masculine

All posts tagged masculine

This will be my final word on this subject—I really, really, really hope.

I hate this subject, I hate how deeply I got into years ago, and I hate what it did to me. I mostly hate that I was manipulated due to my experiences to “take a side.” Once more, I was duped and thought I was fighting against something, when in fact I was pushing forward an agenda by those who designed it—once more, I was a useful idiot.

(I was steered into the emotional, reactionary direction of blaming women for the feminist movement, and I believed to a large extent that feminists were acting alone, that they were not a tool being used by even more disturbed control-freaks. I was wrong. I more time went on, the more it dawned on me that feminists did not invent this Marxist program. I think it all dates from the 1700s. Anyway. Women are not my enemy—they’re suckers too, same as me, and us—feminists are not even my enemy, not exactly; my enemy is anyone trying to limit or restrict my natural born, God-given (inherent) freedom…freedom to live the way nature intended Man to live, intended men (and women) to live; as well as freedom from oppression, religious indoctrination, corporate agendas, and money itself. Freedom to live naturally and freedom from the evil control tactics of civilization.

Natural, true freedom is about the “to” (do things) as well as the “from” (things). Understand? There’s a verb and a noun here in action regarding freedom. Anyone who forces others, or convinces others, to deny us our freedoms is our enemy.)

But I don’t stay fooled for long.

There have been times (and you can look at these in my archives) where I jumped on something and accepted it before I really checked it out or really thought about it. Why would I do that? Why would anyone…well, let’s see. When you feel isolated, a “minority of one,” and it appears that 99.99% of everyone around you seems completely oblivious to what you know…shit, you feel such relief that (a) you’re not insane and (b) you’re not alone.

If you’ve read Nineteen-Eighty-Four, you’ve seen this happen to “Winston Smith.” He feels so alone in his doubts and questions amid his emerging awareness that he reaches out to the first person who might provide not only answers but also a means to help somehow—he’s invited to join the crusade against tyranny.

Obviously, it was all deception; “O’Brien” was not recruiting him but setting him up; he had even written the gawdamn book that he gave “Winston” to read (regarding the oligarchs, their history and plans).

Anyway, that happened to me. That’s why you have never heard me mention the name of “Warren Farrell” over the last few years—because I eventually deconstructed what he was about and felt I had to distance myself from him as soon as possible. Sure, he might have had good intentions, but I began to suspect that he never truly left the feminist agenda (the Marxist agenda—both which are just different masks of the actual agenda—different gloves, the same old fist of tyranny), at least in theory.

Why? Because although he seems pro-male, he is ultimately anti-masculine (and anti-nature). In the end, he wants what the feminists want: “Gender Transition.” (His own words.) What the fuck does this mean? It means that men should be more like women. Period. More social engineering. More evil bullshit wearing a psychological costume.

(Don’t believe me? Here: “gender” = “sex; male or female;” and “transition” = “movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another.” Make up your own mind.)

I don’t know. Maybe he is, or maybe he doesn’t understand what we’re supposed to be, anyway.

Still, I will not be party to crimes against nature or humanity.

I offer this now in an effort to close this issue in my mind and clarify everything I’ve gone through, studied, researched, thought about, and wrote about for the last decade (I started this back in 1999 in fact—“this” meaning the breaking free of my Marxist-feminist mindscape, trying to understand and free myself out of the hatred I had had for myself—and for my brothers—and trying to figure out where it came from, who was behind it, and why…in other words, I wanted the damn truth).

I also want to pre-empt the attitude that I sense will used to attack me (because it already has—and by “attack” I mean philosophically) later…

 “OMFG this guy flip-flops all over his blog he doesnt know what hes talking about or wot he beliefs!!!!!”

Well, yeah. How else does one arrive at the truth except through a process of believing something, getting into it, understanding it, then later challenging it, questioning it, discovering the truth or fiction of it? I’m talking about doing this with an open mind, with no bias or bigotry.

Yes, I have changed my mind. It has always been my nature to latch onto something and then eventually, sooner or later, question the hell out of it. There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind once you realize that your beliefs are based on lies.

Those who do not value the truth, well, they tend to question nothing that would shake the foundations of their delusions.

So, enough of that. That’s as far as I may be perceived as “defending myself.” So, now you may begin your assault—no worries, I can take it. I’ve crucified myself so many times that nothing anyone can do to me would be worse than that. Bring it on.

What is the Gender Agenda?

It is a eugenics program and a social (engineering) program that has been going on for at least one hundred years. It is in fact far older. This is just the latest version. These are the different aspects of it that I know about:

1. Destroy masculinity (feminize the males).

2. Set men against women (division through feminist propaganda, institutions, using the media, police and courts).

3. Set children against their parents.

4. Destroy the family unit.

5. Devalue and degrade humanity itself.

6. Encourage homosexuality and normalize it.

7. Androgyny (sexual ambiguity and the reversal of gender).

8. Sterilization.

I’m not convinced about these so-called “chem-trails,” so I’m not commenting on that. And I have to forgive their plug for their product, because I’d actually like to try it. I don’t mind plugging something that will help people under a premise of education and, well, telling us the truth. And this is the truth.

1. Destroy Masculinity

I’ve covered this for years, thought and researched and studied, and have written about this for years. So I won’t get into all that again.

Bottom line, it’s a real plan and it’s been going on for a long while. It is carried out in two ways:

A. Psychologically feminize the males (have them raised by women).

B. Physically feminize the males (reduce testosterone and increase estrogen, through various means).

Why destroy masculinity?

The same reason you’d knock down a wall—to remove all defense—to get at those more vulnerable.

To get rid the “real man.” The masculine man. Which is a man who will fight to defend his home and his tribe from an enemy or threat. In the future (for a while) only two types of men will be required: the techies and the warriors. The warriors will be replaced by machines; they already are. As soon as they have an artificially intelligent computer that can create and program other artificially intelligent computers, the techie males will be phased out as well. All that will be left, I suspect, will be a small group for breeding stock and for experiments. Sperm banks and lab rats.

To get rid of the “creative man”—a man who is adaptable, resourceful, sharp and alert, and strong and brave. This is an attempt to render males into left-brained beings, rather than their natural right-brained normal state. And this has been going on as far back as ancient Egypt. It has not really worked, however. The irrepressible nature of the male spirit has never been squashed, eclipsed, or destroyed. The harder you hit us and the more you torture us, the wiser we become and the more ingenious.

However, the former has worked.

2. Men vs. Women

This was the primary function of the feminist movement. Division.

Gloria Steinem—

Show »

Oh yeh. Like the shirt, and the little illuminati pyramid, too, you evil fuck.

—was funded by the CIA to undermine, among other things, the “Hippy Movement” of the 1960s.

I’ve talked to death about this subject, so nothing more is needed to say except it is working brilliantly. Any man and woman who can stand each other for more than a few years is a rare case and is becoming an exception to the rule—“dating” is the new normal. Sport fucking. Or just using someone until you’re bored with them and then finding someone else to fuck for a while.

3. Children vs. Parents

Public education was the first step. This allows the State to raise (train) the child.

Show »

All the laws in place now supposedly to protect “the rights of the child” were set up to divide children from their parents. First divide them in terms of ideas and ethics, even values, and second to divide them physically (ultimately to destroy the concept of the parent); remove them from the home.

One result is that children can now hold their parents hostage—children are taught the law where it applies to “children’s rights” and so they can merely make something up to have Dad thrown in jail. Coupled with the feminist demonization of men, no one is going to believe him now when he claims he is innocent.

This goes for Mom, too. She’s next. Mark my words. Over 50% of kids grow up without dads already, and that will increase along with children being raised by the State, through foster care programs and institutions (including prisons and mental health institutions).

This is evident in such works as Brave New World. And, for the record, Aldous Huxley was a fucking shill, like his brother, Julian; he was not warning us, he was not making predictions. He was a member of this elite Fabian Socialist group, which often recruited and hired writers (George Orwell—aka Eric Arthur Blair—believed in the nightmare world he wrote about in Nineteen-Eighty-Four), artists, and later film makers (see H. G. Wells, writer and film maker; author of The New World Order; his film, Things to Come, based on his book, The Shape of Things to Come, again, isn’t a prediction).

About Things to Come—a main character is named “Oswald Cabal,” and “cabal” is a word that means: “a small group of people who work together secretly.” The word actually comes from the Late Hebrew word, Qabbalah, or Kabbalah. But that’s another story…

Point is, the super rich have employed these people to get this future system into the consciousness of society; acclimatization, incrementally. Ray Kurzweil is another modern example, especially more on the technology aspect (the technology that you, peasant, will never have).

More on the Fabian Socialist agenda.

The object of this third aspect is to get the children loyal and obedient only to the State. They will trust no other figure. The State will be their parent.

4. Destroy The Family

Marxism (which was funded and supported and in fact created by the same types who developed Fabian Socialism) had had this goal for a long time…

From The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (who was Marx’s NWO handler and the true brain behind it all) in 1848…

Goals, “Communist Manifesto”

Abolition of the family! (page 87)

Goals of Communism (page 94)

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

Note: the above pages reflect the paperback version, 14th printing, April 1976
Note: the above quotes also reflect the tenets of the religion of humanism.

These are now United Nations goals under Agenda 21.

The basic unit of humanity, of a tribe in any region in any time in history, is the family. Maw, Paw, and kid. I’m actually not 100% certain about the precise details regarding why they hate this so much—I understand why rulers and oligarchs have often sought to wipe it out (it just makes their ambitions easier). But the fact that they hate the family seems really odd to me. I dunno.

Anyway, they were the ones who brought the family and society to its current level of decay…so of course they’re going to offer solutions as to how to fix it all.

Again, this is another thing that has never been fully stomped out. Even in Brave New World, when these drugged-out children in the perfect technocratic society come across some more natural humans, and start to learn about parents and what a family used to mean, they begin getting ideas.

I think the ultimate goal is to wipe out not only the family globally, but also to wipe out its history—and make it equal to a hate crime to even consider thinking about it.

5. Devalue & Degrade Humanity

They won here.

Mission accomplished. Misanthropes abound today—the “humans r bad” crowd is growing like fucking wild-fire.

Oh, I know. Guess how I know…

Yeah. Boy, do I feel like a fucktard for helping this agenda along in my own pathetic, sloppy little way.

Anyway, I don’t consider myself anti-human anymore. (I never really, technically did—I was always anti-modern-human. If you doubt me, do some searches on this blog, it’s all still there somewhere. I have always been pro-natural-human.) I’m not really pro-modern-human now, either, though. I’m basically neutral.

I prefer natural humans, I guess, still, and that’s all.

But who cares what I think…and I don’t know how we can get back our self-respect and dignity without becoming arrogant cocksuckers again…

Why this was done was to eventually have humans embrace their own destruction.

6. Encourage Homosexuality & Normalize It

Well, yeah. They won here, too. This should be 5a rather than 6, but oh well.

Being gay used to be a mental illness, but it turned out to be a case of hormonal caprice. This is to say that it just happens, and it’s not good or bad.

“Was it part of the plan?”

Hmm? What plan?

Well. Let’s see. If you know that stressed out mothers develop hormone disruptions as a result, then start sending planes somewhere (say, over the Channel into Germany) and bombing the fuck out of the general population, day and night…. Yeah, I guess that would stress the hell out of the mothers in that city. It’s known that this is why there were be a lot more homosexuals born of those mothers.

“Have a coddled class of women in a fairly rich country, and then start dropping bombs on them in order to traumatize them—that was the plan?”

—and then study the results? I dunno. Maybe it was all incidental—some people like to take advantage of any situation to gain knowledge. I mean, of course Churchill wouldn’t have provoked Hitler into bombong London (as opposed to bombing strategic targets, like the RAF airstrips), would he? Damn, he’d never wanna do that…

“Ughh.”

Exactly. Who the fuck knows.

biological embedding of extreme stress. Strong …. mothers or mother substitutes, but that it was quite a different matter … London blitz noted the traumatizing effects of ….. search on the corticotropin-releasing hormone

On child development.

toms of mental illness, acute stress reaction due to mental stress from ….. of the London Blitz, who were rescued from collapsed …… hormonal mediators of the sympathetic or HPA axis directly …… Our questionnaire survey targeted mothers of

But there some truth in there

“Enough!”

Okay, okay. So, it doesn’t matter what it is, if it’s normal or good or bad, really.

“Well, some people—”

Yes, some people really dislike gays, some wish them harm. But if all the gays moved to Hawaii, and there were no non-gays there, in a hundred years Hawaii would be an uninhabited island…

“Hmmm. right. They like their own sex and so do not breed.”

What matters is why it’s part of this agenda…

7. Androgyny

Sexual ambiguity and the reversal of gender.

We’ve been progressively sold this idea in various forms for a while now. Why anyone would think this is a positive thing is beyond my understanding.

I don’t really know what to write about on this subject—it would be like explaining why is it not good to dart into traffic in a downtown city at noon, or drink bleach, or pound spikes through your own eyeballs. I mean, what am I supposed to say about something so insane, absurd, and suicidal?

If I have to explain why men should be men and women should be women, I dunno…

We are not clams. We are not slugs. At worst, we’re monkeys. Although it might make a funny skit for a future sit-com, when we want to produce offspring, we don’t fuck ourselves to do it.

Whatever you believe—or don’t believe—what other species would divide itself into two sexes and then come back into one gender?

We are the way we are, with two sexes, because our biology works best this way in a natural environment. Like all other mammals.

One might say “God intended it that way.” Or “Father Nature used the force to make it that way.” Or “Nature made it that way.” Or, “Why would we need to adapt that way?” If one half of our gender disappeared suddenly—that’s when we would need asexual types. And that’s when we’d be forced to adapt.

But so long as we keep men men and women women, we don’t need to go that route. We are not in danger of losing half our gender, right?

Right. So, what the fuck?

Without a natural cause, like that, it wouldn’t be evolution—it would be engineering.

“Why fix what ain’t broken?”

Yeah. It might be ill, but it ain’t broken.

Moving on…

8. Sterilization

Fertility rates have been steadily decreasing for years—just do a quick search, like this, and you can see all sorts of graphs, from all kinds of sources, for nations all over the world.

From: Go forth and multiply a lot less

Coupled with rising mortality rates, this paints a grim picture for humanity over the next 25 years.

Now, no one is ever going to accuse me of being a fan of the “Go Forth And Multiply” strategy. I mean, sure, you could tell an ancient people that, but why would you need to?

Unless a disaster, like a major flood, just happened, and there were not many people left.

It is the nature of all life to breed and continue the species.

What’s the difference?

The difference is that natural life has checks and balances in place to prevent things from getting out of hand. What are these?

i. Predation. The only true predators humanity has right now (and has had since the dawn of agriculture) is itself—or, more accurately, the will of the ruling order. Aside from this there have been the odd serial killer, whose murderous deeds are but a grain of sand on a beach compared to the ruling order. Through out-right murder, war, programs of starvation and then bald-faced genocide, emperors and kings and queens have become the predators of their subjects, all the while the ruling order has not had such predation itself, except from its own kind, periodically.

With herd animals, it is the natural predators which largely determine the overall size of the herd. Where predators are low in number or absent, the herd’s ranks swell, and massive disease always follows.

ii. Disease. Nature’s way of saying, “There are too many of you.” This happens in the oceans, too, and this happens in forests—when forests get overcrowded and disease breaks out, the best thing that can happen is a vast purging fire.

iii. Acts of God. Yeah, natural disasters. This includes “the elements,” and what I mean by that is just the environment and the weather.

The difference is that humanity has no natural predators, we have an establishment that fights diseases, and we have become wise enough to avoid the mass carnage that occurs when disaster strikes.

Another difference is that the ruling order’s acts of mass murder are fairly indiscriminate—they do not “prune the tree” very well. In the natural world, predators take down the sick, weak, slow, and young. Essentially, they help strengthen the herd overall. The ruling order has never done this (except for perhaps the National Socialists in Germany, 1930s to 1945), and is not doing this now. The inbred twats are into eugenics, a pseudo-science.

(And those who founded and supported this agenda don’t mind talking about it. Because it serves another of their agendas—racial division. Like the vid directly above, it helps “non-whites” blame “the white man,” whatever that is, for all their problems. You cannot blame an entire race or subspecies for the actions and plans of a few.)

I’m not a fan of any control tactic, and that includes sterilization, abortion and birth control. I’d rather see humans dealing with predators again; I’d rather see natural ways of keeping the human blob in good fit condition. And I’d rather see some discipline, as well; it does not take much to avoid sexual intercourse, if one is not being constantly bombarded with sexual imagery.

Far better than this organized, methodical, scientific slow death that has been imposed not on all of us but just imposed on the “peasant” population. Remember, the ruling order and their minion class are not going through what we are. They are exempt from this soft kill program.

But all this is just me, I guess. My own personal opinion, please ignore.

Conclusion

What is the agenda of gender? Who’s behind it? What’s it all about? Why can’t we all be left the fuck alone?

I dunno.

If it is an agenda, then it is only another agenda of experimentation, which is always deployed to effect control infrastructure. Which is the only endgame of power. The endgame of malice is to enjoy the suffering before enjoying absolute power.

If it isn’t one agenda (or part of a great work), and just a series of coincidental agendas, the what?

I dunno. Skip to the bottom line.

“Wealth? The sick cackling laughter of psychopaths? What? Power?”

All that is power. Wealth is a means; knowledge is a means; control is the goal, giggling ego-maniacally all the way.

What is this agenda? The same as every other agenda—control.

Disclaimer:

This is all my own personal opinion, please deny all the above.

Further reading…

The History of Sterilization Abuse in the United States

Gender-Bender drugs turning boys into girls

Bisphenol A and Child Obesity

Gender-bent fish found downstream of pharmaceutical plants

Gender-bending chemicals put baby boys at risk of cancer and infertility

Chemicals Like Estrogen In Rivers Are Impacting Reproduction

Parliament committee fails to rein in river pollution

‘Gender-Bending’ Chemicals Found in Toys in China

Why Boys Are Turning Into Girls

Little kids given gender-bending treatments

Gender-bending Compounds Cause Breast Cancer, Asthma, Infertility

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 »

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

Heh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show »