intelligence

All posts tagged intelligence

It’s not that given too much rope I’d hang myself…it’s that I’d run out of rope before I ran out of ideas for its use.

Hey, I never claimed to be enlightened.

Though I do know how to make more rope…

Anyway, it’s how I view humans and technology. Give us enough of it and we’ll make ourselves obsolete.

So long as we’re motivated to do so.

But no one ever asked us what we wanted—nobody voted for the high-tech world we now inhabit.

We were all sort of thrust into it and conditioned to accept it—or at least the rationale behind it—and here we are. Scrambling to keep up and trying to adapt to it.

Does anyone ask why?

Does anyone think at all?

If we have no say at all in the course of the world in regards to technology—and the fact that we are so dependent on it that we can scarcely imagine a life without it—then what does that make us?

Consumers?

Yes, but that means we have choices in the types of crap they’re feeding us—we have no choice in eating the crap in the first place…

Then we are slaves.

And what is the system of intellectual tyranny under which we live?

Scientific dictatorship?

Possibly.

Progress is the greatest tyrant on the planet.

None dare question it. None ever oppose it.

Under the dogma of evolution, the erroneous connotation of a theory which implies that life improves and gets more complicated as a matter of logical course, we see ourselves getting more advanced. As if towards some lofty goal.

If life were driven to do this, all microbes would have turned into birds long ago. All simple-celled organisms would have become complex organisms long ago.

Why stay simple after a couple billion years?

Maybe because it works.

We’re told that’s stagnation.

But it’s a lie. Nothing improves unless it needs to. Everything is as ‘smart’ as it needs to be. Things change when a force is set upon them that effects that change. No life is trying to be ‘divine’ or become a ‘higher’ anything. No type of creature is trying to become another type.

It’s delusion. Circumstantial delusion.

Our delusion.

Who fed us this shit?

Our species has fucking de-evolved hand in hand with our rise in glorious technology. Look at the diseases. Look at the cancer rates. Look at the ailments and disorders and conditions, our phobias and neuroses; we are putrid in body, mind and spirit. And who calls this advanced?

I call it sick.

A so-called superior creature that cannot survive in its natural environment any longer without technology…because it’s too limited and specialized; ignorant, weak, and ill.

Hmmm…

There is no lofty goal. There are evil schemes and greedy dealings pushing an agenda in science and technology, the results of which you will not benefit from, and neither will 99.99% of us. We’ll just help them create a system in which we are no longer necessary…for the benefit of all humanity, for peace and prosperity and all that good stuff…

Jesus.

Who actually benefits? Those who are funding the agenda. Always.

The Pathocracy is a good name for it. The whole master system and those who keep it going.

Pathocracy—the rule of the ill over the well. The rule of the insane over the sane. The rule of the weak over the strong.

Perhaps.

If so, now they’ve made us, most of us, ill, insane, and weak—it’s probably why they call us “profane.” Because we’re becoming them.

Anyway, this is the idol before which humanity gets tortured, crippled, and slashed to pieces.

Progress.

What fools we are.

I sense something or someone, somewhere, laughing…

Logic And Intuition

The only useful functions of logic:

1. to discriminate,
to distinguish one thing from another thing (A = A, B = B, C = C);

2. to express or explain what one already knows;

3. experimentation.

Number one refers to determining what is and what isn’t. Basic, critical thinking, primal reasoning, which most animals seem to have; read: will this eat me or can I eat it?

Obviously, the “can I eat it?” bit only applies to a creature that has not already fed.

“That thing is that thing, and I am this thing.”

This is a necessary function of the brain. The less time to think about this, the better—when that hairy dark thing pokes its head up out of the brush twenty feet away, there is not much time to consider “friend or foe?” Slow thinking creatures don’t survive in the natural world, unless they are toxic.

For herbivores, the choice is usually very simple—if it’s green, it’s usually food. If it’s my size or larger, check the form; check the smell. If it’s moving towards me before I can determine form, best run. Or see if my camouflage will fool it. If it looks and smells like me, no problem, go back to eating.

Show »

Yeah, a little sumthin-sumthin about the naive citizen’s view on this Surveillance State stuff…

For carnivores, the choice is even simpler—if it’s moving, it’s probably food. If it looks and smells like me, best be cautious. If it’s smaller than me, it’s probably food.

If it acts like prey, it is prey. If it acts like a predator, it probably is; quickly weigh the risk vs. reward of taking on something that can take on me.

Size, shape/form, smell, colour patterns (primarily for predators) and disposition. And of this goes into the brain to be processed—quickly and logically—and a decision is made: attack, withdraw, or do nothing.

If danger is recognized: Fight, flight, or freeze.

For omnivores it is a bit more complicated—which is why omnivores are found to be the most “intelligent” of animals. But all that means, I think, is being adaptable.

All that’s going on is not plain old “instinct”—which, in scientific terms, may as well be called “magic” since nobody can understand it, because logic cannot figure it out—because we know that in many mammals the young have to learn this, through Mom and Dad, as they grow up.

Ever watch birds? Many different species, of differing sizes and shapes and forms, can sit together and tolerate one another; it’s actually sensible: more eyes to watch for predators while they pick and peck at the ground for food. There could be fifty seagulls drifting overhead of these birds, with a few geese going by, or ravens or crows drifting here and there, and yet the birds on the ground don’t change what they’re doing. A quick glance at something miles away—just a rough silhouette in the sky—and they return to eating.

But when a hawk or eagle circles into the above mixture of foul, everything changes. I have to squint and try to make out the shape of the wings, try to judge the wing span, compared to the seagulls and ravens—which sometimes isn’t so easy with the big old ravens about. Yet the tiny birds with their tiny brains figure it all out in a fraction of a second. And then they’re gone—only one bird has to see the eagle, and the rest go as well, without looking at all.

Genius.

(There’s no way to know if it happened through reason or just intuition. The faster something happens and gets decided, the less likely it is that logic had anything to do with it—logic requires time to think. Intuition does not. “Instantly knowing” can take place before thought is possible.)

I know, I know, this will not impress the smug intellectual snob of a human, who only values “intelligence” in regards to what its species can produce and achieve and control. Yes, yes, I will not try to convince you otherwise—I know how much comfort you gain from your undeserved sense of superiority, so, no worries.

I’ll just move on.

Number two refers to one side of the brain attempting to create reality out of the sensory data taken in through the other half of the brain. It is more than “making sense” of sensory input; it is a system of rationalizations to understand what one knows—or the attempt to know why one knows something.

Logic is a tool, a mental apparatus, that creates a satisfactory fiction out of what one’s intuition had already figured out, unbeknownst to the figurer.

It is, essentially—in the context of number two—merely a lie. When all of our lies reach consensus (when we bounce them back and forth off one another, pruning and tweaking them), we call it Reality, which is just an afterthought of perception.

No invention has ever come about through logic. All logic can do is try to explain what was just created, how and why. No great idea has ever come about through logic. All logic can do is dissect and analyze the idea.

The brilliant notion that pops into the head of the artist, or the poet, or the writer, or the musician, or the inventor, or the philosopher—logic had nothing whatsoever to do with this notion.

So why does logic become deified—into Logic? Why does Logic get all the credit?

Because the right side of our brains (where intuition and perception reside) is mute; it is only the left side that can utilize language to express and describe to others what’s happened. The left side really has no idea; it can only guess, presume, and inevitably make something up that seems plausible.

I’ve come to see “logical” individuals as crippled, in a way. A person of this type, I envision, is a feeble creature hobbling along with a crutch, boasting of what a great crutch it is, a marvelous and grand invention. Proof of this creature’s mighty power and advanced status among all other life forms—just the fucking best!

But this creature has no idea what occurred during the invention of that crutch; nor does this creature realize that without the crutch, it will fall over and be helpless, and, after a while, just die. The superior creature is in fact inferior because it needs the crutch, although the ego of the creature will not allow this fact to settle long in its brain.

It might then be forced to consider the possibility that it could improve itself rather than having brilliant inventions compensate for the fact that it can no longer compete in any way with other (natural) life forms (except through trickery and deviousness). Compensating for weakness by using technology is not proof of strength or superiority, nor does it mean that the creature is “advanced” or “evolved.” It, in fact, reveals the opposite—weakness.

(Now, I mean no offense when I say, “logical” individuals; I’m talking about those who seem to lean on logic so heavily that they actually believe that everything that comes to them is the result of logic; so heavily that they believe that all truth can only be arrived at through logic. I mean, through Logic. In a way, they worship it. Logic is their god. And anything against their god is blasphemy. Intuition is the sacrifice they offer to Logos.)

They see no other way, no other function, no other form. They become rigid, close-minded, and formulaic. They view Life itself as a series of problems to be solved, rather than something cool to be left alone. They grow massively negative and critical. And they feel empty inside; since Logos cannot help, they feed their ego and seek temporary pleasures. And this leads to more and more “feel good” experiences, which leads them into hedonistic extremism, addiction and depravity.

And during this they rationalize everything they do.

A logical mind can convince itself to do anything. And they can be convinced to do anything. There’s no pesky conscience in the way…

Show »

I use the term “person” to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.

—Peter Albert David Singer, AC (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher. He is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

Corporate Personhood. The 1886 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are “persons,” having the same rights as human beings based on the 14th Amendment, was originally intended to protect the rights of former slaves.

Corporations are human beings and human babies up to three years of age are not.

See, this—

is no longer considered a person. But this is:

Make sense? Of course it does!

Yet it feels wrong…

Despite how crucial intuition is to all daily activities (most male occupations require vastly more intuition than they do logic), these types dismiss it as they would claims that the earth is flat. They use it (intuition) all the time, and they dogmatically, stubbornly, and obtusely refuse to acknowledge it as anything other than the supreme and almighty power of Logic.

Those who create music and art and bring insane abstractions into being through invention are the masculine beings; those who critique, analyze, administrate the accounts of, and organize the infrastructure around, true genius, are the feminine beings—the logical beings.

Obviously, I’m not talking about men and women. I’m talking about masculine and feminine beings; I’m talking about right- and left-brained beings. I know there are plenty of women who actually do have creativity and imagination. I know that there are plenty of men who have no creativity or imagination whatsoever.

As for number three, well, now, some might argue that through scientific method we can learn and understand all kinds of things. Sure, in a controlled experiment maybe. Sometimes. When all variables can be accounted for, then you can determine an outcome.

In an artificial environment and utterly manipulated reality you can. I guess. You can test and repeat. And others can as well. But you cannot do this in real life. Because in the real world you cannot control everything; there are variables for which you can never completely account.

What happens is an adaptation is needed—an intuitive, irrational solution—for which Logic gets credit later on.

Lab experiments don’t work in nature, which is chaordic (100% chaos and 100% order).

Other troubles with logic

The use of logic is a two-dimensional act; the left-brain, where logic lives, is inept when it comes to three dimensions and spatial perception. The result is a black-and-white world view. Us or them. And, ultimately, superior and inferior blanket judgements.

Fear is the undercurrent of the logical mind; it can’t control everything, and so becomes incredibly fearful of things it cannot control. The only way to alleviate this fear is to gain more and more control.

Since the effort of logic rests almost entirely on clever-sounding presumptions, since one cannot know all the facts and variables (and, in particular, the intangibles), logic is almost always flawed. It is always wanting information; it cannot have enough.

Yet it never can have all the information—because the intangibles can only be reached through illogical means. Lacking intuition, folks obsessed with this resort to “mystery religions” and astrology and Tarot cards and crystal balls, as well as pseudo-science and the occult.

You cannot organize your mind into a computer-like structure. The mind is a result of the brain, which is an organic structure. People who try this end up in mental institutions. Nature granted us some feelings and many emotions, and an ego to help us stay alive as an infant and small child (and, to a smaller extent, as an adult = self-preservation), and a basic mechanism for knowing what is right and what is not right. Conscience. Nature intended there to balance between the brain hemispheres, and, well, between most other things.

Logic does not much on its own; the will, the ego, is the “hand” inside the “glove” of logic. It is a puppet of the ego. What would we see if a population of completely left-brained individuals, totally ego-driven, ruled the world?

Let’s consider.

Hierarchy & Slavery. Logically, one must look at organisms in terms of superior and inferior. The most logical organism (you) is of course superior, and the less logical organisms are inferior. In one’s own species, this is sensible as well; those inferior must be made to serve the superior. It would be useful to form alliances with the superior life forms, such as yourself, and immediately see about gaining control of all the inferiors.

Maybe trick them into believing that you are god-like? First we have to come up with a few dozen deities…yet before that we must establish the concept of Authority.

Selfishness & Greed. Why would any advanced form of life, logically, share anything with anyone else? You are an organism on this planet with a limited time before you cease to exist; it is reasonable that you grab all you can and keep it for yourself. You have wants and needs and a short time to get it all. Only the superiors need share with each other, for the good of all superiors.

It makes sense for those who are the most logical to be in utter control of all resources, since they know best how these will be used. Those who are least logical should not be allowed much—just enough to keep them alive and do their jobs.

Work & Careers. It would help it those in control arranged it so the workers were proud of this state, and were proud of their occupations. They should feel blessed to have an occupation at all. Through peer pressure (displaying its benefits—rewards—as well as shame, mocking, and ridicule), they will manipulate their brethren to desire this state as well.

The superiors need not do physical labour of any kind. The inferiors will attends their masters in all things—from dressing, to cleaning up after bowl movements, to bathing and cooking and feeding the superiors.

Conscienceless & Superiority. The higher organism has (you have), as stated, a short time to get what it needs and wants; therefore, it can logically employ any method to do so. Laws need only apply to the clockwork of drones that are providing you with the means to get what you need and what—to carry out your will. Forcing others to do your biding is very sensible; they lack your mental attributes and thus are inferior. That which is inferior should assist that which is superior. You know best, as a superior life form, and so should rule over and control those who are inferior. This way you can administer their needs, since they have not the faculties to do so, and they can serve you. It is very logical.

Every aspect of the inferiors lives must to closely monitored and regulated—they’re practically animals anyway, and thus should be treated as such. They should be bred for whatever traits the superiors find useful, and only in sufficient numbers to build the infrastructure that can develop the eventual technology that will bring about synthetic life forms (robots with totally logical minds, designed to be loyal and to serve the superiors), which of course will replace the inferiors.

And as for them, the helpless drones, well, they should be exterminated in an orderly manner, careful to recycle as much of them as possible for the needs of the superiors. This is rational.

Show »




Absolute Control & Sustainability. All life on the planet should be tagged and monitored and controlled as much as possible. It must be an orderly world—things that are unpredictable are illogical and must be eliminated. Any threat to the superiors must be neutralized. Anything that will not fit into a sustainable system under the control of the superiors must be eliminated. It is simply reasonable.

Freedom is irrelevant. Freedom creates time for thoughts outside the needs of the superiors. Freedom allows vital energy, which could be used for logical purposes, to go to waste.

Emotions are only tools. Feeling “good” and feeling “bad” will be the only emotions allowed in a logical world. For inferiors, they are instruments employed as control tactics—a reward-punishment system which helps regulate their life patterns. For superiors, feeling “good” is all that’s required. For an advanced organism, feeling “bad” is illogical. Therefore, an existence of pleasure, play, and fun is the goal.

As for procreation, for the inferiors it will consist of a planned and controlled program in which the offspring are generated under the technical supervision of authorized scientists.

Cowardice. Logic dictates that one should not risk one’s own life for any reason. The superiors’ lives are most valuable; thus, only the inferiors should suffer the burdens of risking harm to themselves. Making them desire to risk themselves for us, well, this is the end goal. This is totally logical.

Dishonesty & Dishonour. It makes no sense to tell the truth. You can get what you want far more easily when being untruthful. Why honour your agreements? Screw the person over to gain even more. If you enter into a contract with someone for an item for sale, is it not more rational to keep the money and acquire the object as well, leaving the seller with nothing? What point is there in keeping your word? Why give something when you can just take?

I really could go on and on, though that’s enough of that for now. It will be a cold, sterile, insane world. Logic run amuk would result in a living hell, twisted and molded at the whims of icy and calculating individuals who have gained utter control over the rest of us, organizing and manipulating and fucking with absolutely everything that can be fucked with, until the world resembles a spherical microchip. All life subdued and managed on all levels to serve those weak, feeble, “logical” and “advanced” inbred cunts who claim dominion over all things.

Ordo ad nauseum.

One might put forth the dire need for chaos…

No matter what they tell us, the world does not need more order—it needs less. A lot fucking less. Order is the enemy of freedom. It is the enemy of the balance of Life itself. It obliterates natural harmony.

“God told Father Nature to go nuts.”

Maybe. In any event, Life is crazy.

“So, you’re using logic to explain why logic is bad!?”

I never said it was “bad.” It is what it is. It’s a tool. It has its function in life.

If I’m building a house, I don’t use the saw for all tasks; can you see me trying to hammer nails with the saw handle? Can you see me painting the walls with a saw blade?

Well, maybe you can see me doing that. I dunno.

Point is, it’s not the only way. We cannot live without logic; and we cannot live without intuition.

Besides, if I can demonstrate the inherent flaws of logic by using logic, how does this strengthen the position that Logic is all-powerful?

I sense a paradox in there somewhere…but, if so or if not, how can you tell I’ve used much logic at all in the process?

“Ughhhh…”

Conclusion

Back to the only useful functions of logic:

1. Has to do with the closest sense of what’s happening in the “present” as is possible. (So, the very-very-very near past.)

2. Has to do only with the past.

3. Has to do only with the future.

Intuition can work for all three; logic is only effective for the first, ineffective for the second, and can only carry out the third in a controlled, sterile vacuum.

We are not computers; we are organic, healing systems within chaordic slabs of bone and flesh; therefore it is abnormal and unsound to try to be a something which one is not and can never be. We’re being played, we’re being taught to hate what we are by those who made us this way.

We are not fucked up beyond all repair; we are not stupid, useless eaters—not if we don’t want to be. The only power they have over us is what we give them. Our consent to control and fuck us over.

We can get it back; in order to improve, we must go back, not forward. Regress, not Progress. Progress is their goal—they will benefit, and we will suffer and die to bring it about for them.

We must reckon with the these so-called superiors…and dismantle their entire hyper-logical system of control.

And I’m done. I’ll close with this:

Being completely logical is not logical.

Show »

I hear a lot of things. I see a lot of things. And sometimes I say a lot of things.

I’ve heard and seen things like:

People suck.
People are stupid.
Humanity is a disease.

And these are some of the more pleasant comments about human beings that I’ve heard.

Things I’ve said…well, they were worse. A lot worse.

Recently, it’s occurred to me that more and more people are saying shit like I used to say, but not many seem to understand any degree of distinction, context, or else they’re just agreeing to something they’ve heard and are repeating it.

Before I begin the subject itself, I’d like to be clear, because those who do not really know me might just assume what I’m going to write here. Let me explain…

I used to be a nihilist, and an atheist, and I was probably a misanthrope as well as being an unprofessed feminist, back in my late teens, early twenties.

But, really, a nihilist actually precludes almost everything—a hostile, negative, destructive attitude towards everything, everyone, and myself.

In truth, I was full of rage and pain nearly every day, unfocused. I didn’t comprehend why at the time, and so I took it out on everything and everyone—except most women, who I used to think were a little bit better somehow—but mostly I took it out on myself.

Why me?

For becoming what I allowed myself to become. In my teens I wanted to live in the wilderness, be a “mountain man,” or, ideally, live like a Native American. That was the only dream I’d had since age 13 or so, and when I was forced to give up on it by age 19, what followed was living a life I never wanted, never respected, was ill-prepared for, and found cheap, artificial and shallow, empty, absurd, insane, meaningless and disgusting. In other words, a normal civilized existence as a “happy worker”—school, job, fun, distraction, family, marriage, kids, retirement, depression and alienation and addiction, grinning like a monkey as you march from one cage to another, one box to another, until you reach your eternal box, the coffin.

Not necessarily in that order.

It was never the life for me, but here I was…stuck in it, or it was stuck in me. I dunno. Maybe both.

I’ll spare you the horrific details of the years that came next, but suffice to say that I deteriorated and did my best to self-destruct, as a “nihilist.” (I never fully broke out of the sick, dark sack of venom called nihilism until, on, or nearing the time I began this blog, as evidenced if you’ve ever read a few of the old entries of 2005-2006.)

For as long as I can remember, I have viewed ancient/primitive humans as the best example of human beings, and I have viewed modern/civilized humans as flawed, broken, defective, ill, immature, and overall the worst examples of humanity.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, though I know it’s leaning towards the primal human.

And I know I’ve written a lot about how fucking awful “we” are, how horrible, murderous, vile, manipulative, destructive, yadda yadda. One thing, however, that I’ve always countered with is this:

I was talking about modern or civilized humans. I have never believed that ALL humans are shit. I have never believed that every human on this planet should be eradicated. I know, I know—you could probably find a blog entry somewhere in which I mentioned that the planet would be better off if we were all dead.

Seriously, though, every time it was with the perpetual notion of mine that the tribes such as in the Amazon, and the Inuit, and the purely hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa and elsewhere, were spared from this slaughter.

So, I do not clump all peoples into one ball and say, “It’s shit.”

I see the differences. And that is the context and distinction I mentioned earlier.

Okay, now that I’ve made myself clear, we can begin…

And what of evil?

I never believed in evil. I’d always thought that there was no such thing—that it was a construct created by the religious to spread fear and control the masses. My guide has always been the natural world—if it doesn’t apply to human animals and non-human animals equally, it’s nearly always horse pucks.

But I’ve come to see that it does exist—maybe not in relation to any Scripture or Faith, though. I think it simply reflects the absolute worst state.

After reading so much Nietzsche, I was convinced that it did not exist because nature and life itself are beyond morality—“life is amoral.”

The thing is…I did not realize that morality and conscience are different. Conscience is inherent in organisms; morals are taught, are learned, are reasoned and rationalized—into existence or out of existence.

Without getting into more right-brained/left-brained stuff, there is the sense of right and wrong that develops within you and is collectively shared by all (sane individuals) of your type (in varying degrees), and there is the right and wrong that we’re taught as children. Sometimes they coincide, and here’s where we possess a solid structure of “ethics,” I figure.

But all of this is arguable, and it is not necessary for me to get into fully; I offer it only as a starting point into the subject of evil.

One given used to be, with which most people seemed to agree, was that children, babies, should be protected. It was such a no-brainer; every other mammal does this—protects its offspring.

It used to be a measuring stick for evil—that harming a child, that causing pain to or even killing innocence—someone defenseless, vulnerable, trusting, and most in need of protection—was a damned evil act.

But that has passed. It is not a given any longer.

Check out an update on the issue of “Post-Birth Abortion.”

Now, we must be a person to have a right to exist. Corporations have legally obtained status as a “person,” while our newborn babies are going to lose this and be fair game for murder.

Evil.

It’s a loose term—I do not picture fire-breathing winged monsters in never-never-land when I think of the word “evil.” I envision someone giggling at the suffering of another; I imagine causing another pain for no reason except for the satisfaction or sick delight of it.

I see a person being held in a cage against that person’s will.

I picture senseless murder and torture, and needless suffering. Needless. Like smashing someone’s kneecaps in with a baseball bat and watching them writhe and scream before you shoot the person in the face.

It might be logical—a gangster might do this to send a message to a rival gang—or it might be irrational—but it’s all evil.

No creature in Father Nature would be so cruel. That says something: we are capable of things that the most vicious predators in the wild, which have spawned tales of the most terrible, most frightening monsters in history, would never do.

There is cruelty in Nature, don’t get me wrong. But almost all of it is for a point: to strengthen an individual, family, or species. What isn’t takes place incidentally: a boulder rolls down a cliff and crushes the legs of a critter, which is forced to lay there in fucking horrible agony until it dies of shock or slowly starves to death.

As bad as that is, it falls under the category of “shit happens.” Yes, it’s awful, but what can be done? It’s no one’s fault. There was no will, no intent, no intelligent design that decided to roll that big rock towards the animal and see it crushed, broken, in unbelievable pain and suffering, waiting only for prolonged death.

Evil is about actions. It is about intent. It’s a choice.

If you shame a child and make it feel terrible about something, for no other reason than you are pissed off or bitter and are taking out your bullshit on a defenseless person who can’t fight back and who you can control…I’d say that was an evil thing to do.

I would not call that person evil.

There is a difference. Objects are not bad. Cells and tissue are not evil. Blood and veins and teeth and bones are not evil. Grey matter inside a skull is not evil.

What’s evil is the choice, the intent, and the action.

So, are humans evil?

Absolutely not.

What many do is definitely, totally, staggeringly fucking evil, but they themselves are not bad. We are not evil. For every choice we make to do evil, we also have the choice to do good. Even if we do evil, we can seek out our conscience and choose to make up for it, by deeds—by consistent, ongoing deeds—of good. To right a wrong—not to gain praise or acceptance, not to score points with some real or imagined Authority—but only for its own sake.

That is “goodness.” Being unselfish and humble and actively making up for nasty fucking shit you did to others. All and only because it’s the right fucking thing to do. No other reason. This is one of the things I admire about humans. All humans.

People do not suck. It’s only what we do that sucks.

People are not stupid. I resist the entire notion of intelligence, or the lack of it. There is no such thing as intelligence, I say—as we commonly (and smugly think we) understand it today. We are as as smart as we need to be. Every creature is exactly as smart as it needs to be; there is no such thing as “stupid.”

It comes down to abilities, traits, sure, but mostly it’s about about how much we use our brains—I’m not talking the “percentage” of the brain power we do or not use; that’s bullshit too. We use all of our physical brains—the point is the degree with which we use it.

Take a diver. This diver has a massive lung capacity. Most people cannot hold their breath as long as this fellow. This guy can stay under for way longer than the average person.

And why would it be to praise this person and shame others who do not his lung capacity? How crucial is this ability to general human life—how much of his day is spent underwater? Are his lungs smarter than everyone else’s? Are they a genius?

Of course not. He was born with the exact same pair of lungs as everyone else, and everyone has lungs that work, to some extent.

The difference is that he practiced and during this he worked on his ancient mammalian diving reflex—acclimatizing his body and lungs to be able to stay under longer.

Same thing with brains. Sort of. The brain is divided into two halves, of course, and most of us work out one more than the other. There are so many areas of each half of the brain that do something different that it’s virtually impossible to let it all go to pot. And some parts of the brain need little “exercise” to stay “fit.” Usually, also, when you work out a part of your brain too much, you neglect another part.

Anyway, I’m over-simplifying of course. The point is: someone might be lazy, someone might be retarded, but no one is stupid.

Yeah but what about all humans being stupid?

How can anyone say “humans are stupid” with a straight face? I’ve heard it said that we just need to get smarter and everything will be okay, that we have “so much potential.” I never fell for this slop. We are what we are—humans are no different than our ancestors were 25-30,000 years ago. We have not “evolved.”

That’s just another pathological ego trip.

We’ve become specialized in certain areas, but overall we use a hell of a lot more of our left-brains now and a helluva lot less of our right-brains.

We’ve merely traded some things for other things—we’re no “smarter” than the erroneously portrayed “cave man.” We’re better at some things, and worse at others.

But we place far too much importance upon intelligence—why? All “intelligence” is…is the ability to use certain areas of the left hemisphere of the brain and how and where it’s applied. We don’t consider intuition or instinct “intelligent;” we do not consider creativity, imagination, or the ability to improvise “intelligent;” yet do we consider the following things: humour, integrity, honesty, generosity, compassion, empathy, and living wisely.

Some of us may value these traits, but I’ve never heard them spoken in the lofty air beside the Royal “Intelligence.”

All we consider “intelligent” is what benefits and helps us exist within civilization—the ability to read and write and grasp concepts others tell us are important; and if you invent things which apparently make things easier for people, you get branded the biggest praise-trip prize: Genius.

Don’t you think there’s a reason for this? A reason that only the sort of “intelligence” that’s worth anything and won’t get you shamed, mocked, and ridiculed, is one a State sanctioned education can provide? What does this tell you?

For most people, the longer they remain in an educational system, the less wise, the less intuitive, the less creative, the less innovative they become; the more their minds are formatted; the more dogmatic and narrowminded and formulaic they are; the more rigid and snobbish and arrogant they become; the more dismissive and judgmental, as well.

And I think most of this comes from education—not the lack of it.

People say TV makes you “dumb,” or the internet makes you “dumb.” But I think what’s “dumb” is just laziness (apathy) and ignorance. It was school that fucking trained you to sit and mindlessly absorb whatever was presented to you. School made you a fucking couch potato. School bored you so bad with tedious, irrelevant bullshit that now you “don’t give a shit”—read: are lazy, apathetic, pig-headed. School shamed and ridiculed you. School was the place you were taught to compete for grades (praise from Authority), taught to respect Authority, and where you learned how to dress to fit in. School was where chicken-hawks got their talons into you and made you a submissive, spineless, shamed, scheming, neurotic money-grubbing minion of some corporation. Don’t believe me? Well, just go stand in line and sing the National fucking Anthem, but spit out that bubblegum first, or else you’ll be in trouble!

School made you dumb, idiot!

What the fuck else could a passive, bureaucratic, passionless and non-experiential learning process bring about? A free-thinking, creative public whose life doesn’t consist of work and entertainment and escape? A strong, healthy, active public consisting of dynamic people who question everything an authority tells them?

Heh.

School, like work, is quite simply a crime against fucking Nature.

I cringe when I hear folks tell young people, “Stay in school.”

Ugh. No, for fuck sakes. Drop out of school and become an individual; learn what you need to live, not what you need to become a corporate serf—aka. “have a career;” learn on your own, seek the truth for yourself, rather than passively, submissively letting mediocre prats shoot garbage into your mouth and order you to swallow it down.

Fuck. Don’t stay in school.

Show »

Think about it. (If you do not have a lot of education, you’ll be better able to think about it.)

What does education really do? What is it really? It’s obedience-training. You learn to follow rules (while you learn how to read the rules) and you learn, subconsciously, that you are an inferior. Your teacher becomes your boss in the next phase of your servitude, once you leave school. (But, in all actuality, you never really leave school. Your involuntary systematic obedience training (school) just shifts into obedience reinforcement (work), through which you get paid to be humiliated, exploited, and belittled as a life form.)

Most insipid is that you learn (on a memetic level) what is reality. What should you think about, how should you think, and what the truth is. You’re essentially trained to register lies and bullshit as the truth and what makes sense. It is because nearly everything you’re taught is the diametric opposite of the truth. And it’s hard to change seeing things any other way. Your brain just gets wired a certain way, and mentally you become resistant to memes that were not part of your original programming.

Your mind is being formatted for servitude. Your “human nature” is produced. And you’re taught only that which will help you do what you’re told later on, and for the rest of your material, kowtowing, ego-driven life.

A self-made person is someone who actively seeks information, and the truth, from every source he can. Education is about passively sitting and letting the State plant seeds inside your fertile, trusting mind.

If you’re lucky, you’ll drop out and learn on your own. But most end up worse praise-junkies than they were as children—grade-grubbers.

These types of people are ready to follow orders, not to think independently, not to question much at all.

It is only an exceptional individual who comes out of college with any spark of true brilliance. Any hint of real genius at all.

Anyway, there really is no such thing as intelligence. There are only levels of smug satisfaction, degrees of obedience, and varieties of willing ignorance.

Therefore, I figure this was arranged this way. It just makes better drones.

Before agriculture, before civilization, before education, before human sacrifice and slavery, there were far fewer evil acts committed. Research it if you don’t believe me. I dare you.

Finally, humans are not a disease. We—as modern humans—have (not so) simply become the by-product of a viral system: agriculture. That doesn’t make us a disease. Ancient humans lived in harmony with their environment.

Only agricultural (civilized/modern) humans employed highly organized gathering, the systematic manipulation, control and subduing of the earth. Once we started farming, it became a disease and spread everywhere, as we ran out of resources from being sedentary and over-populating, devouring everything within the walled city’s radius, spreading out, demonizing the natives we found, and taking their shit, all enforced by armies of killers and thieves funded by those greedy cunts (the aristocracy) who trained those killers and thieves.

And I suppose this formula has never really ended…

Those were evil acts; it does not make us evil. Even the aforementioned greedy cunts are not evil; they merely do evil things on a consistent basis.

Conclusion?

Well, recently it dawned on me that it seems we’re being made to view all humans (except perhaps the super rich; royalty; the aristocracy; the ruling elite oligarchy, if you prefer) as absolute scum.

If you believe that those who seem in charge of the world right now, controlling us, are actually being controlled by a more elite group, who control the banks, for example; and if you believe that this elite group is a very nasty cabal which is definitely not a bunch of nice folks who really love us and want what’s best for us—that they in fact rule as an oligarchy and have for a long, long time and have an agenda for the utter enslavement of most humans; if you believe that they encouraged human population growth so as to create a vast pool of consumers and taxpayers which enabled them to purchase the world and everyone in it; if you believe that making money was not the end but merely a means, and that now they only want absolute control, the final phase of their age old plan; and if you believe that absolute control can only take place through a systematic and multifaceted mass-murder campaign, to reduce the current level of population to a much more manageable level…

If you believe all that, then you share some beliefs with me.

(If you don’t believe much of that, go look up Eugenics, Thomas Robert Malthus, Henry Kissinger, the Club of Rome, UN Agenda 21, and the origins of Planned Parenthood, just for starters. Watch the following documentaries: “Blue Gold;” “The World According To Monsanto;” “Gasland;” and “The Greater Good.”

Then come back here and blithely dismiss all of this.

If you still can’t pry your skull from your anus, check this out:

Show »

“One CFR published policy objective is substantial worldwide depopulation including half of the current U.S. population being targeted. This population reduction program is largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Merck Fund, both financially and administratively linked to the Merck pharmaceutical company–the world’s leading vaccine manufacturer. Records show the Merck pharmaceutical company received a major share of the Nazi “flight capital” at the close of World War II when its president, George W. Merck, was America’s biological weapons industry director. These facts were revealed by Norman Covert, Army public relations director at Fort Detrick in Frederick, MD, and veteran news correspondent Paul Manning in his book “Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile” (Lyle Stuart, Inc, 1981).” — Dr. Leonard Horowitz

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“The resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” — Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.” — Jacques Cousteau, 1991 explorer and UNESCO courier

“I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today” [and] “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.” — Dave Foreman, Sierra Club, co founder of Earth First

“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” — Margaret Sanger

“MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE” — Anonymously commissioned Georgia Guidestones

“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind” — Theodore Roosevelt

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” — Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal” — Ted Turner, founder of CNN

“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” — The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, p. 60, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” — David Rockefeller Banker, Honorary director of Council on Foreign Relations, honorary chairman of Bilderberg Group & founder of Trilateral Commission. Member of Bohemian Club, praising Chairman Mao, whose policies killed at least 30 million people

“Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine.” — Eric Pianka

“[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,” — Eric Pianka

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.” — Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), Philosopher

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” — Margaret Sanger

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.” — Margaret Sanger

“Eugenics is… the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” — Margaret Sanger

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many” — Sir James Lovelock

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” — Dave Foreman, US environmentalist and co-founder of the environmental movement Earth First

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” — Christopher Manes, Earth First

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” — David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding” — Theodore Roosevelt

“The Puerto Ricans are the dirtiest, laziest, most dangerous and theivish race of men ever inhabiting this sphere… I have done my best to further the process of extermination by killing off eight and transplanting cancer into several more.” — Dr Cornelius Rhoads (1898-1959) | Rockefeller Institute, Rhoads also headed two large chemical warfare projects, had a seat on the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), and he headed the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research

“I have studied with great interest,” he told a fellow Nazi, “the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.” — Adolf Hitler

“While we were pussyfooting around…the Germans were calling a spade a spade.” — Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society, declared of Nazism

(referring to sterilizations) “The Germans are beating us at our own game.” — Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia’s Western State Hospital, 1934

“From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated.” “Applied Eugenics” also devoted a chapter to “Lethal Selection,” which operated “through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency.” — In 1918, Dr. Paul Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, “Applied Eugenics”

“Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.” — Thomas Malthus

“Englishmen Francis Galton to describe the “science” of bettering human stock and the elimination of unwanted characteristics… and individuals. Galton proposed societal intervention for the furtherance of “racial quality,” maintaining that “Jews are specialized for a parasitical existence upon other nations” and that “except by sterilization I cannot yet see any way of checking the produce of the unfit who are allowed their liberty and are below the reach of moral control.” — Francis Galton

“The Aids epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population… If it didn’t exist, radical environmentalists would have to invent [it].” — Dave Foreman, the founder of the environmental group Earth First

Francis Crick, who together with James Watson is credited with the groundbreaking discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA, declared at a conference shortly after receiving the Nobel Prize that the “reproductive autonomy” of human beings could not be tolerated in the future. Among other things, Crick suggested the idea of adding a chemical to public water supplies, that would make men and women sterile; only those who qualified for a “license” to produce children, would be given an antidote drug.

“We have to take away from humans in the long run their reproductive autonomy as the only way to guarantee the advancement of mankind.” — Francis Crick

Alexander Graham Bell advocated passing laws (with success in some states) for compulsory sterilization of people deemed to be, as Bell called them, a “defective variety of the human race.”

“If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it.” — Bertrand Russell, “The Scientific Outlook”, 1931

“The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” — Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

AIDS and other diseases will be the COVER STORY for the decimation. The real causes will be starvation, contaminated water (which has existed for a long time), toxic vaccines given to people who are already immune-suppressed, wars, and of course, stolen farmland. [2003] Depopulation and HIV by Jon Rappoport

Investigations by EIR have uncovered a planning apparatus operating outside the control of the White House whose sole purpose is to reduce the world’s population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease and any other means necessary. [1981] The Haig-Kissinger depopulation policy by Lonnie Wolfe

Rockefeller also told Russo that his family’s foundation had created and bankrolled the women’s liberation movement in order to destroy the family and that population reduction was a fundamental aim of the global elite. Rockefeller Admitted Elite Goal Of Microchipped Population

Or just go back to watching TV. It’s all good as far as I’m concerned.)

I think it’s true, or that at least there’s a lot of truth to it. And I think I was one of the suckers who unwittingly put forth a part of their plan—“culling the herd.”

I think humanity was engineered to appear as awful as possible, and I think we have been incrementally acclimatized to the notion that we’re utter shit and should be wiped out.

But those at the top who have been arranging this will not be among the dead; they will rule over the survivors. Do you think all the people in those quotes above will be among the first to kill themselves “for the betterment of the planet?” If so, you’re in for a surprise.

None of what they say applies to them.

Apparently, the plan is to have about 500 million humans on the planet. But the “elites” will survive and emerge later to rule to dumbstruck crowds of zombies.

Well, it’s not so simple for me; even though I believe I know what’s coming next, I cannot fight another belief I have: there really are too many people on the planet.

I do not, however, agree with or support what’s coming. We need a predator, a disease, something…something natural to keep human population in check, like every other species does. Not a sketchy, deceptively disguised, secretive and organized methodical genocide.

That, to me, would be evil.

In the wild, an animal kills for food, to rid itself (and its gene pool) of a rival so it can breed, or for self-defense. It is not evil. It is part of the balance of nature.

Anyway, I guess it’s all moot. I think it’s going to happen and nothing anyone can do will alter the slide over the cliff.

Again, this goes back to something that will become helpful in one way, although the intent was purely evil.

Why evil?

Say, you have a farm. And you’re a cunt. All you want is a good series of crops to sell come the last harvest. That’s it. Twenty years and then you’re done. Then you’ll have enough to retire to the good life.

So, you buy some slave labour to do the work. And you sit back and let them all do the work, maybe coordinating shit with your foreman, your task-master, who keeps the slaves in line.

Now, the last summer is ending, but your slaves have multiplied fast—you have seven times the slaves you had to begin with; you have way too many slaves and everyone else has too many slaves so you’ll never be able to sell them—so you plan out with your foreman to burn down the slaves’ quarters after they finish harvesting your crops.

And so it went well: big success! The night after you sell the whole works for a fortune, you get your foreman to lock the barns and fire them, killing everyone inside them.

You used people, kept them against their will, abused them, and gave them nothing but hardship and pain, all for your own selfish, piggish desires. And then you fucking murdered them horribly.

Most would call you a bad guy, some would call you an evil cunt, but I’d just say you did some grossly evil things.

I’d also say that maybe you’re helping the overall overpopulation of slaves; there will be more resources for the rest of them perhaps. Or perhaps you’ll take most of it and starve another pile of slaves, resulting in another favorable depopulation. Point is, whatever good might come out of something terrible…well, the intent was evil and so you get no credit for it.

I think we’re being made to accept what’s coming—maybe I’m too far gone and have already accepted one part of it.

But the more I look, the more I see it: a growing evil that manipulates its increasing justification and rationalization.

And the more I see what’s coming, the more I’m torn between wanting it to happen and not wanting it to happen. Maybe there’s some evil in me, too. I don’t know.

Give me back my broken night
my mirrored room, my secret life
it’s lonely here,
there’s no one left to torture
Give me absolute control
over every living soul
And lie beside me, baby,
that’s an order!
Give me crack and anal sex
Take the only tree that’s left
and stuff it up the hole
in your culture
Give me back the Berlin wall
give me Stalin and St Paul
I’ve seen the future, brother:
it is murder.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won’t be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant

You don’t know me from the wind
you never will, you never did
I’m the little Jew
who wrote the Bible
I’ve seen the nations rise and fall
I’ve heard their stories, heard them all
but love’s the only engine of survival
Your servant here, he has been told
to say it clear, to say it cold:
It’s over, it ain’t going
any further
And now the wheels of heaven stop
you feel the devil’s riding crop
Get ready for the future:
it is murder

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won’t be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant

There’ll be the breaking of the ancient
western code
Your private life will suddenly explode
There’ll be phantoms
There’ll be fires on the road
and the white man dancing
You’ll see a woman
hanging upside down
her features covered by her fallen gown
and all the lousy little poets
coming round
tryin’ to sound like Charlie Manson
and the white man dancin’

Give me back the Berlin wall
Give me Stalin and St Paul
Give me Christ
or give me Hiroshima
Destroy another fetus now
We don’t like children anyhow
I’ve seen the future, baby:
it is murder

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won’t be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant

When they said REPENT REPENT …
“The Future”—Leonard Cohen