Feminism Is Evil

Feminism ... what is it? Who cares. Take a look through the 200+ other ISMs in the English language, everything from cynicism and romanticism to gaianism to truism to gameism to verificationism to constructionism to anthropocentrism to isomorphism to industrialism.

How many of them reference the human body and a specific subsection of the human population while specifically excluding another specific subsection of the human population? Very few. Feminism belongs to the same category as reactionism, ageism, misandrism, monarchism, racism, nazism and rape apologism.

Both majoritarianism (aka Bolshevism) and minoritarianism (aka Menshevism) reference one subsection of the population ruling over another. As does cooperativism, cronyism and clientelism. You'll never guess who believes in cronyism and clientelism. It's the same people who believe in Gaianism and Greenism, the fucking feudalist freaks!

But none of these ideologies, as Evil as they are compared to Agriculturalism, Communism, Criticism, Goodism, Nudism, and Utopianism, bothers to reference *an arbitrary biological condition you were born into* the same way that Racism and Sexism and Tribalism do. By simple linguistic analysis, Feminism is Evil.

Feminism is the "nice face" of sexist feminazism and misandrism, the same way that deconstructionism is the nice face of solipsism, or totemism is the nice face of shamanism, or fetishism is the nice face of cannibalism, or creationism is the nice face of fundamentalism, or fanaticism is the nice face of eliminationism or ecologism is the nice face of ecofascism, or Machiavellianism is the nice face of Nietzscheanism.

See how it goes? For every dark side there is a light side, for every light there is a dark. Because for every person gutsy enough to engage in violence, there is a gutless freak who shirks from it and honestly sincerely believes it is some kind of a virtue. Despite the counter-example of fetishism - gutless freaks who pay to have children butchered for their body parts to be used as magical ingredients rather than doing the job themselves the way honest cannibals do.

So if feminism is the light side, then it's obviously misandrism and feminazism that is its dark side. And so clearly feminism is the "nice face" of Evil intended to sucker in the crowd of dumbass followers of Egalitarianism. Which means feminism is Evil period. And now the psychological analysis backs up the linguistic analysis, how unsurprising.

Why Does Fight or Fuck Exist?

I once saw a retarded psychology professor giving a video lecture about emotions to undergraduates. He asked his class what the opposite of love was. Most said it was hatred, which is very inaccurate since
contempt would be better, but this moron berated them as if they'd done a great wrong. Then he proceeded to tell them as if imparting a great insight that love and hatred are both "arousal" and the opposite of "arousal" was calm or neutrality or indifference.

(This moron didn't even grasp that indifference is negative, not neutral, ah but such is life in the field called psychology.)

Setting aside the fact that it can be PROVED contempt is opposite of love, due to the fact if you feel both of them towards the same person
simultaneously they will cancel out leaving you feeling absolutely nothing towards that person. Or the further fact that hatred comes reasonably close to being another opposite.

Yes, setting aside the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, let's examine this retarded moron's (and all psychologists are retards, whether they're clinicians or researchers or professors since they do not acknowledge their own minds' limitations, the fact they are idiots at best, despite working with minds) idiotic claims that negative emotions and positive emotions are similar because magnitude is more important than quality.

Arousal ... there's another type of arousal than this retard talked about, it is sexual arousal. Now, in comedies it's often the case that two people who are angry and hate each other get sexually aroused and suddenly start lusting after each other and tearing each other's clothes off. But this cliché humour is not cliché because it is true of real life. It is true because it is absurd. It is funny because it is nonsense.

But, and some people will object, why does one sometimes become sexually aroused during a fight with a loved one? Doesn't this prove that love and anger are closely related and that "arousal" is "arousal"? No, because if it were true then a fight with a complete stranger would lead to people fucking in the streets. However, that doesn't fucking happen, does it?! In fact, the notion is fucking retarded. ABSURD. NONSENSE.

So ... here we have a phenomenon which has 3 important characteristics:

1. it's very mysterious and no one can quite explain it.
2. ordinary people reject as absurd the simple-minded explanation.
3. psychologists believe themselves deep thinkers for embracing the retarded explanation that is total nonsense contradicted by the evidence. And in fact, psychologists believe themselves better than ordinary people because they bite the bullet of logically self-contradictory "explanations". Idiots.

What is the explanation? It's really beautiful and elegant once you know it, and obviously very deceptive since people don't talk about it. The explanation is that when you feel anger or hatred at a loved one and your love for them is almost completely canceled you will still desire to feel close to them ... and sex is the only positive intimate act left to you. Anger or hatred (and especially the partial anger left over during the makeup phase of a fight with a loved one) forces your love and desire / need for intimacy into unconventional channels. Much the same way dropping a big boulder into a reservoir will cause the dam to overflow.

Ahh, but such wisdom is not for the "deep thinkers" of psychology. Facts and evidence are not for the "deep thinkers" of psychology. Sick disgusting fucks.

Other wisdom I've found about relationships that turned out to be literally and absolutely true

• relationships are built on trust and trustworthiness <- formally="" li="" provable="">
• love is an emotion - the emotion that is the merger of affection and fondness intensified to the next level
• so-called moments of connection (ie, attunement) really do bond people together
• lovesickness literally is when someone else's happiness is essential to your own

Because love is an emotion it feels like something. Love is ALSO not at all an emotion. It has in total three different meanings. It is annoying that way. Also, sex-as-love isn't a separate meaning at all but dovetails right in the primary meaning of love.

Also, so-called "romantic gestures" are sickeningly close to narcissists' notions of love and empathy. Hint: narcissists can only love themselves and have no empathy. These two categories are not identical but they are close enough for romantic gestures to be repulsive to most mentally healthy people.

The Internet's Fascist New World Order

They call themselves "moderators" but you'd have to be an idiot to believe they have any resemblance to moderators in religious or political debate groups. Of course, being being retarded idiots, most people actually take the name "moderator" seriously. Most people disgustingly RESPECT moderators.

In real life, moderators don't go around with guns and a license to kill spraying bullets at anyone they don't like the way cops and Nazis do. In real life, moderators' actions aren't invisible to the participants the way Stasi's are. In real life, moderators can't execute "power plays" to kick out other moderators and "usurp power".

In real life, moderators don't go around with magic gags that can erase everything you've ever said. In real life, moderators don't go around complaining about how the (few) people who hate them are whiners, enemies of the state, and the disgruntled few who are astroturfing anyways.

Real life moderators of discussion groups have ZERO connection with internet "moderators" of internet forums. You might as well be trying to compare a warm breeze in the middle of winter to the very fires of Hell.

It just proves how condemnable, contemptible, and downright Evil the bulk of humanity is that when faced with the raw vileness of "moderators" that they shrug their shoulders and say ... "well, unmoderated forums are crap anyways" as if fascism and right-libertarianism were the only political ideologies and the only forms of social control around.

Internet participants EXPECT Evil. It's just a question of whether it's right-libertarian slavery and omnipresent death or fascist servitude and homicide everywhere. 6 eggs on one hand or half a dozen ovoids on the other. And why do they expect Evil? Because programmers are overwhelmingly Evil and/or worthless retarded morons.

Ward Cunningham created his "noble experiment in totalitarian communism" which failed utterly once it scaled up about two to three orders of magnitude (I'm being generous). And what did he resort to when it failed? FASCISM! Because of course there's no middle ground, and certainly there's no alternative. Utmost marxism and fascism (and psychopathy) are the ONLY alternatives on offer.

Because of course, the Internet is NEW and it's not like the THREE MILLENIA of human political history have anything to teach anyone at all!! No, rather than start with democracy or shoot beyond it for anarcho-communism, we need to go BACK to fascism or FEUDALISM or murderous infanticidal tribalism!

And of course, the fact that these worthless retarded cretins are resurrecting dead and buried ideologies from political history doesn't imply that political history is RELEVANT to the Internet! No, we'll bake our cake, sell it, and then we'll use it as collateral to get a bank loan! Where have I heard that one before?

Fuck, I despise people who can't do logic. They should all burn in Hell! If you're going to do politics fucking do it right. And if you're not then you'd better stand out of the way of people who CAN do politics, and bend over to get the ass-rape you deserve!

Against: Food Miles and Vertical Farming

Greens being idiots believe that the cost of goods and services are ultimately based on energy. They are totally wrong. Everything's cost is based on labour. Energy ceased to be a factor sometime in the 1970s or 1980s. In other words, they are living in a bygone age.

Back in the dinosaur era from which they hail, the value of the economy was precisely proportional to the energy consumption of the economy. Industrial planners MEASURED the economy's output by its
energy input! But ever since then, the two measures have radically diverged.

Green foodists and local-vores are dinosaurs and maladaptive. They believe in some "food miles" crap when trucking has not and never will be an issue. They're the same breed of people as the futurologists who believe in molecular disassemblers and recovery of "resources" from garbage dumps (something which will never happen as recovery from seawater is easier). It's people who don't understand entropy and what the term 'ore' means.

To sum up, nowadays the economy has fuck all to do with energy. It's a non-issue which doesn't and never will matter anymore.

What's worse is these local-vores go the extra mile of advocating the destruction of cities, which of course they totally deny. But let's face it, they want to stick uninhabited buildings in the middle of the city. When "city" is defined as a congregation of PEOPLE.

Well, you know what? The sublimation or evaporation of cities (aka, their destruction) is never going to happen. Never fucking going to fucking happen. Put it to a song and sing it. NEVER. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. Even when humans are extinct and AIs rule the world, they'll do so in CITIES.

I hate pretend-rural fucks. Hey, here's a clue: 90% of rural people want to live in cities if given a choice. And here we have gutless city boys who want to destroy cities and remake them into the country, rather than just fucking moving there!

AI and robots

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/technology/10274420/Artificial-intelligence-will-take-the-place-of-humans-within-five-years.html

Assuming the pseudo-AI replaces 1000 operators in each of 4 shifts then that's 4000 humans 20 years 20k a year = 160 million. That's what it's WORTH so if it costs less than that then the difference is profit.

There will be interesting times in China and India in the near future, with AI and robots. But especially with India that fashioned itself the call center of the world. Because its population is largely uneducated and used to a corrupt ineffective government.

Violence vs Gutlessness

It seems to me that the policies put in place with the intent to curb violence are often misguided.

Why are you surprised? Why are you sad that this is happening? This is predictable.

These gutless retards are saying that violence itself is the problem. That if everyone just held hands and sang kumbaya then everything would be fine. They're delusional lunatics without any grasp of the real world.

But let me ask you this, if some genocidal cannibal was raping your wife, do you believe he would DESERVE violence on him? Or that he should be "stopped"?

In the gutless mindset, the guy raping your wife isn't any worse than her getting a papercut. Both of them are bad and they are as bad as it gets. It certainly isn't the case that some injury is WORSE than another injury.

And since Gutless people don't recognize the existence of Evil (things that are more than slightly bad), they also don't recognizethe existence of Evil people. Therefore, they don't believe it's GOOD when Evil people receive violence.

Gutsy people think Evil people getting pounded is exactly how it should be and exactly what they deserve and exactly what they've been asking for. Gutless people meanwhile think that Evil doesn't exist and that the answer to Evil is to ignore it. That the PERCEPTION of Evil is the problem.

Violence isn't the problem, it is the solution to many, many problems. The problem of violence perpetrated by Evil people. Or the existence of Evil people period.

So why are you so surprised when after blind retards eliminate the solution to a great many of life's problems, they cause more problems?

It's as if there were a CONNECTION there. It's like it's MAGIC. It'sas if calling the blind retards "misguided" is like calling the oceana little wet or a salt mine a little salty.

Rationality

What is rationality? It's the ability to make life plans which reach your goals. Funny thing though, the INABILITY to (care about) making such plans is the defining trait of psychopaths. In other words, Narcissists qualify as rational. No wonder Narcissist shitheads like Yudkowsky go on and on and on about rational this and rational that. He's basically crowing in triumph "I am not a psychopath!!" like it's this marvelous achievement worthy of acclaim. Worthy of adulation even!

And for your information, I first heard that definition of rationality many years before I'd ever heard of Yudkowsky or even knew what Narcissism or Psychopathy were. I heard about it from a philosophy book trying to justify Good according to Evil principles. It was a disgusting exercise but for the exercise to work the disgusting fucker obviously had to admit Narcissists and Right-Wing Authoritarians. You know, to even HAVE Evil in his assumptions.

Man, it sounds so self-aggrandizing to hear "I am not a psychopath!! HAHA. IN YOUR FACE PERSON WHO ISN'T LIKE ME!"

Why Charities Are Pathetic

charity means you're so hopeless it's obvious to everyone

benefactor means you've so much potential that it's obvious to someone

Now if only Yudkowsky's patron weren't so fucking idiotic and deluded and cut that Narcissist asshole's purse-strings!

I'm pretty satisfied with this short and elegant proof that displaces pages and pages of arguments and facts. Especially since I don't have the link to that ancient article about how Northern charities were displacing Southern governments and keeping money flowing from the South to the North while keeping control firmly in the North despite decolonization.

Against Meditation

Some retarded Gaian morons go on about how much they like meditation and how it works for them. Being incapable of logic, and thinking in terms of magic, they "think" (if their mental processes can even be construed as thinking) that "it works for us, and it has a biological effect on our human bodies, others have human bodies, therefore it must work for others" which of course is pure magic.

The REASON meditation works for Gaians is because they LIKE IT and it RELAXES them. Why? Because among their most basic values they have continuation, staying and restraint. So sitting there like a lump makes them feel great. Whereas for 90% of people, it just makes them feel like a fucking idiot! And for over 10% of the 90%, the thought of "emptying your mind" feels like DEATH!

But never mind that, EVERYONE must LOVE sitting there like a fucking lump! Despite the fact that people in general have far less averse reactions towards massages than meditation (applicability 70-100% vs 10%), no that's not proof of anything. The fact that people like massages better than meditation isn't disproof of how awesome meditation is according to Gaians who like meditation. The fact that church is just as applicable as meditation to the general population also says nothing.

According to these yoyos, if you dislike meditation then it's evidence you're an inferior person who "won't try new things" and you should just try it anyways, the same way as you should try slitting your wrists or snorting cocaine on the word of a drug addict. According to them, you should MODIFY your likes and dislikes in order to like meditation and BE MORE LIKE THEM. Because EVERYONE should be a Gaian!

I firmly believe that Gaians' retarded antics are why the word "justifiable" exists in "justifiable homicide". They should be killed until they learn their lesson. That being: to not even try to fuck with anyone else. Those disrespectful smarmy sons of whores. Speaking of whores, even those have greater applicability (30-70%) than meditation.

But don't waste your breath trying to convince them. Like I said, magical thinkers. You might as well be talking to a wall. Only having their lives threatened will ever convince them, because that is what they cherish above all things.

On Titles and the Trappings of Power

having a title is not meaningless. True, having a title doesn't make you different, but people calling you by that title absolutely makes you different in other peoples eyes

Only if your Presence tops out at Passive and your only source of power is what society will tolerate.

Do you believe that Hugo Chavez Friaz cared what people called him? How about Mustafa Kemal? Or Napoleon Bonaparte? Or Alexander the Invincible?

These men HAD titles. It didn't matter what they were CALLED. It didn't matter whether people called them by their titles. Their titles were ... objective facts of reality and utterly inseparable from them.

Men get called King and Prince and Majesty. But very few men are Majestic. And those that are, they don't get called King or Prince or Majesty. Because it's beneath them. It would be saying that their title is something conferred on them by others. Rather than something that's part of them, merely recognized by others.

Power, REAL power, is not the kind that's conferred by society, that's conferred by calling you Sir or Mister or King. It's the kind you can create yourself by your very being. It's the kind that can never be separated from you. The kind that is forever a part of you, inextricably bound up in who you are.

You don't know what power is and you don't know what titles are for. You believe that power is social position. So, so wrong. You believe that titles are conferred on people, that they must be constantly and continuously supported and tolerated by society. So, so wrong.

Everything you understand of titles and power is the meaningless trappings of people who pathetically ape real titles and power. It's a Cargo Cult of power. You believe that by having the trappings of power, you will actually have power. (smh)

Troll vs Village Hick

Damned punks!

They come to our COMMUNITIES!

They violate our TRADITIONS!

Communities we built from the SWEAT OF OUR BROW!

Sonny, get off my lawn!

I'm a gonna call the Housing Association on you!

Emoting vs Emo-ing

Emoting is Subcomponent level, it's being part of an experience. Emo-ing is Passive level, it's a pathetic disgusting distancing mechanism used to NOT be part of an experience.

Emoting means venting at the cause of your frustration or anger. It means expressing an emotion right there and then when you feel it. Emo-ing means channeling all this emotion and feeling into ... nothing.

Emo-ing is feeling an emotion so you shut it down then you go to your room and cry and scream about the unfairness and hellishness of the world.

What the fuck is this bullshit?! THAT's how pathetic and disgusting emo-ing is!

Emo-ing is PURE DISTANCE. You vent your emotions when they CAN NO LONGER BE PRODUCTIVE! When they can no longer do ANYTHING!

Now do you fucking get it what you're doing wrong you emo-ing retard? And why it's wrong? Not just low and pathetic but lying? First you refuse to say the truth about your emotions and feelings! And then when it no longer means anything you speak it.

In an empty room.

To a statue.

PRETENDING that it's alive and will CARE about you.

Meaning, deluding yourself.

Emos think statues care. Emos think strangers care. Emos delude themselves that their emotions are by themselves somehow magically intrinsically important. Despicable.

And writing a blog post about the retarded emo fucker you're dealing with isn't emo-ing. Nor emoting for that matter. It's threatening abject humiliation so they will fucking stop.

Reply to a Geopolitician: Handle

I confess, I didn't read the entirety of the article Review of “The Rise of China vs. The Logic of Strategy” by Edward Luttwak as I found it tedious and contrary to my values.

There is a simply wonderful speech by Donald Rumsfeld to the Realists which I've never been able to find again. In it he disdainfully informs the Realists that while they study the world's geopolitics in ever more obsessive detail, he will act upon the world. And by the time they're done studying his actions and accounting for their consequences, he will have acted still more, making their studies even more irrelevant.

Donald Rumsfeld is a narcissistic shithead, what you call a neo-con, but what goes for Evil goes for Good too. There is more than institutions powered by the herd-following cow-like behaviour of people in the world. There are Great Men in history too. Actors with free will. Actors that can make institutions irrelevant, that can make institutions disappear, and raise entirely new ones in their place.

Can you say that Hugo Chavez' actions were constrained by the culture and institutions he grew up in and had to work with? No, because he BULLDOZED THEM UNDER. Can you say anything different about Mustafa Kemal named Ataturk? Mao Tse Tung? Napoleon Bonaparte? Peter the Great? Alexander the Invincible? These were Great Men because they possessed Willpower. And with it came Free Will. They were the real deal, not the pathetic imitators whose shackles you cheerfully point out.

Mao Tse Tung deliberately destroyed 2000 years of history in the Cultural Revolution. Why? Because he felt that China needed its history destroyed in order for its people to survive, let alone thrive. That is Willpower. Historians and anthropologists and other cultural relativists may hate him for it but his people love him for the exact same reason. Or came to love him ... eventually. Had China's history not been so toxic, then Mao would have changed his society in a totally different way. He would still have changed it just as much, and still had as many detractors.

You talk about the “massive amounts of uncertainty which itself expands rapidly the further out you forecast” and when you do I imagine you looking upon it with a horrified wide-eyed stare and mounting dread. You sound to me like a right-wing authoritarian obsessed with stasis and stability, obsessed with obsession itself, with filing and categorizing and classifying. And neatness.

That massive amount of uncertainty is the free will of great men. And I can easily imagine you wanting nothing better than to crush all free will everywhere in order to make the world predictable, uniform and orderly. But guess what? If that is your wish, you're not going to get your way.

And in fact, from your point of view, the world will only become MORE and MORE unpredictable and uncertain and wildly unstable. And definitely unlike the past.

Because free will is mounting across the world. It has been increasing over the last century or two according to objective measures. Such as the fact city men and women in the early 1900s reacted to the deluge of life options they had with nervous exhaustion. A reaction hard to fathom nowadays.

Free will has a rhyme and reason and song which is totally alien to you. But its rhythm and language while alien to you is something that I love and cherish. It’s something I value. It's something I UNDERSTAND and yes, by understanding it I can predict it. And so … I’m winning. Over you.

You can keep your stupid blog posts and you can keep your stupid life. The fight is out there in the real world and you, a representative of the forces of stasis and predictability and subservience to overwhelming institutional forces, are losing. Your whole side is losing.

Speaking of your predictability horizon, I am reminded of Frank Herbert’s Dune when Paul Atreides spoke to the Bene Gesserits.

Try looking into that place where you dare not look! You’ll find me there, staring out at you!

and here’s another good one:

The eye that looks ahead to the safe course is closed forever.

Your precious institutions … gone forever. They will be wiped out from history. That’s what lies beyond the predictability horizon you so dread. Don’t let it keep you up at night.

Response to a Gaian Saying "We gotta stop messing with the planet"

Messing with the planet? Yeah, that's right, because in your retarded antedeluvian ideology, things were PRISTINE and CLEAN and BEAUTIFUL back 9000 years ago.

Back before humans invented fire to cook inedible food. Back before humans invented agriculture so they wouldn't have to leave their children to die. Back before humans invented caring for their children instead of leaving them to fend for themselves like the cannibalistic monkeys we evolved from.

Back before we created wheat so we could have bread to eat. Back before we created strawberries so we could have something tasty and edible. Back before we created houses so we wouldn't die in caves. Back before we invented outhouses so we wouldn't sicken from our own feces.

Back before we learned to skin animals and wear their fur in order to escape disease-ridden jungles. Those "paradises" you think so fondly and proudly of. Ever visited one? Naah, don't need to after all, they're picturesque and BEAUTIFUL. That's all you need to know.

Back before we invented culture to escape crazy psychopathic murderous evolutionary throwbacks from our own species. Throwbacks that look and act remarkably like wolves and chimpanzees following their BIOLOGICAL NATURE. Isn't biology great?!

Back before we invented technology so that we could have the time and the wealth necessary to solve our own problems. To wash our cheaply manufactured clothes so we could be hygienic and not be plague-ridden.

To warm our hearths without burning the trees you so cherish and without burning the polluting coal you so hate or drown whole forests with hydroelectric dams but rather with nuclear fire.

Back when our entire species was at the mercy of a single bad tsunami or earthquake or Ice Age. Back before we created technology that might let us divert an Extinction Level Event-type asteroid. Or escape the Yellowstone Supervolcano that's set to blow any millenium now by going orbital.

Things were SO MUCH BETTER back before humans MESSED WITH all the evil things that Nature threw at us, weren't they? Starvation, deprivation, illiteracy, mass murder, genocide, cannibalism, infanticide, and death. THOSE were the times!!

Man, this is why I despise you Gaians. You're neither Good nor Evil and you hate everything Good in the universe as equally as everything Evil. And it just so happens that everything Good in the universe was created by humanity so logically you hate humanity.

So don't try to handwave away my principled contempt and scorn for you by claiming I'm having a bad day. I could be having the best day of my life and I would still despise you.

In fact, if I got to watch you doused in gasoline and got to throw a lit match on you, and get away with it, that would make my day. Why? Because I hate people who hate humanity like you do.

Humanity is my freaking species and it is capable of greatness, it is uniquely capable of Goodness. Even though it has wholly squandered its potential so far. So I get rather ... upset when know-nothing shitheads like you try to insinuate that it should be killed off.

And I know very well that in your heart of hearts that's exactly what you believe. That it would simply be more CONVENIENT if humanity didn't exist at all. That it would somehow be BETTER.

Your continued existence is inimical to that of humanity's. And it is why you ought to die.

On Reddit and other Discussion Communities

I just realized why I despise reddit and grew desperate to have an excuse to leave it the first time around. Because it's pathetic in a very specific way. Because it's intrinsically Passive. Because it's a forum for useless navel-gazers who do nothing but watch the world go by.

Even Fanfiction.net isn't so pathetic. Whether the authors there are good or evil, whether they're pathetically pandering to their audience or they're writing for themselves or writing to make a point. At least the authors there aren't Passive. They're doing something.

And do you know what's the most infuriating and despicable thing about those useless wastes of skin? In their opinions, THEY believe that asking serious and trenchant political or philosophical questions is useless navel gazing.

Because THEY all think that chit chatting with like-minded others and maintaining community standards and keeping everything ticking and being liked by others and being self-satisfied and patting each other on the back ... they think this has VALUE. It's despicable and repulsive.

So I'm free. I'm free of that despicable community. That and any other one. I can come into it as I please. I can waste some time on it if I'm bored. And then ... I can leave. Because I realize WHY I despise it. It's not some vague feeling. It's intrinsically inimical to everything I hold dear. I would nuke reddit and exterminate all redditors if I could and feel like I'm doing the world a favour.

Discussion Communities and all their participants can die for all I care. In fact, it would please me if they do.

A/theists Are Strutting Pigeons Who Believe They're Victorious

You know, that was my opinion of atheists back when I was an antitheist. I call it 'the game of intellectual integrity' in mockery because I don't believe either side has any. I had to come up with all these rules in order to keep them both in line.

You will find if you play the game that it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that there are Real World Entities that ARE gods. In other words, that gods exist not just in fiction but in the real world.

Theists win the game, always. And lose in the real world. Because reality is always corrosive to fantasy. Real gods are corrosive to fantasy gods. Just like real medicine is corrosive to fantasy medicine. And real childcare advice is corrosive to child exorcisms. And viagra is corrosive to tiger penis male potency crap.

And that's why atheists are just idiots strutting around knocking all the pieces over pretending to be victorious. What victory do they gain? What victory do they achieve? What EFFECT do they have in the REAL WORLD? Nothing.

If you want to destroy religion, all you have to do is prove that real gods exist for people to be in awe of and worship. And prove that these gods are merely the equals of humanity. That will give theists pause and perspective.

Have you ever contemplated the fact that as humanity becomes ever more powerful and ever more relevant in the lives of people, as it becomes ever more competent and capable, then fantasy gods fade away into insignificance? That's why people are becoming secular.

'secular' -> converted to worshiping humanity as a god. 'humanist' -> converted to worshiping Humanity The Good as a god.

There's three levels of knowledge:

• nothing << atheists
• metaphoric << theists
• literal << antitheists 'fantasy gods people worship are Evil'
• formal << 'real gods exist and humanity is one of them'

On Conspiracy Theorists and Anti-Conspiracy Theorists

It never, ever pays to be subtle so I'll be blunt.

Neither side cares a whit about the truth or about facts or about what is or is not manipulation of facts or the truth. They are merely factions in the process of factional fighting.

Both sides are mindless herds engaged in grazing their intellectual territories and defending them against any other encroaching herd. Or other type of ungulate.

Both sides think their type of ungulate is the only kind that exist. The cows decry the sheep as insane cows. The sheep decry the cows as mindless sheep.

This factional war isn't about truth or fact or principle. It's about fucking TERRITORY. Territory which sustains their pathetic fragile emotions.

And the proof that they are pathetic and emotionally fragile? Neither side can get up the spine to actually commit a personal character assassination. They are both spineless and gormless.

The questions that should be running through your mind are:

• are you spineless and gormless?
• are you pathetic and fragile?
• why are you aligning with either side?
• why are you taking the factional fight seriously?

Atheists vs Theists: The Game of Intellectual Integrity

Inspired by Nomic.

rules:

Obvious rules that together boil down to "don't be a douchebag"

• everyone has to play
• all players have to register on the atheist or theist side
• all players must make appropriate moves until they personally admit defeat
• if one side is collectively defeated, the other side wins
• an atheist admits defeat by acknowledging that a Real World Entity is a god
• a theist admits defeat by acknowledging that an atheist has possession or ownership of all of a god in their bedroom
• anyone who can't make a move in a timely manner automatically acknowledges defeat
• a move consists of adding an item to a list in accordance to the rules and having that item survive instant nullification
• adding duplicate or meaningless items does not count as a legal move
• to count as meaningful, an item on a nullifying list must nullify another item, unless there are less than 5 items to nullify on the appropriate list.
• anyone who breaks the rules is an intellectually incompetent dishonest lying hypocrite

Important rules

• there are three lists: Real World Entities, Criteria For Godhood, Acknowledged Fictional Gods
• any logical discrepancies between RWE items and CFG items, or CFG and AFG are resolved thus: CFG nullifies RWE, AFG nullifies CFG.
• theists control the RWE list
• atheists control the CFG list
• any fictional entity whom over 90% of the population calls a god is allowed by default on the AFG list
• atheists and theists can only modify the AFG list by mutual consent

So for instance, atheists and theists could agree that entities demonstrating Narcissistic Personality Disorder don't automatically go on the AFG list even if everyone calls them gods, in exchange for entities with Anarcho-Communist personalities getting on the AFG list over their own refusal to be called gods. But until such an agreement happens, any fictional Narcissist demonstrating alien superpowers who manages to wow a fictional population of primitives gets put on the AFG list.

RWE:

• atom bomb
• world bank

CFG:

• is very impressive

AFG:

• Apollo from Star Trek: the Original Series.
• Zeus
• Q Continuum
• Akatosh, the Dragon God of Time
• 'God' from the Christian Bible

Halo

The Halo series of novels is the uplifting story of how Moralists are really Evil and we need more Narcissists to save us from them. Evil people are incapable of understanding universal principles, or the whole concept of universality. They are incapable of understanding that other people matter independently of their use or similarity to yourself. That's what makes them Evil. They're so retarded they can't understand Neutrality, forget Goodness entirely, so believe everyone is secretly like them, just lying about it. Western economists even teach that everyone is really Evil in microeconomics 101.

So in Halo, the bad guys are Moralists doing a bunch of moralist things and using Moralist names and titles. Titles like prophet and charity. Activities like conquest and hegemonization and creating Uni-minds. And of course, these are the BAD guys. Meanwhile, the protagonists are sparkly grim-faced Uber-men. Nietzsche would approve wholly and unreservedly. Cause it's not like we need the army and the navy, no we just need these few Uber-men.

The final nail in the coffin? There is another entirely different story where Moralists are really Evil and we need more ... to save us from them. Only it's not Evil people, it's Good people, preferably Anarcho-Communists. That story is The Last Angel. And not only is this story entirely different in tone and content, but the Evil Moralists in it actually ACT Evil, because they're really Right-Wing Authoritarians masquerading as Moralists.

The writers of Halo don't understand Moralists or Morality beyond the fact they hate them. They can see their actions, sort of, and they hate Moralists for their actions. The writer of The Last Angel on the other hand ... he hates Moralists for being too similar to and too easily corrupted by RWAs. And since that's not nearly enough to condemn someone to death, he makes all the bad guys genuinely Evil, by making them RWAs, and teaches the real Moralists a nasty object lesson.

Differential judgement. The Narcissistic shits behind Halo just see Moralists as different and that's enough to hate them to death. The, probably Anarcho-Communist, writer behind The Last Angel understands the differences between RWAs and Moralists enough to wish death on the former and a punch in the face to the latter. Differential judgement is a sign you've got an inkling of a clue as to people's motivations, and have an idea whom you can live with and whom you can't.

It works on the flipside too. People who want to be nice to everybody, who want peace & lovingkindness, who think everybody deserves to live ... they show no differential judgement whatsoever. And these people are just as worthless as Narcissists. Almost as undeserving of living.

Atheists' Claims About Religion Are All Wrong

Atheists claim that the problem with religion is that it's mythical, legendary, supernatural, blind faith and untrue, and that somehow these are all bad things.

First of all, there's nothing wrong with myths per se. I can think of a lot of corrosive psychopathic myths such as that America ever was a "beacon of hope and freedom" for people. I can also think of constructive ones such as Justice existing or being attainable in this our Evil world.

Secondly, there's nothing wrong with legends. For all the Narcissists and RWAs driven to be legends like Richard Feynman and Josef Stalin, there are also real legends such as Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, Peter the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Albert Einstein, Douglas Engelbart, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Hugo Chavez Frias, Mao Tse Tung, and the list goes on.

Thirdly, the supernatural exists and is awesome. Just search for 'ultra high detail screenshots' on any search engine. The contrast in these images is impossible under any real world lighting conditions thus they are literally supernatural. Like I said, it is real and it is awesome!

Fourth, and this is the one that is most laughable because Danniel Dennet claims in his essay:

no religion holds its members to the high standards of moral responsibility that the secular world of science and medicine does! And I'm not just talking about the standards 'at the top'—among the surgeons and doctors who make life or death decisions every day. I'm talking about the standards of conscientiousness endorsed by the lab technicians and meal preparers, too. This tradition puts its faith in the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry, checking and re-checking, and getting in the habit of asking "What if I'm wrong?" Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated. Imagine the reception a scientist would get if he tried to suggest that others couldn't replicate his results because they just didn't share the faith of the people in his lab!

something which is utterly laughable since doctors are butchers who are incapable of logic, rely on guesswork for their diagnoses, and routinely butcher people for prestige and money in the USA. And scientists' work is largely entropic crap that adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge, is rarely replicated, and they are all driven by an insane blind faith in a fictional "scientific method" that simply DOES NOT EXIST. To say nothing in their blind faith and membership in a communal enterprise that ossifies preexisting knowledge rather than generating insight!

Finally is the claim that religion is untrue. Well, Jesus at least is certainly and completely true. Jesus is human culture and human culture exists. Jesus is omnipresent and human culture is omnipresent. Jesus loves you and human culture loves you. You'd have to be a total fucking moron to try to argue that circa -100 to +100 CE human culture didn't suffer greatly to expunge infanticide from civilization. It happened. It's historical FACT.

No, the problem with religion is that it's FICTIONAL! It may be true fiction, fictionalized history, but it's still fiction.

There are three levels of human knowledge. The metaphoric, the literal, and the formal. Religion offers us only metaphoric knowledge. And that is why I scorn it as utterly pathetic and contemptible.

But there is another level of human knowledge beneath these three. The zeroth level of NO knowledge. And that is what atheists offer. They stupidly and idiotically offer a DEGRADATION in human knowledge!

And that is why atheists are worthless motherfuckers. Rather than being forward-thinking, forward-looking and progressive, they are anti-deluvian, backwards-looking and reactionary. They couldn't be stupider and more anti-human if they joined the SS.

Let's recap briefly,

1. no knowledge = atheists
2. metaphoric knowledge = religious
3. literal knowledge = antitheists
4. formal knowledge = people who understand what gods, souls, good and evil are and can see them in the real world

Throughout my adolescence I was an antitheist. Since then I've grown up. Most atheists it seems start out religious and then they grow DOWN.

Parenthetically, Daniel Dennet's Thank Goodness essay is laughable for another reason. Because Goodness is alien to him. Whenever he says 'thank goodness' he really means 'thank Neutrality' but that just doesn't flow right off the tongue, does it?