All posts tagged sacrifice

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show »

On September 11th, 2001, I watched, on the TV, some planes hit a couple buildings in the US—and I laughed. Sure, I was in a vicious anti-american state of mind back then, so I wasn’t just laughing at an aggressive, arrogant, war-mongering nation getting some payback (finally!)…I was laughing at its overall absurdity. Like giggling at the Three Stooges when you’re stoned—it’s so odd and makes no sense, but somehow you sense something which gets its wires crossed with something else, and wham: hilarious.

Yeah, I laughed. People dying—even arrogant Americans who support their government doing this kinda shit to poor people in other countries, and grossly enjoying the benefits of other people’s death and horror and loss and suffering…even people who might have it coming, well, even these people dying—isn’t funny. I don’t laugh at death unless it’s a TV show or movie that’s so corny or fake that I can’t help it…

Corny and fake…

Show »

Fucking cunt!

Your mind can see things before you can consciously register it—your mind, my mind, everyone’s mind. It’s perception. I think I perceived a lot on that day, and the days that followed, which told me the whole works was a crock of shit. Of course, I’ve never trusted governments, politicians, corporations, religions…so my head doesn’t have to wade through the muck they spew—I automatically dismiss everything they say, everything they claim, and so I start thinking about the real reasons—the truth—without having to go through the process that most people seem to go through (fighting through that double-think, breaking free of that innocent babe-in-the-woods mentality: Would the government lie to me?—Is the State engaged in things they keep secret from the public?—Could they really do that, omg!?—et cetera).

Frankly, with the amount of history I’ve read, and with the depth of insight I’ve gained into the minds of those who rule (and have always ruled—in a fundamentally identical manner, regardless of any “type” of government), there is generally no claim to which I’d have a knee-jerk reaction of “No, they wouldn’t do that!”

Yes, Sir!—they would do that. They are capable of anything. Any fucking thing. The biggest serial killer, mass killer, in the history of planet earth is the Government, the State, the Empire. No other being or entity or person or group or effect, disease or disaster has killed more humans on this planet than governments. They have been the biggest weapon of mass destruction in history—from 6000 BC to present. Purely brutal, calculating, remorseless, demented butchers.

When we’re conditioned to blindly follow rules, we’re conditioned to blindly trust those who invent these rules—and blindly obey those who enforce those rules. A-U-T-H-O-R-I-T-Y.

The Almighty Authority. The Right Honourable. Your Grace. Your Excellency. Your Majesty. My Lord. My Lady. Master & Mistriss. Mr & Mrs. Sire. Madam.

Show »

The Leader.

The most conditioned among us live constantly in denial and are incredibly, painfully naive—like a child living in a colourful room full of toys and stuffed animals; outside, the world may be grey and in tatters, with disease and gangs of starving, ruthless thugs roving about, and pets that have gone feral, amid general destruction and filth and decay…but inside, that child-like person sings happy songs and plays games and giggles and will not look out the window—or the window has been painted over with bunnies and rainbows…harmless, non-threatening things…’happy things,’ childish things. That child thinks the whole world is just like the contents of that room. That child can’t be told any different.

The infantilized person will never “wake up” from this kiddie reality. This type of person, obviously, will never believe that everything is not yummy-sunny-happy everywhere, except for a few “bad people” who are bad because whatever reason the State has said they are bad. A State-approved Doctor will give us the reason, and of course a pill will fix it up nicely.

Thank you, ma’am.

Anyway, I mention that because I won’t try to reach out to those types of people. Never. It’s pointless. Their brains are clogged with immature memes—that pig-headedly resist competing memes—it’s like telling someone who just free-based smack that heroin is a terrible drug.

“What? Dude, fuck off—you’re killing my buzz!”

So, I won’t try to ruin anyone’s fun, of course. I just might be accused and charged with the crime of “being too serious.”

So those types can sit and wallow in their smiling, seeping, sickly sweet comfort zones. No problem. I’m not here to try to convince you guys of anything. In fact, if one of you is reading this…just go away. Go watch TV, read a celebrity magazine, or go shopping at the mall; this topic is not for you.

Now that 90 percent (9 out of 10) of the readers have gone, I’ll continue…

Back to my point: I never bought 9/11. It smelled like shit from day one, and I don’t eat shit, even if I’m told it’s tasty chocolate. I told someone after it happened that “they”—the US government—probably did it to themselves (not that they provoked an attack from an area and a people they’d been fucking with for decades—no: they planned and carried out an attack against their own country…for some reason). As time went on (wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; war on “terror”), it made a bit more sense why they did it—the fact that they did it was never in question. The only question was why. All the whys. The reasons.

A few years later, I tried to find out more what those reasons were. I found out a little, then watched “Fahrenheit 9/11.” And I later started a thread on the subject in the old GF Melee forum. Honestly, I was astounded by those who could not open their minds to any other (non-State-approved) point of view.

Here was when I was confronted with the following notion: “conspiracy theory.”

I didn’t really understand that, and I still don’t. It seems that anything that challenges government-corporate-sanctioned big-media dogma gets this “conspiracy theory” label. I just don’t get it. As I stated back then, a conspiracy is when two or more people enter into an agreement to do something. Hey, Joe, wanna go get a coffee? “Sure,” he says. And that’s it. They just conspired to do something. That’s all it means.

But it’s become something loaded with all sorts of connotations—extremely negative connotations which imply various things, all designed to cause people to instantly dismiss it. Without thinking about it for a single fucking second—just dismiss it. It’s a manipulative control tactic employed to silence alternative opinions and to pre-empt things called “questions.” It sways opinion by steering something into the extreme and absurb. Example: someone mentioning “The New World Order” can be silenced by the following: “Yeah, right! I guess you believe David Icke, too? Well, go put your tinfoil hat on!”

What’s happening here is that something (for which evidence can be found) is being ridiculed and dismissed by linking, associating it with something else (for which no evidence can be found). See how that works? I forget the name for this ploy, but it doesn’t matter. You can discredit something by having it touch something crazy. And thus have it become contaminated by craziness atoms.

Wash Fucking Hands

In in my example, two separate ploys were used:

1. The NWO reference was associated with David Icke, who speaks about the NWO, for which evidence can be found, but who also speaks about reptilian shape-shifters, aliens, and other flaked-out crap for which no evidence can be found.

(Again, I’m not saying aliens don’t exist. I’ve been into that before—yeah, I was into alien shit (knee-deep) for years—but it goes around in circles. There’s never anything new, once you’ve covered the basics, and there’s never any proof. All these people over all these years seeing things and being yanked away from the earth up into some ship or whatever, and no one has ever grabbed an alien something-or-other off an alien table (an instrument, a thingamajig, a sample of something, anything whatsoever) to show others later? No one has, in thousands of cases—there’s been no physical evidence?

“But but but the government goes after those people and steals the proof!!!!!!!!!!!1112″

Bullshit. No one’s ever had alien DNA under his or her fingernails? Jesus, you can’t even commit a crime today without leaving some particle, some trace of yourself, behind, as evidence that you were there.

“What about all the tens of thousands of UFO sightings OMFG !!?!?!?”

Firstly, seeing something weird in the sky is not proof of anything but something weird that defies description—it is not a physical object which can be held in your hand, tested, shown to others, et cetera. An image, a photograph, does not prove something is of alien design. Secondly, a UFO is an unidentified flying object—it’s something unknown. It doesn’t mean it’s automatically alien in origin.

No, there is something going on, obviously—but I feel it’s just a mass distraction. Nothing else makes sense.)

2. The NWO reference is stuffed into the subject matter of those who believe they’ve been abducted by either government agencies or alien entities and have had tiny mechanical implants embedded in their heads—these devices give and receive signals, apparently, and the use of tinfoil applied to the head, evidently, blocks these signals.

(Not that I think this is far-fetched; I think it’s possible, but why? You can control people through all sorts of means without having to go through such an expensive and elaborate drama to attach some gadget to someone’s head. There are cheaper, more effective ways to control people. Like the movie, “They Live.” The premise is silly. Subliminal (text) messages aren’t needed to get people to do what you want. Symbols do it just fine. Psychological manipulation—it’s a science. School, TV (and now computers and the internet), social pressure on an obsessively material, shallow, product-acquiring lifestyle beginning at a young age, combined with shame and ridicule…are more than enough to get people to do what you want.

Besides, no one’s ever had one of these devices removed and taken to a lab or something? Not even photographed, witnessed by as many people as possible?

“But how else can they keep track of you!!!!???”

It’s a device called a “cell phone”—people carry these voluntarily, you know. With the iPhone and its counterparts, there’s really no need to tag and track people the way they do with animals.

Tracking Slaves

Plus, there are cameras everywhere, and every time you use your debit or credit card they know exactly where you are.

Then again, I’m not saying they will never do this to us (install chips or other surveilliance devices—“spychips”). In some areas people actually want to have an RFID chip implanted in them, so who knows. Hell, some people will even pay to be tagged…)

Now the person who brought up the NWO is on the defensive, trying to explain or prove that he’s not crazy, like those who are engaged in those two other subjects. And those other subjects are of course “conspiracy theories.”

Well, I suppose there all sorts of labels society uses to belittle, ridicule, mock, shame, and ultimately dismiss and ignore anyone who proposes anything contrary to the official story, the party line, the safe and conventional crap we’re trained to swallow.

By the way, here’s a good link on the immense bureaucracy that’s grown out of 9/11 and the War on Terror:

“Top Secret America.”

I guess all that’s a “conspiracy theory,” too. I guess just call anything unpopular or that which might make you think, “conspiracy theory.” Call it whatever makes it easier to get back to those really important things consuming your valuable time. I won’t mind.

A little over a year ago, I did some research on ancient (pagan) religions (which are still practiced today—mostly in secret), and I came to a link to a film called “Dark Secrets: Bohemian Grove,” by Alex Jones. Here:

I was impressed by the film; I thought Jones did an excellent job helping to expose something rather disturbing (that no mainstream reporters have touched). I’d never heard of Alex Jones prior to this. I had never heard of Bohemian Grove. I had heard of “freemasonry” and the “Illuminati”—but had dismissed it, as most people do, as crazy shit I didn’t want to hear about—but I hadn’t heard of the Bilderberg Group before (or the CFR—Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission, or the Federal Reserve). Frankly, I didn’t want to hear about this kinda shit. I figured governments and corporations were twisted fucks in bed together and that they were ruling the world, yet who precisely was pulling the strings of these puppets didn’t interest me.

I guess it only interests me a little bit today—honestly, it doesn’t really matter which group does what or how old and secretive they are or who’s a member of what, or if they’re part of an ancient oligarchy whose lines, beliefs, and religion can be traced back to Babylon and Sumer. Doesn’t matter to me. The result is the same no matter what one believes. The “who” stuff (no pun intended—owl reference) seems to be just another distraction, another thing to fixate on. Whoever they are, they are untouchable right now, and cannot be “fought” or defeated. They—those rulers, those sick ultra-rich control freaks pulling strings all over the world—can only be resisted. I don’t mean peacefully. (Sorry, Hippies and flower people; your tactics won’t work this time around.)

Since then I’ve watched a lot of films and stuff, read tons of material on these subjects, by various people—most notably Alex Jones. There’s stuff put out by Gerald Celente, James O’Keefe, David Icke (if you can take some of his unprovable, whacky ideas with a really big grain of salt…or bottle of salt), perhaps Mark Dice, and the guys at the have some interesting stuff sometimes. There are many more—KRS One, Immortal Technique, Public Enemy, Dave Mustaine (Megadeth), et cetera—who are on the right track. Hell, even Jesse Ventura gets my respect.

I’ve begun to question some things I thought were true, as well as investigate things of which I was not aware. One staggering example was/is my views on feminism, and how I see now that it was never an independent institution doing what it did (being an information industry, a propaganda agency, receiving billions in funding and creating an aristocracy of women and demonizing men with an end goal of degrading—and probably trying to annihilate—the entire gender, utterly) for its own reasons. No. It’s simply another tool. Another puppet. A few years ago I learned how the CIA employed Gloria Steinem (since the late 1950s) to use the Women’s Libbers Movement to hi-jack the Hippy Movement (hey, go look it up; she’s admitted it). The ultimate goal of this seems to have been to break up the family, using “class war” dogma from Marxism, communism, and converting it for a feminist “gender war” plan. Why? To get Dad out of the house, put Mom to work, with the State as her new husband, and have the Government-Corporate aparatus (with crucial help from TV and the media to) raise the kids. (The site “ManWomanMyth” illustrated this years ago, perfectly.)

(And there are probably other goals, but these are enough for now. Even though I knew all this, I did not investigate much further into it. Anyway, it’s one example of how I was short-sighted.)

Is all that a conspiracy theory?

Most things are a conspiracy (two or more people entering into an agreement to do something), so what does that matter? I do not engage in things that cannot be proven or that do not contain any evidence. A “conspiracy theory” to me would be…some people claiming that the moon landing was faked. Or that the earth is really flat. These imply a vast conspiracy involving many people for some sinister goal…but there is no proof. Hence it is a theory.

I seek the truth, always, even if the truth can sometimes be bitter, ugly, horrible, or seems just plain loony. So, call it what you will. Or, use your mind and actually look into stuff like this. And think for yourself.

At any rate, the “bigger picture” just keeps getting bigger—and more disturbing. I can’t blame people who (while they are not exactly infantile and want to live in a comfee-cozy kiddie fantasy world, they do, however) choose to remain intentionally ignorant. They may sense a lot of things going on, but they quickly distract themselves, afraid of what it could mean to get thinking about it. True enough, it can overwhelm you, the more you get into it, the deeper you seek. It can be chilling and smash to pieces most of what you thought life—and reality—was all about, since your childhood days…which never really ended, of course.

Making a choice to not deny without investigation, to not dismiss without thinking and researching, to not belittle and judge and ridicule and label and ignore without opening your mind just a little bit and engaging in a wee speck of free-thought…well, it can be dangerous. You may find out that most of what you believed was a stinking lie. And that can be unsettling. You may find out that you’re a part of something terribly wrong, and you have to struggle with your conscience over your role in it all. To act on your conscience will require you to dramatically change the way you think, react to and view things, and perhaps to radically change your entire life in order to live according to a set of principles.

You may have to risk losing your career, alienating or losing your friends and family, or even shaking your whole existence to its foundation. At least, you may have give up the child-like dream of status and stuff and security—that you can live your life pursuing all the things you were taught to pursue while the loving Nanny State takes care of you and everything else around you.

This could all be absolutely frightening, and pretty stressful. At most, you may feel compelled to act—yunno, to actually do something to help promote freedom in the world, or just in your community.

Whichever the case, it could be far easier, much simplier, to ignore it all and keep pretending—call it bullshit and “go back to sleep,” as they say.

And, like I said, I can’t blame people for doing this. The more you think you have to lose, the harder the choice will be, I reckon.

Here and there I come across people who know a lot of this shit but feel they can’t do anything about it, so they just try to get along in this shit as best they can. It clearly bothers and frustrates them, but they seem to feel powerless to do anything about it.

I can’t blame them for that either—what can be done, really, even if you know what’s going on? I certainly have no answers (other than: head for the fucking hills and get away from it).


Anyway, about all those people who are trying to share what they’ve learned and discovered about all this, I’ve discovered that all these folks collectively make up “The Truth Movement.” And like all “movements” there are those people who infiltrate and hi-jack it in order to destroy it.

Take Glenn Beck—fucking please.


He is what is known as a “shill.” He’s an establishment mouthpiece who’s in place to debunk others and others’ ideas that do not correspond with what the system wants us to know and believe. He attacks only one side of things; he’s a liar and he has an agenda—he’s a muppet. He’s not seeking the truth, and he’s not presenting the truth—or, he’s presenting half-truths, mixed with lies or distractions.

What Glenn Beck does to subjects that most people ought to know about is a little different than what David Icke does to similar subjects. And this demonization process works, in either way. Don’t believe me? Here’s a comment from an “Illuminati” video on YouTube:

“I agree. David Icke is a complete and proven fraud. When I see him associated with anything I know that I can throw out that information as false.”

Because Icke a bleeding loon, everything he talks about can be viewed with mistrust and even instant dismissal, even though he talks about some sane things which actually can be backed up with evidence. Thus, other people talking about (provable) things (or least things that are backed up with some evidence) can be dismissed equally because Icke talked about the exact same thing. In essence, Icke sabotages and discredits the “Truth Movement” with his crazy crap.

What Beck does is more sinister. He pretends and lies; he’ll make a half-hearted attack on one thing, a minor thing, and then totally ignore twenty other way more important subjects. This is so we think he’s actually a journalist who’s investigating and asking questions and trying to get at the truth. But he’s not.

Plus, he’s just not funny. He really thinks he is, but he’s just not.

Michael Moore is another shill—just a different type. A different species. I never really liked this guy—there was something about him, and the way he did things, which made me uneasy. He’s manipulative, sketchy, like a lawyer. I watched “Bowling For Columbine.” I didn’t get it, and the way he behaved in the film was disgusting—rolling a kid in a wheelchair around to emotionally manipulate people, using a tragedy to support an agenda—his agenda, which is more relevant today given the utter assault going on right now on guns—which is an agenda of tyranny wrapped up with pretty pink ribbons. But it made no sense to me—a kid shot other kids in a school…so…going after guns and bullets will make this better because kids will have a harder time getting guns and bullets…? Is this about the size of it?

What the fuck? What is behind this? Why did this kid shot other kids? What does it matter which weapon of choice he used? If he could not get a gun, he would have used something else. If he ran through the crowded halls of his school with a big butcher knife, stabbing students, would Moore go after stores to take knives off their shelves?

“Oh but you can kill more people with a gun, more easily, than with a knife!!!”

Really? A gunshot is loud. I could run through a crowded room and stab a whole lot of people without the BANG BANG BANG! alerting people to run or hit the dirt or call the police. I could sit on the back of a crowded bus and silently slit the throat of probably half the passengers on that bus before someone with balls tackled me—if the people are spaced a certain way, I might be able to quietly kill them all, right up to the bus driver, without anyone knowing what I was doing. Or I could walk into a packed movie theater with a bag full of molotov cocktails and set the whole place on fire.

Desperate people, crazy people—people who want to hurt others—do not obey gun laws. So why take away guns from law-abiding people so that criminals, who obtain guns illegally, will be the only citizens to have them? And how will this stop incidents such as Columbine and Sandy Hook and others?

We’re wrapping gauze on a gaping wound, and we just keep wrapping. We’re too fucking stupid, obviously, to realize that there is a cause for all this bleeding and it should be fixed. Or maybe we’re just too fucking lazy to bother or care about “Conspiracy Theories” about wounds and what they’re all about. Right, go grab another roll of gauze. Idiot…

People in New York City (and North Carolina) use their cars to kill others; people in Japan still use swords to kill others; in Pakistan and in the UK they throw acid in your face; and in France they throw fire bombs. Do you realize how many heads could get cracked open if a madman ran into a grade one playground with a baseball bat?

Why is twenty kids getting shot so much worse than ten kids getting stabbed? Do numbers mean so much? At Sandy Hook, if only one teacher had a gun no fucking kids would have been killed!

There’s some fuckin numbers for ya…

Nevermind the fact that crimes with guns have been on the decline over the last 20 or more years, and nevermind the evidence that in areas in which law-abiding carry guns, crime is very low.

No, it’s an agenda—a disgusting, manipulative agenda that uses dead or maimed kids to control people emotionally and cause angry reactions to gain support for an assault on a living being’s god-given or natural fucking right to carry a weapon to defend oneself and one’s family. Fucking period.

I have no fucking respect for Michael Moore or any slimy piece of shit establishment waterboy like him. This pig, this 400-pound heaving, whining cunt walks around with armed bodyguards, owns fucking weapons, is worth millions of dollars, and is telling you that you cannot own a gun (he’s been quoted as saying that if you’re concerned about your safety, “get a dog”).

Wow. Fucking shill. The next time you have your armed goon squad clear an entire resturant out and bribe the owners so you can sit your monstrous sweaty ass down to devour a tableful of food, Mr. Moore, I hope you fucking choke and die.


(I know. I’m a big meanie.)


The thing with Moore is that in “Fahrenheit 9/11″ it wasn’t what he exposed; it was that he did not expose a lot of stuff, concentrating only on what would demonize the Republicans and the George W. Bush Administration. It was a Democrat attacking the Republican Whitehouse; it was not true journalism—it was not objective; it was biased, omissive, and politically motivated.

Then again, I think the Obama Administration was set up decades ago—or at least two decades ago. (No, I do not believe voting does anything; the leaders are chosen in secret long before they are ever declared candidates by the media.) I think the Bush Administration was set up as well—and I think George W. Bush was not a dumb evil prick: sure he wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I think he was designed to be an evil dumbass religious tard. It was so absurb, so over the top. He was engineered to be that awful, that stupid, that insipid and dangerous…so that Obama would seem like a heavenly saviour…a messiah…and the nation would rush into his warm embrace—which was just a bear trap covered in plush. Especially since the black community in particular was boiling in rage and on the verge of revolt—and, praise the lord, bing bongo, a black man gets into office.

Can you hear the crickets now?

Obama will do no wrong in their eyes…no matter what he does.

It was brilliant—and it was a conspiracy. There is evidence for it. There’s no longer any such thing as democracy; I do not trust any election and believe the entire process has been either corrupted or merely was a scam for a long time. Maybe it always was.

Tangent over…

I think David Icke is possibly another one—either this or he is simply deranged. I just can’t get my head around Icke—one minute he makes so much sense, and the next he’s talking about shapeshifters, a hollow earth, and reptile-alien beings who are ruling the world, or something. Crazy shit without a shred of proof, no evidence whatsoever…all based on what? I dunno. Theory. Here’s what I mean:

And another:

I love the comment under this one, by the way:

“They are both in the entertainment business and it’s lizard eat lizard.”



I think it can be a business—and, yes, you have to bring people in if it is a business. And you bring people in by attracting them—and you attract them by posting smut or by trying to scare them. Or baffle them with bullshit—entertain them—with bright colours and effects and sparkling, shiny crap and effects, and maybe an explosion or two.

But I think people like Icke are making money off gullible people who will simply believe anything, without any proof—without any sense, any real gut instincts either. Because they probably believe in nothing, and, well, here’s something. And it can’t be proven wrong—as Dice points out, you can’t disprove it.

Hmmm…something about proving a negative…or something…nevermind.

But this raises into question the case of Mark Dice…

Now, he’s accusing Alex Jones of a lot of stuff—mainly of being a sell-out (trying a bit too hard to make money off this so-called “Truth Movement”). But he’s lying in places. I’ve seen some ads on, and while I’m extremely anti-corporate/anti-advertising, I understand that shows cost money to make, and that cash has to come from somewhere, and if you’re doing this thing full-time, well, where’s the money going to come from? and so forth. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.

Dice lied about the one ad he mentioned. As the host encourages: “Tell us about the penis pills…”

Now, I actually saw this ad, and watched al of it (Dice obviously did not watch all of it and did not understand what he did watch, or is deliberately trying to obfuscate what it was about, or he’s acting obtuse for his own agenda). The ad was actually based in a lot of fact, a lot of evidence; the whole thing was about how men are becoming less masculine—naturally, you can see why I watched it and remember it, since this is a subject in which I’ve been interested for years.

I was skeptical, watching it, too, but I gave it chance, and, from what I’ve personally researched, a lot of it was spot on. It dealt more with the physiological effects—it had nothing to do with “penis pills,” for crissakes. It was about fucking testosterone, which is about the testicles, and about hormones, et cetera, not about the penis. The ad went on to give some pretty good information, then went into a segment on what could be done. This was free advice—some of it good advice, I thought—and then *after that* it got into its product which claimed to naturally raise testosterone levels in men.

I did not mind this (20-some-minute) ad because it was not manipulative, was not full of bullshit (that I could detect), and offered advice and tips before ever getting into the product it was selling. Only a few minutes of this ad were dedicated to its own product. (Trying to find a link to the ad to show you.)

The point is, Dice is a liar. I think he’s trying to steal “fans” of Alex Jones and become just like him. Christ, I watched a short video of Mark Dice the entire content of which was him walking to a book store shelf and pointing out that his book (“The Illuminati: Facts & Fiction”) was there, in stock.

Go to his fucking site—

—and tell me this guy is so different, such a non-sell out. Holy fuck—“like me on Facebook!”—“Follow me on twitter!”—“donate!”—“buy my book!” Give me some money and I’ll give you some truth!

That’s what I see. And yeah, Alex Jones is a bit of a whore in this regard too. But Dice is just a shadow of what Jones is regarding dedication, and the bulk and scope of information presented. And I don’t know what to make of the guy—at first glance, he seems like a self-absorbed ego-fucking-maniac. All his avs have his smiling face—his website is his whole fucking name—half his YouTube videos are just him talking, the camera pointing right at his face. And another large percentage of them are about American celebrities…

Hey, I’m a success, look at my face! Remember my name! I’m gonna be famous! I’m interviewing famous people! Wanna hear me drop some names! Will that make me royalty too! Do you love me!? Give me some money!

But I’m just not sure if he’s a phony fuck like Glenn Beck or Michael Moore, or if he’s just an Alex Jones wanna-be…

What I just cannot comprehend is, along with preppers who show their faces on YouTube, those who say they believe the shit is going to hit the fan and that the government is going come for people like them…and yet they annouce to the world either their names or display their faces, or both.

If what they say is true, the government is going to round up or kill those poor bastards first. Right? So, isn’t revealing your real name, your whole name, and showing your face everywhere…kinda sorta suicidal? I mean, Dice has a YouTube username called TheResistance. So, well, did the French Resistance under Nazi occupation post their names in lights and staple their faces on every telephone pole?


A real resistance

I dunno…I doubt it. They’d tend to get caught and killed if they did that. I mean, I wasn’t there…but this just makes sense to me. Maybe I’m just weird…

The trouble with the “Truth Movement” is the same thing that plagued (and ended) the “Men’s Movement.” It was taken over, hi-jacked, by assholes, shills, and smiling faces in suits wanting to sell us stuff. I’m sorry, the truth is not for sale.

I’ll say that again because it needs to be fucking said again:


I don’t use my real name here—I don’t want attention, I don’t want or need fame or some e-celebrity status. I don’t want your money—don’t donate to me!—I don’t want your money and I’m not trying to sell you something. Whatever I write or create, I offer it to everyone for free. I have no agenda other than Truth, Freedom, and Nature.

Don’t follow me on twitter (I’m not there), don’t fucking “like” me on Facebook (I’m not there either). Don’t rate me or judge me—just think a bit about what I’m saying. And please don’t be a fucking fanboy of me (or anyone), for God’s sake. “Tweet” me and I’ll smack you in the mouth, pal.


I’m not special or great because of all of this (I’m no better or worse than anyone else), but I do think I’m real, and not a hypocrite, because of this. I respect this quality (striving for truth and freedom without selling out or letting your ego take over your principles) in others. I’ve always been cautious of those who use their real (full) names online, like a badge, and go out of their way to show us their smiling faces and what clothes they wear…it does not give them credibility, in my mind. Quite the opposite.

I understand people need money to live…but, Jesus, there is a difference between making a living and being a shallow, self-obsessed sell-out and making a killing off what should be free for everyone: the fucking Truth.

But the agendas are what I can’t stand. The Christian agenda is about proving that what’s happening is biblical prophecy come true (the End Times), and another agenda is about this Zionist Jew something or other.

I dunno. Maybe I’m wrong.


Anyway, Moore and Icke and (probably Dice too) can fuck off. I still like Alex Jones—I agree with about 80% of what he talks about—but I am aware that he has an agenda as a Christian (I see it all the time), so I have to take him with a grain of salt as well. You have to understand the context.

Oh, I almost forget about Rich Zubaty, with whom I agree on maybe 95% of things, well, he’s MIA; his “Rude Guy” blog has been inactive since August of 2012. Either he’s given up, gone insane, or perhaps the police have him, and he’s in the clinker now. Or maybe he’s injured or sick. Or maybe he’s dead. Have been considering emailing him since September to see what’s up, but I keep leaning towards the “just give him a bit more time.” Maybe I will send him an email.

All for now. And to all the good folks out there, fighting for truth, freedom, and liberty, well, keep up the good work, guys (and girls). And keep it real.

Remember: if a smelly lunatic in tattered clothes tells you that you have got shit on your shoe, and you look down and there’s shit on your shoe, what matter if he was crazy? He just told you the truth.

Three cheers for the resistance—the real resistance.
The French Resistance

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
― Leo Tolstoy

    Why Am Not An Anarchist.

Truth is, I *almost* used to be one. I was confused and saw my anti-civilization/pro-nature thing as the equivalent to anarchism. I guess I tried to be quite a few things to belong to something, before I gradually stopped trying to be anything, and will now strive to be more at peace with being nothing at all. Just a man, I guess, struggling to be free.

The Theory & “Practice” Of Anarchism

Anarchism Now

Anyone would didn’t know me or what I’m about would effortlessly label me an “anarchist.” Well, I’m not. In fact, that would be like calling a mountain lion a Siamese Twin…just because Siamese cats are cats, and so are mountain lions. There’s a huge (crotch-ripping, ball-rupturing, scream-inducing) leap of logic going on to try to connect the two in any meaningful sense. A human who is sometimes attached at birth to another human—its twin—is unrelated to cats, especially wild cats. And that’s the whole point here.

Ya see?

Well, it would be easy to confuse this, just looking at a definition for “anarchist…”

1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.

2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.

3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

1. I do not. Yet this begs one obvious and important question: what is anarchy and what is anarchism? More on that later…

2. Now, here one actually has a case—since I might, in theory, support violence into a type of “revolution.” But what exactly are we talking about here? A revolution means to overturn a system of control and hop into the big chair yourself. Revolutions have happened all through history, and I neither support the former or replacement regime or system.

In theory… Really, though, a revolution is merely taking out the driver of the limo (the driver = government; the limo = a nation; the structure that enables that driver and limo to speed down the road = civilization) and replacing it with another driver. A better driver? Does it matter? The new driver is still taking Miss Daisy anywhere she wants to go.

Civilization itself rolls along unbothered by such inconsequential changes; revolutions do not change civilization itself in any way whatsoever. If one would call (the pathologically material and control freak) civilization “Mater,” then she is affected by revolution in the same way a person is affected by a bit of indigestion; some slight discomfort, and passing of gas, and it’s back to normal soon enough.

But here: “with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed” would also cause confusion. And it’s probably something as close to what I would, in theory, support. Except I really wouldn’t—and neither do anarchists, because that cannot work…and I’ll tell you why later.

3. This does not actually apply to me or anything I do or believe in either—even though I’ve said in the past that I’d love to see the world (civilization) burned to the ground so that the natural world could recover and the surviving humans could return to a hunter-gatherer way of life…I knew this to be impossible.

I’d love (or, I used to desire) to see the world burnt asunder and humans along with it, so that the natural world could recover and go on with life without us. As I’ve said before, anyone who truly cared or “loved” about this planet would kill themselves immediately. To “love” is to absolutely forget yourself and give to and care fully for something else, or someone else. “Love”—apparently—is self-sacrifice and total compassion—which is it is impossible to “love yourself!”

You would rather end your own life than cause pain, misery, and perpetual suffering to another. That, they tell me, is “love.”

No one still alive loves this planet. We just say we do and try to control it in a kinder, gentler way…

But, anyway, as far as returning to the hunter-gatherer ways…

In reality I know how naive, idealistic and utterly futile this is. In fact, it’s nearly impossible and would never happen—not going by any “anarchist” dogma. Seven billion people with a global cement and steel and plastic high-tech infrastructure cannot and will never give it all up and try to return to a system that worked nearly perfectly for a population of five to twenty million human beings (in the entire world). Futile to go there, so I won’t anymore. And I just don’t need to…

Truth is…the world is going exactly the way it’s supposed to go. One striking difference between myself and all other “anarchists” is that I don’t see anything that “needs changing.”


That’s right. I’m quite serious. The horrible tragedy (in that a green fertile world has become dominated by greedy, evil, agricultural apes, and it is all on the verge of total destruction) of the planet must be played out as it’s happening right now. There is no other way it could, would or should be happening, and it will become what it’s going to become regardless of what we do. (This is a hard, sandy pill to swallow, and even I have trouble getting it down sometimes. But no one ever said the Truth was gonna slide down easy and make you smile afterward…)

Nothing we do really matters?

I’m not saying that. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t resist and fight—we should. It slows down the inevitable control of the entire earth, and without it we’d all be cages in a very short period of time. Plus it kills time doing something other than blindly obeying and conforming to a female way of life.

Every anarchist you’ll ever come across, hear about, or read about, shares a common theme with the rest of them—that “change” is needed. Now, a very few number of them are actually willing to go out and fight and die and sacrifice themselves for this “change”—

—they’d rather talk or write about it and do virtually nothing. Some other poor slob can get a bullet in his guts. They’re stuck in a deep-seated—deep-seeded—control meme, our inner control freak, which is arguably a feminine meme, and if it isn’t, well, it’s positively, no bullshit about it, a left-brained meme.

They’re keen to tell others or demonstrate through argument what we all should do, how we should be—meanwhile, they do the same thing as everyone else. They sit and talk and tell others what to do. Like an old aunt sitting on the sofa, trying to stop the boys from playing cars on the coffee table, too lazy to get up and pinch some ears, too control-freakish to leave them be and let it work itself out…

When it comes to the “practice” of anarchism, it turns into some Marxist state, some communist regime. Every time. Marxism has deep roots through modern “anarchist” ideology. Same as feminism. In fact, the three are just old rotting peas in the same pod.

Show »

Marx Shit

Why anarchism never works is because the system (the Master System = civilization) eventually swallows up all the revolutionaries and puts them to work for her or merely digests them. Anyone trying to change a system “from the inside” unwaveringly becomes a part of that system. There are never any exceptions; there are no examples from history whatsoever. It happens every time. He gets corrupted or he gets vampirized—made into one of those he once despised. Things might change, for a while, but then they change back. It is inevitable.

Now, I don’t need to write a 1000-page essay on the Russian Revolution—

Russian Revolution

—to illustrate this. Every revolution in history ends the same way—the old is overthrown and the new, sooner or later, becomes the old again.


The preoccupation with “change” has been around since Sumer, which underwent a revolution and became Babylon. Whether these revolutions occur within a state or are precipitated from outside of it, such as an invasion or occupation, really makes no difference. The end result is always the same. And the effect on civilization as a whole is nominal.

Slaves inevitably rise up, organized by intellectuals and leaders, who then take over the system and become it; and the slaves simply have new masters and go back to doing what they did before…except perhaps with a few more perks. Less slave hours to work; a bit more food; whichever. No matter how honourable the men or the intentions, initially, this is what happens. It cannot happen any other way, never has, and it never will.

In the end they’re still slaves. What the West has mastered in the last few centuries is making slaves not feel so much like slaves, giving them more and more chances at acquiring crap, giving them the illusion of freedom and pretense that they can have a say in what’s going on. In essence, you make a cage comfortable enough, and the prisoner won’t really feel like a prisoner. And he won’t want to leave it.

Movements get hijacked every time.

Show »

Commie Mints

In the West, “Change” became an obsession in the 1960s; it became a lifestyle. There were protests and activists, as masses of people aggressively begged their governments for things like “rights”—a slave’s concession: something you’re granted (to shut you up) when you do not actually have freedom. And then there was something about stopping some sort of war in Southeast Asia.

Women’s Libbers hijacked the civil rights movement, and Feminists hijacked the Women’s Liberation movement. And, as is typical, the first thing you do when you get your way is to betray those who helped you get where you’re at—you kill off your allies. (For an example, see Joseph Stalin.) Feminists initially were allied with black men, in the 1970s, but when they were no longer of any use, they turned on them, too. They were, after all, men.

But none of that really mattered anyway; those hippies were appeased and they became yuppies. No “revolution” ever occurred as a result of the 1960s stuff; they were all bought and sold. Some things “changed” and now they’re changing back. Those involved were absorbed into the Master System or else destroyed by it. Feminists were appeased and now occupy positions of power (control) and influence all over the world; the difference with Feminism is that it was only ever interested in taking over and had no desire whatsoever to improve the lives of “the people” or help make them “free.” Women are less free today and have fewer choices in life compared to 40 years ago. It was all about money (funding) and power (a code-word for control).

The funny thing about “change”—something the left-brained control-freak meme has fits with—is that it happens all on its own. Things always change, whether we try to manipulate an outcome or not, directly or indirectly.

Change is constant in the natural world; nothing really stays the same in the wild. Everything is continually changing, and the animals—infinitely wiser than we are—simply adapt and overcome. Those species which do not end up extinct; which is a change that makes room for new species. And all through it, the surviving species stay strong and go on.

Weather changes, seasons change, the earth’s plates move, the world heats up and then cools down, plant and animal species disappear and are replaced by new, different ones, mountains rise up and then get eroded into hills, lava spews out of the ocean and creates islands, barren, which get eroded and colonized by life, all to be destroyed by an earthquake in a thousand years and sink back into the sea…

Vegetation changes, interactions between plants and insects change constantly; a species of dog develops webbed feet to swim in marshes after prey. A snake changes and develops a special hard barb in its throat to puncture the eggs it eats. “Evolution” is the bloody change measured in the adaptive process of plants and animals (it is not about “getting advanced” or even getting “better”—it’s only about adaptation for continued existence).

Did dark birds once upon a time, staying in a wintery region, group together and start a movement called “The White Feather Revolution?”

In a way, unconsciously, but not really—it just happened. It was their “will”—if this is the right word—and the collective will of Nature. Perhaps necessity is more apt than “will.” Necessities get granted, sometimes, in Nature; wants seldom ever do. Obviously, none of them bitched about it and started protesting Father Nature; no “White Feather Manifesto” was ever written. However, collectively, their biology and time began to produce white feathers. Apparently—no one was around to witness and document this event, but it does make sense (how else would one explain the fact that winter birds turn white in winter and dark/speckled in summer?); regions that became colder quickly, and contained animals which could not fly away, forced the survivors to either change or die. If no one changed, there would be no life on this planet today.

So, change is just about the most important aspect of life.

But modern humans, narrowminded and self-obsessed (homocentric and civiliocentric), try to force it, control it, and hardly look at the bigger picture and what’s going on, and has been going on, in the natural world for any sort of example or perspective. And they sure as fuck don’t look at any examples set by “primitive” peoples. Because such peoples are not as “evolved”—or advanced, or, let’s just call an asshole an asshole: divine—as us smart, modern, sophisticated city dwellers are.

Show »


Like infants, we have no patience, and no faith in change.

Yes, I said, “faith.” Faith is trust that something will happen unrelated to what you do. Like when you go to sleep and leave your watch on the dresser—you have faith that it will be there when you awaken. There is no evidence for it to remain in the same spot, but you believe it will be there.

When you start up your car and set off for work, you have faith that the tires won’t fall off and send you skidding into oncoming traffic. When you flush the toilet, you have faith that it goes somewhere other than the floor under you. When you drink water from the tap (or a bottle), you have faith that it’s safe and not crawling with deadly bugs. Or radioactive toxins. Or growth hormones. Or estrogen.

We have a lot of faith in many things; we have faith in billions and billions of things each and every day, and they’re all irrational. We hardly think about any of them. Because that’s what faith does—it relieves the worry and thoughts about every little thing we’re doing, freeing us to go about our business and consume ourselves with other things, usually ego-inspired things, material things. But the point it is: we all have faith. No one alive is devoid of it.

So why don’t we have faith in certain other things? Why do we attack Faith (religious faith) based on logical arguments that do not consider all the myriad varieties of faith that we all have and employ every day, which are quite illogical? Why don’t we have faith in change?

Because we’re hooked into an agenda, one that will deny anything to get what it wants. A raptorial and uncompromising idea will use any means necessary, will destroy all in its way, and will never deviate from the fanatical hard-line, or Party Line.

Like a virus, it is a meme (an idea that colonizes your brain) that wants to spread to new hosts and is not open to questioning, debate, evaluations, or opposing ideas (countering memes). One could say we are all infected with memes, but it seems that some are especially tenacious; the ones with the most diabolic agendas seem to hang around the longest.

Zubaty had a lot to say about memes:

Seeking an analogy to the word gene, British biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 coined the word meme (rhymes with ‘theme’), which he defined as a self-replicating information pattern that uses minds to get itself reproduced. According to Dawkins, examples of memes are: tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. (And concepts such as Feminism or Discrimination.) Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called “imitation”. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain.

Such as concepts like “Paganism Was Earth-Friendly” or “Mother Nature” or “Ours Is The One True Government.” This is a complex thing which is not easily understood—or explained. I’ll quote a lot ahead simply to save time, without me bumbling through it, since it’s already been said best by someone else, more concisely…

As a concept, memes are a little subtler than gravity but certainly more apparent than “democracy”. We recognize memes through their consequences — the real effects they have had on civilization.

Says Hutchinson:

    “The evolutionary value of memes is clear. The ability to pass on complex bundles of information, such as the right way to chip a tool out of a piece of rock, make pottery, hunt down different types of animals, or find water or edible plants, was an enormous advance over the potentially lethal method of trial and error. Memes freed
    humans from “hard-wired” biological programs by enabling us to “think” about reality, to consciously choose to override genetic drives — choosing celibacy, say, in response to religious memes, or choosing to obey the dictum Thou Shalt Not Kill. [Or adopting the meme that women are equivalent to men in every way except for how they have been raised.] Since the capacity to transmit memes has such a high survival value, individuals with that capacity would tend to become more common in the gene pool, while those whose brains did not have the capacity would tend to disappear. The result is that our brains have been molded by the forces of natural selection to ensure that we have a highly developed receptivity to memes.”

Indeed, N. K. Humphrey, a colleague of Dawkins, argues that memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically. When you plant a fertile meme in my mind, you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme’s propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanisms of a host cell. Others have been struck by the similarity between viruses and memes. Like viruses, memes are infectious. Whereas viruses use cells to get themselves copied so that they can infect other cells, memes use minds to get themselves copied so that they can infect other minds — memes use minds to reproduce. They are “infectious information”. For this reason students of memetics speak of the “germ theory of ideas”.

Memes have an enormous impact on our lives — from such statements as “the curved surface on the top of an airplane’s wing creates lift” to “There is only one God and Mohammed is his prophet”. Memes are a vessel of interface between mind and body and Hutchinson.s explanation for the mechanism of meme propagation is nothing less than stunning.

Says Hutchinson:

    “Because sex is the key to the process of gene propagation, the forces of evolution have ensured that humans would want to engage in this activity by providing them with a reward for doing so. When humans have sex, neuroscientists have discovered, their brain and nervous system reward them (or “reinforce” that behavior) by releasing large amounts of extremely pleasurable neurochemicals. Among these are the euphoria-producing endorphins, known as the body’s own opiates.

    Memes are spread through a similar process: The activity of implanting a meme in someone’s brain is a lot like having sex with that person. The similarity is one that humans have long recognized, at lease unconsciously. It is no coincidence that we speak of “seminal” ideas and “disseminating” information; that teachers speak
    of their students as fertile minds; that certain ideas are spoken of as being “seductive” and others as barren or sterile.”

But the relationship is more than just metaphorical. Neuro-scientists have recently discovered that the places in the human brain that produce the most endorphins and that contain the largest concentration of endorphin receptors are those involved most intimately with learning, which is to say, with receiving new information — new memes! We get an opium buzz when we learn something new, that’s why a lot of writers and intellectuals become alcoholics or druggies — they get hooked on the buzz.

Scientists have even mapped the “reward pathways” or “pleasure centers” of the brain and found them tightly connected with the learning centers and pathways.

Says Hutchinson:

    “It’s a truth we have all experienced: we are presented with new information, a new idea, that doesn’t quite make sense, doesn’t quite fit into our brain. We resist it or we play around with it. Then, suddenly, bingo, it slips in; we understand. The light bulb goes on in the brain. Aha! The new idea or information makes sense, and we are filled with a flood of pleasure, a sensual feeling of satisfaction as our body flows with warmth. We have just received a new meme, and our brain is rewarding us by releasing large quantities of endorphins and other pleasure-producing neurochemicals.

    And after we have received the meme what happens next? We want to spread the meme. We have all experienced something that seems tremendously important to us — that we must eliminate nuclear weapons, or that abortion is murder [or Our Bodies Our Business, or all men are rapists]. We become alert, looking for likely individuals
    around us to whom we can transmit this crucial meme. When we find one — or a whole crowd of them perhaps — we transmit the whole bundle of information. If the listeners’ minds are fertile, which is to say susceptible or receptive, they are inseminated by the meme. They cry Aha!, they cheer, they agree with us. They are infected by the meme and immediately want to transmit it to others or help us to transmit it to others by contributing to our cause, signing petitions, attending demonstrations, purchasing our record or book. The meme has been propagated. We are filled with a rush of pleasure, satisfaction, a sense of having fulfilled a mission, as our brain pours out rewarding neurochemicals.

    It is this sense of mission and its sensual reward that compels ideologues, preachers, actors, artists, entertainers, writers [and feminists] to devote enormous energies to speaking or performing from every soapbox, stage, pulpit and podium they can find. This is the reward that keeps many school teachers passionately engaged in what are otherwise pitifully underpaid and difficult jobs. This is the erotic reward so many people find to be better than sex. Meme-spreading — hormonal intoxication.”

Meme spreading is “idea orgasm”, a mental concept that induces a physical response in our brain.s pleasure centers, but is not necessarily keyed to anything else we do. Haven.t we all met people who crinkle their nose at pork but admit they love bacon, or gush about saving whales while they douse their yard with petrochemicals, or rhapsodize about rain forests while they change their baby’s paper diaper. Haven’t we all done it ourselves? It’s called hypocrisy — not walking the talk — and our lives
are riddled with it.

Well, the same is true for anarchists, and most other kinds of “-ists,” including “Primitivist” John Zerzan himself. (No, I can’t leave this guy alone; I won’t.) He complains about civilization and stays in it; he preaches a return to hunter-gatherer ways of life but sits in a city, telling others what they should do, writing and doing nothing but being a part of that civilization, adding to its economy, supporting it with his own fucking blood; he claims that agriculture enslaves women and not only offers no evidence for this but completely ignores the fact that agriculture is organized gathering, which is a female way of life—later he tries (and fails) to demonstrate that Man The Hunter is a myth and that women have hunted too in ancient times. In some cases he uses quotes out of context, or just out-rights lies. Women have only “hunted” when they had no other choice (no men around), and even then it was mostly trapping, not true hunting. Woman is not suited physically or mentally or biologically for hunting, and she never has been, since it requires so much intuition, and all the quoting and analyzing and theorizing won’t change that.

Women invented agriculture (rather, they were duped into doing this by the ruling order of ancient times) and coaxed men into labouring away on the farm—not the other way around. Zerzan would have us believe that while women, wearing dresses, gathered leaves and grains and berries, doing a little planting here and there…that while that was going on the smelly forest-dwelling men, wearing pants, who knelt and prayed to the Deer God and then went off hunting for deer, who painted the animals they revered and hunted in ceremonial caves, who did this for untold millennia, suddenly stopped, got ‘cleaned up,’ put on dresses, shaved off their hair, and told the women,

“We hate hunting now and want to just plant seeds, so you women can consider yourselves our property—now get to work in the field!”

Zerzan, you’ve got to be fuckin’ joking…

But enough of this lying hypocrite (I’ll get back to him in another entry); could it be that he, too, is infected with some rather unsettling and invasive memes…?

Culture is comprised of memes. In fact, that’s what culture is: an assortment of memes. Memes are what we maxi-brained mammals have to work with, and the whole point of this book is to introduce some new memes to American culture because the old ones aren’t working. Women and men are not equal. The divorce rate is 60%. The American family exists only in cereal commercials and novels from the 1930s. We don’t have one moment to waste getting our thinking straight on male/female issues. I’m thrilled to hear that certain new experiments in education are posing imaginary relationship difficulties to young boys and girls, and asking them to offer solutions or approaches to the problem based upon the varying sexes of the participants in the problem.

It’s time for us to wrestle with some concepts which may not seem
just or fair, but which may, in fact, be the truth. I don’t want to live in a world run by Japanese, and I don’t want to live in a world run by women — and for the same reasons. Computerized meme-spreading has organized the world vastly beyond my ability to appreciate what is happening. Life is NOT better when it is more organized. Life is better when people leave each other alone. That is the male meme. We don’t need to nurture the planet. We need to leave it alone.

[My bold emphasis.]

Communism and Feminism [and Anarchism] are soul brothers [or sisters]. Both are systems devoid of God. Both are programs for organizing society on the basis of glorious egalitarian philosophies but which, in fact, benefit only an elite group of people — the party bosses or Feminist Media Celebrities. No woman’s life has been improved by going to work a “job” for forty hours a week. The richest country in the world should be perfecting meaningful ways to NOT work — and what are we doing? Sitting around computer terminals, hacking information, burning out our eyeballs and irradiating our gonads. Father Nature doesn’t like that. And what is all this information about? Who cares? More information is not the solution to our problems. Living with less, instead of TALKING about living with less, is the solution to our problems. The Third World has told us they’ll stop cutting down their forests when we turn off our air conditioners — and that’s the point, isn’t it? We cannot have infinite expansion on a finite planet.

I can’t really expand more on that, he banged us all over the head there. Rich Zubaty, from his masterpiece, “What Men Know That Women Don’t.” If you only read one more book for the rest of your life, make it this one.

“Leave it alone”—“let it be”—the “male meme,” he calls it. What’s curious about all these memes around the globe today, is that very few of them can be honestly called “masculine ideas” or “male memes.”

The urge to manipulate and control everything around us was and still is very much a feminine meme; hunters and fishermen have no desire to control anything…they’re off remaining still and quiet, hoping, tracking, adapting, thinking on their feet, trying to persuade Father Nature to feed him and his family one of His own. (No, I’m not calling “Father Nature” God here—just countering the oncoming Gaia worship and “Mother Nature” horseshit that has infected humanity for a few thousand years. I know that nature is not a deity or divine—the Creator made Nature, father and mother.)

You cannot manipulate a fish out of the water; you toss in your line and try to attract it with a lure, but there’s so much more going on here, so many subtle nuances to fishing that cannot be summed up in any text. You cannot order and control a deer to enter the range of your bow. It’s nothing as logical as putting seeds in neat rows and waiting a predetermined length of time, adding certain amounts of water at certain intervals. Then harvesting at the allotted moment. This is a female way of life—organized, practical, controlled.

Hunting and fishing—the first male occupations—are intensely instinctual, intuitive, and require often more “luck” than skill. Nothing is certain. You have to “know” the fish. You have to anticipate the deer. And the whole thing is completely irrational. Men are naturally irrational.

The female way (devoid of any masculine thinking) of fishing would be to catch their eggs and raise them in closed-in ponds, then they can just scoop them up of the water and into the pot. Forget all that silly, nonsensical fishing business altogether. This is far more efficient and sensible. No fuss, just a logical and practical solution, a system of control—the cruel enslavement of another species of life.

The female alternative to hunting would be to capture those animals and pen them up. Fence them in. And breed them. Why go around chasing them? It’s illogical—hunting is barely 50% successful, even though that allows the animal to live naturally once more. No, we’ll just keep them nearby, stay (sedentary) in one spot, breed the right ones so we have more meat per beast, and butcher an animal whenever we want dinner—the cruel enslavement of another species of life.

The female gatherer way of life changed when we grew sedentary—more time in one spot meant the forests and other areas could not recover fast enough, so women had to go further or start collecting seeds, and planting them nearby. Which is what they did. And as populations increased, agriculture was born. Instead of letting plants go about their business naturally, they trapped them on one piece of land and began to manipulate them, breed them, control every aspect of their existence—the cruel enslavement of another species of life.

So, what does any of this have to do with anarchists?

Well, men revered animals, especially the ones they hunted. They never worshiped them, but there was absolute respect. They prayed not to (their prey) the animal but the mysterious creator of the animal so that he might feed his tribe; in some cases they said prayers that were wishes to the animal to go in a specific direction, such as West Coast Native whalers.

The point is these men had a lot of honour, and interfered little with their environment; leaving it be was their way of life.

They were filled with masculine memes, and they had a value system. They were spiritual creatures who were humble and respectful in the shadow of Father Nature.

When agriculture took over, new memes took over; and the Pagan religion began as cities popped up around rivers, along with human sacrifice in the temples and in the fields. And slavery. And domestication. And government. Greed became the prevailing meme, and underneath was the disrespectful, nearly hateful attitude towards life. I think it formed into a consciousness that began in Wiccan/Pagan religions and got twisted and putrid when monotheism finally ended human male sacrifice. It became malicious and cruel, horribly decadent and absent of all conscience—and has no adherence to any rules of normal human conduct.

Then it went underground. Witches, Satanists, and other occultists formed secret societies, to carry out their sick twisted shit in the dark. I’ve done a bit of reading on this, and it is quite disturbing.

At any rate, I think this mentality is not only still around today but also helped inspire ideologies like Marxism, Feminism, and of course Anarchism—three heads of the same beast, so to speak. Now, this is just a theory I have, and I’m not going to get into fifty pages of research on Masonic symbols and rituals and ancient gods still worshiped (and sacrificed to) even today.

All I’m saying is that it’s quite likely—I sense there’s something really ugly behind these concepts…


There is a funny play on words with Anarchist and Anti-Christ, and a less funny similarity. The Sex Pistols noticed it; it’s really not hard to miss. I don’t know if it was intended, but that’s irrelevant. The similarity is an underlying belief system. The same meme infection.

An Atheist element has tendrils throughout every Anarchist ideology. Every Marxist, communist, New Age, Feminist ideology contains atheism.

Let’s look at an example, shall we? George Barrett wrote “The Anarchist Revolution,” so let’s give it a go…


An Anarchist is a man who does not believe that government is a good thing for the people. He is, in fact, a man who believes in and strives for liberty. Liberty is to him not a superstition, or a god of which to make images, but a practical theory or plan of action. The first step necessary in establishing liberty will be, clearly, the abolition of government, and this will mean the organisation of industry by the workers themselves, not by any outside power — in other words, the Anarchist Revolution. For the moment this may seem wildly impossible; but if we give it a little consideration, a new side to the question comes into view.

“Practical”—“plan”—“step”—“organization”—and of course “not a superstition, or a god of which to make images.” Could it be that certain memes are more receptive to to the left-brain and not the right? Could it be that the controlling, organizing, uncreative, rational and language-centered left-brain is more at risk of infection by many memes?

Why doesn’t a masculine meme, such as “let it be,” fit very well and take hold in someone who is left-brain-dominated?

Well, I don’t think it needs much explanation—how could a control freak suddenly not be a control-freak? What’s involved with getting out of your mind, out of your ego, and leaving something alone rather than endlessly attempting to arrange and control and manipulate and tweak and fix and change and re-order, or just bring order to something which is inherently disordered? How could a control freak suddenly not be a control-freak?

I dunno. She will never stop being one as long as her left-brain is dominating her, as long as her ego is steering her left-brain, and as long as her entire head is infested with memes which compliment her nature. Shopping is just gathering; it’s something she’s done for many thousands of years, and 80% of today’s marketplace caters to this female nature. Very few women can fight through their natures and stop shopping; ever heard of a woman who never goes to a store, is completely self-sufficent in every aspect of her life? Ever heard of a woman who builds her own home, makes her own clothes (after gathering—not buying—the materials to do so), grows her own food?

Not since the 1600s-1800s have women even come close to this. At least, modern women, Western women. Other gatherer women, such as in the Amazon, still live this way, and they are the strongest, least left-brained (or more right-brained) women on Earth. Why? Because they live with more masculine memes than feminine ones. And she has a value system and believes in a ‘Higher Power’ and is superstitious (irrational).

There are no atheist hunter-gatherer societies and never have been; and there are no religious hunter-gatherer societies and never have been.

Anyway, back to the Introduction…

In the first place, is there not something quite wrong and mixed up in your ideas, for I assume you are not an Anarchist?

No, I’m not an Anarchist, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with seeking Truth, Freedom, and striving to do so living a Natural life.

You believe in Government as a necessary part of our social life, and yet you will not like to say that you deny and reject Liberty.

I do not “believe” in government as necessary for anything but control. I do say I deny and reject “Liberty,” for liberty is merely what a slave wants; like “rights” themselves, it is something granted to those who are not free.

The Aboriginal peoples around the world gave no thought to “Liberty;” hell, they probably have no word for it. They lived free, so why would they even consider something they instinctually did every single day? Only a prisoner seeks escape, and only a slave seeks “Liberty.” Or someone wanting to manipulate the slaves into revolt will use trigger words like Liberty.

This is so with almost all people who are not Anarchists — they spend one half of their intellect apologising for their belief in government, and the other half in excusing themselves for their love of liberty. They are in just the same position in regard to their political beliefs as the Christians are in regard to their religious ideal. The Christians build churches to the glory of Christ and worship him; should any man speak against him, they are horrified; but when it comes to practical life, they do not in the least apply their religion. “Take no thought for to-morrow” they translate “Keep a good balance at the bank.” “Thou shalt not kill” becomes “£60,000,000 annually for the Army and Navy.” “Judge not” and “Swear not” is written in the book by which they swear in the courts of judgment. “Call no man your master, for ye are all brothers,” is interpreted to mean that the soldiers must protect their masters by shooting their brothers during a strike.

Well, Jesus was not a Christian. Every Christian can quote every single word Jesus said, and interpret it any which way, but none of them live as Jesus lived. Not one.

Now, what I used to be doesn’t matter anymore; I’m not agnostic, I’m not atheist, and I’m not “Anti-Christ.” I’m not really “Pro-Christ” either; I just think Jesus was a righteous dude.

Seriously, I have no problems with Jesus (oh, I used to claim I did, as many already know, but those problems were with the organized Church and State systems, and their mindless followers). I admire what he did, not what he said or what others claimed (spread feminine memes over) he was (some son of God, or King, or Lord—a bearded lady in a glimmering white dress who floated about with a golden halo and healed people and said “love” five times a minute—nothing but fucking rubbish to impress women and draw them into Church). For a sweaty, dirty, hairy, ballsy wandering guru fisherman who stood up for his beliefs and suffered and died by the hands of an evil empire, I can’t help but admire him. He did a number of things I think are cool.

But I don’t worship him or go to a building to praise him. I’m not a Christian either.

Besides, the entire Church was a construct the falling Eastern Roman Empire used to put its state on crutches for a while; like pissed off peasants of the Communist Revolution, the state used poor people (with a set of memes) and exploited them into keeping the elite in control.

So one could go on till it is proved that every point taught by Christ has been rejected by those who worship him. Exactly the same thing has happened in regard to Liberty. As a people, we worship it. Our boast is that “where the Union Jack floats Liberty is supreme.” We erect statues to it, our poets sing in honour of it, our politicians stir our blood with rhetoric in praise of it; but when it comes to practical life, none of these in the least applies his ideal. “We must have a Government, we must have some one in control,” they say; and behind these words are hidden the policeman’s bludgeon, the wretched prison system, and the Army ready to shoot down those rebels who dare to attempt to overthrow the politician’s ideal of society. Liberty is a fine thing to make speeches about, and to which to erect statues; but for practical politics they demand government.

Civilization cannot function without the absence of Liberty—which is to say, if we were free, there would be no civilization. It’s oil and water. You cannot have them both be the same thing; civilization, from its earliest beginnings, was about control, and nothing besides.

Control of the environment, control of the local animal and plant life, control of the minerals in the hills and mountains, and control of every detail of the lives of its slaves (I mean, citizens).

You cannot have control and freedom occupy the same space because they are opposites! Like matter and anti-matter, like a positive and negative. You cannot have an open field inside a prison cell; you cannot have a flowing river from the mountains inside plumbing systems; you cannot have migrating birds or caribou inside a zoo.

We begin to see now where the Anarchist comes in. He really believes in Liberty, and, as I have said before, he sees that this means the abolition of government.

No, he just thinks he does. He’s wallowing in several memes, overlapping ones, ideas whose edges meet and form concentrated spots in his understanding; yes, he’s a fanatic.

After the abolition of government, then what?

Ask an Anarchist sometime. Or ask an Atheist (which I used to be) what happens when all religion is eradicated.

None of them have any new ideas. They begin postulating, turning back to their dogma, thinking about some great way to organize society based upon the work of someone else (some pro-Marxist types), and so forth. Maybe they have some good ideas. But all this “shit” we’re in was all started with similarly good ideas—work, school, agriculture, government, and, yes, even religion. None of these are hostile, evil entities, anymore than the United States had a mind to become the giant oppressively imperial force that it is today…back at the time of the Revolution, that was exactly what they were fighting against.

But the abused become the abusers; they enslaved become the new masters; and look, meet the new boss, just like the old boss.

This is where their entire doctrine always falls apart, because an Anarchist doctrine is a negative doctrine, like atheism; it’s anti.



It tries to be pro-something, but that something becomes the new religion (like many Atheists worship Logic; like many Feminists worship themselves; like many Anarchists worship Liberty or whatever) of the new state. It changes…and then later it changes back.


Because the Master System does this; civilization absorbs and re-absorbs everything. All it needs is time. Sooner or later, the status quo is resettled, the balance between slave and master restored, and the relentless subduing of the earth and the organization of all life continues…

Those who believe in government, then, are a trifle muddled in their philosophy; but the reader may yet be of the opinion that it would be entirely impossible to overthrow it. The fact is, anything else is impossible.

Does not all history show us a conflict between the dominant or governing class and the people to whom it tries to dictate the conditions of life? Does it not also show that the march of progress is away from government towards liberty?



Every Anarchist I’ve ever read is just a Marxist with a mask on, re-presenting him-her-self with a less “red” face, but it’s all the same shit. The same ideology, the same terms and phrases, mechanically spewed forth as easily as religious folks do when quoting the Bible.

I doubt the average Anarchist “worships” Liberty; I’m willing to bet it’s in fact Revolution. The noble idea and the exciting notion of it.

But where is the Soul in their worker’s paradise? Where are the spiritual gurus wandering the dusty plains and forests? Will there be room for any type of Faith, for those who still believe their religious ideas?

Are you fucking kidding? Absolutely not. Zero tolerance for that. There will be no beliefs, no value systems at all, just price tags. Whether Anarchists take over, or New Agers take over, or Feminists (completely) take over, or if everything stays at it is, the status quo gradually but increasingly speeding forth into the Almighty Progress….The resulting world will look exactly the same.

Every time I hear or read an Anarchist talk about the future without this government, it’s all about logical control and management, practical solutions, organization, and I get flashes of Nineteen-Eighty-Four through my mind. Because it’s the same mentality (the same memes at work). The same memes, the same underlying, unsettling current in modern human consciousness.

“We control life, Winston, on all levels.”


You know, this will be a first for me, but given a choice between a religious kingdom in the Middle Ages and a future Nineteen-Eighty-Four type of collectivist oligarchy (which any Anarchist/Marxist/Feminist revolution will undoubtedly become, as do all Marxist theories would when put into practice), devoid of all values and any spiritual life, just bland dreary controlled existence and ordered obedience to the State, to the Party, or the Communist Ideal, or whichever—I think I’ll take the religious freak show.

And maybe it doesn’t even have to be a freakshow like it was back then…


Sure as hell beats the Borg…

Show »


At least it’s not corporate, not progress-driven, not bankrupt of any value system, irreverent, diseased, decadent, decaying… and at least men were somewhat respected—sure, sinners and all that, but a man could still live pretty much the way he wanted, as long as he was married and followed the Scripture. Men were not utterly miserable in that situation. Neither were women. It was only when the Kings and Queens started sticking their dicks and clits into everyone’s lives, it was only when the Church flexed its holy imperial might, did the people really suffer.

Left alone, the people settle into societies and communities that are healthy and sound, that turn out to be based on sharing, taking care of one another, and not fucking with every goddamned thing in sight. This is what free people do.

I could debate the pros and cons forever, but something instinctual within tells me that this would be a far better choice…a lesser evil, albeit.

Anyway, let’s skip ahead. I have not read ahead in this essay, and I’m growing weary with the form-letter “viva la revolucion!” build-up; heard it all before, and so have you. So, let’s skip it and get to The New World Order…

The New Society

“Master and man! Some up and some down! It always has been so and it always will be. You cannot alter human nature.”

It is so easy to talk like that, and, if you are of a contented disposition, it is so comforting; but, of course, it is absolute nonsense. Man himself has developed from the lower animals, and surely there are few who would care to boast of any particular resemblance to the cave-dwellers of prehistoric days even.

Divine, I tells ya! We is.

No longer “lower,” we are upper!

Sigh. We never dwelled in caves—this myth (meme) will never die, it seems. We might have used them for temporary shelter when we could not build our own, but for the overwhelmingly most part, we built shelters like the Aboriginals have done since recorded history…

Calling our ancestors “Cavemen” is like calling the Sioux or Apache, “Cavemen.” We lived exactly the same way as these so-called “lower animals.” Caves in Europe were used for ceremonial, ritual purposes, initiations.

The fact is, human nature is never alike in two parts of the world or in two different ages.

I love it when someone says something beginning with, “Fact is,” and then does absolutely nothing to show how this is indeed a “fact.” Frankly, I’m growing tired of this guy already. His arrogance and ignorance and dogmatic rhetoric is all beginning to irritate me.

What evidence is there that “human nature” differs from place to place or “age” to age? What is “Human Nature” in the first place? How do you define it? How do you recognize it? How do you put it into any sort of context? How do you tell it apart from tightly controlled, generational conditioningdomestication/socialization/feminization?

Is a dog’s nature indicative of the coyote’s nature? Don’t they both do different things, behave differently (in terms of eating and sleeping, mating, et cetera), live in different environments? Isn’t one domesticated and one wild, but they’re essentially the same fucking animal? Except with two separate natures—based upon the human conditioning—the enslavement—of one and the natural existence of the other? Is not one separated from others of its kind with an artificial pack and one is with his own kind, amid his actual, natural pack? Does not one go to a bowl to eat processed garbage, while the other hunts and eats natural food? Does not one have no freedom, must follow rules or get punished and caged up, with just a few “rights,” while the other is beyond all control, free as fuck, and can go wherever it pleases? Does not one lie about in a sterile box all day, looking depressed and growing neurotic, while the other is healthy and invigorated, trotting along excitedly ancient paths in ancient forests, sniffing and stopping and sensing life all around him?

And why is there never any distinction offered in regards to Modern Human Nature and human nature? Because there definitely is a difference.

Real, actual “human nature” has been the same for many thousands of millennia; Modern Human Nature (minds infested with the feminine farming, government and religious memes—control memes) has only been around for about 9 millennia, and it’s distinctive for it lacks almost every prevailing masculine meme that native peoples enjoy…

As to the master-and-man relationship, it has been so pulled about and buffetted in a comparatively short period of history that to-day many people seem to have a difficulty in recognising it to be the same thing as the more crude slavery of the past. Soon Time will so beat it out of shape that it will become the relationship of man-to-man. The last blow that will reforge it into this form will be the Anarchist Revolution.

What is this Anarchist Revolution?

So that this question may be answered fully, let us suppose that we are agreed on all that has been said in the previous chapters. Let it be granted that we are robbed by the capitalists and the ruling class; that there is no hope of reform from the Government, which is inherently a reactionary force; and that this capitalist and governing class is entirely dependent on us, and hopelessly in our power.

It’s the same as the Communist Revolution, merely repackaged for the next naive, angst-ridden generation that needs an “-ism” to cling to, to belong to something, aside from a corporation or political party. Most of us seem bent on identifying ourselves as something (“I’m an American,” “I’m a vegetarian,” “I’m Christian,” “I’m a Jungian,” and so on) in addition to their race or sex or regional location or, especially, occupation.


Will we have to go back to talking about memes…?

Michael Hutchinson:

The central law of meme evolution, as in gene evolution, is survival of the stable. Our intellectual universe is populated by memes that have survived, or maintained their stability, through their power to make copies of themselves by leaping from mind to mind. This power is related, first, to their tolerance for competing memes: memes that carry intolerance messages regarding competing memes will soon carve out a larger evolutionary niche in the meme pool than will memes that contain tolerance messages. For example, a meme that carries the message that it is the absolute Truth, that this Truth must be propagated, and that any memes carrying competing messages are false and must be eradicated, would have evolutionary advantages.

In addition, the survival of memes depends on their ability to replicate themselves without copying errors, that is, on their predictability. To maintain their stability, memes must be intolerant of error, violation, or mutation; alterations become heresy. Memes that generate incorrect copies of themselves — that get “misunderstood” each time they leap from mind to mind — would, like the message passed along in the child.s game of “telephone”, tend to degenerate rapidly and disappear from the meme pool.

Now Zubaty:

So there is a curious irony here. The very evolutionary breakthrough that liberated us from slavery to our genetic programs — our skill at manipulating information — simultaneously shackled us to another master. In freeing ourselves from the domination of our genes, we became subject to the domination of memes. That’s why we’re pigheaded — all of us. That’s why we resist changes in our thought and why we get intoxicated with causes.

Well, the Anarchist “cause” must be one hell of an opiate for these types of people…

Back to Mr. Barrett:

Even so it may be questioned: “What can we do? Smash up the institutions of to day, and what have we? Simply chaos until something similar is put in their place.”

This is true in one sense, but it is an argument that cannot be used against us. It is true that the various institutions of slavery which exist to-day are there because people upon whom they depend are slavish in their thoughts. If, therefore, some great hurricane swept through the country, destroying all such institutions and their leaders, it is quite certain that the people who still believed in such things would set to work to rebuild them. On the contrary, if this “hurricane” took the form of a movement of the people themselves, who had outgrown their slavish attitude of mind, then there would be no restoration of the old, but a reconstruction on new and revolutionary lines.

Yep. Same old story; reconstruction—“but this time it’ll be betterer!”

Sorry, I’m not going to swallow this crap. Say “Fuck no!” to opiates for the people, or the intellectuals who seek to enslave them…

Show »

Drugs 4 Kidz!

How many fucking times has this happened? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million? Since those Sumerian city-states 7 thousand years ago?

And what happened every single goddamned time?

The Master System absorbed and perverted them all, and within a generation or two or three, and things were back to where they were before.

Don’t we ever fucking learn!?

Or, in Orwellian terms: the Middle manipulated the Lower into overthrowing the Upper, and the Middle became the Upper, which became the Middle, while the proles, the Lower, the force that always gets used in every single revolution, well, they stayed where they were and began serving their new masters.

But for these froathing-at-the-mouth Anarchists, there is no such thing as the “end” of the Revolution. It’s an anti-belief, not a real belief system at all; how do you start “reconstructing” anyway when you’re entire mindscape is geared towards Revolution, making sweeping changes to what you conceive is a power structure that’s oppressing you?

(Remember, to “oppress,” folks, means: “to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power.”)

For the Nazis, the Germans were oppressed by Jews; but even after the Final Solution, they’d keep going. They’d keep finding and fighting enemies who would oppress them again. They had to try to conquer the whole world, and they still would not have stopped if they’d gotten that far—they’d have turned on the Japanese, and anyone else…and, finally, themselves.

So, don’t you swallow it either, kid!

Show »

Just Say No

That’s right. Spit it right the fuck out…

There’s no end-game to a fanatical dogmatic ideology, there’s no final anything when you have an anti-belief system, which holds no real value of anything really, for anything, it has no value system at all: it is always against something else but never for anything; it keeps rolling and consuming, because it cannot stop its own momentum; it needs an enemy. It creates its own orbit around its enemies and cannot deviate. It cannot stop any more than one can prove a negative.

That’s a good analogy for these anti-beliefs—they seek to prove a negative.

The feminist movement is another example (first of all, it should be a “humanist movement” if indeed it were “for” equality—which it isn’t, it’s simply anti-male, misandrist, which makes it about the least honest movement ever conceived); even to those who grant that this movement was necessary (and there’s no evidence to suggest it ever was—because it’s not), it would seem to be sort of redundant now. If, as they say, they wanted equality in this respect or that respect, and now they most certainly have it, why are there still feminists around? Isn’t it “mission accomplished” and time to find some real work to do somewhere, like read to blind kids?

Because feminists don’t give a shit about blind kids—they only care about more—more for themselves, like any victorious leader in a revolution; “more stuff for me!”

Or us.

Show »


“And less for you.”

In the series, Star Trek: Deep Scape Nine, when Odo finds his control-freak changeling family, on their own planet, and discovers that they are in fact “The Dominion,” he asks the female changeling something like why do they need to bring order to the Alpha Quadrant and she says, basically:

“Because things that you control can’t hurt you.”

What a profound statement.

I think this is the heart of feminine control meme; why a frightened, physically weaker creature tries to control everyone and everything in sight. To have security, to stop being so afraid, to have “power.” And power = control.

Their “revolution” will never end, either—until all women become an aristocracy and every last (actual) man on the planet has been imprisoned or destroyed utterly, the pussified, enslaved survivors left to worship them as goddesses. Again the question: And after that?

They’ll keep going, waging another war upon their own gender, those who aren’t “feminine” enough. Ask anyone of these types one question: “And then what?” and after each answer, keeping asking that question…


…sooner or later they come to the end of their slippery frayed roped and will not have an answer—they will have exhausted their brainful of dogmatic party-line answers and will then have actually think for themselves…and they’ll pause, and start grasping at straws. Or they will start screaming and pointing at you…like the pod-people from Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Show »

Because Anarchists do not think for themselves. Like all fanatics, they just don’t think—they don’t question, they don’t come up with their own ideas—at most they change the central theme a little bit (Marxism—> Marxist-Leninism—> Marxist-Feminism—> Anarchofeminism—> et cetera); at worst, they are nothing but muppets.

After feminism “wins”—but it will never really win; it simply cannot—it will continue to order and control and manipulate every human and every animal and every blade of grass into a global tomb.

Point is, revolutions never end. They get twisted up into the structure they once detested and then get overthrown by someone else.

And Mater rolls on, smiling at all this silliness, undaunted…

Why am I am not an Anarchist is the same as why I am not a Communist or Marxist or Feminist, or for that matter, a Liberal, or Conservative, or Republican or Democrat, or American or Canadian, or English or Welsh or Russian or Irish or German, or a vegan or Neo Cubist Deconstructionist…

Show »

Commie Dogshit

To be free is to be absolutely free—of designations and labels—of memes, which are the real enslavers here.

The problem isn’t what Zubaty expressed—that we need new memes. No, the memes that have been propagated since the dawn of agriculture are the new memes; it’s the older ones we need now, the ones long forgotten, the ones cast out, the old wise underdogs of memetics. The masculine ones. The new memes we need are the oldest memes that are no longer used…

No; the revolutionary change must be brought about by an overthrow of the controlling power, not by changing its personnel.

That is what all revolutions do—change personnel. They are one and the same, overthrowing the controlling of power (those losing control) and changing personnel (those gaining control). What is the difference?

He does not get into that; instead, he rambles on rhetorically about the future utopia, like Communists in Russia did a hundred years ago.

Some of us never learn…

Anarchism is often brushed aside by the politicians with the remark that it is a beautiful dream, but quite impossible. It is for this reason that I have taken here a purely practical view of it; and now, in order that we may be quite sure of meeting no insurmountable difficulties in running our new society, we must first examine it a little more in detail.

It may be said that, in taking bread-making as an example, I have chosen a subject about which there is little room for a difference of opinion. Every one agrees on the necessity for bread, and practically every one as to its method of manufacture.

Well, I suppose I am devoid of the agricultural meme, since I am against bread. It’s a terribly wasteful food source that was one of the first divisions of labour, it’s an agricultural food product that’s made from grain, grain that’s grown in vast fields, fields that require slaves—and where did they get the slaves to work these fields? From the forests that were destroyed as a result of the “need” for grain. We traded ancient old growth forest for gluten intolerance of today. We traded great herds and wolves for a captive grain species that has pervaded the human mind for thousands of years, helping to form religion and government. We traded ancient hunter-gatherers for global pollution and the enslavement of animals to help work the ground or get slaughtered in pens (if they’re lucky, outdoor pens).

I am fucking against bread. It is not necessary if your population isn’t a bloated pig of consumers, cash cattle, “labour.” It is based on the complete conquering and detailed order and manipulation of life—agriculture is sedentary and destructive and evil.

I’d rather hunt and be a carnivore again…I’d rather leave things be, and adapt, improvise, and overcome, and let the chips fall where they may.

Change comes, all on its own, without our rat-in-a-cage-like meddling. But only those who seek power (control) the most speak most loudly of the need for change. What they’re really saying is they need control—over you. Over everyone. Then everything will be glorious.

Perhaps they’re projecting their own life onto the lives of everyone; perhaps they can’t seem to change themselves, or their lives, so they figure they’ll try to change everyone else…

Is it not now evident that this Anarchist Revolution is the revolution towards which the Labour movement has been working so long? It was in spite of the most savage laws that the workers first formed their protective Unions against the brutal exploitation of the capitalists. To-day it is the same struggle, for it is still the representatives of the Government who are bludgeoning the workers down into the mines and back to their factories, to work on the terms that the masters dictate.

Well, I’ve had enough of this Marxist gospel—and it’s really not worth any more of my time. I am against “work,” “labour,” and “unions” and “governments” and “capitalists,” and “anarchists” and “feminists” and “communists…” and gospels. Thing’s that never adapt to anything—they manipulate everything and everyone to adapt to them. They absorb everything, like the Catholic Church did, and assimilate. This is anti-freedom. I’m also against “intellectuals” who just pervert shit that makes kids cry…

Show »

Anarchy Made Him Cry

[This is not a natural way to be. I’m not saying how anyone should be or has to be; I’m not telling anyone what to do. And, though this is still a work in progress, I’m trying hard to not say there is anything wrong with anything. I know there’s nothing wrong with the world; it’s doing what it has to do, and so are we. The small control freak within, the piece of tissue on the left side of my head which is also fighting off memes that reinforce the urge to manipulate and order…well, it’s still whispering that there’s something that needs fixing. Something is broken. The world ain’t right.

No, it ain’t right; it’s left. But that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with it. It is what it is, and I must do what I must do, because I am who I am. A practicing non-ist. A Sunday Whicheverist. A fully ordained Yadda-yadda-ist Monk.]

But unlike all those “-ists,” I am against them because I am against civilization itself; but that is not my belief system. I am pro-Nature, pro-animal, and pro-hunter-gatherer. I am anti-mater because I am pro-pater = the spiritual. I am pro-energy. I am pro-righteous. Pro-Jesus. Pro-Buddha. I’m pro-freedom. Pro-truth. Pro-faith. Pro-life. Pro-man, pro-boy, pro-girl, pro-woman. Pro-masculine—and pro-feminine…but mostly here I am pro-balance.


Everything that is in opposition to these, I am against. If nothing was in opposition to these, I’d still have the same belief system, so it’s definitely not an anti-belief system, like theirs. It’s not cobbled up around a negative.

And that’s why I am not an Anarchist, or “Anti-Christ.”

I don’t know know if this was intentional, either, but that there anarchist symbol looks like that other symbol…for, uh, I forget. Lucifer, or “the feminine in all things?” Forget which. Interesting, though. Later, people…