feminist

All posts tagged feminist

Wow. I discovered a few things recently. First, that there is a thing called “MGTOW.” This means “Men Going Their Own Way.”

Seems right up my alley, don’t it?

Fuck yeah. I’ve been all about that for…a long, long time.

If you’re new to this concept, here’s a handy dandy video:

According to this, there are a few levels.

1. Level One MGTOW. Here’s a dude who realizes what women are really like, yet suffers and goes through the motions in order to get laid while in a long-term relationshits, or to get married, and-or to have children. This was me from 2000 to 2004. And from 2007 to 2011.

“Purple Pill Man,” as he’s called, is a believer in the NAWALT (“Not All Women Are Like That”), and searches and searches for that rare, elusive unicorn—that woman who is not a clone of every other woman out there.

I’ve come across a lot of brothers like this. They sometimes tell me: “You just haven’t met the right girl” or “Oh, you’ll find someone who’s right for you” when I try to talk about this stuff… They simply do not understand that I do not wish to find anyone, anywhere, for any reason. Not even if she’s into everything I’m into and wants to live in the wilderness, too—not even if she’s a cute, hard-working mute who wants a cabin a few hundred yards away from mine, where we’d just visit each other from time to time.

[Me, I know there are some very rare women who are different—personally, I just don’t care anymore. I don’t need any woman and I have better things to do anyway. Even if I didn’t, I think I’m too far gone—feminism has destroyed all hope for me, and now I’m far too cynical and mistrustful. If I did care, I mean. Honestly, in moments of extreme loneliness, or extreme lustiness, I do have weak periods in which I *think* I could stand a woman for a while.

Yet it fades pretty quickly, thank God.

I’ve had two offers of sex over the last two years, and, thankfully, I was able to turn them both down.

Good to know that after three years by myself, I have remained strong.

Strength is the key to freedom…]

2. Level Two MGTOW. This guy stays clear of marriage, co-habitation and long-term relationshits, but “dates”—fucks—women here and there. This was me from 2004 to 2006.

3. Level Three MGTOW.
This edified fellow doesn’t “date” women at all, and limits his interactions with women whenever and wherever possible. Me from 1997 to 2000, and from 2004 to 2007.

4. Level Four MGTOW. This clever chap believes in limiting contact and interaction with the State as well as most people, in addition to women. And “ghosts” it for the most part (stays off society’s RADAR). This guy would be the ultimate Zeta Male.

Here is where I’m at—2011 to present.

Neat. I’m part of another movement and didn’t even know it.

That was the second thing I discovered recently—that I’m a Level Four MGTOW.

The third thing is that I am also what is called a “Zeta Male.”

Interesting stuff. Great to see men of all ages starting to free themselves from the system and from the women who witlessly keep us shackled to it.

Fuck them. Fuck the system. And fuck the mangina clowns, the religious shamers, and the “white night” cocksmokers who try to manipulate and ridicule us back into this rigged game of horseshit. One of the rigged games, anyways.

“Take responsibility,” they parrot. “Do your duty,” they tell us. “Be a man,” they say. “Man up,” they squawk.

Man up?

Man up your ass!

I’m no longer a slave. I don’t work on Maggie’s farm no more…

Anyway, not that I need or want titles, I just found it quite interesting. And overall inspiring—after seeing and meeting so many pathetic, deluded, or-and hopeless men in cages, it’s awesome to see so many busting the fuck out.

In other news, I’m in Edmonton, trying to get my shit together before heading back to the coast. I spent 10 days in detox and got off everything—quit smoking as well. I’m about to start an exercise program (had to wait due to another back injury…more on that below) and get back into shape.

Yeah, I got some X-rays taken. My knee is fucked—something grinding in there. And my lower back appears to have major damage to the ligaments/tendons, which seem to have been yanked out where they connect in a few places, from that stupidity last summer. But I did something similar back in 2006.

Surgery might be an option, although this may tie me up (and I’ll get out of shape again and have to waste more fucking time, after recovering, to build myself up again) for months…and I won’t be able to return to the coast until the summer.

And where would I stay in the meantime? I’m homeless. I could not impose on anyone—and Jordan has helped me enough.

So, in short, fuck it. I’ll have to suffer and tough it out—get into shape as best I can here, and just be careful next time I head out.

For fuck sakes, never think that you can get into good physical condition while doing dangerous shit alone—don’t be a tit like I was. Get into shape first—you will prevent costly and unnecessary injuries…

That is all for now.

Oh, and as for Christmas—bah humbug.

Do something for someone else on a day of the year that doesn’t obligate you. Think for your-fucking-selves!

And stop buying shit, you wage serfs…

But I know you won’t, so “have a nice time with friends and loved ones,” yadda yadda…

Laterino.

“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.”

Whuh?

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.

“Change”

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 »

Umm

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…

“Anti-Christ”

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…

Introduction

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.

ANTI.

Against.

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.

Why?

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?

Class…

Progress…

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.”

1984

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…

Anyway…

Sure as hell beats the Borg…

Show »

Borg

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.

Why?

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 »

Goering

“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…

AND THEN WHAT?

…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.

Pro-leave-it-all-the-fuck-alone!

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…

Anarchism

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

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

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

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

Indeed. I shall always remember that.

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

Thanks for asking.

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

Anyway, she kicks ass.

Read and learn, my friends…

“a woman’s horizon”

P.31

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

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

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

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

Had to keep reading…

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

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

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

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

P.32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christ, what a fucking liar.

Anyway…

P.33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile…

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

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

Ouch.

More later…

Edit. More now…

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

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

Good business sense, actually.

P.34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.35

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

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

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

Here comes a kick to the teeth…

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

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

Or not. We’ll see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aye.

But enough harsh, semi-humourous antics for now.

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

—Motley Crue.