—might as well get yourself some herion or jerk off or eat some candy-covered cholocate-banana-flavoured sugar, because it’s exactly the same.

(Non-happy is what I seek, and I haven’t felt unhappy in some time…can’t even recall the last depressive period I had.) It’s a dog chasing its tail—futile ego pursuits….Be a slave, a “happiness junkie,” to your own brain chemistry if you want. I’ll choose the hard way and do without.

“1. Nobody ‘says’—it’s just common sense! 2. That’s risky and foolish! 3. That’s completely silly!”

1. Most people are barely self-aware and miserable, entirely entangled in, consumed by, and blind within, their own egos, and merely act a part—they invent a self-commercial of how they should be and fine-tune it until others swallow the deception, until they fit in, gain praise for it, and seem outwardly “normal,” while inside they’re crying like little kids still, scared and confused, in the spiritless deserts of their souls praying for rain; it’s not who they really are.

That is common; “common” can rot. That does not make sense to me. I’ll be “me,” thanks, and no one else. (The next time someone in real life tells me something I “should” do or be, I’m gonna spit in their eye.)

2. No one gains anything in life without risking first—courage comes from doing (not talking about doing) and is earned after recklessness and risk. It’s only as foolish as you are cowardly. A tiny child hiding under its bed, wishing the scary noises would go away.

Fuck off. I’ll walk out and find that noise—and if it’s a large hairy monster with red eyes and big glowing fangs, I’ll smile right back and say, “What up, beasty?” Maybe offer it some orange juice and a game of chess or something. To do otherwise is to live in fear, as an infant, and I’m beyond that. I prefer to grow up and remain so, to face it all and dare it to do its worst. I shall endure it all and smile afterwards, expanding as I do so, or die trying; and if death comes, it comes—it will anyway—so what? Why is that ‘bad’ and not completely natural?…why run away from it? This is the opposite of chasing the dragon—it’s believing a dragon is chasing you, my friend. I have other things to chase, real things.

Go ahead and tippy-toe about through life, sheltered from all suffering and unpleasantness and so much ickiness, if you want, buddy. I’m running out to meet that shit head-on.

3. I can see that you insist upon seeing it that way, so further conversation is pointless. Your mind is not open, enslaved by ego, wanting approval, acceptance, praise and to avoid shame…you have no awareness of all that’s holding you back; what little respect you must have for your own intelligence and personal development…

“Crazy talk!”

You betcha.

Moving the site…

There was a glitch in moving Nordiblog to the new website—I’m getting a new domain through my step-dad’s online cash account (I refuse to get one myself, the same way I refuse to own a car or even a cellphone…my hypocrisy really does have limits; the only static material attachments I’ll end up with ideally is an e-domain and a computer), which is overdrawn, so he has to wait until he has the money to settle it before I can give him the cash for the new site (what he owes is much more than what a new site would cost—I’m nice, but I’m not paying off anyone’s debt).

Another week and a half, roughly.

“The Feminine, women, (biological) females, and Woman

One thing that struck me this week was how many do not see a distinction between the above. In this gross tedium of modern “thought,” it is immensely politically incorrect (lace curtain) to make any distinctions (or even bring up the subject), which is precisely why it is necessary to do so; the formula is actually quite easy to follow: what most people think should be ignored; what most people do, do the opposite. (The world is entirely bassackwards. And I can prove it. But not all at once.)

I’m not about to get into the WOMAN deal, since David Quinn (quite) adequately covers this in his Exposition

Love the initial quote, which is all I’ll get into regarding this, because I could not say it all any better than he (if you have a functioning mind, an open one, and some guts, read what’s in that above link).

[Someone took a youth to a sage and said: “Look, he is being corrupted by women.”

The sage shook his head and smiled. “It is men,” said he, “that corrupt women; and all the failings of women should be atoned and improved in men. For it is man who creates for himself the image of woman, and woman forms herself according to this image.”

“You are too kindhearted about women,” said one of those present; “you do not know them.”

The sage replied: “Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes – truly, a hard law for women. All of humanity is innocent of its existence; but women are doubly innocent. Who could have oil and kindness enough for them?”

“Damn oil! Damn kindness!” Someone else shouted out of the crowd; “women need to be educated better!”

“Men need to be educated better,” said the sage and beckoned to the youth to follow him.

The youth, however, did not follow him.

Nietzsche, 1882.]

For it is man who creates for himself the image of WOMAN, and woman forms herself according to this image. Truer words have not been spoken or written.

Now, the other three—biological females: those born with the female physical ‘gender;’ humans born with cunts—I can get into. I just explained one. “Females” and “women” are not the same thing; “WOMAN” and “women” often are, but not always—I include men (biological males—humans born with cocks) regularly when discussing “women.”

“Does this have to do with ‘the feminine’?”

Exactly. One thing I have realized lately is that there is nothing wrong with “the feminine” either; I know, I know, sounds like I’m really slipping here, that my ‘misogyny’ (my former expressed loathing of the feminine, not—obviously—“hatred for all women”—ridiculous concept) is fading, but I doubt it’s possible to hate an object or its symbol—one can only, in any real way, hate its function, its actions, the consequences, such as based on how constuctive or destructive it is regarding Nature, the natural order of life, for instance.

“I don’t follow you…”

If a rock tumbles down a cliff, eventually beaming you on the noodle…do you hate the rock?


Do you hate gravity?


Do you hate what happened, the situation you were in, or the results of that rock falling…?

“I guess so…the result.”

Same thing.

All humans utterly masculine would lead to extinction (underpopulate). All humans utterly feminine would do the same (overpopulate). Nature, in its unfathomable wisdom, divided up our genders for a reason: it is called balance. Right now, there is nothing even remotely close to balance on this planet—hence my life-long struggle to unmask WOMAN and discover what precisely this “feminine” thing really is, what it does, what it’s supposed to be doing in terms of natural order: what its nature is.

Thus, “hating” the feminine is as fruitless and meaningless as “hating” a woman, female, or male, man, woman, child, a Hitler or Queen Elizabeth or Stalin or teenager or Bush or Hillary or feminist or Attila or bimbo or primitive or king or rapist or asshole or slut or nagging hag or liar or corporate whore or nabob or manipulative bitch or criminal or farmer or priest or priestess or god or God or goddess or anything else we have socially invented for our current civilization.


Yes, all of these we want—that’s precisely why they exist, popping in every single generation since “human beings” invented the term human being: they all serve their purpose in our insane human constructs; they exist because we collectively will them into existence and subconsciously go about producing them. Like terrorists, drug lords, whatever, we want these things deep down, else we’d stop the entire process and come up with something better. We don’t because it works; we love to hate. We create evil, socially engineer it, to create goodness and to justify a stucture set up to “fight” it or feed it. Makes us feel less pathetic and insignificant, I expect, but there might be millions of reasons why….

“So, what do you hate?”

Ignorance, hypocrisy, lies—to name a few—and all things designed to perpetuate these. I hate the actions, and results of these actions, that many people do, the things they do. When anger gets out of hand, that’s when we confuse the difference between object and function—hating someone and not what they do.

“So, you don’t hate Hitler or Bush?”

No. Should I? Do I hate a bird for flying? Or if that bird flies through window, steals my last bit of food and takes off again…do I hate what just happened? To blame is to objectify; I can neither blame nor hate that bird, even though in anger and hunger I might curse it. That’s a distortion.

“But before, you said there’s rational and irrational hate…”

Not for objects, for their functions. Hating a thing for what it is…is like hating yourself for taking a piss; it’s what you do—were you to hold it in until your bladder explodes and you die of infection? Or is it just a function of a living being? Is the function natural?

It’s not always easy to make this crucial distinction, and, admittedly, blind rage makes it nearly impossible to do so. Habitual hate and anger makes it even harder.

“But why hate a function at all?”

Exactly. It depends if that function is “as it should be.”

“Come on! You already said you’re not going to be anything someone else says you should be!”

Right, someone else—no human has that wisdom, only Nature does. The rational and sound natural order of this planet isn’t telling me that I should be anything—it had done already so at the time of my birth; how the masculine was supposed to function is completely lost, and how the feminine was supposed to function is as warped as much as the masculine is missing or mutated (as “patriarchy”) in the human organism. Again, viewing male behaviour in civilization and calling it “inherent” is as stupid, misleading, unscientific, and inaccurate as calling dog behaviour “wolf behaviour.” Dogs are domesticated and are not acting out their true nature (it stuns me every time I need to explain this; it’s such a given for me now); men are domesticated and are equally as unnatural. Male behaviour is not “masculine behaviour.” Men are not masculine beings anymore than dogs are still wolves. Captive nature is not true nature. (To quote Megadeth: “Captive honour is no honour.” One’s nature is no different.) Think: males in prison compared with males not in prison—very little difference in context, with regards to dogs and wolves, but extreme difference in observable function of “the male.” Cage a wolf and prod it with a stick relentlessly, brutalize it, “teach it,” train it, and what happens? Twisted, mutated nature; perversion of nature, and of Nature. Prison mentality. Same with men. Domesticated male = “house-bound” male (Norse: “hus-band”) = feminine ‘man’ = a ‘woman’ with a dick = mangina. And so forth.

“Even if you’re right, that by defintion means we’re fucked! Dogs have been bred into this state! We’re doomed to be “women” or feminine forever!”

Why? Leave a dog out in the wild and it gradually (or quickly, depending how hungry it is) reverts to its pure nature, its original form; we call these “feral dogs” or “wild dogs.” The hardest part for that dog is starting to fend for itself, being self-sufficient and independent—the shock of loss…of such a former cozy and lazy, captive existence, suddenly thrust in an alien environment—alien! (The first thing it will do is desperately try to get back to that precious ease of life—its cage—all it has known as “normal.”) It’s alienated from its environment and its nature; Christ, like a fish wearing a hat and strolling through a mall. That’s not “evolution”—it’s biological perversion, since nothing natural arranged it so.

Nature, its environment, and evolution set it all straight again when the feminine stops manipulating and controlling it. Except dogs aren’t fully conscious or self-aware (sentient) beings and so men can guide themselves through their purification process back to a natural state, finding their true nature once more. (The trouble is with men properly identifying what Man is, what “masculine” is—ever wonder why no men really know or can agree on this, and yet all women readily identify most of what’s feminine, what Woman is?—here’s where we flounder and are at risk to the ego.) It’s not like we’re all feminine at birth—every human is wild when it’s born: we domesticate it youth.

This is the feminine in action; taming, controlling, with no masculine to balance it out (or properly resist it). What my spider-sense tells me here is that, and this isn’t even a theory and just a crazy idea I have, at some point, roughly 20 millennia ago, something happened and children of some tribe were either left without parents or, more likely, without fathers…an entire group was raised by mothers (no male initiation) only; and what resulted was their rendition of “education,” and they were sensible and practical and stuck to their strengths: gathering—farming. They couldn’t hunt and so the Veggie Age began. And it made so much sense, it became “wisdom” and fertility cults, religion, Mother Goddess worship and sacrifices and such resulted as it spread out, further and further from the Levantine:

Behold: the spread of farming culture: civilization = feminization—this is the progressive range of the feminine itself.

(No, the Chinese did not invent agriculture independently of the source—it all originated in the same place, spread by trade, by the early Silk Road, long-used in prehistoric times; aside from the Indus Valley, there was no fertile ground (no fertile rivers) along the Silk Road route until we get to the Chinese river basins, lush and great for seeds. Trade, technology and culture spread there and cropped up before 8000 BC.

Think I’m making this up?—snoop around here for the Origins of Farming , where I got that above gif, from Arch Atlas—not a “pro-male” or “masculine” site, either, completely unbiased. There’s also reason to suspect that farming reached the Americas via the sea-farring Polynesians in the Pacific and influenced early Mesoamerican cultures. (My old “pristine, untouched” North America concept is in tatters, I know. Farming may not have been invented independently in Mesoamerica either (Aztec, Inka, et al); thus “whenever humans sit still, we tend to concentrate on gathering, in warmer climates” might be in error—all farming seems to have one single origin.)

There’s even strong evidence that the populations of Easter Island—Polynesians arriving from western Pacific islands—had contact with the Nazca and such on mainland South America, as well as evidence that the pre-Olmec were influenced by African cultures from around 3000 BC; many African skeletons have been found there dated from different ancient periods, and all the Olmec deities were blatantly “negroid” or black in appearance. Only in the North did people remain free—only here was the primal masculine preserved.)

Nothing else seems to make sense…why men would abandon everything they held utterly sacred, vital, and do everything as women wanted, everything that was easiest?…it doesn’t follow, not with all I now know about these ancient people in the pre-Paleolithic and Paleolithic, or what I know about the masculine, how deep and strong and respected male culture was back then…something really fucked up happened and it started a cultural domino effect…

It’s the left brain enslaving the right brain. We engineer it according to the same pattern ancient women began doing to get men out of the forests and onto the farms (see Gilgamesh-Enkidu for a pre-biblical peek into this historical example). The correct term is “pedomorphism.” Or proper evolutionary adaptation through adolescence—it needs a natural environment and no “human” influence. The hope for humanity lies here and only here.

“Sounds like you’ve replaced “God” with “Nature” to me…”

“Nature” is merely a word for the total sum of all life on this planet (one small “franchise” of life, as a biosphere, in the galaxy and indeed the universe; “Nature” is just a microcosm for all life absolutely everywhere in the “totality”) and its many systems, including what we call “evolution,” which is the measuring of change in and function of life forms here on Earth. It’s alive, I think “wise,” not by definition “intelligent”—our words can’t adequately define or describe it. But it’s no deity; thus, no god or God.

“Okay, sorta makes sense, but why do you blame women—like up there, ‘ancient women’ and ‘stop manipulating and controlling…'”

(1) No blame—as I said already, it’s what (2) the feminine (not necessarily “woman”) does—as well as blame! I understand mostly why and how it happened now, so I might be a bit sad at times, even angry, over the current state of affairs, but I know it’s no one’s “fault.” Again, in its proper context (natural order), the feminine is needed in the human equation—but that human equation is no longer a natural 1+2=3…it’s a goddamned 0.005+2007.3/A=Z*20,0001=WTF? Which leads me to a much-needed review of…

The Masculine & The Feminine…

The following is a recent post at GF (not that old GF) that I adapted from thought and from previous writing on the subject—I’ll arrange it better here…even though it’s still all scattered and in no real order (as I intended). I’ll go back and forth for more practical comparison….

(Prefatory comments… These are almost always exact opposites, in extreme, of course, and no human is all one or all the other, and “physical gender” doesn’t necessarily enter into this; there’s nothing inherently “good” or “bad” in any of all this, except the collective human imbalance of one in regards to the other, a fraction of which I have demonstrated and illuminated on this blog. Nature split it so originally for balance—hence half our teeth are for grinding cereals and half for shredding flesh. Hence the Age of Civilization, Age of Empires, Age of Agriculture, has all been simply the Feminist Age. (Thank climatic phenomena that the masculine was sealed off from all that in some key areas—see above gif—so we have some reference now as to what the masculine originally was…) Unlike some who use only modern human behaviour erroneously, or those who select positive human attributes and label them “masculine,” out of ignorance, and call the unpleasant ones “feminine,” or those who select the “good stuff” about humans and call it “feminine” and all negative “masculine,” also out of ignorance, I have been painfully striving to be as accurate and fair in this as I possibly can be, based mostly on what we know of both genders today, both genders 20 thousand years back in Eurasia, and what we know of both in cultures such as Native North Americans, Indigenous Australians, et cetera. If a reader locates bias or inaccuracy, post a comment to let me know and I’ll have a look.)

1i. “The feminine…”

1a. Its symbol has eternally been a hole or circle—a void or abyss. (The symbol for feminine defines its very nature; its female sexual organs and reproductive process do as well.) It’s a taker; it lures, it draws in and sucks inward, being filled and nurturing. It grows the seeds. Its character is to collect (gather), settle, contract, stay still (or be pursued until the time is auspicious to ‘be caught’). It wants to be penetrated, violated, to “take in,” to be gotten inside of…

2i. “The masculine…”

2a. Its symbol has eternally been a protrusion or triangle—a tapered point or arrow. (The symbol for masculine defines its very nature; its male sexual organs and reproductive process do as well.) It’s a giver; it provides, it extends outward and penetrates, filling and nurishing. It deposits the seeds. Its character is to stalk (hunt), explore, expand, wander (and pursue: to keep moving and to ‘catch’). It wants to penetrate, violate, to “insert,” get inside of…

1ii. “The feminine…”

1b. Sedentary. The feminine attack-defense might be manifested as a snare or trap (vaginal); “fly-paper.” It strives for shelter, for protection, to be served. Cowardly. Drive for permanence, continuity; sameness. Subconsciously seeks acceptance—captivity. Extravagant. Loves crowds, hates solitude. Fearful in Nature, like a fish out of water. Impatient.

2ii. “The masculine…”

2b. Nomadic. The masculine attack-defense might be manifested as an arrow or bullet (phallic); “fly-swatter.” It strives to shelter, to protect, to serve. Brave. Drive for changefulness, variation; difference. Subconsciously seeks independence—freedom. Minimalist. Hates crowds, loves solitude. Confident in Nature, totally at home there. Patient.

1iii. “The feminine…”

1c. The Chinese correctly envisioned this as “Yin (dark, passive force).” It is indirect. Hidden. Shallow. Soft. Liberal. Primary tendency in basic human dichotomy is “Yes.” Conformity. Allow. It’s self-centered—it accepts sacrifices, for its own good. Irresponsible—passes blame easily and refuses to “own up to shit.” Its strength is its facade of weakness. Its wisdom is beauty.

2iii. “The masculine…”

2c. The Chinese correctly envisioned this as “Yang (bright, active force).” It is direct. In the open. Deep. Hard. Conservative. Primary tendency in basic human dichotomy is “No.” Resistance. Deny. It’s selfless—it sacrifices itself for others, for a greater good. Responsible—accepts fault easily and strives to find solutions rather than assign fault or blame. Its weakness is its facade of strength. Its beauty is wisdom.

1iv. “The feminine…”

1d. Inside. Follow. Copy, destroy—indirectly, often through the masculine. Collective, unity—“a massive group.” (One large female egg cell.) Cooperative yet argumentative with others. Psychological and empirical. “What’s easiest to do is best.”
MORE. Hoarding behaviour; greedy. Yielding, ‘wins’ in surrender. Fragile. Importance of wants; desires.

2iv. “The masculine…”

2d. Outside. Lead. Create, build—directly, by itself or in teams. Individuality, tribalism—“many small groups.” (Several small male sperm cells.) Competitive yet wants to get along with others. Physical and metaphysical. “What’s most difficult & challenging is best.”
LESS. Travel light; give away. Stubborn, ‘wins’ in tenacity. Resiliant. Importance of needs; necessity.

1v. “The feminine…”

1e. Attraction (like a proton). Prefers to be “at rest.” Dominates through cunning and persuasion. Deceptive (masks and guile) in overall personality. Fosters stability yet conventionality. Hesitates, over-anaylzes.
Submissive. Prone to worry about problems; asking for help is no big deal, accepting help is sensible. Keen on convincing others to adapt to itself and altering situations to better suit itself.

2v. “The masculine…”

2e. Repulsion (like an electron). Prefers to be “in motion.” Dominates through brute force. Truthful (honest and clear) in overall personality. Fosters fragmentation yet originality. Takes action immediately.
Aggressive. Prone to solve problems; asking for help is demeaning, accepting help is insulting. Keen on adapting to others and to situations.

1vi. “The feminine…”

1f. Its strength mentally resides in the left hemisphere of the brain—originally: manipulates intensely (“control freak”); plant-object-‘thing’-oriented (“diamonds are a girl’s best friend”—does not tend to work well in teams, better at delegating and specialization in overall social group).
Rationalizational, logicizational, organizational, “clean and tidy;” very verbal, spoken-language-heavy communication.
Skill and talent, concerned more with details, and literal things, et cetera.
Sequential. Linear. Many shallow emotions.

2vi. “The masculine…”

2f. Its strength mentally resides in the right hemisphere of the brain—originally: relinquishes control; (“leaves things be”); animal-people-‘living being’-oriented (“dog is man’s best friend”—tends to work well in teams, not prone to specialization—better to improvise, overcome obstacles, not be limited in ability).
“Dreamer,” instinctual, conceptual and perceptual (spatially too), disorganized, “dirty and messy;” very non-verbal, body-language-heavy communication.
Intuition and imagination, concerned more with ‘the big-picture,’ universality, and abstract things, et cetera.
Random. 3-D. Some deep feelings.

1vii. “The feminine…”

1g. Practical yet prone to over-complication. Better with letters, numbers, words. Better with the obvious. “Sees things as they appear.” Multi-tasking—“compulsive.” Concerned with names, categories. Follows guidelines, formats, maps; follows regulations. Talks relationships. More focused overall awareness and narrow self-awareness (*** what’s called “semi-consciousness” or else, and I disagree here, “unconsciousness”).

2vii. “The masculine…”

2g.Goofy yet prone to simplicity. Better with images, symbols, patterns. Better with the subtle. “Reads between the lines.” Singular determination—“obsessive.” Concerned with functions, meaning. Trail-blazes, goes by feel, sense; rebels against rules and regulations. Does relationships. Great self-awareness and vast overall awareness (*** what’s often called “full consciousness”).

1viii. “The feminine…”

1h. Its human manifestation, originally within females, in terms of culture, has been gathering; essentially, it’s a herbivore. In terms of belief systems: religious, material—worship of objects and things; wealth and ‘power.’ Corporeal; flesh.
Static laws. Morality.
(Hence “Mother Earth.” Hence a goddess, a humanization and feminization of something else, not the thing itself; idol. Matter.)

2viii. “The masculine…”

2h. Its human manifestation, originally within males, in terms of culture, has been hunting; essentially, it’s a carnivore. In terms of belief systems: animistic, spiritual—deep respect for essence, the intangible, and the fluidity of life (or “Life Force”). Ethereal; “ghost in the machine.”
Organic philosophies. Ethics.
(Hence “Father Sky.” Hence a shaman, a medium between the material and the spiritual realms; soul. Energy.)

(*** —I’m still undecided on the point of consciousness—-dual consciousness theory puts all this in new light and a different perspective: each hemisphere has its own consciousness or levels of consciousness (LOC); also, there’s scarsely been any female example of staggering consciousness (myths of Hypatia notwithstanding) to determine whether or not the feminine itself is barely conscious, or if it’s merely a matter of “consciousness atrophy” in the great bulk of females, meaning that under the right circumstances every woman, if she’d “use her brain, all of it,” has the potential for “higher” LOC as some men have. I’m uncertain and need to study this further sometime.)

I was tempted to leave out consciousness altogether—I’m unconvinced there is significant “opposites” here, as much: differences; it seems that the right brain is more “big picture” prone concerning perceptive awareness and overall LOC; the left brain is like a magnifying glass with it.

No; scratch that. A better example: one’s a candle up close and the other is the sun—the left brain can see details in cracks and creases with its candle of consciousness, while the right cannot but can see the entire world; the left cannot see the whole deal at all, but its ‘light’ seems brighter because it’s right in your face. Illusion; the right is nearly limitless in scope. (The sun is one-million candlelight per square inch; a candle is easily blown out—logic-dependent, and when that breaks down, it’s blind. The sun is always there, even though sometimes we can’t see it.)

Anyway, enough for now.

Have a day, folks.