All posts tagged natural

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

I’ve heard and seen things like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why me?

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

Not necessarily in that order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what of evil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would not call that person evil.

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

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

So, are humans evil?

Absolutely not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah but what about all humans being stupid?

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

That’s just another pathological ego trip.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School made you dumb, idiot!

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


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

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

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

Fuck. Don’t stay in school.

Show »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I suppose this formula has never really ended…

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


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

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

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

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

Then come back here and blithely dismiss all of this.

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

Show »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of what they say applies to them.

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

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

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

That, to me, would be evil.

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

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

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

Why evil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I watched a documentary on YouTube, called “Thrive.”

Seeing how many views it had had, I figured it might be another loopy New Age bullcrap festival like Zeitgeist, so, I thought, “What the hell, at least it might be amusing.”

Amusing at best, bemusing at worst.

[Update: 22/02/2014:

Show »

I learned that this shit’s founder, Foster Gamble, heir to the fucking Procter and Gamble fortune, is just another rich twat trying to hijack the “Truth Movement.” Procter and Gamble, by the way, is just another evil cunt of a corporation. The high-production-value ‘movie’ came out on 11/11/11. Always beware of obvious numerology. Plus, the pic—

—screams illuminati symbolism.

Yeah. Don’t fall for this crap, folks.]

It was sort of neither. The first thing I thought was that its basic premise is flawed: most organisms do not “thrive” and are not meant to “thrive” at all; it’s almost always about mere survival. It’s a struggle. Not every second, just overall. From our point of view, it’s a struggle—from theirs, it’s just life. Suffering is simply a motivational force that drives them to get what they need.

Every species seems to enter into a period of thriving, sure, but its always on the edge of famine, and extinction. Life itself thrives, not its individual species. For them it’s up and down, feasts and famines. There is no perfect world for any living being. No ideal state full of rainbows and hugs and everything you want there for the taking.

And they shouldn’t thrive. Why should they? That’s not what creates a strong species capable of adapting through rough periods. That’s like saying an athlete can win a race by lazing around eating candy and watching TV and not training.

Life is a race, and training for it means suffering, hardship, loss, sacrifice, and dealing with pain. As you get stronger and get used to these things, it will not seem like suffering or hardship.

(Things only seem a certain way because you’re used to living a certain way. Perspective. An Amazonian tribe might be viewed by a middle-class Western family as living a poor, brutish, nasty, stagnant, dirty existence. But from the point of view of the Amazonian tribe, they see themselves as having it pretty good—they have everything they need (natural food, whatever clothing they need, shelters that break down after a while and return to nature, clean water, fresh air), they have family and friends and a sense of belonging, they live content, fulfilling non-material lives free of greed and stress and crime and misery and pollution. I think they’d view the white middle-class family as living a poor, crazy existence, detached from life, sick and destructive, in the Dead World.

When Amazonian natives come to the area where the forest ends and civilization begins, they feel they are at the “edge of the world.” There they find the loud angry machines tearing holes in their world. When clean and neat Westerners venture out from civilization and trek deep into a wilderness, they feel they are “in the middle of nowhere.”

Ask a modern tech-addicted teenager what it sees in the midst of a forest—“Nothing.” Ask a teenage Amazonian what it sees in the middle of a jungle—“Everything.”


For a species to continue to be strong, it must be tested, and this test must be ongoing. That means hardship and trials and adaptation. Periods of thriving are always fleeting, as they should be. Survival is the common state.

The only members of a species which typically “thrive” are the offspring; the young are the ones who are protected, fed, kept comfortable. They are given what they need—they don’t have to earn it; they don’t even have to ask for it. It’s given to them.

They are coddled and sheltered, for the most part, and this is a buffer zone of time that allows them to strengthen and grow, in order to be healthy and tough enough to face the challenges of adulthood. It is a temporary period of excess that essentially gives them a head start, through “thriving” for a little while. But nature never intended childhood to last. Only in—it seems—modern human society does childhood last for the rest of our lives, and only in this selfish and immature mindset do we expect that our lives to be a continual experience of “thriving.”

The process of (the offspring of a species) growing up into adults is a gradual edging out of this unrealistic state of plenty and safety, getting toughened up, getting wise, getting sharp claws, learning how the adults live, growing thicker skin, all for the real world. Obviously, this type of thriving is just a phase: a fat cozy state in which the offspring can grow, get stronger, develop sexually, and slowly become accustomed to the harsh challenges of real life (the adult world) ahead of it…as I already demonstrated.

Why is it that humans are the only species that strives to remain in this childish state? Complicated question, and I’m not getting into all that this time. The fact is that we were never meant to be safe and provided for and kept secure. We are not supposed to be given anything. Not as adults. Most of us do not exist in an adult world and do not have adult thoughts or ideas.

In a way, we are simply not sane. Or we simply mastered the pretense—appearing to be grow ups. But when a crisis comes along, we see straight away who the adults are.

As a YouTube “prepper” recently remarked, there are two kinds of people in the world: those who want to be taken care of, and those who take care of themselves (and others). It matches what I always claim: there are children and there are adults.

Anyway, the film gets into so many areas, from aliens to crop circles to ancient “wisdom and technology” and the New World Order, the Illuminati, to David Icke, and it just kept going into all sorts of directions.

It basically has the combined research done by many others, like Alex Jones, but at its foundation was the underlying theme around free energy. Something to do with glowing sparkling donuts or something. Oh, there may be something to it, but I am not interested.

I admit, when it got into aliens and UFOs and crop cricles (and David Icke, who believes in alien races, shapeshifters, and reptile people), I found myself reaching for the mouse to ‘switch the channel.’ But I sighed, and gave it a while longer. Trying to let it have its say and see if I could learn something “new.”

Not that I’m someone who dismisses all that stuff (well, the reptile people and shapeshifters, I will not comment); I spent three years of my life researching ancient civilizations, alien stuff, UFOs, ‘Chariots of the Gods,’ and so forth, and it didn’t get me anywhere. More questions, no answers, and no proof whatsoever. There really is no proof for any of it, and it did not impact my life in any way. Yeah, a lot of cool stuff, but so what? Maybe there are aliens and all that, but I don’t care. It was a three-year distraction for me that nearly ruined my health and made me fairly negative and paranoid.

Plus, I could not get past the grand leaps of logic made; yes, all logic leaps, but having all the variables is impossible except in a controlled labratory experiment.

Yeah, a UFO is just an “Unidentifed Flying Object.” That’s what the fucking acronym means. A UFO is not an alien spacecraft—the automatic assumption that it is indicates extreme bias. Or lack of any thought whatsoever. It could have a thousand possible explanations, but people who believe something look for things to validate that belief. If it’s not identifiable, it’s gotta be alien in origin? How does that work? That’s like saying that because there are holes in evolutionary theory, it automatically means that God did it all.

Again, just because something is not “that thing,” it doesn’t mean it is absolutely without a doubt “this thing.” It is a leap of logic and not proof of anything. By proving one thing false you do not prove another thing correct.

Example: A thing needs its own evidence to be proven. Just because 1+1 does not equal 4, it doesn’t mean that 1+1 equals 3.

You cannot believe that 1+1=3 and prove it by disproving 1+1=4. (I don’t know what the technical name for this is, but I know you can’t do it.)

Anyway, I think you get my point.

When ships land in front of me and aliens come out with their probes, okay, I’ll confront the idea and even make a tinfoil hat. I’ll take everything from there. But even if I did see weird things in the sky (and I have), they were only UFOs—things I could not identify. It doesn’t mean that they were anything that someone else thinks they are or tells me they are; in fact, saying they’re “aliens” is actually identifying them, so making them UFOs no longer. So why are they still called “UFOs” when the people calling them that are in fact identifying them as alien vessels? How do they know they are alien at all? How do they know they are vessels?

I don’t need evidence to have a belief. I don’t need a formula to know something. But I never had any gut feelings about the UFO-alien craze except that it was just a grand distraction…which it was.

Bottom line: I don’t care.

So, moving along, I suffered through that part of the film, and then it got into a lot of shit I already knew—Globalist Elites are trying to take over the world. Actually, this part was well-researched (or that research was borrowed from others who did it), and the info was presented pretty well.

But it was nothing new to me, really.

I kept thinking, “Yes, I know…so what?”

Yes, I know, it is going to be terrible in the years ahead; no privacy, camps, disease, a police State, and probably a nuclear war, population control, a global government—an oligarchy—running a military dictatorship of the few over the many, enforced by armies and police across the globe. I have no doubt that this will take place in the next five to thirty years. It’s already beginning. Step by step it’s happening.

Yes, got it.

My eyes are “open” in regards to this. I am “awake,” as the popular saying goes. And I do care about this—I simply disbelieve that we are going to stop it. And I’m leaning toward the idea that maybe it should not be attempted. Let it happen. Let it be. We’ll deal with the consequences. To do otherwise is to fall into the same sort of thinking as those trying to carry it out: those control-freaking, organizing, order-obsessed, power-fixated weaklings. Only the weak need to control, only the weak crave power (control) anyway.

So, I know that nothing can be done to stop it. It pretty much has to happen anyway. The only thing to do is to prepare and try to survive it, and then fight. We can’t change it and we can’t change them. We can only change ourselves.

But the twinkly music and softly spoken narrators, and general ‘hippy’ feel to this film, had me thinking that this was not what they had in mind. As the end approached, and it phased into their proposed “solutions,” I had tuned out completely. There were lots of easy answers, absurb theories, and shit that basically sounded way too good to be true. We’re gonna live forever without governments, and no rulers, and smiling faces and flowers and sunshine everywhere; we’ll all be rich and hardly work at all and laugh and sing and play…with free unlimited energy for all, cures for diseases, yadda yadda.

Happy little elves in Twinkly-winkly-land.

Like Star Trek. But far worse…

Like Mister Rodgers as captain of the USS Enterprise on Star Trek, except the ship is named the USS Lollipop. And all uniforms are pink dresses and the crew has sing-a-longs on the bridge.

Here’s the National Anthem:

It’s not that I’m some pessimist who thinks all this could not happen—I believe it should not happen. That’s not what life is about—it’s just another variation of the theme: living as a child, forever.

I shut it off when it got into this stuff. I could take no more. There was less than ten minutes left.

It might seem that I am “anti-solution,” except that these weren’t solutions. I guess I’m more of a “let it be” type of person. Not passive; simply not a fix-it-philosophy-obsessed control-freak. And I’d rather live as an adult, thanks.

(Never was it addressed or even explored that perhaps we could exist without energy altogether. There was nothing about many problems that still face our world, government-corporatism or not. Over-population, desertification of the surface of the earth due to agriculture, destruction of the world’s ecocsystems due to human “needs” and expansion. And the alleged need for more technoglogy in the first place. What about the mentality of materialism that led to all this in the first place?

If you do not understand the foundation on which everything was built, you will unknowingly build it all up again after you tear it down.

We don’t need more technology—we just want it and rationalize that want—we don’t need more awareness or consciousness or energy or education or information. We have enough, for fuck sakes. We have everything we need right now—in fact we have too much of everything.

Less is the answer. Less technology, less science, less religion, less information—we need to use what we already have, and use it wisely. No is also the answer. No more governments, no more corporations. Less people, less development. No materialism. No money. No banks. Less agriculture. Less stuff. No more fucking lies.

Now, I’ve been pretty hard on feminists in the past—well, I still am—as well as on women (or, rather, their behaviours) in general. Maybe it seemed before that I was saying that feminists rule the world or something. I don’t think they do, never really did. They’re just another faction trying to get their slice of the pie, and manipulating women and mass-shaming, demonizing, and waging (an information) war against men and boys as a means to their goals.

Then again, maybe I’m wrong: maybe the wives or the women in these super-rich families, which seem to run the world, are really pulling the strings by manipulating their men to carry out their plans.

Or maybe they’re all just like-minded and willing to carry it out without being manipulated. Maybe they’re all in it together. Maybe they all belong to the same ancient cult, and that’s what binds them all, all the families, all the members of the families, to a similar mindset and ultimate scheme for the world. Or maybe it’s something else that nobody knows.

It doesn’t matter.

I think racism, religious division, political opposites (Democrat-Republican/liberal-conservative), is all part of the plan and always has been. Divide and conquer. Feminism divides men and women, and divides families, makes kids fear their fathers; Marxism shapes the “individual” will into the “collective” will and destroys freedom; computers separate us from one another physically and keep us sitting still; Capitalism separates a human being from its conscience and makes it fixate upon objects, upon the material; Democracy makes the minority a slave to the majority; pro-youth propaganda makes the young mistrust the old; and civlization keeps us away from the natural world…on and on, it all serves to promote dependency on the State (and on those who control the State). Feminism and racism and Marxism and corporations and all the rest are but tools, pieces on a chess board, used to carry out the same aim, the same twisted will—to prevent a unified front of opposition.

The more we fight each other, the less we will be prepared to fight the true enemy. The less we are able to join together and fight, and the more we are confused about who or what the true enemy is or will be, the easier it will be to control and enslave us.

And those who think protesting will solve everything will end up in any one of these places:

FEMA Camps

Those are FEMA camp locations.

Here’s one up close:

Close up

This is Auschwitz, Poland, 1940s:

Anyway, I doubt we will get anywhere until we are united, and we won’t be united until it finally happens and it’s too late to prevent it. Most people will look at all the evidence and disbelieve it, no matter what.

They won’t clue in until a “disaster” strikes and they are ordered to a FEMA camp. Maybe this will happen all over the US, or all over North America, I’m not sure. With the National Defense Authorization Act in the US, its citizens can be held by authorities, grabbed off the street or from their homes, bagged, stuffed into vans by the military and detained indefinitely (or legally shipped off to another country to be tortured), just like suspected terrorists in—

Fuck it, don’t beleive me, here

Or you may wake up to a loud sound, look out your kitchen window, and see a smoking crater where your neighbour’s house used to be. Later you read in the paper that he was suspected of being a member of a terrorist organization. So they used a drone strike to kill him and his family.

Far fetched? I don’t think so.

But believe what you want. Personally, I don’t care what you believe. As far as I’m concerned, they’re capable of so much worse shit. What’s happening now is just child’s play compared to what’s coming.

What's coming

And what’s coming is what has already happened, just a little bit worse.

Only a resistance will unite us. Only a desperate necessity. Only if we are forced to work together, because we’ll never do it by choice.

Then again, I might just be crazy. Who knows? And I don’t really care if I am or not, or if you or anyone thinks I am or not.)

To be fair, there were a few things mentioned in the film that did make sense—such as “grow your own food.” So, I’m not saying it was complete rubbish.

Most of all the film pressed a non-violent approach to stopping the New World Order’s plans, its control and enslavement of the entire world.

I had to shake my head. Like that Occupy movement. Boy, that did a lot, didn’t it? Occupy what? Occupy why?

Don’t get me wrong: resistance is something I believe in. Firmly. Absolutely. But “aggressively begging” is not resistance. This isn’t the 1960s and that shit with the Bail-Out and the Banks was not the Vietnam War. Those hairy people protested a government which needed their support, their votes, for its military aims. The US lost the Vietnam War because it lost popular support for it.

Banks don’t need your votes; they only need your money (okay, not need—they have all the money they’ll ever need, for ten lifetimes—they just want more). Banks don’t give a shit about what you write on signs or what slogans you chant. The people who control those Banks really, really don’t give a furry shit about you at all. The people at the top who pull the strings of the power structures don’t get elected and are not accountable to anyone.

It’s like yelling at a lion that’s chasing you and demanding it to not eat you—it won’t fucking care. All it hears is your screams, which it ignores until it can sink its jaws into you. No, the only thing to do is turn the fuck around and pull out a knife or spear and fight that creature, defend yourself. Violently.

So it is with this Globalist Elite plot. Passing a bong around and singing songs of peace, love, and happiness will get you rounded up and put into a cage. This hippy attitude will undoubtedly gain in popularity as this gets worse, but it’s just playing right into their hands. They’re counting on your obsolete pacifist bullshit.

And there you can try to thrive. In prison, you terrorist.


“Mr. Rockefeller, there are thousands of protesters down there! They want the war to stop!”

“Oh my fucking god! Well, let’s get right on that! Hurry!”

“But, Sir, shouldn’t we just send in the riot police, warm up the tanks, turn on the water cannons, start the sound-based crowd dispersal weapons, load the rubber bullets, begin firing tear gas and spraying mace—or just fucking kill them all?”

“Oh yeah, right….of course. Proceed….”

I think American kids of the last few generations were indoctrinated by this namby-pamby non-violent horseshit—through Mommy and through the school system. Signing petitions and protesting is utterly useless, in my opinion.

Violence is the only way, armed resistance. Resisting the force of will of your enslavers by forcing your will upon their implements of control. And that will not be possible until it’s all said and done. We will have to crawl out from among the ashes and fight back without words, without signs, without nice friendly touchy-feelie horseshit. The war we will be trying to stop will be a war that will be waged upon us.

You do not fight a war against you by protest or by peaceful means. Could you imagine the French citizens in WWII standing with signs in front of the German armoured divisions rolling towards them?


No. Those people were sold out by their government, so they joined groups and began a resistance against (a violent fight against) their enslavers.

You don’t protest against your own enslavement: you fight it, because you must fight it—for your freedom, for your very life, for the lives of your children, family, and friends.

Some say the only way to prevent this is to start arming ourselves right now and fighting them. Now.

But that’s not true either. By the time you read this, it’ll already be too late. It was too late before I wrote it. It should have happened during that Occupy thing; we should have armed ourselves and blew up every skyscraper, every factory, dismantled every nuclear power planet, brought down every government, every corporation, every bank.

Right. As if we had the numbers, the guts, the motivation, and the means to do all that. There’s a reason some refer to “people” as “sheeple.” It’s because we’ve been conditioned to be lazy assholes who just whine and tell others what to do.

And even if we blew it all up, we would just build it all back up again, eventually, because we know of no other way to exist.

No, I guess it’s pointless going down the what-if highway. It runs in circles for many miles and eventually leads to a broken bridge over-looking a swamp. It’s all irrelevant anyway. Tomorrow is too late. Today it was too late. Yesterday, too late. It cannot be stopped because it must happen. You cannot stop what must be.

Let it go, let it come.

So, that said, I did not care for this documentary. I think the information was great, and I hope more people realize what’s going on. It will help them prepare for the inevitable. That is all.

But its solutions are pipe dreams, immature ideals, and wishful thinking.

(If I’m proven wrong, well, that’ll be great. I’ll write them an apology. I do enjoy being proven wrong. Seriously.

But I doubt it.)

I think people who swallow this meme will be thriving—in a cage.

    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.


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.


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.