H U M A N

25,3385w....12,407 ......



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC BASICS
THE DOLPHIN SUPER
PURGATORY OR HELL
THE UNFIT FITNESS
EQUAL, SUPERIOR, DOMINANT
SUPERIORITY COMPLEX
MAJORITY AT 18, 21, 25
ENEMIES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT
THE EQUALITY CURSE
ERSATZ EVOLUTION
TO BE OR NOT TO WISH
UN-STERILIZED INNOCENCE
PHONY HEROES
THE MORAL DDT
OBSOLETED PRESENT
-- DECAY INVENTED BY LAW
THE KNOWHOW MAZE


*****************************************************************





BASIC BASICS



- =========================
- Apparently before we developed

civilization, we went through
a rele ntless process of search for food, deadly struggle to kill, eat and digest for survival, mating and reproduction (Nature tricked us into believing we mated just for pleasure), for millions of years. That long?
In this process, we theorize that evolution eliminated the vanquished "losers", the "unfit", the weak, and the "different ones" in some
obscure sense.
The attributes of the winners and survivors prevailed in the genes.
They prevailed not because of merits or judgment, opinions or theories, but mostly for the brutal finality of surviving results.

Whatever genes transmit overwhelms the opinion we may derive from our limited experience, reasoning, conclusions from any philosophy, religion, tradition or intuition.
Unlike our genes, our opinions, taste and behavior change with fads, political or sociological trends, or personal interests.
When our beliefs clash with our genetic patterns, we often sacrifice the latter to the former, even if we know that it may not work.
One trap we create and fall into is our playing with words .like "justice", "rights", "equality", "truth", "liberty" and we expect our genetic reality to fit them.
Now (2007), scientific research has repeatedly concluded that most primitive behavioral differences between males and females are genetic, rather than "learned". Even if we train a boy to play with dolls and girls with trucks
Ultra-fem\inism insisted on imposing unrealistic equality of sex behavior between male and female, in spite of the clear genetic and morphologic differences.
Politicians and sociologists refuse to acknowledge significant genetic differences of racial or ethnic groups, when they clash with pet political and social fads.
Some schools and institutions endeavor to eliminate rewards for the achievers, in order to avoid hurting the feelings of the non achievers.
This anti evolutionary aberration is viewed as "anti elitism", as if the winners and leaders were not a natural, desirable elite.
It is difficult for do-gooders to believe that, in many cultures, the "elite" level of the achievers needs not cause suffering and loss of self esteem, but admiration , inspired emulation and even "worship" that is now incongruously expected toward "role models" in off white communities.
In spite or their anti-elitism claims, they haste to outrageously honor and overpay sport stars, Hollywood and rock stars, and other celebrities of questionable value.
Something fundamental is perceived by us, but grossly misunderstood.
Our instinct shows us what to do, but our interpretation distorts it beyond recognition.
Then, our reason builds pseudo knowledge and entire social systems on the false premises.
The beginning was not the word of the Judeo Christians, or the "uncreated" book (the Koran, which the Muslins claim to be coexisting with, not written by, Allah).
It was nature, as far as we can understand. Furthermore, we may perceive but not comprehend nature.
We are hopelessly imprisoned in our bodies.
We cannot even think (consciously at least) without our bodies.
It only takes a blow with a big rock on our head to prove it beyond doubt.
Unlike some other life-forms, we don't accept this still unchangeable dependence on nature.
Therefore we create a god who assures us we are the lords of creation, in spite of the clear evidence that nature is absolutely indifferent to our survival, evolution, or wishes, as any mosquito, beetle, snake, fish, bear, whale or bird can testify.
We speak of a soul that is free from the body, but we imprison it again from death back in the body through reincarnation, Judgment Day or upon metempsychosis (passing of the soul into another body, human or animal, or, perchance, to a tree or other plants?).
Apparently, no matter what the soul really is, we call "soul" something we imagine and don't understand.
Wherever we turn, we are completely immersed in our body functions or physical needs: we make love or spend our time, energy and wealth to find and enjoy it, we eat and drink in virtually all human gatherings and celebrations.
We are the only animals who must hide to expel digestion remnants, but discarding it is as vital as, and not less dignified than ingesting food.
Family, our fundamental human social unit, is born of physical, not known spiritual, copulation.
The "spiritual" comes later, when we set sail with the unpredictable winds of our ideas.
Man woman relations, for instance, are first determined by nature and dictated to us through our bodies.
Primitive humans follow the erotic instinct and life goes on.
Yet, after sex potency and menopause age, they are not less human than before.
Trouble starts when we want to interpret reality on the basis of our limited and limiting knowledge.

Man meets woman.
If the woman is of the age and appearance suitable for copulation and procreation (we say she is attractive or beautiful), the male feels powerfully attracted and his instinct motivates him to copulate with the woman.
That is what we know about our reproduction drive.
Without this attraction felt by the man (and emanated by the woman, of course), reproduction and the continuation of life are defeated.

Woman enters this process in a range between desire, timidity and hostility.
Rather than feeling directly attracted toward the man best fit for procreation, she starts with reluctance toward the act, as if something from the deep recesses of nature told her to wait for the result of a competitive selection to take place among the men.
The most obvious is a physical fight against competitors that allows the winner to mate with the woman.
The woman, then, accepts the results with devotion or resignation, or the process is in vain.
Moreover, her instinctive initial hostility toward man is a natural protection of her changing reproduction timing/function, when sexual intercourse could interfere with an already initiated reproductive cycle.
She is the true and complete Queen Mother Nature who receives the semen and bears, nurtures and raises the future fathers and mothers... There is no power higher and more creative, even if she doesn't realize it.
That is a way of evolution.
Our opinion about it is biologically irrelevant.
We evolved from grunts to speech, from gathering and hunting to agriculture, from the cave to the house, from the extended family to society... nation, culture... civilization...
The perceived reproduction beginning was that man coveted and "got" woman.
Woman received this homage and transformed it into the miracle of life (still a mystery to her and him), which she (and he, to a statistically lesser degree) nurtured with selfless devotion.
Life and evolution need hardly more than conception and nurture.
Without anything else, life/reproduction is more enduring than any civilization and its products, history, religion, buildings and the Pyramids.
Nothing seems to grow as powerfully as life/reproduction.
In this process, thinking humans are like the two flies on the horns of a cow in a large moving herd saying to each other: "Look how much dust we are raising!"...
We don't stop there. We give heroic dimensions to the man (who survives, kills and mates).
We exalt a process we don't understand after reducing it to the concepts we understand.
Woman is also made to interpret her stance in terms of the limited concepts we have construed from what we misunderstand.
Her creative devotion becomes "submission", distorted as "inferiority". From such premise, any mother would be submissive and inferior to her child and to her spouse...
Our primitive concept of "equality" is straight jacketed between bizarre concepts of "superiority" and "inferiority" humans have succumbed to.
Any concept arrived at from this distortion adds to our deformation of reality.
Both man and woman accept the distorted interpretation of woman's functions and motivations.
Woman becomes convinced that she must feel a sexual attraction toward man within the same male criteria used for the male. Otherwise she is called "frigid".
What is wrong with frigidity if the frigid woman can copulate and procreate just like any "hot" woman?
Who really believes that a frigid woman is a lesser mother and educator? Man's ego?
Is it not enough that the woman would do anything to please the man simply out of her natural need to obtain his semen?
She must display even to herself the same sexual urge.
So, she decides to feel attracted to the man who is gentle, or well dressed, or something else that is not directly sex.
Then, oops..., it ought to be sex itself, otherwise where is the "equality" Procrustean bed where people are cut or stretched to the desired dimensions we use for almost everything else?
Now we have ultra-feminism determined to destroy all possibilities for woman to understand and to be what she is, in favor of the prescribed goal of being "equal" or hostile to the man.
Men are already advanced in this process of self emasculation. Politicians promote it to get women's votes.
But Nature still has to say her last word, for life is stronger than any form of human understanding.
Probably, life will evolve human understanding beyond our weird notions of "equality", "superiori-ty", "inferiority", "justi-ce", rights"and "liberty"...
070829

==============================================================================================
THE DOLPHIN SUPER


The dolphin brain has been larger and more complex than ours for millions of years before and after man appeared on Earth.
It still is.
Why do they seem to be inferior to us?
We measure superiority/inferiority according to anthropomorphic criteria that consider man like traits as the highest levels of development.
Would a dolphin prefer to depend on automobiles, airplanes and boats against his ability to roam for thousands of miles in the sea without artificial means or the slightest addition to his naked body?
Would he prefer clothes, houses, roads, tools, cars, trains, machine shops, money, courts of law, prisons, weapons, medicines, laws, "political correctness" "machismo', and "feminism", against his total independence from them?
On what other grounds could we consider him "superior"?
In all likelihood, because he might have overcome the debilitating need for emotions and irrational weaknesses that make happiness, liberty, equality, justice, fairness, sin, virtue, etc. important values for us.
Yet, they are the basic components of our primitivism. It is because of them that we view a dolphin in captivity and pet behavior as "inferior".
Probably their dependency on us when in captivity is like our dependency on drugs when involuntarily addicted.
Probably their "superiority" consists, among other things, of standing far above the need for justice, liberty, power, or even our tragic life death evaluation. They enjoy advantages much above our life and death necessity to build homes and thousands of other artifacts, we produce and wear clothing, contrive and cook artificial food.
Their survival probably requires no victory or defeat and they seek no recognition or status (human ideals we hope dolphins or any "angels" can achieve.
They don't feel the need to "dominate" us, or to overcome "inferior" behavior when in our captivity.
Probably, they live in a more variegated interaction with life and being, complemented in cybernetic patterns as unrelated to ours as electromagnetic waves to hydraulics.
In this respect, this small essay is only beginning to scratch on a door to an unexpected universe ready to be discovered... 070829
==============================================================================================================
PURGATORY OR HELL


In our mythology of retribution for our sins, we have 3 scenarios: Hell, Purgatory and Limbo.
Hell is a horrible and eternal punishment, never ceasing or diminishing.
Its main punishment means is purported to be eternal fire, which would reduce to ashes anyone in a matter of seconds or minutes.
So, how a soul is affected by such fire is not explained.
Eternal punishment is an infinity that addresses an infinite number of sins that take an eternity to commit. Since the punishment can only come after the sins have been committed, this punishment must wait an eternity ... Therefore it will never happen...

Sorry, God, those who described you commited a blasphemous blunder...

Purgatory is a punishment limited in time, lasting as long as the gravity of our sins deserves.
When this punishment expires, the soul goes to eternal Heaven.
The question remains:
What do we do there?
Limbo is a condition of neither punishment nor reward, in eternal suspense between hell and heaven, for those who are without sin but without any qualification (like baptism) that would place them among God's children or believers.
All this, of course, happens after death.
As of now, year of the Lord 2007 (plus of minus a few or many years), the prominence of the European culture man (especially the male one) is officially dead (so they say).
What caused it?
Atonement for the Holocaust in the 1949, or for the Sack of Rome (1527 a. d.)?
In Majority political votes by the Third World in the United Nations? -
Revenge against the West Culture elite (elected or otherwise prevailing) by the majority composed of losers and mediocrity?
The masochistic fad of the new sophisticated primitives (among today's academic "elite" with sophisticated articulation of primitive ideas ), who delight in deprecating their native culture, which they are unable to learn, and from which they twisted their querulous ability to deprecate?
It is often unfortunate that we inherit our parents' genes, not their knowledge.
What they learned we must learn from their teaching, or others, with a self-discipline most of today's academic "elite" is unable to endure.
Therefore today's "elite" will cause a culture decay if they are not submerged by a cultural revolution.
Up to the 1960s, West World's TV and movies gave us a good measure of the ordained WASP prominence in the USA.
The stronger, the virtuous, the righteous and the winners were always pure white Anglo-Saxons.
It reached the point that the hero of the movies was never allowed to couple, at least not happily, with the non white or non Anglo-Saxon woman. If this woman was the heroin that conquered the audience's sympathy, she was made to disappear in death or other eliminating event, so that the white Anglo hero/heroin would satisfy the spectators and end up with a white Anglo woman/man anyhow.
With all probability, the producers feared the reaction of the white rednecks or purists, as well as the criticism for pro Anglo-Saxon bias. They were the local majority.
Now, the producers, politicians, business people, and anyone exposed to public opinion, fear the reaction of ultra liberal rednecks, ultra-feminists and black racists.
Like the ultra-feminists, blacks and liberals managed to appear as abused victims demanding atonement from the white male.
They could use that image as a justification for their insatiable hostility against the symbolic white man who achieved what they did not.
From the above, the one who plays God and sits in judgment is probably condensed in a liberal black woman. Yet the black woman herself considers it a dumb twist.
Has she decided whether the white man belongs in hell, purgatory or limbo?
Or will the white male survive this ephemeral goddess?


Jjpc 070826

=====================================================================================================================


THE UNFIT FITNESS 00717

The old truism that a little knowledge is worse than ignorance seems to apply to the enforcement of our frivolous convictions.
Our humanistic development is so far below our technical progress, that the former will cause self destruction by using the latter. Or vice versa.
The population explosion of the under developed cultures is one example.

A woman produces about 400 eggs ("ova") in her lifetime, a man millions of spermatozoa (commonly called "sperms") in every single orgasm...
Some men can have many orgasms in one day... Thus, one single mating episode can produce enough progeny to populate California.
Nature is obviously limiting the results, without the slightest regard for whatever individual rights each lost egg ("ovum") and/or sperm might have.
So, we must learn from nature and limit births, lest nature would find disastrous alternatives.
There is no cosmic reason why humans should survive, rather than insects, reptiles, birds or any mammals.
Birth control requires some sophistication of means and approaches.
So, it prevails in "civilized" cultures.
Primitive or underdeveloped societies, thus, become the most prolific for that reason, and others also connected with low cultural standards.
"Primitive" societies, on the other hand, also reflect nature's ruthless path of evolution and reproduction.
In countries where women are focused on little more than reproductive functions (which is well worth full time and sophisticated devotion to progeny and upbringing among "civilized" humans) , nature realizes competitive evolution through high reproduction rates that overcompensate the high mortality.
Survival of the unfit in developed countries is directly or indirectly legislated against nature:
Evolved cultures force the skillful and productive to support the weak (confusing them with the parasites) not beyond rewarding the unwed, poor and other "misfits" to have mere child-births and feeding.
The laws support their survival and multiplication at the expense of the numerically shrinking productive individuals, infiltrating the IRS and other controlling authorities with parasites and unleashing them against the makers of America to give their blood to every anti evolution cancerous growth.
They outlaw the mention of genetic inadequacy by confusing it with "behavioral" difference (which, in turn, blindly facilitates any genetic reproduction of underdevelopment and its prevalence).
Their "humane" prejudices lower the educational standards.
They protect the primitive cultures to the point of facilitating their building of nuclear weapons to destroy the "American Satan"...
All in the name of justice, equality and freedom...
It is time for us to be as wary of our equality and freedom fetishism as we are of despotism.
Most "developing" nations we have "freed" in the name of our irresponsible mediocrity-promoting democracy connected ideals end up destroying their democratic beginnings in favor of despotism.
We know from all other fields that passage from one stage to another requires moderation and gradualism.
We accept gradualism for individuals and institutions, animals and machinery, but we force entire nations to abruptly sacrifice themselves on the altars of instant freedom and equality we and they don't know how to implement...
Do we call it irresponsible, ignorant, criminal?
It could cause worse effects than bloody revolutions.
It is already developing, but we hide it from public awareness...
We are promoting terrorism, slaughters, heinous crimes in the name of some theoretical "rule of the law", which ends up sacrificing the law-abiding to outlaws, the civilized to the illiterates, and we say that it is the price we must pay for liberty and democracy: the familiar refrain that I was inured to when I was in despotic countries...

The trite fact is that when they die, they are dead for ever, and no popularized rhetoric and ideals are worth one single life.
The new experts mean that we must accept self destruction as the price for survival, racism in the name of integration, slaughters as the price of freedom, despotism and corruption as the price of independence.
The nuclear weapons of our technology are so horrendous that no nation should be allowed to produce or use any.
Yet, we end up allowing the most irresponsible nations to have and use them, because our democratic fstishism disarms our common sense with the question: "Who gives you the right to be the judges?".
We, the "superior" ones, are unable to come up with a reasoning more powerful than the paralyzing objections any mental midget can imptovise...
The bottom line: we have "sophisticated" ourselves to produce the ultimate means of destruction, but not to protect us against them.
We know that it will destroy us if they fall in the hands of the irresponsible.
They will unleash Armageddon.
The atmosphere will be filled with lethal radioactivity.
Rain and snow will bring it down into the lands where it rains and snows...
Namely: in our countries, whose inhabitants are the most developed: the present backbone of civilization. They will perish.
Amen.
The bushmen and other primitives living in deserts and rainfall-poor areas will survive.
They will be the forefathers of the new mankind.
"Survival of the fittest?".
Who is then the fittest? Who is the real bckbone of mankind? Who is "superior"? What does "superior" mean after all?
Back to square one.
070825
jjpc











===============================




=============================








EQUAL, SUPERIOR, DOMINANT

070825




Nowadays, equality has become a sort of metaphysics, an ontological dogma.
Yet, no knowledge of morality, psychology or whatever can help us understand today's concept of equality, because it doesn't make sense any more.
First, equality is like the concept of light. Equality has no meaning without inequality ("diversity", "superiority" or almost anything "non equal"), just like: light cannot be understood without darkness.
When man and woman have a physical fight, the man wins as a norm.
That shows a physical male dominance only in fighting.
This is not the same as between man and horse, in which case the physically weaker is the dominant one.
Woman cannot treat man like a horse...
Feminists and many others may assert that male's physical fighting superiority over the woman must be outlawed for the sake of equality or equal rights.
The same kind of people can assert that anyone's advantage, be it cultural, professional, artistic or commercial, should be eliminated for the sake of equal rights, especially in the political case of whites versus blacks.
It sounds like a joke, but that is the path that many are trying to enforce in our society.
I don't know what can make them understand that this posture delivers our nation to anyone who wants to compete with us in any field of endeavor.
The insistence that there is nothing but equality among human beings comes from the acknowledgment that differences actually exist. They have existed as long as mankind and life itself.
There is the stronger and the weaker, the smarter, the more ambitious, the more diligent, the healthier, the better looking, the more deserving, the producer, the parasite.
"Equal Rights" are recognized but ignored. Herewe talk of the serious business of "Equality".
If we deny realities for any reason, they will build up an impending menace like steam under increasing pressure.
Our arrogant distortion of reality into an enforced "equality" is the origin of ugly results, because it ignores personal differences and conditions, talent, achievements, efforts, hard work, experience, intelligence, honesty, devotion, honesty... in favor of crude rights without merits and duties.
Equality, superiority, dominance, right to command, duty... are concepts we don't fully comprehend.
The words themselves don't reveal the concepts as understood by those who use them.
The concepts are arbitrary interpretations (limited by the mental confines of the concept formulators) of phenomena that exist and operate independently of human comprehension.
Yet, we use, judge, manipulate, legislate them. We build social, philosophical, psychological, juridical, moral, religious and other systems on such quick sands of ignorance.
07-08-26

=========================================================================================


SUPERIORITY COMPLEX


America and the American male have long behaved as if afflicted by a superiority complex.
People so afflicted feel subconsciously guilty of believing that they are better than others.
So, they do anything to show that they are equal with those they feel superior to.
That may have been the hidden motivation of the person interaction pattern in movies and TV in which the man is mostly bumbling, clumsy or otherwise "wrong" compared to the woman.
Outwardly, the producers and writers want to show their sophistication and wisdom.
In reality, they are afraid not to display them in that fashion.
Shortly thereafter, the same TV, movies and other mass media got into the now obligatory pattern of contrasting virtues (often imaginary) of any race or nationality with American shortcomings.
This is also motivated by the fear of not displaying the prescribed attitude and to dispel any suspicion that we may think God forbid -that the Americans are better.
Historians and politicians of ancient Rome tried to correct Roman weaknesses by extolling some virtues of barbarians who were overall much worse than the Romans. They were so successful that self deprecation and decay became fashionable and endemic.
Americans today repeat that history by ignoring it.
The unwanted but predictable results are the present widespread anti white male and anti-American attitude.
Collaterals of the same are:
1) Family is giving way to nefarious "no-fault divorce" and becoming virtually irrelevant.
2) Respect for parents is desirable only if the children think so;
3) Adultery and promiscuity are OK among consenting individuals;
4) anti homo-sexuality is a worse sin than homosexuality, which the psychologists obligingly declare "normal" by the simplistic trick of token normality referred to, say, intelligence, bone structure or whatever; ==== Moral judgments are treated as a form of primitivism; culture is an accursed form of elitism...
The Third World is increasingly receptive to anti-American propaganda. It is their chance to win without the strength and merits they lack.

070826

==================================================================
MAJORITY AT 18, 21, 25

Immature love.
The man said forcefully: "If they are old enough to be drafted and killed, they are old enough to vote".
Misguided reasoning.
One of the worst blunders has been the lowering the majority age from 21 to 18, instead of raising it to 23 or 25.
Life is now longer, more complex. It requires a longer maturing and formal education. As the full knowledge necessary for a responsible life has more than doubled compared to years ago, it is obvious that the apprenticeship for life is longer.
If 21 years of apprenticeship was necessary in the past, when life expectancy was shorter and the required knowledge for adulthood far less than today's requirements, we should now require at least 25 years of preparation before granting adulthood status.
Even if marriage should be allowed y before adulthood, under the direction of adults, this change alone would avoid millions of mismatches and consequent family troubles caused by immature love infatuation.
Not less important is the critical time of family consolidation.
This period lies at the threshold between economic dependence and productivity of the growing individual. That is, between 18 and 25 years of age, especoally for the male spouse.
Before and during that period, the growing person depends on the parents and moostly has no contributory capabilities, almost like a small child.
When the child starts developing abilities to contribute, the emotional habit of cooperating with his parents and siblings grows as an obvious function that would not be disputed.
With it, an extensive network of feelings, convictions, ethics and rules would develop that would function immeasurably better than our civil rights, social security, welfare and connected social tasks.
The community would function more like an extended family (the best starting form of social nucleus ever developed, on the Roman pattern ), with more people helped by their relatives rather than patronized by welfare intruders.
This alone would resolve one of the fundamental necessities at the core of our social problems: individual responsibility and involvement rather than bureaucratic intrusion.
This would be made possible by raising adulthood rights from age 21 to 25, at least for the males, since women are born virtually complete in that respect.
The effect of regressing down to the present 18 year level has been to nip in the bud the development of the needed social responsibilities.
It has been said repeatedly that many conservatives used to be passionate socialists in their tens and twenties.
It was true in my case (which extended until about 30), as it is in countless personal developments
The problem remains, now, that the votes of those young innocents have been made as valid as those whose vision is less distorted by lack of experience, naive ideals and poor knowledge.
That much for the glib politics of "if they are old enough to go to war they are old enough to vote", in which comparing the specialized rquisites for combat (no matter how heroic and noble) and unlimited necessities for family and child rearing is simply one-dimensional. The fact is that too many parents are no more responsible toward their children than Mr. and Mrs. Cat toward their kittens.
Again, we have not only been sand- banked by vote getting politics: we have adopted a perfidious legal means toward the destruction of the family and putting a suffocating government in its place. That is how the ancient Greek civilization perished...
Family formation requires no lawyers.
Attorneys thrive in divorces and are committed to preventing reconciliation and prolonging expensive court actions.
Most politicians have to please lawyers for obvious reasons.
0707...17


=======================================================================




ENEMIES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT

The few hundreds who are competently and successfully running U.S.A. are too busy to appear on the national stage, which is clogged-up by the usual public-relations exploiters.
Here we consider those eternal evil or well meaning parasites who take all the credit and may destroy our unsinkable ship.
Those who hardly succeed in serious endeavors, those whose ambitions are superior to their talents, parasites contaminate the educational system, nuclear energy, competition, business, politicians Most don't realize they are facilitating also the destruction of the American family (the ancient Greeks destroyed their own nation by democratizing the family and marginalizing the parents). "No-fault divorce" has become a national terminal cancer that starts intimidating even the psychologists who consider it nefarious for our national morality.
Observe the crowds blocking the entrance to a nuclear plant or demonstrating against similar symbols of power and high achievement: they seem to have failure and defying defensiveness written all over them. In some cases, they may be right, but for the wrong reason.
They are those who have nothing to lose by demanding more spending, as long as others earn the real money to pay the real taxes.
They are those who use the "entitlement" help they can get only to join bureaucrats, unions, politicians and public servants on the tax payroll to develop more ways to increase spending and bleeding. In that respect, democrats and republicans contrive similar results from different perspectives.
They are not the entrepreneurs who are the backbone of America.
070829
They accuse the entrepreneurs of greed. Just by frivolous definition.
Yet, they support the free enterprise, which produces the entrepreneurs who can pay the taxes which feed the "entitlements".
Who dares oppose entitlements?
Until the nation is bled or sinks to the lowest levels.
What then? Easy: blame the opposite party...

====================================================================================================
ERSATZ EVOLUTION o708-17


Man has succeeded to eliminate all or most "jungle" dangerous elements from his survival efforts in his entourage. Struggle with nature has become virtually controllable, and so the search for food and mere survival.
That should have obviated the evolutionary "survival of the fittest" process, as we understand it (provided we ignore our failures against insects and smaller forms of life).
Willy-nilly, however, man has managed to create a situation in which the survival of the fittest continues its play in new, man made struggles.
That is, after eliminating the traditional enemies of the natural environment, man has managed to become his worst enemy in a manner that seems to have been imposed by his own developments.
This has created new conflicts: between sexes, classes, individuals, political and other rivalries, clans, nations.
The traditional jungle has been internalized in individual and group conflicts among people.
The evolution from survival of the fit continues in a new fashion, with as many variations as offered by human imagination.
We create, renew and transform the struggle in order to continue the process and means to promote the winner and eliminate the loser.
Where there is no reason to eliminate individuals, we create the laws that create the crimes that enable us to weed out the new kind of "unfit" created by the laws.
It is like a new game with new rules, which creates new winners and losers, like any old game.
The rules of the new game may be called laws, morality (currently being mutated into merciless "LEGALITY"), regulations, religions.
They are mostly created out of nothing and make rejects out of people who would be winners according to other rules.
Taxes, fees, duties, traffic laws, taboos, social conventions and many more arbitrary means create troubles as if guided by a supreme game rule that forbids evolution without victims (new sources of fees and other money).
Even our most sacred convictions about rights and freedoms are hardly supported by those laws that are as impartial as laws of physics.
The difference between man made rules and those of nature may be that only the laws of nature have proven evolutionary consequence overall.
Our man made rules are often destructive.
In many instances, they promote the unfit at the expense of the fit.
Call it "charitable".
Christianity itself has been accused of promoting just that.
Medicine is promoting survival of individuals with physical impairments and degenerative characteristics, which are then transmitted to multiplying progeny..., only because we neglect the original and true purpose.
Underdeveloped and unfit people, who would be normally excluded or changed by natural evolutionary processes, are nowadays the ones most dedicated to generate large number of children, who are then solicitously nurtured by all available means.
Like a sneaky entropic twist.
The more evolved people seem to be constantly under pressure to show that they have no intention whatsoever to prevail against individuals with decaying characteristics.
They are expected to show an apologetic attitude toward the "less fortunate".
Our new rules are promoting the survival and success of those who are the main obstacles to progress and the primary agents of our decay. [Tat has nothing to do with birth defects, accidental disabilities and victims of misfortune]
Evolution is replaced by ordained decay.
070817

====================================================================

====================================================== duplicated 070817
TO BE OR NOT TO WISH


Failing to reach our
goals may be simply failing to see reality.
At times, we start a sequence we don't understand and cannot stop.
Often, we strive for something beyond our reach and "suffer the pangs of despised love"; or we embark on a venture that fails because of timing or unforeseen traps...
Our goal may be something we misunderstood, because we only saw its initial appearance.
It is like longing for an island we vaguely see on the horizon.
We want to land there even if we don't distinguish the shores (common delusion) and what hides behind them.
Only after landing we face the unexpected.
We must improvise a reaction to each of the new events and their consequences.
Then, to the consequences of the consequences...
Soon, we reach a point so remote from the start, that we forget the beginning and its purpose.
One fact compounds the already confusing pattern further: we did not bother to analyze reality in the very beginning.
"Economics 101"?
No: LIFE.
As we cannot escape reality, we undertake to mutate our unknown reality into something we only see superficially.
Bankriptcy?.
No: try again!
Nature, reality, and human nature may be exactly what we believe to know in spite of the undisputable (but obtusely disputed) evidence to the contrary.
Persistence is more essential than hesitant competence.
070817






======================================================================================================


UNSTERILIZED INNOCENCE



The fascination childhood exerts on us is its innocence.
"Innocence" is a relative concept, but childhood's innocence charms the adults like an instinctive refuge from the "moral" standards and consequences they have straitjacketed themselves in.
Children are innocent simply because they don't know the adult standards.
Their ignorance of our standards should repel rather than charm us.
The charm comes from the fact that we instinctively long for the natural state that appears to be immoral to our twisted convictions.
It is also remarkable that the innocence we are charmed by is primarily carnal innocence.
Also remarkable is the fact that a child finds it easier to accept moral rules of almost any kind but the sexual ones.
The trouble is that we make rules without knowing that we don't know their ultimate consequences.
The rules themselves create crimes out of innocence.
The child does a lot of harmless things that are defined crimes when he is older. Even killing is a crime only according to our rules, not according to nature.
Nature considers killing as something to be pursued or avoided, not rewarded or punished.
Civilization and culture have changed all that.
We have gone such a long way from that beginning that any doubt about punishing killing, violence, theft, unrestrained sex... sounds like crime by itself.
What if the child grows into adulthood without changing his habits?
The question is to adapt adulthood to natural requirements or bending these requirements to what we understand of adulthood.
Why wouldn't we consider adulthood just a continuation of childhood?
Whence the necessity to "adapt" adulthood to nature or vice versa?|
It could be that the very words we use to describe the problem are the reason why we cannot find the solution.
We tend to evolve not toward the "better" which we believe we understand , but toward the short term solution or escape (we often don't know which).
070817

=============================================================================

PHONY HEROES


Experience among under educated and idle masses in underdeveloped societies shows that most of the mass demonstra-tions, upheavals and revolutions are accelerated poor substitutes for slower but more effective evolutionary changes.
Most of the active rebels are unemployed and undereducated people who think that any change could offer improvements over their present situation at the very bottom of their societal level.
Until around the year 2,000, the "Freedom fighters" frequently referred to by the press were merely unmitigated bums who wrapped themselves in righteous or victimized heroism claims to obtain help they could not get on the basis of their merits.
One of recent occurrences used to be the frequent harboring of "political refugees" in some of our second rate churches who used the matter to gain publicity. |
That is: clergy and caretakers of socio political initiatives scurried head over heels to parade their protection of illegal "political refugees" parading covered faces as a presumed safety measure against presumed hypothetical persecutors. This method not only fell in disrepute, but had been submerged by the brazenly open invasion by literally millions of illegal "refugees", mostly illiterate, unemployable, criminals, Muslim terrorists, uncontrolled haplessly unimpeded n;ormal, abnormal, drug traffickers, and worse unknown individuals and scattered groups -as if herded and protected by Mexican or other outlaws...
They don't even claim any more to seek freedom, independence, equality, capitalism, or communism and Marxist ideals they barely know...
Many refugees in question are simply people without skills, ability or true ambition to be of any use to anyone.
As they hide their lack of merit and feign deserving needs, they play the same game in USA for an audience that is eager to believe them in order to feel good about themselves and to pursue theatrical dogooding.
Ignored social workers and unrecognized preachers who need to improve their public image tried to use the refugee situation to their advantage, and also to get back at an establishment which denies them importance and/or funds.
They capitalized on a well known dilemma of having the wish, but not the ability, to help the "derelicts".
Some parasitical do-gooders arrogate humane concerns in fraudulent heroic proportions and make the government responsible for the unwarranted solutions they cannot offer.
Now the immigrating rabble comes from all over the world, and the countries they come from are more than glad to get rid of them.
They come also in ship loads from Haiti or anywhere, they cross the border from Mexico and Canada, they land from the oceans... Over 12 millions of them...
They can be cynically used for political purposes. They can be coaxed into voting for one party
Cuba's Castro sent us as many undesirables as he could get rid of by the shiploads.
They may have been harassed by their own government for being dangerous parasites, loiterers, for unwillingness to work or for criminal reasons.
So, it is very convenient to distort that fact into political persecution.
Their covering their faces no one is interested to see is mostly nothing more than a theatrical fraud..
This attitude is sponsored by politicians seeking new votes and entrepreneurs who seek below-minimum-wage peons.
Crowds of loiterers and looters only need the slightest excuse to make trouble. They have nothing to lose in the turmoil.
Trouble is an exciting way to pass the time. Even more so when TV crews are present.
The happenings are sought and exploited by politicians, pseudo-religious leaders and most kinds of vested trouble makers, from leftists rednecks to criminals.
Huge masses of these people are solicitously instructed about how to feel unhappy and how to blame the reigning Establishment.
Irresponsible or confused people find it unexpectedly pleasant to stop blaming themselves and shift all the responsibility to the white man who, after all, possesses everything the poor didn't nave and would like to obtain, even if they didn't know what to do with it.
They use smokescreens like Marxism, post-Marxism, post-modernism, deconstructionism, democracy, freedom, civil rights, gay rights, ultra-feminism and other distortions.
They are probably the main causes of mob revolutions, which offer results that are much faster than evolution in the short run, but too ephemeral and with so many victims and severe damages in the long run.
It is because of this rabble that we witness killing to protect life, oppression to promote freedom, persecution to institute justice.
It is through them that we promote fraudulent lies to exhibit the "truth".
The ultimate result is the nightmarish invasion by over 12 millions of illegal illiterate, unskilled, criminal, often anti-American invaders through the unguarded Mexican, Canadian borders and even landing directly on the American ocean coasts...
It is a veritable invasion...
Yet, those who love to compare America with Rome may be happy to see in this invasion a similar migration that populated and thus gave much new blood to the Roman population. Even the undesirability of many immigrants was ultimately transformed into genuine responsible members of the Roman population in the next generations...
The children and/or grandchildren of the present "undesirables" will most probably become pure bred Americans who migrated to U.S.A. to enrich the "lifeblood" of an under-populated nation.
That gives us further evidence (as also in Australia) that a noble nation could also be generated by criminal immigrants... (or vice versa...).
070818













====================================================================


THE MORAL DDT

Years ago, the insecticide DDT (dichloroDiphenylTrichlor) was used as the best protection against an unprecedented variety of insects, parasites and similar agents that caused destruction of crops, diseases and lethal epidemics (especially malaria that killed several millions people yearly).
Then, DDT was outlawed because its poisonous side effects were believed to be much worse than the damages it cured.
The same kind of social and moral pollution is now being caused by many do-gooders' initiatives.
Their number is ominous. The best known are Sexual education (how to practice sexual intercourse) of minors.
Free contraceptives to minors without the parents' knowledge.
Instructing innocent little children how to attribute sexual perversion to adults.
Legal recognition of homosexuality as "normal" behavior.
Protection of the rights to homosexuals to influence youngsters.
Legal protection of promiscuity of minors against parental knowledge and control.
Legalization of unwed couples and their virtually equal rights with married couples.
Legalization and financing of abortion.
Welfare and free help that encourage unwed mothers to have more children.
All kinds of contrived unneeded services to protect women against trumped up male sexual attack, harassment and discrimination [the ultra-feminist focus on sexual matters is revealing].
Forced integration.
Endless court actions against any white community who doesn't integrate fast enough, regardless of black cooperation or obstructionism.
Brazenly racial quotas.
Forced pro black racism.
(Forced busing. Now on its way out).
Disintegration of once prosperous cities and rotting of public services by forced integration [malevolent overemphasis on "racism"]
Suborning employees against their employers.
Forcing employers to instruct employees how to start anti employer troubles no one thought of before.
Suborning the public against the chemical, nuclear, food and all major industries.
Issuing so many paralyzing regulations for all industry that the public is better off buying foreign goods and services [sabotage of American productivity]
Legislation to set women against men, black against white and vice versa, children against parents, buyers against vendors...
Legislated lower standards in educational, cultural, military, moral, social and work matters for the sake of a black embalming "affirmative action", with the only effect of degrading the whole nation.
The list is only partial.
The trouble with the moral DDT is that it is still being sprayed in huge quantities.
The effects have already become evident in the general moral tone of our country, the decay of our cities, in the quality and productivity of our industry, armed forces, government services, illegitimate children, family disintegration, male-vs female hostility, aggravated racial hatred and open polarization, crime rate, disastrous divorce rate...
What else are we waiting for? The Martians?
The Muslims?
070819






==========================================================================
OBSOLETED PRESENT


Some say that in no other country is morality so deteriorated as in America, where law, or legality, has virtually replaced morality.
Some say that the family institution is at fault, not our culture.
Some think that the family should no longer exist.
That thinking prevailed in Greece about 23 centuries ago and destroyed the whole nation.
They ignored the overwhelming pro-family evidence, starting with the obvious fact- of the father/mother/child(ren) nucleus of society.
Family's strength and survival was and remains based on the lifelong devotion of ifamily members to each other.
Family naturally became the patriarchal (after various attempts at matriarchy) nucleus of our society.
The most famous historical attempt to marginalize the father and family happened in Greek city-states about 300-500 b. c. , for warlike reasons, caused the end of Greek civilization.
The Roman
"Patria Potestas" based (= father's authority-based) society took over and rescued Greek culture from what was left, developed the cycles of Roman, Italian, European, American culture and is still unfolding into what we call the "Western World".
Its image may not have the characteristics we associate with the reality we only perceive in the present environment.
Our politicized educational and public-relations systems have reduced American history to lionized distortions of idealized American persons and events, while ignoring the true heroes...
One of the dangers for the survival of a society is the devoted one-dimensional believer.
He/she is the one who is convinced that his ideals and method are the only solutions.
He/she has an ideal that supports itself beautifully: fully elaborated theory, the ideals inspiring it, a winning argumen-tation, and legal foundations that cites the Constitution, a group of laws, and past court decisions, appeals, writings, Supreme Court decisions, etc.
The missing thing, in many of these cases, is the touch of reality.
The ideals, theories, laws, Supreme Court decisions are real, for sure, but they are like doctors discussing how to treat a particular syndrome and reaching the correct diagnosis and prognosis.
The prescription is carried out with some competence and thoroughness.
The problem is, the syndrome diagnose does not apply to the patient in question...
It is an epistemic problem (analysis and validation of knowledge as such).
The consequence may kill the patient.
The patient is the American society and its "ad hoc" wishful beliefs.
Examples:
Equality of man and woman, equality of races.
None of them are equal. It is not a matter of who is superior or better, which seems to obsess everyone.
Individuals are simply different.
Races are also different.
These differences, however, are not static.
As everything changes and evolves, there may be historical develop-ments, trends, or other stages which give biased vantages or handicaps for any period and in any situation.
If any of those phases or situations are taken out of context and evaluated as static through the colored lenses of our beliefs and fads, we form an image that is merely a projection of our convictions without any connection with reality.
From this, we proceed to distort reality to fit whatever we believe, in the manner of the Procrustean bed, where victims are cut or stretched to fit the bed (convictions) dimensions.
So it is that we distort temporary racial and gender differences into a permanent fouling of whatever good could happen between genders and races, if they were allowed to fine-tune their knowledge about each other:
Woman's place is the family and the children.
???.
The place of both the man and the woman is the family and the children before everything else.
Woman is entitled to as many job opportunities as man
???
It would be the same as to say that woman is as entitled as man to go to war.
Well, what was I saying?...
Sure, if they are so deliberately stupid, they deserve it, and vote as their puppeteers command.
If women can not aspire to higher peaks of sophistication than a "career", a job, they deserve the same sterile fate as the male "workaholics".
I would have preferred to see a "men liberation movement" advocating the same right for man to be home and with the children as woman.
Woman has the right to decide what to do about her pregnancy.
???
Both man and woman TOGETHER are irreversibly responsible for pregnancy and the child.
The child belongs to the father as much as to the mother.
Or, more properly, the father is not less responsible toward the child than the mother.
The fact that our society allows a man to impregnate a woman and leave her is still worse than despicable and unforgivable.
How many modern "experts" realize the full meaning that children are conceived, generated and raised as our continuation, not just excreted?
The woman herself doesn't have the right to allow copulation merely as pleasure or "love", for the simple reason that it is at least irresponsible to deprive the child of the father mother loving synergism he/she needs. Especially because he/she did not ask or force his/her parents to bring him/her into life...
Psychologists, sociologists and legislators can say what they want, as long as it is no more than words without any pretense of modifying a reality which is stronger than any opinion voiced during an ephemeral period under the influence of volatile "modern" theories.
Machismo, for instance, forces women to develop skills and protects him from developing them. At the end, women presuably "improve" and men decay in America. Therefore there are more female leaders in Europe and Asia than in an America, where women have irrelevant rights to equality without having to merit them.
Yet, the American men develop more talents because they are handicap-challenged by the biased favors accorded to the other sex.
The same pattern is clear in welfare, which debilitates the people it intends to help.
This way we are also debilitating the blacks we want to protect.
Many goals cannot be achieved because they are consequences or results, not goals: happiness, peace...
Therefore the opposite is achieved when a consequence is pursued as a direct goal.
When we pursue happiness (as such) directly, we achieve nothing or unhappiness.
Happiness is only achieved as a result of success toward what we reach for or desire.
Our society is often confused or confusing.
We worship freedom while we demand one-sided Civil Rights.
They are frivolous and irresponsible without civil duties and merits.
Many protective behaviors produce effects contrary to their purposes.
The equality between slaves is possible because they are almost lobotomized.
We extol competition but protect the losers and penalize the winners.
We support the family but promote much of what undermines it, including the nefarious "no-fault divorce", in which the law-enforced 50%/50% wealth partition may become a nefarious injustice favoring the unworthy.
- We preach harmony but promote an "adversary system" with rights that create and perpetuate hostility.
We have lost the obvious logic: young people must abstain from sexual intercourse until they have developed the ability to honor its consequences and a responsible monogamy.
Right to consensual promiscuity?
Think: we have reached a degree of depravity that the children don't know that they have the right and the need to know who their father and mother are. Is that clear, togetyer with the numerous and intricate consequences?
Those who don't understand it don't deserve freedom.
We are distorting the meaning of sex in its consequences, and focus on its instinctive pleasure drive as the only goal.
Therefore, the ultra-feminists and abortionists consider the fetus not as the consequence and supreme blessing of sex, but as a hindrance to the "right" of mere animal sex pleasure.
Therefore, homosexuals try to convince us that their sterile sex "abomination" is a "natural" right and goal.
- The question is not what power, rights and riches one has, but what irresponsible persons do with them.
Some people make the right decisions for the wrong reasons and wrong decisions for the right reasons.
Again: some of our best actions are caused by the worst motives.
Some of our worst actions are motivated by the best intentions.
- Virtually everybody is inferior or superior to others, only not always and in different ways.
- Too often, if we don't know enough about something, we write a book about it.
[confidentially, at times I wonder whether and when it it might apply to me too...].
- A fair way to judge slavery is to compare the way slaves were treated by American slave owners and by the tribes who sold them to the Americans.
The result would show that the black Americans are the descendent of the fortunate ones.
Crime is often an artificial concept created by the laws.
Murder, theft, rape, are in many cases crimes only because there are laws against them.
Violence is often only a pleasant behavior for the winner and unpleasant for the victim, useful, useless or damaging, depending on the occasional consequences.
It is simplified into a "crime", and thus is deprived of its natural attributes by a law that forbids qualification and analysis.
Violence comes naturally in an irreconcilable conflict in which one party cannot accept alternatives.
For similar cases, the law has fines, prisons, lifelong punishments or executions, which are really worse than violence or even torture.
Man woman violence is an example of the questionable "solutions" provided by the law.
Violence is always to be avoided or condemned, but often the punishment of violence causes worse evils to both culprit and victim, and permanent damages than the violence it is supposed to correct.
First, on the basis of worldwide experience, we are shocked that many marriages in cultures where man can use some moderate, occasional violence on his wife (and vice versa) are more enduring and happier than American marriages, which are heavily law regulated, therefore precarious.
As usual, the well meaning law damages what it doesn't comprehend.
The law exacerbates the conflict when it doesn't see that moderate violence by the dominant party can end and resolve the conflict by far better than the law.
Of course, that can only work in societies not prone to court litigation and predatory shysters.
The law doesn't always offer a solution: often only a prohibition and punishment.
The conflict is therefore frozen into permanent, sometimes subconscious, tension.
- Tension after the violence is remarkably less frequent in a cultural environment in which both women and men are proud of being obedient and devoted.
Only recently, in our culture, obedience and devotion have lost their millennial prominence and have been replaced by an "adversary system" equality that mostly results in crippling divorces and legalized mutual male female incurable damages that disrupt also their children permanently.
Divorce lawyers spare no means and tricks to worsen and protract the incredible added expenses of the legal and improvably fraudulent charges.
- An "angel" in a TV serial program proclaims: "Family is a democracy".
The ultimate effects of such a convinction can destroy family and society.
How can children elect and depose father and/or mother?
Not even if they start from the sperm/ovum stage...
Want more evidence of legalized and sanctified stupidity?
***/
In what other culture can a woman bring her husband to court for having "raped" her?
When a man forces his wife into copulation it is violence or perhaps torture, not "rape". -- Overwhelming historical evidence stands against many convictions.
- Many of our ideals have become fetishes, like "liberty", then we mutated them above the irrefutable realities of nature, humanity, society and family.
- Sophistication's normal result is, presumably, a new idea or method that departs from the current stale style.
At the end, the "experts" don't know any more what they are talking about, but they spin fantastic webs about he indisputable disputable, of which this writing is a deliberate example...
In most cases, we think sophistication is the result of arduous learning, investigation and labor.
- As hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, there is a sophistication that apes sophistication.
They believe they are sophisticated when they merely disparage the prevailing opinion.
Every nincompoop can do that. In fact, flaunting that glib disparaging is like parading garbage.
Yet, it too often succeeds when and where it should be exposed as false and misleading.
Ultimate sophistication, however, may consist in discovering the hidden or forgotten causes of the norm.
- In other words, the ultimate progress could also be a return to the basics because we have finally been able to understand the obvious that politicians miss...
-The human and the ant societies are probably the finalists of life evolution.
While the human strength is reason (at times still beyond our reach), the ant's success apparently comes from an unknown that we call instinct and/or genes.

While human reason is more creative, genes and instincts are more reliable.
- As we have discovered and invented what perhaps ants cannot, we have also created absurd rules, laws and gods, and let them rule us...
The ants will probably win.
Our dependence on technology may become our own undoing.
We can already see it with the computers. They are becoming so indispensable, that business is irreversibly handicapped without them.
But so it is with countless other activities.
In the long run, we will be helpless without our machinery and instrumentation.
- A global electricity blackout may cause disastrous or lethal consequences.
We may reach a point that our own technology will destroy us because we won't be able to control it any further.
Those who died for an ideal are sometimes fortunate because they had no chance to discover that it wasn't worth it.
- The more we know about human nature, the more skeptical we grow. However, that very skepticism may become a para;izing trap, if we only swell on it.
Human evolution has often occurred without our knowledge and beyond our ability to understand it.
Equality is desired by the disadvantaged, not by the privileged. It is then a pull downward.
- In the past, people, especially women, used to faint a lot for emotional reasons: bad news, insults, menaces, scares; also
at the conclusion of, or during, a prowess, like a Marathon.
Now: no more. Was it faked, fashionable and believed?
Perhaps, human evolution has taken the wrong direction: away from nature.
Clothing, housing, transportation, weapons, industry, technology have weakened our natural strength and made us progressively dependent on artificial means.
- Now we even use our science, for instance medicine, to weaken ourselves by making the unfit prosper and multiply without removing the unfitness, thereby increasing the percentage of sick and genetically weaker people who will increasingly spawn their disabilities within mankind.
The notorious Nazi extermination of the unfit is the infamy we may be outdoing by merely enabling them to multiply without concentrating on improving their offspring... If our science cannot do it, the alternative they create is an unthinkable nightmare.
- Our means of destruction have increased more than our means of building and production.
Then, in destruction processes like war, we send the fit to be destroyed for the protection of the less fit. That is another nightmare...
- Even without wars and decay, however, we make ourselves less and less able to cope with the surrounding world.
A more logical evolution would consist of enabling us to survive the weather without clothing, reaching adaptability to the environment without house or other shelter, ability to digest cellulose and other natural materials (like goats and other mammals), travel faster on our own without locomotion devises, without choking the earth with roads and cities, fight and survive without weapons, communicate without artificial means, assimilate more kinds of food better to the point that they can also substitute for medicines, surgery and other artificial means; in other words, we have fallen far beyond other forms of life in surviving and prospering in our natural state,
- Unfortunately, we have developed an economy that prospers primarily in direct proportion to our dependence on the artificial life created by our economy and obtusity.
We should go back to the future our past used to dream of
We have already reached a stage in which factors that would not affect other forms of life would endanger our existence.
- An electricity blackout, a transportation paralysis, sudden withholding of food delivery and other vital supply could cause havoc.
- Our failure in this sense has been so blind that we have no idea what we could have developed.
- What we call human superiority from one perspective is inferiority from another.
Our sophistication is marching toward levels beyond our ability to cope with them.
- Man has found answers to many questions, but those answers have generated new problems he cannot manage.
Housing, clothing, medicines, weapons, roads, airplanes are superb tools of survival and progress, but they weaken the human species by addicting it to those tools.
-The more of them are developed, the less able is man to survive without them.
- Nuclear energy has brought us the nuclear bombs and deadly radiations that can destroy life on Earth.
- Even the great religions of love and humility have caused and can still cause massacres, wars and genocides.
- Even the most perfect love may generate heinous hatred when love is somehow removed...
Does then the complete control of our feelings -includ-ing love- provide the ultimate solution as in Buddha's detachment system?

- Modern industry can pollute our environment into extinction.
- Many of our laws create worse problems beyond those they resolve.
- Mankind has inherited the problems of the "sorcerer's apprentice", where the apprentice causes Armageddon by usinf the sorcery wrong.
Love and compassion don't seem to occur in nature.
- Natural processes are in unqualified competition with each life thriving on survival by overcoming obstacles, killing, escaping, mating and reproduction.
- In that light, love is outside of nature, unless it occurs in the parent child or mating context.
This attribute suggests the unique essence of the family.
When love is extended beyond the family, as in religions, nations and communities, it is still a unifying and surviving factor to unite a human group for fighting or killing.
Love's unifying function to fight an enemy invents a devil to hate when there is no one else to be fought (=hated) by those who are united in love/hatred.
One devastating discovery is that love may create hatred.
If we imagine a society with love limited to maternal instinct (a kind of love different from what we interpret now), there was also no hatred, revenge, sense of justice, right and wrong, no pity.
Killing was limited to the single occurrence, without the endless chain of hatred, revenge, punishment...
- There was no "good" and "evil" with our pretense of reward and punishment without sufficient knowledge of human nature.
Even our gods were conceived outside of "right" and "wrong".
We did not expect "justice" from them, for justice is man- made. We only wished or feared what they would do, and tried to bargain with them with offerings, sacrifices and worship.
- Such an "amorality" is not as horrible as it seems, when we consider that our modern anthropology, psychology and related human sciences are already removing "value judgment" from their endeavors.
On the other hand, how can the absence of love/hatred, right/wrong, reward/punishment motivate and sustain the disastrous wars, genocides and mass atrocities committed after those concepts were introduced in the human community?
The fighters for rights and justice are mostly victims of a cultural deficiency that prevents understanding of the real reasons of their grievances.
What they miss is unknown to them, but it drives them to a goal and a crusade.
- All that leads to accusations, witch hunts and scapegoats.
- Today's all purpose scapegoat is the American European white man.
As culture and education progress, our present crusades for rights, democracy, gender and racial equalities will appear arrogant and primitive.
Our conception of success is inane when we realize that living itself is the central success or existential puzzle.
- There is no known or unknown injustice for which someone doesn't pay the price.
- The victim, the culprit, the judge, or the uninvolved innocent must pay: at least one of them.
I have never seen biographic or autobiographic information that reveals everything we need to know.
Truth about people is no more accessible than truth about things, even about people who reveal all they know about themselves. These latter, if they exist, cannot reveal enough simply because no one knows everything about himself.
Man's passions are frequently sublimed into virtues.
To expect man to have the same virtues and reject the passions that generated them can be just as destructive of the virtues as to substitute real passions with imaginary wishful motivations.
Imposing imaginary motivations is the harbinger of tyranny.
"In peace, children bury the parents. In war, parents bury the children". We must keep saying it to keep the proper perspective available.
Missionaries, colonization etc. show we don't know how to interfere with a "lower" civilization.
This only begins to develop a theory of our presumption to interfere with established social hierarchies, patriarchy, family, values etc. as we are now doing so suddenly. In that scenario, our ideals are no more than irrelevant speculations.
If we imagine an evolutionary path from the single molecule, through cells, organism, bodies, senses, instincts, perception, intelligence and inherited traits, and from these toward learning, knowledge and the highest human sophistication, we can safely say that 99.999% of the path goes from the cell to the uneducated human child. This could indicate that the human developments unfolding from birth to the present highest human achievements are insignificant, compared to what nature has already done for us. However, if we can consider ourselves as part of naturn..., we must make an intellectual "u-turn" and accept congratulations for the present infinitesimal stretch.
- The importance we give to human cultural developments is therefore exaggerated.
With this awareness, we must hope to restore the guidelines of nature to their dominant position, rather than try to distort nature to make it fit our arrogant interpretations.
We must have the intelligence and courage to re examine all our ideals and beliefs and change them to fit the guidance nature gives us in its human realities. Understanding them is the question...
Nature provided us with all the necessities for survival and evolution before we learned to think and to know.
Procreation required sexual intercourse, but primordial man made love for pleasure only; he didn't even know what would cause pregnancy and birth.
Family came into being from the inertia of obvious necessities and feelings, before man could understand its significance.
The "place" of man and woman was a choice so obvious to both that even questioning it was meaningless.
The "inequality" of man and woman is a concept primordial humans would have found either bizarre or meaningless, for the gender differences were viewed as natural as those of leaves, rocks or individuals.
Gods were merely expedient representations of phenomena with more power than man could control. Man would not expect "justice", "love" or some parental solicitude from them, any more than from a thunder, a river or a tree. Obtaining favors from a god was a matter of exchange against worship, sacrifices, rituals or magic spells (most of which later became prayers).
"Rights", "Justice", "Law", "Equality", "Morality", "Freedom", "Right and Wrong", "Love" came later, in the last fraction of one thousandth of time of human evolution.
As man learned to use reasoning, he also learned to rationalize whatever his wishful thinking considered desirable.
Therefore, he proceeded to reduce all the major concepts into the oversimplifi-cations he could comprehend.
In so doing, however, subjects like the family, man and woman, human rights clashed with the glib distortions "modern man" called "knowledge".
The problems are in great part epistemic (pertaining the analysis and validation of knowledge as such).
We are now experiencing a ruthless attack by dogmatic delusions against evolutionary reality.
The concept of "equality",as an example, appears to be obvious and irresistible, but its kaleidoscopic perspectives are too many for today's anti intellectual "intellectual": mathematical, speculative, geometrical, rhythmic, dimensional, spiritual, physical, ethical, aesthetic, quantitative, qualitative, historical, moral, academic, hierarchical, social, political, legal, philosophical, financial, biological, intellectual, pictorial...: the list is almost endless.
If we take the "equality" concept in only one or two of its possible perspectives, we straightjacket it into a one or two dimensional distortion. If we examine "equality" in all its perspectives, we may approach the truth as closely as our limited mental skills permit, but the "equality" we end up with is something entirely different from the concept we began with.
It is because of this unsuspected complexity that presumably innocent politicians, sociologists, psychologists and other leaders open Pandora boxes when they feed "liberty", "equality", "justice", "equal rights", "racial integration" or "unisex" to an unaware public who believes to be sufficiently informed.
Take the concept of "justice", which is supposed to epitomize "impartiality and fairness". But what is impartiality or fairness?
From which or whose point of view? Collective or individual? Relative to what, or absolute in what sense? Also here, there is no end to the possible intricacies of a correct and definitive decision.
Also with this concept, a profound analysis will arrive at a "justice" that bears no resemblance with the idea we had at the start.
"Justice" could also be defined as a game, in the sense that it has rules and procedures to be observed (their basis may be objectionable, but rules are rules).
Our behavior consists of playing that game. Rewards, compensations and penalties ensue from the degree to which we follow, ignore or break the rules.
Our laws are the arbitrary rules of the game, no matter what pompous values and motivations the legislators ascribe to them.
In the evolutions and mutations of our basic concepts, some "permanent" patterns develop, which have withstood time immemorial, like the family and the "roles" of man and woman.
Family and man/woman roles are mentioned here because they are the most persistently corroded by the new (1990s and later) "liberal" establishment. At the same time, they seem to stand as a final test of the new theories: what clashes with the traditional family and man/woman values will either menace their existence or be destroyed by them.
To say "you are saying nothing new" is the same as saying that the words or language I use have been used before in dictionaries or elsewhere. Even the most original writers and thinkers may use words and general ideas others have used before. What makes the difference is the different interaction, perspective, emphasis, focus or sequence.
The constant question is: to love one person or group at the expense of mankind or to love mankind at the expense of one individual or group?
In the first case, mankind decays; in the second, the individual or group can be ruthlessly sacrificed, whereas the intent would be to change, adapt, educate, or render him "harmless". The intent should resolve our problems, but our present methods are so deplorable that not even our existing religions can help.
To save all those children from starvation without lifting them from the cultural patterns that caused their starvation is not less cruel than letting them die of starvation.
I don't think we have a clear evaluation of life, death, killing and punishable guilt.
Let's imagine asking a person who is about to be killed with a bomb dropped by our liberating Air Force bombers: "Would you accept this bomb and immediate death, or would prefer being put in a concentration camp on a starvation diet and lethal gas chamber at the end?".
I would prefer taking a chance in a concentration camp...
Ancient Roman gladiator games: another famous atrocity?
The point is that most other peoples in the same historical period did worse.
Again, let us ask one on death row: "Would you prefer to be executed now or take your chances in a mortal combat with another death rower?".
The answer is obvious in most cases.
If we don't like reality, we should understand that the "reality" we perceive is only our interpretation of it.
If that is clear, our problem is greatly reduced, because changing our interpretation of reality is far more plausible than the presumption to change reality.
Many facts can cause happiness or unhappiness not by themselves, but only on the basis of our interpretation.
The birth of a child can be a joyous event for child loving parents or a calamity for an unwed/unatta-ched single woman.
Victory in a game is also a loss, if we rooted for the loser.
Or it could be sheer game enjoyment for impartial spectators.
The one who is emotionally crushed by his team's defeat could bring himself back to sanity by realizing that he could choose to be indifferent and therefore unaffected.
Millions of lives, trillions of damages and tragic historical blunders could have been spared to the whole world, if the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo (28 June 1914) had been considered a crime prosecutable in a normal court of justice, rather than a war provoking despicable incident.
Instead of committing suicide, a scorned lover could have felt a joyous feeling of liberation, had she visualized that her beau was an overbearing ass who would have smothered her life in a continued togetherness.
Describe the electric light bulb, photography, telephone, airplanes, radio, the automobile, television... to a man of 4 500 years ago, and he would consider any one of them as a miraculous source of happiness...
We have heard this observation many times.
We also know that most people could describe some dream realization that would make them happy, like: flying like a bird, being invisible, being selflessly loved by the whole world (Wow!..), controlling everyone's thoughts and wishes, having unlimited wealth and health...
Well, we have the radio, television, airplanes and countless things that would have made ancient people happy..., and we are as unhappy as they were without them...
That seems to be a sufficient evidence for concluding that none of our dream realizations would give us the happiness we expect from them.
We may be forced to conclude that happiness is a delusion or a temporary state of feelings.
Yet, many of us have experienced true happiness, no matter how short and volatile.
More and more funds reach their own level of incompetence. Do their recipients know how to manage money, and for what?
When institutions, schools, bureaucracies, politicians have exhausted the money they need or can use, they use their very failures as proofs that they need more money to finish their tasks, not as possible evidence of their own incompetence.
Happiness could be so easy that we could not believe it. One only needs to sit back and take a fresh look at the light, the sky, the water, the plants, the surrounding scenery..., and think how we would crave for them if they were missing...
"We hold these truths to be self evident..." and there go the least evident truths: all men are created equal..., they are endowed with certain inalienable rights.., such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... and our children are brainwashed with those oversimplifica-tions that lead to unrealistic expectations, disastrous demands and decay by unnecessary conflicts.
-First, men are not created equal. There are small and big men, fat, slim, smart, stupid, strong, weak, healthy, sick, loving, hating, honest, dishonest men. All men are born with different inherited genetic qualities and defects, different abilities to achieve knowledge, power, love, wealth, beauty, victory...
Some would say that the Founding Fathers meant that men are created equal in the sense of having equal rights or what-have-you...
Even accepting this rationalization would leave too much to be explained...
Second, "inalienable rights" are a figment of our imagination.
"Rights" are like "justice": rules invented to make the other rules of society function properly.
Society itself is a defensive measure to protect man against the unforgiving requirements of evolutionary selection.
In its original form, like most animal grouping for survival, society had a defensive and cooperative function. Then, it grew out of man's control, but still shaped by a man who doesn't understand it any more.
The new rules we create to correct societal and individual malfunctions do no more than create new crimes, new punishments, corrections, which create new rules, new crimes, new corrections.......
It is a lawyer's Paradise....
"Life" is not a right: it is a transition phase which seems to have only two purposes or alternatives: reproduction and death... for the survivors...
- The laborious pursuits of survival and reproduction contrast stunningly with the sudden ease of death.
Terminating a life is one of the easiest things to do. Furthermore, it is ultimately merciful and entropic.
We endure anything to pursue life and reproduction, no matter how many years and under what tortures, whether we succeed or not.
- Death, on the other hand, is certain and unavoidable for any form of life. It does not need any effort or suffering. In fact, just because it is an absolute certainty for all and in all cases, it seems to be more natural than life and reproduction.
Death may be more desirable than life, like a metamorphosis from suffering to frozen-zero cosmic harmony-stillness , as sought by many non Semitic/non Western religions.
"Liberty" is as unnatural and pretentious as a malfunctioning imitation.
It is not the freedom to struggle for survival in a natural environment, but an oppressive protection of the unfit at the expense of the fit.
"Pursuit of Happiness" is the Great Delusion.
Happiness is not a goal, but a consequence of successful pursuits, as well as a change for the best, like achieving knowledge, conquering a mountaintop, exploring or discovering something, conquering the love of the beloved, winning in a lottery.
Moreover, happiness is of limited duration unless renewed by the lucky pursuit of new achievements, like more successes, more power, more knowledge etc.
I don't see any reason why human beings should be taller than 2 3 feet, or inches. Nature gives sufficient evidence that smaller forms of life (down to insects and smaller) survive and multiply "like crazy", better than larger animals.
Genetic engineering could develop the necessary premises for it. It would enable world population to be much larger than we could tolerate in the present circumstances, also with less resources than now.
The multiplied variety could open fascinating possibilities to evolution and progress.

[12,407w] 070829w 50p


Return to main page





[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]



]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]


]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]


]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]


]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]



H U M A N


BASIC BASICS THE DOLPHIN SUPER PURGATORY OR HELL THE UNFIT DOMINANT SUPERIORITY COMPLEX MAJORITY AT 18, 21, 25 ENEMIES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT THE EQUALITY CURSE ERSATZ EVOLUTION TO BE OR NOT TO WISH UN-STERILIZED INNOCENCE PHONY HEROES THE MORAL DDT OBSOLETED PRESENT DECAY INVENTED BY LAW THE KNOWHOW MAZE









BASIC BASICS


The recorded behavior of other mammals in the wilderness gives us a reliable clue of how human life may have unfolded before we developed civilization:
a relentless process of search for food, deadly struggle for survival, mating and reproduction (Nature tricked us into believing we copulated only for pleasure), for millions and millions of years.
In this process, we theorize, evolution eliminated the losers, the unfit, the weak, and the "different ones".
The attributes of the winners and survivors prevailed in the genes.
They prevailed not because of judgments, opinions or theories, but for the validity of results.
Our genes bring us the nature proven validity of evolution results.
Whatever they carry and transmit counters any opinion we may develop from our limited experience, reasoning, conclusion from any philosophy, religion, tradition or intuition. Unlike our genes, our opinions, taste and behavior change with fads, fashions, religions, political or philosophical trends, or personal interests.
When our beliefs and opinions clash with our genetic attributes, we often sacrifice the latter to the former, even if we know that it may not work.
One trap we create and fall into is to play with words like "justice", "rights", "equality", "truth", "liberty" and we expect our genetic reality to fit them.
Still now (2007), scientific research has concluded that most primordial behavioral differences between males and females are genetic, rather than "learned".
Ultra-feminism insisted on imposing absolute equality of sex behavior between male and female in spite of the obvious genetic and morphologic differences.
Politicians and sociologists refuse to acknowledge significant genetic differences of racial or ethnic groups, when they clash with pet political and psychological fads.
Many schools and institutions endeavor to eliminate rewards for the achievers, in order to avoid hurting the feelings of the non achievers.
This anti evolutionary aberration is viewed as "anti elitism", as if the winners and leaders were not a natural, evolutionary and desirable elite.
It is impossible for do-gooders to believe that, in many societies and cultures, now and in the past, the "elite" of the achievers need not cause suffering and loss of self esteem, but admiration, inspired emulation and even "worship" that is now incongruously expected toward "role models" in off white communities.
In spite or their anti-elitism claims, they haste to outrageously honor and overpay sport heroes, Hollywood and rock stars, and other celebrities of questionable cultural, moral or whatever value.
Something fundamental is perceived by us, but grossly misunderstood.
Our instinct shows us what to do, but our interpretation distorts it beyond recognition.
Then, our reason builds pseudo knowledge and entire social systems on the false premises.
The beginning was not the word of the Judeo Christians, or the "uncreated" book (said to be coexisting with, not written by, Allah) of the Moslems.
It was nature, as far as we can understand. Furthermore, we may perceive not comprehend nature.
We are hopelessly imprisoned in our bodies.
We cannot even think (consciously at least) without our bodies.
It only takes a blow with a rock on our head to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.
Unlike other forms of life, we don't accept this unchangeable dependence on nature.
Therefore we create a god who assures us (they say) we are the lords of creation, in spite of the clear evidence that nature is absolutely indifferent to our survival, evolution or wishes..
We invent a soul that is free from the body, even if we imprison it again in the body through Reincarnation on Judgment Day or upon metempsychosis (passing of the soul into another body, human or animal).
Apparently, we call "soul" something we don't understand.
Wherever we turn, we are completely immersed in our body functions or physical needs: we make love or spend our time, energy and wealth to get to it, we eat and drink in virtually all human gatherings and celebrations.
We are the only animals that must hide to defecate, but eliminating our excrements is as vital as, and not less dignified than, ingesting food.
Family, the fundamental human unit, is born of physical, not spiritual, copulation.
The "spiritual" comes later.
Man woman relations, for instance, are first determined by nature and dictated to us through our instincts.
Primitive humans also follow the erotic instinct, and life goes on.
Yet, after potency and menopause they are not less human than before.
Trouble starts when we want to interpret reality on the basis of our limited and limiting knowledge.
Man meets woman.
If the woman is of the age and appearance suitable for copulation and procreation (we say she is attractive or beautiful), the male feels helplessly attracted and his instinct compels him to copulate with the woman (with her permission).
That is what we know about our reproduction drive.
Without this attraction felt by the man (and emanated by the woman, of course), reproduction and the continuation of human life are defeated.
Woman enters this process in a range between desire, timidity and hostility.
Rather than feeling directly attracted toward the man best fit for procreation, she starts with reluctance toward the act, as if something from the deep recesses of nature told her to wait for the result of a competitive selection to take place among the men.
The most obvious is a physical fight against competitors that allows the winner to copulate with the woman.
The woman, then, accepts the results with devotion or resignation, or the process is in vain.
Moreover, her instinctive hostility toward man is a natural protection of her birth canal and reproduction function when sexual intercourse could interfere.
That is a way of evolution.
Our opinion about it is biologically insignificant.
We evolved from grunts to speech, from gathering and hunting to agriculture, from the cave to the house, from the family to society... culture... civilization...
The perceived reproduction beginning was that man coveted and got woman.
Woman received this "attack" and transformed it into the miracle of life (still a mystery to her and him), which she (and he, to a statistically lesser conscious degree) nurtured with selfless devotion.
Life and evolution need hardly more than copulation and nurture.
Without anything else, life is more enduring than any civilization and its products, history, religion, buildings, technology and the Pyramids.
Nothing seems to grow as rapidly and powerfully as life.
In this process, thinking humans are like two flies on the horns of a cow in an immense stampeding herd saying to each other: "Look how much dust we are raising!"...
We don't stop there. We give heroic dimensions to the man (who kills and copulates).
We exalt a process we don't understand after reducing it to the concepts we understand.

Woman is also made to interpret her stance in terms of the limited concepts we have contrived from what we misunderstand and exalt.
Her creative devotion becomes "submission", distorted as "inferiority". By that token, any mother would be submissive and inferior to her child...
Our primitive concept of "equality" is straight jacketed between bizarre concepts of "superiority" and "inferiority" humans have succumbed to.
Any concept arrived at from this distortion adds to our deformation of reality.
Both man and woman accept the distorted interpretation of woman's functions and motivations.
Woman becomes convinced that she must feel a sexual attraction toward man with the same male parameters. Otherwise she is "frigid".
What is wrong with frigidity if the frigid woman can copulate and procreate just like any "hot" woman?
Who really believes that a frigid a woman is a lesser mother and educator? Man's ego?
Is it not enough that the woman would do anything to please the man simply out of her natural need to obtain his semen?
She must display even to herself the same sexual urge.
So, she decides to feel attracted to the man who is gentle, or well dressed, or something other that is not directly sex.
Then, oops..., it ought to be sex itself, otherwise where is the "equality" Procrustean bed we use for almost everything else?
Now we have ultra-feminism (also known as "feminazism"), determined to destroy all possibilities for woman to understand and to be what she is, in favor of the prescribed goal of being "equal" (no one really knows what that should mean) or hostile to the man.
Men are already advanced in this process of self emasculation. Politicians promote it to get women's votes.
But nature still has to say her last word, for life is stronger than any form of human understanding.
Probably, life will evolve human understanding beyond our weird notions of "equality", "superiority", "inferiority", "justice" and "rights"...



========================================================================

THE DOLPHIN SUPER


The dolphin brain has been larger and more complex than ours for millions of years before and after man appeared on Earth.
It still is.
Why do they seem to be inferior to us? We measure according to anthropomorphic criteria that consider man like traits as the highest levels of development.
Would a dolphin prefer to depend on automobiles, airplanes and boats against his ability to roam for thousands of miles in the sea without artificial means or the slightest addition to his naked body?
Would he prefer clothes, houses, roads, tools, cars, trains, machine shops, courts of law, prisons, weap, medicines, laws, "political correctness" and "feminazism", against his complete independence of them?
On what other grounds could we consider him "superior"?
In all likelihood, because he might have overcome the need for emotions, passions and psychological weaknesses that make happiness, liberty, equality, justice, fairness, sin, virtue, etc. important values for us.
Yet, they are the basic components of our primitivism. It is because of them that we view a dolphin in captivity and pet behavior as "inferior".
Probably their dependency on us when in captivity is like our dependency on drugs when in- or -voluntarily addicted.
Probably their "superiority" consists, among other things, of standing far above the need for justice, liberty, power, or even our tragic life death evaluation.
They enjoy advantages much above our life and death necessity to build homes and thousands of other things, produce and wear clothing, contrive and cook artificial food.
Their survival requires no victory or defeat and they seek no recognition or status.
They don't even feel the need to "dominate" us, or to overcome "inferior" behavior when in our captivity.

Probably, they possess a more intelligent awareness of death, which permanently invalidates most of our most precious values.


==================================================================================





PURGATORY OR HELL


In our mythology of retribution for our sins, we have 3 devices: Hell, Purgatory and Limbo.

Hell is horrible and eternal punishment, never ceasing or diminishing.

Purgatory is a punishment limited in time, lasting as long as our crimes (before our death) deserve.

Limbo is a condition of neither punishment nor reward, in eternal suspense between hell and heaven, for those who are without sin but without any qualification (like baptism) that would place them among God's children or believers.
All this, of course, happens after death.

As of now, year of the Lord 2001 (plus of minus a few or many years), the prominence of the European culture man (especially the male one) is officially dead (so they say).
What caused it?
-
Atonement for the Holocaust?

Majority vote by the Third World in the United Nations?
-
Revenge against the West Culture elite (elected or otherwise prevailing) by the majority of losers?

The masochistic fad of the new sophisticated primitives (today's academic "elite"), who delight in deprecating their native culture, which they are unable to learn, and from which they twisted their forged ability to deprecate?

It is unfortunate that we inherit our parents' biologic genes, not what they learned.
What they learned we must learn from their teaching, with a self-discipline today's academic "elite" is unable to endure.
Therefore they will cause a culture disaster if they are not submerged by a cultural revolution.

Up to the early '60s, West World's TV and movies gave a good measure of the ordained WASP prominence in the USA. The strong, the virtuous, the righteous and the winners were always pure white Anglo-Saxons.

It reached the point that the hero of the movies was never allowed to couple, at least not happily, with the non white non Anglo-Saxon woman. If this woman was the heroin that conquered the audience's sympathy, she was made to disappear in death or other eliminating event, so that the white Anglo hero would satisfy the spectators and end up with a white Anglo woman anyhow.

With all probability, the producers feared the reaction of the white rednecks or purists, as well as the criticism for pro Anglo-Saxon bias. They were the local majority.

Now, the producers, politicians, business people, and anyone exposed to public opinion, fear the reaction of ultra liberal rednecks, ultra-feminists and black racists.

Like the ultra-feminists, blacks and liberals managed to appear as abused victims demanding atonement from the white male.
They could use that image as a justification for their insatiable hostility against the symbolic white man who achieved what they did not.

From the above, the one who plays God and sits in judgment is probably condensed in a liberal black woman. Even the black woman considers it a dumb joke.

Has she decided whether the white man belongs in hell, purgatory or limbo?

Or will the white male survive this ephemeral goddess?









***************************************************************************************************************************


























































































THE UNFIT FITNESS


The old truism that a little knowledge is worse than ignorance seems to apply to the enforcement of our frivolous convictions.
Our humanistic development is so far below our technical progress, that the former may cause the most unpredictable havoc by using the latter.
Or vice versa.
The population explosion of the under developed cultures is one example.
The average woman produces about 400 eggs ("ova") in her lifetime.
A man produces several millions sperms in one orgasm... Many men can have more than one orgasms in one day.
Since it takes only one sperm and one ovum together to produce one child, one man alone could theoretically inseminate several millions of women with just the sperms of one emission...
If it is properly done, with specifically developed technology to accomplish the conception, nurturing and raising the resulting progeny, there is a way to create a new nation with each orgasm and enough ovulations...
Crazy science fiction?
Says who?
Describe that fantasy to a highly educated man of 2,000 years ago, and I am sure he would find it more credible (or less incredible) than our present television or nuclear energy...
Nature is ignoring our technical "miracles," without the slightest regard for whatever rights any single lost eggs and sperms might have.
It happens hundreds of millions times every day...
Now, testing the above would require separating and isolating, say, 10, 20 (or more?) millions sperms of a one man's orgasm and find a way to preserve it. Then, we cajole 20 or so million women to donate one ovum each. Then, induce each sperm to copulate with one ovum...
We must learn from nature and limit births, lest nature would react with disastrous vehemence.

There is no cosmic reason why humans should survive, rather than insects, reptiles or birds.

Birth control requires some sophistication of means and approach.
So, it prevails in "civilized" cultures.
Underdeveloped societies, thus, become the most prolific for that reason and others also connected with low cultural standards.
Primitive societies, on the other hand, also reflect nature's ruthless path of evolution and reproduction.
In countries where women are limited to little more than reproductive functions, nature realizes competitive evolution through high reproduction rates that over-compensate the high mortality.
Survival of the unfit in developed countries is directly or indirectly legislated against nature:
Evolved cultures force the skillful and productive to support the weak and the parasites, encouraging and rewarding the unwed, poor and other handicapped to have children, without dealing with the handicaps first. The resulting consequence of transmitting (even if involuntarily) the same handicaps to the innocent children is unforgivable.
The laws s unwittingly upport the multiplication of handicaps at the expense of the numerically shrinking productive individuals, infiltrating the controlling agencies with parasites and unleashing them against the makers of America.
They outlaw the mention of genetic inadequacy by confusing it with "behavioral" difference (which, in turn, blindly facilitates any genetic reproduction of underdevelopment...
They lower the educational standards for "humane" prejudices.
They protect the primitive cultures to the point of facilitating their building of nuclear weapons to destroy the "American Satan"...
All in the name of justice, equality and freedom...

It is time for us to be as wary of our equality and freedom fetishism as we are of dictatorship.

Most "developing" nations we have "freed" in the name of our democracy connected ideals end up destroying their democratic beginnings in favor of despotism.

We know from all other fields that passage from a stage to another requires moderation and gradualism.
We accept gradualism for individuals and institutions, animals and machinery, but we force entire nations to abruptly sacrifice themselves on the altars of instant freedom and equality we and they don't know how to implement...
Do we all it irresponsible, ignorant, criminal?
It could cause more disastrous effects than bloody revolutions.
It is already developing, but we hide it from our awareness...
We are promoting terrorism, slaughters, heinous crimes in the name of some theoretical "rule of the law", which ends up sacrificing the law-abiding to the outlaws, the civilized to the barbarians, and we say that that is the price we must pay for liberty and democracy.
The trite fact is that when they die, they are dead for ever, and no rhetoric and ideals are worth one single life.
The new pundits mean that we must accept self destruction as the price for survival, racism in the name of integration, slaughters as the price of freedom, despotism and corruption as the price of independence. The nuclear weapons of our technology are so horrendous that no nation should be allowed to produce or use any.
Yet, we will end up allowing the most irresponsible nations to have and use them, because our democratic Puritanism disarms our common sense with the question: "Who gives you the right to judge?".
We, the "superior" ones, are unable to come up with a reasoning more powerful than the paralyzing objections any mental midget can raise...
Ultimate[y: we have "sophisticated" ourseves to produce the final means of destruction.
It will destroy us if it falls in the hands of the irresponsible.
The atmosphere will be filled with lethal radioactivity. Rain and snow will bring it down into the lands where it rains and snows...
Their inhabitants are the most developed: the present backbone of civilization. They will perish.
The bushmen and other primitives living in deserts and rainfall-poor areas will survive.
They will be the forefathers of the new mankind.

"Survival of the fittest".

Who is then the fittest? Who is the real backbone of mankind?
Who is "superior"? What does "superior" mean after all?
Back to square one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL, SUPERIOR, DOMINANT

Nowadays, equality has become a sort of metaphysics and an ontological dogma.
On the other hand, no knowledge of metaphysics or ontology can help us understand today's concept of equality, because it doesn't make sense anyhow.
First, equality is like the concept of light. Equality has no meaning without inequality ("diversity", "superiority" or almost anything "non equal"), just like light cannot be understood without darkness.
When man and woman have a physical fight, the man wins as a norm.
That shows a physical male dominance.
This is not the same as between man and horse, in which case the physically weaker is the dominant one.
Woman cannot treat man like a horse...
Feminists and many others may assert that male's physical fighting superiority over the woman must be outlawed for the sake of equality or equal rights.
The same kind of people can assert that anyone's advantage, be it cultural, professional, artistic or commercial, should be eliminated for the sake of equal rights, especially in the political case of whites versus blacks.
It sounds like a joke, but that is the path that many are trying to enforce in our society.
I don't know what can make them understand that this posture delivers our nation to anyone who wants to compete with us in any field of endeavor.

The insistence that there is nothing but equality among human beings comes from the acknowledgment that differences actually exist.
They have existed as long as mankind and life itself.
There is the stronger and the weaker, the smarter, the more ambitious, the more diligent, the healthier, the better looking, the more deserving, the producer, the parasite.

If we deny these realities for any reason, they will build up an impending menace like steam under increasing pressure.

Our arrogant distortion of reality into an enforced "equality" is the harbinger of damaging consequences, because it ignores personal differences and conditions, talent, achievements, efforts, hard work, experience, intelligence, honesty, devotion, honesty... in favor of crude rights without merits and duties.

Equality, superiority, dominance, right to command, duty... are concepts we don't fully comprehend.
The words themselves don't encompass the concepts as understood by those who use them.

The concepts are arbitrary interpretations (limited by the mental confines of the concept formulators) of phenomena that exist and operate independently of human comprehension.

Yet, we use, judge, manipulate, legislate them. We build social, philosophical, psychological, juridical, moral, religious and other systems on such quick sands of ignorance.


=========================================================================


SUPERIORITY COMPLEX

America and the American male have long behaved as if afflicted by a superiority complex.
People so afflicted feel subconsciously guilty of believing they are better than others.
This feeling started to prevail when the recently liberated slaves became a very attractive bock of votes to entice.
Almost the same happened when the women became the largest voting block to cultivate.
So, politicians do anything to show that they are equal with those they feel superior to.
That may have been the hidden motivation of the man/woman interaction pattern in movies and TV, in which the man is mostly bumbling, clumsy or otherwise "wrong" compared to the woman.
Outwardly, the producers and writers want to show their magnanimous wisdom.
In reality, they are afraid not to display them in that fashion.
Shortly thereafter, the same TV, movies and other mass media got into the now obligatory pattern of contrasting virtues (often imaginary) of any race or nationality with American shortcomings.
This is also motivated by the fear of not displaying the prescribed attitude and to dispel any suspicion that we may think God forbid that the Americans are better.
Historians and politicians of ancient Rome tried to correct Roman weaknesses by extolling some virtues of barbarians who were overall much worse than the Romans. They were so successful that self deprecation and decay became endemic.
Americans today repeat that history by ignoring it.
The unwanted but predictable results are the present widespread anti white male and anti-American attitude.
Corollaries of the same are: family unity is not as important as it seems; respect for parents is desirable only if the children think so; adultery and promiscuity are OK among consenting individuals; anti homosexuality is a worse sin than homosexuality, which the psychologists obligingly declare "normal" by the simplistic trick of token normality referred to, say, intelligence, bone structure or whatever; moral judgments are a form of primitivism; culture is an accursed form of elitism (if it is not leftist)...
The Third World is increasingly receptive to anti-American propaganda. It is their chance to win without the strength and merits they lack.



MAJORITY AT 18, 21, 25


One of the blunders of our time has been to lower the age of majority from 21 to 18, instead of increasing it to 23 or 25.

Reasons? Life is now longer, more complex. It requires a much longer apprenticeship and formal education.
As the cumulative knowledge necessary for a responsible life has more than doubled relatively to a few years ago, it is obvious that the apprenticeship for life must be longer.

If 21 years of apprenticeship was necessary in the past, when life expectancy was shorter and the required knowledge for adulthood not even half as much as today's requirement, we should now require at least 25 years of preparation before granting adulthood status.
Even if people should be allowed to marry before adulthood, under the direction of adults, this change alone would avoid millions of mismatches and consequent family chain reactions of troubles caused by love infatuation.

Not less important would be another factor that is now ignored to say the least: the critical time of family consolidation.

This period lies at the threshold between economic dependence and productivity of the growing individual. That is, between 18 and 25 years of age.
Before and during that period, the growing person depends on the parents without contributory capabilities, like a small child.

When the child starts developing and exercising abilities to produce and contribute, the emotional habit of contributing to his own parents and siblings grows as an obvious function that would not be disputed by anyone.

With it, an extensive network of feelings, convictions, ethics and rules would develop that would function immeasurably better than, and substitute for most of, our civil rights, social security, welfare and connected bureaucracies.

Society would function more like an extended family, with more people helped by their relatives rather than victimized by welfare bureaucrats.
This alone would resolve one of the fundamental necessities at the core of our social problems: individual responsibility and involvement rather than government meddling.
This would be made possible by raising adulthood rights from age 21 to 25 (or at least 23), rather than lowering them from 21 to 18.

The effect of moving down to the present 18 year level has been to nip in the bud the development of the now pathetically needed social responsibilities.

It has been said repeatedly that many a conservative used to be a passionate socialist in his teens and twenties.
It was true in my case (which extended until about 50), as it is in countless other personal developments.

The problem remains, now, that the votes of those young innocents have been made as valid as those whose vision is less distorted by lack of experience, naive ideals and poor knowledge.
That much for the glib politics of "if they are old enough to go to war they are old enough to vote", in which comparing the relatively limited requisites for combat (no matter how heroic and noble) and unlimited requirements for family and child rearing is simply asinine.

The sad fact that too many parents are no more responsible toward their children than a bull and a cow toward their calves doesn't change reality.

Again, we have not only been sand banked by vote getting politics: we have adopted a perfidious legal means toward the destruction of the family and putting a suffocating government in its place.


================================================================================

ENEMIES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT


Those who can not make it in school, in the job market, those whose ambitions are superior to their talents, the slobs, the lazy, and the parasites are most likely against the educational system, nuclear energy, competition, business, politicians Often also against family, public authority, police and anything they can emotionally associate with their parents, teachers and other persons with the authority to require the discipline and work in which they failed.

Observe the crowds blocking the entrance to a nuclear plant or demonstrating against similar symbols of power and high achievement: they seem to have failure and defying defensiveness written all over their faces and attire. In some cases, they may b