masculinity

All posts tagged masculinity

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 »

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

–Charles Bukowski.

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

–Alannah Myles.

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

–Roman saying.

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

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

    Peace, Love, & Happiness

Part Two

The Cult Of “Love”

    Intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Things are fine!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. What is “Love?”

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

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

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

Let’s check the dictionary…

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

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

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

Conclusion: the word is simply and completely meaningless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. “Natural love?”

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

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

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

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

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

Hence only humans kill themselves?

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

And love? What differences…?

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

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

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

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

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

—Humans abuse children. Period.

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

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

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

2. Both have sex—consentual?

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

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

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

ii. Interpersonal freedom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, let’s review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do I mean?

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

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

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

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

And three from Esther Vilar:

1.

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

2.

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

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

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

3.

“CODED:

“I love him.

DECODED:

“He is an excellent workhorse.”

And leave off finally with one last quote:

“Love is gay.”

–me, 1992.

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

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

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

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

Later, peeps.]

    Peace, Love, & Happiness

Part One

The Cult of Peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Peace, then.

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

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

The Anti-War Doctrine

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

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

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

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

But let us ask something right now…

What is war?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

Some things never change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what’s the point?

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

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

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

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

The Anti-Violence Doctrine

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

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

It’s also intensely hypocritical.

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

What is violence?

The World Health Organization says that violence is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Words over action.

2. Self-restraint over self-expression

3. Psychology over physicality

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

5. Shame dependent

6. Controlling male behaviour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women and manholes.

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

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

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

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

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

Next—and finally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Hypocritical.

The last point: anti-violence is inherently hypocritical.

Why?

Because life is violent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretending it is something else is pure hypocrisy.

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

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