Gender politics and the war on will.
Here's some things you hadn't before realised were similar :
- Smoking is always a deliberate act, that sometimes results in disease. Smoking is forbidden, and especially so for pregnant women, because it is always a deliberate act.
- Being fat is the palpable result of a specified set of deliberate acts. Being fat is okay, on the theory that it is in principle possible sometimes for some subset of the acts in question to not immediately enough lead to all the aspects of being fat. Maybe. The thermodynamic impossibility of this, or the statistical absence of people who were "genetically fat" at Auschwitz is never consideredi ; nor is any particular care given to the unfortunate foetuses of touched women, notwitstanding again the absolute certainty of life-altering damage to their health.
- Sitting with your knees apart is always a deliberate act, that sometimes inconveniences others. Sitting with your knees apart is forbidden, because it is always a deliberate act.
- Being fat is the palpable result of a specified set of deliberate acts, that always inconveniences others. Being fat is nevertheless okay, because it's merely the deplorable result of deliberate acts, and not the deliberate acts themselves. Who knows, maybe the aliens landed in the person's back yard and falsified their deposits.
- Having sex with a woman whether she wants to or not (which doesn't mean "over her protest", but merely not bothering to ask) is not okay, because it is a deliberate act. That's it : the proponents of the "no-ask sex is evil" bundle of mouthfroth & assorted weird do not even consider the matter in terms of inconvenience. The deliberate part is what bothers them.
- Dressing like a woman that's going to be sexed without being asked (which, again, doesn't mean "over he protest" but merely on the assumption) is however okay, because... you'll need a break to digest this, but, yes : because it's not a deliberate act.ii
So there you have it. Discussing the matter in terms of "gender politics" or "gender war" or gender everything is missing the point by a mile, and in a particularly wrong manner.iii
The problem is articulated on completely different joints. First off, it is a lot easier to herd females than males. This is certainly explained by evolution, it has very good reasons to exist, you won't be "changing" it anymore than you're changing the height differential between males and females in all mammal species. It's a given.
Second off, it is much cheaper to provide high density living accomodations for females than for males. They cost less per capita, which is why in all domesticated animals farmed for the meat, the herds consist of females rather than males.
Third off, the necessary cognate of "a world without violence" (such as you know, periodic wars and general "mindless" killing) is a world with overpopulation. There's no squirming out of this, either the herd is culled periodically, in which case it produces both genders balancedly in its offspring, or else the herd is forever at carrying capacity of the land, and it produces females of both sexesiv.
The fact remains that the only way to pack people tightly together is to get them acting more and more like my harem slaves and less and less like the fabled Mr. Valiant. There's no intention in all of this, there's not an evil cabal of "feminists" that are "in charge" and "successful at imposing their man-hating agenda" or anything even vaguely of the sortv.
It all just simply and directly, unerringly and unavoidable flows from your strange notion that "life, unqualified, is the highest value there is" and its companion that "you just want to", which is to say "wanting to use what the gods gave you" - not on occasion, not on every occasion where it's practicable, but always. Always, definitionally, fundamentally, as the thing to be. Obviously if one's identity is to be derived from their cleverness, it won't be derived from their wilfullness, and there goes that : however nicely the stable might be painted, however scientifically the floor inclined, a stable it will necessarily be.
I recall a time when life wasn't worth living in some circumstances ; there was once a time when people were "rather dead than X", and that X described them as men. This time still exists, of course, as time never actually goes away. It doesn't exist in any language you happen to speak, is all.vi
Whereas, contrary-wise, no language you speak will happen to survive. Do you happen to know how many times there's been a Latin language to date ?———
- Somehow not one in millions of Jews was fat genetically irrespective of what they ate, but this largest study on any medical topic in human history does not need any discussion whatsoever. [↩]
- Works exactly the way being fat works : yes you're fat because of all the shit you ate, but you're not eating it RIGHT NOW, while you are fat right now, so that's a save! And yes you're dressed like you don't want men to ask before sticking it in, but that was back when you dressed, not right now!
Insane as it may sound, that's the "logic" involved. [↩]
- To quote,
The media will have data mined the culture and chosen for you two cans of Campbell’s Chicken Soup, and then encouraged a public debate about which can is a better representation of the spirit of the country, the one on the left or the one on the right. “Well, that matters to us!” I know.
- And then they wonder "where did the Aztecs go". Guess ?
Spending a long time at carrying capacity feminized the population to the point a few poorly trained, undisciplined, barely armed Spanyards trivially massacred the lot. The only reason a Chinese population even survives to this day is that the Germans were landlocked while the English were lazy. Had Herr Eichmann rather than Lord Curzon been in charge of the bovine bipedal population of India, you'd be looking at the gypos today like you look at redskins - these mysterious tribes of which nothing is known but the name. Fortunately for the Asians - a fortune they can only thank their lucky stars for - the English had the machine guns but no inclination to put them to methodical use. [↩]
- It's true that there exist some niggers who aim to front the public perception of "victorious feminism". They're scammers, plain and simple, they've not done anything of any relevance or impact in anyone's life ; nor could they ever, in any circumstances ever do anything either relevant or with some meaningful impact.
They're simply the "mage" of yore "making the Sun come out" every morning, in different clothes with different funny hats and a new & updated set of empty, arbitrary symbology designed so as to be "meaningful" (ie, unobviously meaningless) to the current generation. If that's what you like, enjoy. [↩]
- Hey, whatever happened of that great Byzantine offensive over at Tikrit ? [↩]
Sunday, 6 December 2015
There is a more general, interesting 'depersonalization' thing at the root of this particular form of braindamage. A bit like that of the 'adhesivists' featured in Hanbot's 'Shall Be Delivered.'
That is, one of the observable features of the transformation of man into cattle is 'that wasn't me' - the rejection of continuous identity. 'Why should I have to pay, the one who borrowed the money wasn't me, but this thing that turned into me.'
There is also the infamous 'marshmallow experiment', which suggested that this kind of thinking may even be heritable, or at the very least a result of a physical and incurable sort of in utero brain rot.
Sunday, 6 December 2015
Certainly more research is needed re the entire subjective relationship to the past. For sure disavowal used to be a mechanism indicative of stupidity and petty criminality whereas now it's the principal mechanism of "thought".