"The diggers and peddlers of minute facts." Edgar Allan Poe.
"If you have nowhere to go, go somewhere else" A Pakistani man in Flatbush grocery store.
"Money, like vodka makes a man queer" Anton Pavlovich Chekhov
"Man needs room to display all the qualities and pecularities of his free spirit" Anton Pavlovich Chekhov
"Get the bitch, get the hoe" singer Dazy (or Dai Zee?..)
"Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame" Song of Solomon
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Cato's speech in support of Oppian law
A wonderful piece of misogyny. A compeletely self justifying hate, and apparently not so irrational. Look out for italics and bolds- they will be mine. Apprently great Romans feared women's superb power of learning and evolving: give them and opportunity to be equal, and they will soon be superior. Now, if someone is genuinely better, is that the reason to hate them? Baltasar Gracian (1601- 1658), the courtly philosopher states that to hate eminence is not only foolish, it is reflective of a pettiness of a person hating. It is bad for the soul and not a character trait of an elevated person. In this following speech there are apparent expressions of hatred and a clearly contrived vision of reality to which women are supposed to submit. There is also a genuine surprise at their reluctance to remain confined at home, as domestic slaves.
CATO'S SPEECH IN SUPPORT OF OPPIAN LAW
(215 B.C.)
Born in 234 B.C., died in 149; consul in 195; censor in 184; sent to Carthage in 150. Of Cato’s orations, numbering at least 150, only fragments have been preserved.
IF, 1 Romans, every individual among us had made it a rule to maintain the prerogative and authority of a husband with respect to his own wife, we should have less trouble with the whole sex. But now our privileges, overpowered at home by female contumacy, are, even here in the Forum, spurned and trodden under foot; and because we are unable to withstand each separately we now dread their collective body. I was accustomed to think it a fabulous and fictitious tale that in a certain island the whole race of males was utterly extirpated by a conspiracy of the women.
1
But the utmost danger may be apprehended equally from either sex if you suffer cabals and secret consultations to be held: scarcely indeed can I determine, in my own mind, whether the act itself, or the precedent that it affords, is of more pernicious tendency. The latter of the more particularly concerns us consuls and the other magistrates; the former, you, my fellow citizens: for, whether the measure proposed to your consideration be profitable to the State or not is to be determined by you, who are to vote on the occasion.
2
As to the outrageous behavior of these women, whether it be merely an act of their own, or owing to your instigations, Marcus Fundanius and Lucius Valerius, it unquestionably implies culpable conduct in magistrates. I know not whether it reflects greater disgrace on you, tribunes, or on the consuls: on you certainly, if you have brought these women hither for the purpose of raising tribunitian seditions; on us, if we suffer laws to be imposed on us by a secession of women, as was done formerly by that of the common people. It was not without painful emotions of shame that I, just now, made my way into the Forum through the midst of a band of women.
3
Had I not been restrained by the respect for the modesty and dignity of some individuals among them, rather than of the whole number, and been unwilling that they should be seen rebuked by a consul, I should not have refrained from saying to them, “What sort of practise is this, of running out into public, besetting the streets, and addressing other women’s husbands? Could not each have made the same request to her husband at home? Are your blandishments more seducing in public than in private, and with other women’s husbands than with your own? Altho if females would let their modesty confine them within the limits of their own rights, it did not become you, even at home, to concern yourselves about any laws that might be passed or repealed here.” Our ancestors thought it not proper that women should perform any, even private business, without a director; but that they should be ever under the control of parents, brothers, or husbands. We, it seems, suffer them, now, to interfere in the management of State affairs, and to thrust themselves into the forum, into general assemblies, and into assemblies of election: for what are they doing at this moment in your streets and lanes? What, but arguing, some in support of the motion of tribunes; others contending for the repeal of the law?
4
Will you give the reins to their intractable nature, and then expect that themselves should set bounds to their licentiousness, and without your interference? This is the smallest of the injunctions laid on them by usage or the laws, all which women bear with impatience: they long for either liberty—nay, to speak the truth, not for liberty, but for unbounded freedom in every particular; for what will they not attempt if they now come off victorious? Recollect all the institutions respecting the sex, by which our forefathers restrained their profligacy and subjected them to their husbands; and yet, even with the help of all these restrictions, they can scarcely be kept within bounds. If, then, you suffer them to throw these off one by one, to tear them all asunder, and, at last, to be set on an equal footing with yourselves, can you imagine that they will be any longer tolerable? Suffer them once to arrive at an equality with you, and they will from that moment become your superiors.
5
But, indeed, they only object to any new law being made against them; they mean to deprecate, not justice, but severity. Nay, their wish is that a law which you have admitted, established by your suffrages, and found in the practise and experience of so many years to be beneficial, should now be repealed; and that by abolishing one law you should weaken all the rest. No law perfectly suits the convenience of every member of the community; the only consideration is, whether, on the whole, it be profitable to the greater part. If, because a law proves obnoxious to a private individual, it must therefore be canceled and annulled, to what purpose is it for the community to enact laws, which those, whom they were particularly intended to comprehend, could presently repeal? Let us, however, inquire what this important affair is which has induced the matrons thus to run out into public in this indecorous manner, scarcely restraining from pushing into the forum and the assembly of the people.
6
Is it to solicit that their parents, their husbands, children, and brothers may be ransomed from captivity under Hannibal? (My commentary: but of course they these women may not concern themselves with their own affairs but only worry about others. Why? No, really, why? Do they need not worry about themselves? Is he seriously thinking that women don't care for their own selves? Or is it disgraceful to want to live and to lvie well? And why so, Mr.Cato the great orator - practishener of a shameful art of sophistry?)
7
By no means: and far be ever from the commonwealth so unfortunate a situation. Yet, when such was the case, you refused this to the prayers which, on that occasion, their duty dictated. But it is not duty, nor solicitude for their friends; it is religion that has collected them together. They are about to receive the Idæan Mother, coming out of Phrygia from Pessinus.
8
What motive, that even common decency will not allow to be mentioned, is pretended for this female insurrection? Hear the answer:
9
That we may shine in gold and purple; that, both on festival and common days, we may ride through the city in our chariots, triumphing over vanquished and abrogated law, after having captured and wrested from you your suffrages; and that there may be no bounds to our expenses and our luxury. (My commentary: and who insistently insists but men on women’ “love” for diamonds and such? Who was the director of the movie with Marilyn Monroe? We see a woman singing “diamonds are a girl’s best friend” but who has scripted and directed the words? What does the world teach us about simple looking women who are dedicated to some craft or science? Who are men taught to go after – diamonded away, manicured, artificialized-in-“pomp” women! Isn’t it funny how men dictate the rules of behavior and when it is convenient choose the very people who’ve been following as scape goats? Obviously there is something a lot deeper than simple wrong doing on the part of women. And men somehow are never attacked for the acts of cruelty, murders, betrayal and obvious genocide and holocausts. How come the acts that end life and promote lawlessness and pain infliction are of a less caliber than a diamond in the ear of a woman because otherwise she will be both abused and worthless?!)
10
Often have you heard me complain of the profuse expenses of the women—often of those of the men; and that not only of men in private stations, but of the magistrates; and that the state was endangered by two opposite vices, luxury and avarice—those pests which have ever been the ruin of every state. These I dread the more, as the circumstances of the commonwealth grow daily more prosperous and happy; as the empire increases; as we have passed over into Greece and Asia, places abounding with every kind of temptation that can inflame the passions; and as we have begun to handle even royal treasures: for I greatly fear that these matters will rather bring us into captivity than we them.
11
Believe me, those statues from Syracuse made their way into this city with hostile effect. I already hear too many commending and admiring the decorations of Athens and Corinth, and ridiculing the earthen images of our Roman gods that stand on the fronts of their temples. For my part, I prefer these gods,—propitious as they are, and I hope will continue, if we allow them to remain in their own mansions.
12
In the memory of our fathers, Pyrrhus, by his ambassador Cineas, made trial of the dispositions, not only of our men, but of our women also, by offers of presents: at that time the Oppian Law, for restraining female luxury, had not been made; and yet not one woman accepted a present. What, think you, was the reason? That for which our ancestors made no provision by law on this subject: there was no luxury existing which might be restrained.(My comment: not many women would like the jewelery if they didn’t have a choice but to use it as their only weapon. Women are not ravens, attracted to all that shines, you know. And who gave value to these stones? Not women. They do not dig them out. They do not frame them into gold and platinum. They do not look at those who wear it and who don’t assigning a standard. They follow. They also for long could not hold jobs and make money. They needed to survive. Of all avenues open the “diamond” avenue was the only one. Why there is no understanding but only unrestrained, blind hatred of own kind?!)
13
As diseases must necessarily be known before their remedies, so passions come into being before the laws which prescribe limits to them. What called forth the Licinian Law, restricting estates to five hundred acres, but the unbounded desire for enlarging estates? What the Cineian Law, concerning gifts and presents, but that the plebeians had become vassals and tributaries to the senate? It is not, therefore, in any degree surprising that no want of the Oppian Law, or of any other, to limit the expenses of the women, was felt at that time, when they refused to receive gold and purple that was thrown in their way and offered to their acceptance. If Cineas were now to go round the city with his presents, he would find numbers of women standing in the public streets ready to receive them.
14
There are some passions the causes or motives of which I can no way account for. To be debarred of a liberty in which another is indulged may perhaps naturally excite some degree of shame or indignation; yet, when the dress of all is alike, what inferiority in appearance can any one be ashamed of? (My commentary: they’ve done it in Communist China. Matching junior-high blue suits for all.) Of all kinds of shame, the worst, surely, is the being ashamed of frugality or of poverty; but the law relieves you with regard to both; you want only that which it is unlawful for you to have.
15
This equalization, says the rich matron,(My commentary: you are “quoting” her, can I please hear the source? Or is it your opinion masquerading as a fact?) is the very thing that I cannot endure. Why do not I make a figure, distinguished with gold and purple? Why is the poverty of others concealed under this cover of law, so that it should be thought that, if the law permitted, they would have such things as they are not now able to procure? Romans, do you wish to excite among your wives an emulation of this sort, that the rich should wish to have what no other can have; and that the poor, lest they should be despised as such, should extend their expenses beyond their abilities? Be assured that when a woman once begins to be ashamed of what she ought not to be ashamed of, she will not be ashamed of what she ought.(My commentary: who decides for an individual what she should be ashamed of and what she should be not ashamed of? Might, perhaps?) She who can, will purchase out of her own purse; she who cannot, will ask her husband. (My commentary: duh.)
16
Unhappy is the husband, both he who complies with the request, and he who does not; for what he will not give himself, another will. (My commentary: again, a woman is blamed for a man’s fault - a man is promiscuous animal and will apparently without any restrictions buy things for somebody else’s wife. Blame? – The woman, of course!) Now they openly solicit favors from other women’s husbands; and, what is more, solicit a law and votes. From some they obtain them; altho, with regard to you, your property, or your children, you would find it hard to obtain anything from them. If the law ceases to limit the expenses of your wife, you yourself will never be able to limit them.(My commentary: why limit? Who gave these people a right to limit other human beings? Legalized slavery or rather, serfdom?) Do not suppose that the matter will hereafter be in the same state in which it was before the law was made on the subject. It is safer that a wicked man should never be accused than that he should be acquitted; and luxury, if it had never been meddled with, would be more tolerable than it will be, now, like a wild beast, irritated by having been chained and then let loose. My opinion is that the Oppian Law ought on no account to be repealed. Whatever determination you may come to, I pray all the gods to prosper it.
17
Note 1. Delivered in the Roman forum in 215 B.C. Reported by Livy. Spillan and Edmonds translation. The Oppian Law which had been enacted “during the heat of the Punic War,” declared that “no woman should possess more than half an ounce of gold, or wear a garment of various colors, or ride in a carriage drawn by horses in a city, or in a town, or any place nearer thereto than one mile, except on occasions of some public religious solemnity.” Livy describes the scene in Rome on the day of Cato’s speech: “The Capitol was filled with crowds who favored or opposed the law; nor could the matrons be kept at home either by advice or shame, nor even by the commands of their husbands; but they beset every street and pass in the city, beseeching the men as they went down to the forum, that, in the present flourishing state of the commonwealth, when the private fortune of all was daily increasing, they would suffer the women to have their former ornaments restored. This throng of women increased daily, for they arrived even from the country towns and villages, and they had at length the boldness (My commentary: unbelievable! They just wouldn’t line up and walk into slaughterhouse like good, willing, obedient cows! What shame! What ignominy!) to come up to the consuls, pretors, and magistrates, to urge their request. One of the consuls, however, they found especially inexorable—Marcus Porcius Cato.” After the discussion was ended, Livy says, “The women next day poured out into public in much greater numbers, and in a body beset the doors of the tribunes who had protested against the measure of their collages; nor did they return until their intervention was withdrawn.” The law was then repealed “in the twentieth year after it was made.” In Smith’s “Dictionary” we are told how the women evinced their exultation and triumph by “going in procession through the streets and the forum, bedizened with their now legitimate finery.”
CATO'S SPEECH IN SUPPORT OF OPPIAN LAW
(215 B.C.)
Born in 234 B.C., died in 149; consul in 195; censor in 184; sent to Carthage in 150. Of Cato’s orations, numbering at least 150, only fragments have been preserved.
IF, 1 Romans, every individual among us had made it a rule to maintain the prerogative and authority of a husband with respect to his own wife, we should have less trouble with the whole sex. But now our privileges, overpowered at home by female contumacy, are, even here in the Forum, spurned and trodden under foot; and because we are unable to withstand each separately we now dread their collective body. I was accustomed to think it a fabulous and fictitious tale that in a certain island the whole race of males was utterly extirpated by a conspiracy of the women.
1
But the utmost danger may be apprehended equally from either sex if you suffer cabals and secret consultations to be held: scarcely indeed can I determine, in my own mind, whether the act itself, or the precedent that it affords, is of more pernicious tendency. The latter of the more particularly concerns us consuls and the other magistrates; the former, you, my fellow citizens: for, whether the measure proposed to your consideration be profitable to the State or not is to be determined by you, who are to vote on the occasion.
2
As to the outrageous behavior of these women, whether it be merely an act of their own, or owing to your instigations, Marcus Fundanius and Lucius Valerius, it unquestionably implies culpable conduct in magistrates. I know not whether it reflects greater disgrace on you, tribunes, or on the consuls: on you certainly, if you have brought these women hither for the purpose of raising tribunitian seditions; on us, if we suffer laws to be imposed on us by a secession of women, as was done formerly by that of the common people. It was not without painful emotions of shame that I, just now, made my way into the Forum through the midst of a band of women.
3
Had I not been restrained by the respect for the modesty and dignity of some individuals among them, rather than of the whole number, and been unwilling that they should be seen rebuked by a consul, I should not have refrained from saying to them, “What sort of practise is this, of running out into public, besetting the streets, and addressing other women’s husbands? Could not each have made the same request to her husband at home? Are your blandishments more seducing in public than in private, and with other women’s husbands than with your own? Altho if females would let their modesty confine them within the limits of their own rights, it did not become you, even at home, to concern yourselves about any laws that might be passed or repealed here.” Our ancestors thought it not proper that women should perform any, even private business, without a director; but that they should be ever under the control of parents, brothers, or husbands. We, it seems, suffer them, now, to interfere in the management of State affairs, and to thrust themselves into the forum, into general assemblies, and into assemblies of election: for what are they doing at this moment in your streets and lanes? What, but arguing, some in support of the motion of tribunes; others contending for the repeal of the law?
4
Will you give the reins to their intractable nature, and then expect that themselves should set bounds to their licentiousness, and without your interference? This is the smallest of the injunctions laid on them by usage or the laws, all which women bear with impatience: they long for either liberty—nay, to speak the truth, not for liberty, but for unbounded freedom in every particular; for what will they not attempt if they now come off victorious? Recollect all the institutions respecting the sex, by which our forefathers restrained their profligacy and subjected them to their husbands; and yet, even with the help of all these restrictions, they can scarcely be kept within bounds. If, then, you suffer them to throw these off one by one, to tear them all asunder, and, at last, to be set on an equal footing with yourselves, can you imagine that they will be any longer tolerable? Suffer them once to arrive at an equality with you, and they will from that moment become your superiors.
5
But, indeed, they only object to any new law being made against them; they mean to deprecate, not justice, but severity. Nay, their wish is that a law which you have admitted, established by your suffrages, and found in the practise and experience of so many years to be beneficial, should now be repealed; and that by abolishing one law you should weaken all the rest. No law perfectly suits the convenience of every member of the community; the only consideration is, whether, on the whole, it be profitable to the greater part. If, because a law proves obnoxious to a private individual, it must therefore be canceled and annulled, to what purpose is it for the community to enact laws, which those, whom they were particularly intended to comprehend, could presently repeal? Let us, however, inquire what this important affair is which has induced the matrons thus to run out into public in this indecorous manner, scarcely restraining from pushing into the forum and the assembly of the people.
6
Is it to solicit that their parents, their husbands, children, and brothers may be ransomed from captivity under Hannibal? (My commentary: but of course they these women may not concern themselves with their own affairs but only worry about others. Why? No, really, why? Do they need not worry about themselves? Is he seriously thinking that women don't care for their own selves? Or is it disgraceful to want to live and to lvie well? And why so, Mr.Cato the great orator - practishener of a shameful art of sophistry?)
7
By no means: and far be ever from the commonwealth so unfortunate a situation. Yet, when such was the case, you refused this to the prayers which, on that occasion, their duty dictated. But it is not duty, nor solicitude for their friends; it is religion that has collected them together. They are about to receive the Idæan Mother, coming out of Phrygia from Pessinus.
8
What motive, that even common decency will not allow to be mentioned, is pretended for this female insurrection? Hear the answer:
9
That we may shine in gold and purple; that, both on festival and common days, we may ride through the city in our chariots, triumphing over vanquished and abrogated law, after having captured and wrested from you your suffrages; and that there may be no bounds to our expenses and our luxury. (My commentary: and who insistently insists but men on women’ “love” for diamonds and such? Who was the director of the movie with Marilyn Monroe? We see a woman singing “diamonds are a girl’s best friend” but who has scripted and directed the words? What does the world teach us about simple looking women who are dedicated to some craft or science? Who are men taught to go after – diamonded away, manicured, artificialized-in-“pomp” women! Isn’t it funny how men dictate the rules of behavior and when it is convenient choose the very people who’ve been following as scape goats? Obviously there is something a lot deeper than simple wrong doing on the part of women. And men somehow are never attacked for the acts of cruelty, murders, betrayal and obvious genocide and holocausts. How come the acts that end life and promote lawlessness and pain infliction are of a less caliber than a diamond in the ear of a woman because otherwise she will be both abused and worthless?!)
10
Often have you heard me complain of the profuse expenses of the women—often of those of the men; and that not only of men in private stations, but of the magistrates; and that the state was endangered by two opposite vices, luxury and avarice—those pests which have ever been the ruin of every state. These I dread the more, as the circumstances of the commonwealth grow daily more prosperous and happy; as the empire increases; as we have passed over into Greece and Asia, places abounding with every kind of temptation that can inflame the passions; and as we have begun to handle even royal treasures: for I greatly fear that these matters will rather bring us into captivity than we them.
11
Believe me, those statues from Syracuse made their way into this city with hostile effect. I already hear too many commending and admiring the decorations of Athens and Corinth, and ridiculing the earthen images of our Roman gods that stand on the fronts of their temples. For my part, I prefer these gods,—propitious as they are, and I hope will continue, if we allow them to remain in their own mansions.
12
In the memory of our fathers, Pyrrhus, by his ambassador Cineas, made trial of the dispositions, not only of our men, but of our women also, by offers of presents: at that time the Oppian Law, for restraining female luxury, had not been made; and yet not one woman accepted a present. What, think you, was the reason? That for which our ancestors made no provision by law on this subject: there was no luxury existing which might be restrained.(My comment: not many women would like the jewelery if they didn’t have a choice but to use it as their only weapon. Women are not ravens, attracted to all that shines, you know. And who gave value to these stones? Not women. They do not dig them out. They do not frame them into gold and platinum. They do not look at those who wear it and who don’t assigning a standard. They follow. They also for long could not hold jobs and make money. They needed to survive. Of all avenues open the “diamond” avenue was the only one. Why there is no understanding but only unrestrained, blind hatred of own kind?!)
13
As diseases must necessarily be known before their remedies, so passions come into being before the laws which prescribe limits to them. What called forth the Licinian Law, restricting estates to five hundred acres, but the unbounded desire for enlarging estates? What the Cineian Law, concerning gifts and presents, but that the plebeians had become vassals and tributaries to the senate? It is not, therefore, in any degree surprising that no want of the Oppian Law, or of any other, to limit the expenses of the women, was felt at that time, when they refused to receive gold and purple that was thrown in their way and offered to their acceptance. If Cineas were now to go round the city with his presents, he would find numbers of women standing in the public streets ready to receive them.
14
There are some passions the causes or motives of which I can no way account for. To be debarred of a liberty in which another is indulged may perhaps naturally excite some degree of shame or indignation; yet, when the dress of all is alike, what inferiority in appearance can any one be ashamed of? (My commentary: they’ve done it in Communist China. Matching junior-high blue suits for all.) Of all kinds of shame, the worst, surely, is the being ashamed of frugality or of poverty; but the law relieves you with regard to both; you want only that which it is unlawful for you to have.
15
This equalization, says the rich matron,(My commentary: you are “quoting” her, can I please hear the source? Or is it your opinion masquerading as a fact?) is the very thing that I cannot endure. Why do not I make a figure, distinguished with gold and purple? Why is the poverty of others concealed under this cover of law, so that it should be thought that, if the law permitted, they would have such things as they are not now able to procure? Romans, do you wish to excite among your wives an emulation of this sort, that the rich should wish to have what no other can have; and that the poor, lest they should be despised as such, should extend their expenses beyond their abilities? Be assured that when a woman once begins to be ashamed of what she ought not to be ashamed of, she will not be ashamed of what she ought.(My commentary: who decides for an individual what she should be ashamed of and what she should be not ashamed of? Might, perhaps?) She who can, will purchase out of her own purse; she who cannot, will ask her husband. (My commentary: duh.)
16
Unhappy is the husband, both he who complies with the request, and he who does not; for what he will not give himself, another will. (My commentary: again, a woman is blamed for a man’s fault - a man is promiscuous animal and will apparently without any restrictions buy things for somebody else’s wife. Blame? – The woman, of course!) Now they openly solicit favors from other women’s husbands; and, what is more, solicit a law and votes. From some they obtain them; altho, with regard to you, your property, or your children, you would find it hard to obtain anything from them. If the law ceases to limit the expenses of your wife, you yourself will never be able to limit them.(My commentary: why limit? Who gave these people a right to limit other human beings? Legalized slavery or rather, serfdom?) Do not suppose that the matter will hereafter be in the same state in which it was before the law was made on the subject. It is safer that a wicked man should never be accused than that he should be acquitted; and luxury, if it had never been meddled with, would be more tolerable than it will be, now, like a wild beast, irritated by having been chained and then let loose. My opinion is that the Oppian Law ought on no account to be repealed. Whatever determination you may come to, I pray all the gods to prosper it.
17
Note 1. Delivered in the Roman forum in 215 B.C. Reported by Livy. Spillan and Edmonds translation. The Oppian Law which had been enacted “during the heat of the Punic War,” declared that “no woman should possess more than half an ounce of gold, or wear a garment of various colors, or ride in a carriage drawn by horses in a city, or in a town, or any place nearer thereto than one mile, except on occasions of some public religious solemnity.” Livy describes the scene in Rome on the day of Cato’s speech: “The Capitol was filled with crowds who favored or opposed the law; nor could the matrons be kept at home either by advice or shame, nor even by the commands of their husbands; but they beset every street and pass in the city, beseeching the men as they went down to the forum, that, in the present flourishing state of the commonwealth, when the private fortune of all was daily increasing, they would suffer the women to have their former ornaments restored. This throng of women increased daily, for they arrived even from the country towns and villages, and they had at length the boldness (My commentary: unbelievable! They just wouldn’t line up and walk into slaughterhouse like good, willing, obedient cows! What shame! What ignominy!) to come up to the consuls, pretors, and magistrates, to urge their request. One of the consuls, however, they found especially inexorable—Marcus Porcius Cato.” After the discussion was ended, Livy says, “The women next day poured out into public in much greater numbers, and in a body beset the doors of the tribunes who had protested against the measure of their collages; nor did they return until their intervention was withdrawn.” The law was then repealed “in the twentieth year after it was made.” In Smith’s “Dictionary” we are told how the women evinced their exultation and triumph by “going in procession through the streets and the forum, bedizened with their now legitimate finery.”
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Quick Vocabulary Builder
Vocabulary is a depository of knowledge, codified as "words" and preserved for us by earnest and knowledgeable people who compose vocabularies. Vocabulary is like a small library, but not of books, but of words. Fundamental building blocks of speech, words are a key to the proper or impoper usage of language. Knowledge of the meaning of words or the abscence of thereof can produce miscommunication or a relation of souls. When early people in Niniveh attempted to build a tower that would take them to the heights of God her/himself, they were prevented from doing so by God through separating them by language. Without a common tongue, people quarreled, miscommunicated and finally, soon enough, abandoned the project and all attempts at it. But the dictionary meaning of words is not the only meaning we will have to know. People, often, out of a lack of education or a specific intention, use the words in a meaning other than it was intended by the builders of the language. If not aware of that sepcific, we, the heares, could find ourself in a strange land where our consciousness will become confused. "Connotation" means the meaning that culture, civilization or a particular demographic imprinted upon a particular word. Often that second meaning stems from motiffs, and often selfish ones. People could use a rather neutral word in a rather aggressive way with an intention to hurt your feelings, and if used by sufficient number of people over a long enough period of time, the word will acquire that second meaning and perhaps the people will even forget the first. Below are some examples of the words used thusly improperly, with a double meaning that is intended to hurt and miscommunicate for the sake of own selfish motiff. Not every connotation is a bad one and sometimes rather a product of natural human development and discoveries that were not yet made when the word was originally created. And so, with a little diversion onto the real meaning of the word so improperly used today, I present to you a "Quck Vocabulary Builder".
Judgment: discretion. Observing a difference between the two pr more objects. Concluding something or the other based on a standard or criteria or/and information provided. Ability to differentiate between concepts, things, qualties. An act of differentiation.
Judgement. Today I cannot think of a word that sends more people into shock, much more than a story of young Nixzmary repeatedly abused and killed in her basement by her own parents ever did. "Judgement" seems to be out of favor. "Do not judge," "just don't judge," and "are you judging me" all became a form of accusation or an attmept to call upon misbehavior in a person. Everybody knows that the one who judges is "bad" and the one who does not is "good." Let's see now, let us take a look at the world without judgement.
In a world without judgement humans will die out like flies. They will get food poisoning, get mutialated by wild animals and won't make those stock market sales. They will mate indiscriminatorily and bear children if any survive. Because in the world without judgement mothers will go on drinking and smoking and stressing themselves out, which of course will affect the fetus. In the world without judgement many mothers will die with their young children. For fathers will run off. In the world without judgement a new man in a woman's life can kill her child from the previous marriage or association. In that world passing grad is failing and failing is passing. To know how to read and write is the same as not to know. In the world without judgement prices can go up everyday and salaries get cut. People can get fired left and right and no one can do anything - because there is no judgement. In the world without judgement there is no law. Because to apply the law is to judge. Because law without application is a dead letter. Only an action of judgement can activate it. The Law is a passive thing, laied out to be observed. But just like there are three brances of goverment, there are three brances of the law. First is the legislative - law itself. Then there is executive - making actions. Then there is judiciary, judging these actions in relation to the laws and concluding them to be either proper or improper, legal or illegal. Let us now look at the meaning of the word "judge" and "judgement."
The original meaning of the word "judge" is this (acording to Oxford dictionary): n.supreme arbiter, public officer with authority to hear and decide cases in a law court, person who decides contest, competition, dispute.
V. act as a judge, hear and try in the law court, give a decision.
"Judgement" is: judging or being judged, decesion of a judge of a court.
Interesting. What does this word have to do with everyday people? Why do people get so angry and scream out: "don't judge!" Apparently unless you are a "public officer with authority" or a " supreme arbiter" you, by definition cannot conduct "judgement. Doubtlfully people that know you for a while can make a mistake and assume you to be a closeted court offcial. So what could they possible mean? Let's see. What does the word "judgement" come from" What does a judge do that your friends ( for we have concluded they cannot possibly not want you to conduct your duty if such it was under the condition you were a judge by definiton) do not want you to do?
What does a "public authority" do when it "hears and decides cases? What are "cases" after all?
Case: legal quesion to be decided in the court of law.
What is a court of law?
What is law?
Law:rule made by authority for the proper regualtion of a community or society or for a correct conduct of life. Aha.
So, laws are regulations of sorts. For maintenance of certain standard either in community or personal life. When a question about propriety arises and parties cannot seem to agree, it is believed that a third person with a superior learning and knowledge (that is why she or he is given authority over others. Not because people like to be bossed around. To serve the people.Original intent of the people who compose the community) will be able to see more clearly and decide upon a correct conduct. "Decide" seems to be the key word. What does "decide" mean?
Decide:settle a question or doubt, think about and come to a conclusion.
So, the judge thinks and comes to a conlusion. And what is "think?"
Think:use, exercise the mind in order to form an opinion, come to conclusions, examine, consider, take into account.
So a thinking person uses mind to look at things. Then, she or he decide. And what things do they look at? If the case is about murder, does a judge consider the price of the toaster in an online store? Or is the case is a dispute over property of two divorcing individuals, does a judge consider the repurcussions of an irrepsonsible restaurant owner who has poisoned his customers because the food regualtions were not observed? If the judge does, then boy we are in trouble.
So, the judge obviously thinks about the case. In case of tennant-landlord, the judge looks at the living arrangements, the lease, the rent pais or unpaid, safety and otehr conditions met by the landlord. If the case is about stolen bike, the judge will look at the evidence presented against the thief. If the case is about physical abuse the judge will look at the severity and consider laws regulating that aspect.
So a judge uses a DISCRIMINATION.
Discrimination: to make, see difference between; make distinctions.
The judge discriminates the cases and decides by thinking about them, coming up to a conclusion.
So, maybe people that tell you not to" judge" really mean that they do no want you to see with differentiation, a discrimination their behavior, and think about it in relation to a standard, or a law of sorts and decide something about them or their behavior. And why not? Are they 5 year old children where anything they do is adorable babble and cute tooshie? A 5 year old can shit on the floor and we'll understand. Though not actually at 5. 2 maybe. A 10 year old may be rude enough to comment on your pimple or to beg a guest for money. A teenager slams doors and screams "I hate you," an elder person may hit you with a stick because you brought them a wrong slice of toast. But these people are not adults. They are subject to different "laws." Based on their age - because biology has something to do with this. A child's mind is yet undeveloped and she or he is unable to DISCRIMINATE between polite and impolite. An older person's mind is afflicted by age, there is such fact as aging, and she or he does not control his or her impulses.
So, discrimination of behavior. Why can you not "judge" them? Why if somthing appears to be doubtfully proper social behavior in relation to YOU and you feel either insulted or hurt or even abused can you not use your own mind to think, to examine the facts of your friend's behavior and using a standard applied to the situation and your own feelings decide, discriminating between instances and facts, if what he said or done to you was not proper? "You don't know!" screams your friend. Of course you don't until you think about it. And human civilization, thank God is old and has many instances recorded, many human personalites outlined in literature, much development to be offered through music and art. Human mind capable of creating legal systems, technology and dreams that engender Geneva convention and equal opportunity amendment, and civil rights movement is surely capable of evolving, and learning, and making proper to the situation discriminations that would lead to a good, solid judgement. And, human beings are neither red carpets for anyone to tread upon nor stepping stones. They are not garbage refuse where anything can be dumped. Even that is not possible today: there is recycling. So why would a human being be less discriminatory than a deer than would not just mate with anyone, and a cat that would not just be petted by anyone? Must we mate indiscrimatorily? Must we be petted indiscrimatorily? Ans since cats and deers do not have spoken language, and complex systems of mathematics, music, art and literature, not any we could see, they may not require a "judgement" of people's characters and persons. A cat may not care how you look at her. A dog may not pay attention if you call it bad names in a sweet voice. But to humans words mean things. Also, living in society there are certain expectations relied on from both sides, and certain human unspoken uderstandings that we as species have accumulatd over thousands and thousands of years of evolution and selection. Of course we need to examine them once in a while. But a person who is genuine and wants change will not prevent others from examing her or his actions and words, in fear. They want change, and therefore aim for the truth. If mistake has been made on their part, they cannot arrive at the truth, therefore they will allow the examination. But who would be afraid of it? The ones who aim for the truth? Or the ones that fear something from your "judgement"? And why? IFthey are afraid you will judge incorrectly, that's understandble. But that is why there is communication and verbal and logical structure. But under the analysis with proper tools all falsity will come out. Therefore, buddy, do not judge!!!
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Here is a vocabulary to demonstrate that the things that are bad become things that are good if thrown a different light on and the opposition is suppressed. This is a main tool of bad and low people who give their crimes a high name, their vices – sense of glory and their abuse of developing people who need their protection, a name of liberators.
The terms listed below are terms used by patriarchy to glorify its misdeeds and to shame a woman into putting up resistance with their abuse.
The vocabulary can be broke down by the lines by which it is used in real life. Bad intention. Preparation of the ground for conduction of acts of murder, thievery and abuse, tools of preparation, suppression of the opposition during the time of preparation, suppression of the opposition during the time of abuse, abuse itself, conditions set up for abuse to be ignored, conditions set up for abuse to be overlooked if seen, conditions set up for abuse to be tolerated, conditions set up for abuse to be accepted, conditions set up to change abuse into good thing, abuse being changed into a good thing, abused and suppressed people presented as winning, passage of time, abused people become indentured slaves, serfs, complete slaves, domestic animals.
Whore: a woman of independent thought and action, who not always engages in freely chosen consensual sexual activity. Used by patriarchy in times of anger at frustration at not having gotten one’s way.
Slut: a woman of independent thought and action who is known to have engaged in sexual activity at some point in her life, at her own consent and at her own choosing. Used by patriarchy as a means of preventing the growth of this person’s influence and mind development. Often is a way to cut the person out of conversation, win a point in an argument and destroy the validity of that woman’s point.
Cunt: a woman of mean and annoying character, who is at fault for having a vagina: a.k.a “cunt”. Used by patriarchy at moments of frustration and lack of knowledge to that woman’s sexual endeavors. When she cannot be accused of having had sex, she can still be accused of having a “pussy” – a vagina. That is most despicable on her part and she should be put in her place when she attempts to become anything more than a sex and kitchen breeding slave.
Man: a superior and godlike being given powers of life and death over woman. He is to be respected at all times, obeyed and served. No woman can know greater happiness than in serving him, her master.
Woman: a necessary evil. A secondary species of a human race by many not even considered human. She is an animal with whom men mate and produce male children. Female children are not “children” but little female of the species of the Homo Sapiens animals. It is unfortunate when a man has many little animals. It is embrassing. A woman exist to cook, clean, give birth and serve her master and commander: the man. She must gets trained properly lest the evolutionary growth will take place in her and render her aware to the fact that she is actually a human being.
Love: a narcotic given to lower males and all females to ensure the procreation of the race. It eases the pain of these very low animals – women, and make them willingly stop their own development and evolution. The drug is extremely addictive but effective: women are known to have done fits of Herculean labor on it.
Education: kitchen, church and nursery for women. College, sports, languages, mastery and evolution for men.
Work: life activity based on one’s expertise and accomplishments for men, life activity based on what’s left after men have shopped around for women. For women criteria of expertise lies in: sexy dress, enticement, enhancement of the man. Any sign of activity or accomplishment on the part of a woman should be and will be punished by termination and further persistent effort to become better and proficient will not help a woman to enter the work force as an independent and equal contractor but will reduce her employment opportunities because of her reputation for being self assertive and free. Only female SLAVES can have jobs, free women are an anomally and should not be allowed to perpetuate.
Freedom: a recognition of a man as an equal participant in a society with a right to live and express himself, and for a woman it means freedom to choose to assent or dissent to an act of sexual penetration.
Equality: all men are created equal. All women are equally allowed to compete for a male by utilizing the available means of seduction.
Children: workforce or sex force.
God: an ultimate version of a patriarchal authority designed to appease protesting against unfair labor and fighting masses of males, a unalterable decree for women to kept reproducing and obeying the master, the man. A great preventive of questioning the status quo and a possible evolution.
Diversity: a concept to appease the growing majority of slaves and degenerates. Used through forcing women of the tribe to sell out their bodies or time to these slaves. The belief in this “diversity” is fostered only in women’s mind until she comes to believe nd practice an attitude of amoebic non-discretion towards anyone and anything. Her person, her property, her time must become a property of the lave population lest the rebellion erupts. It is like loosing a pawn to protect oneself from loosing a Bishop or a Queen.
Judgment: discretion. Observing a difference between the two pr more objects. Concluding something or the other based on a standard or criteria or/and information provided. Ability to differentiate between concepts, things, qualties. An act of differentiation.
Judgement. Today I cannot think of a word that sends more people into shock, much more than a story of young Nixzmary repeatedly abused and killed in her basement by her own parents ever did. "Judgement" seems to be out of favor. "Do not judge," "just don't judge," and "are you judging me" all became a form of accusation or an attmept to call upon misbehavior in a person. Everybody knows that the one who judges is "bad" and the one who does not is "good." Let's see now, let us take a look at the world without judgement.
In a world without judgement humans will die out like flies. They will get food poisoning, get mutialated by wild animals and won't make those stock market sales. They will mate indiscriminatorily and bear children if any survive. Because in the world without judgement mothers will go on drinking and smoking and stressing themselves out, which of course will affect the fetus. In the world without judgement many mothers will die with their young children. For fathers will run off. In the world without judgement a new man in a woman's life can kill her child from the previous marriage or association. In that world passing grad is failing and failing is passing. To know how to read and write is the same as not to know. In the world without judgement prices can go up everyday and salaries get cut. People can get fired left and right and no one can do anything - because there is no judgement. In the world without judgement there is no law. Because to apply the law is to judge. Because law without application is a dead letter. Only an action of judgement can activate it. The Law is a passive thing, laied out to be observed. But just like there are three brances of goverment, there are three brances of the law. First is the legislative - law itself. Then there is executive - making actions. Then there is judiciary, judging these actions in relation to the laws and concluding them to be either proper or improper, legal or illegal. Let us now look at the meaning of the word "judge" and "judgement."
The original meaning of the word "judge" is this (acording to Oxford dictionary): n.supreme arbiter, public officer with authority to hear and decide cases in a law court, person who decides contest, competition, dispute.
V. act as a judge, hear and try in the law court, give a decision.
"Judgement" is: judging or being judged, decesion of a judge of a court.
Interesting. What does this word have to do with everyday people? Why do people get so angry and scream out: "don't judge!" Apparently unless you are a "public officer with authority" or a " supreme arbiter" you, by definition cannot conduct "judgement. Doubtlfully people that know you for a while can make a mistake and assume you to be a closeted court offcial. So what could they possible mean? Let's see. What does the word "judgement" come from" What does a judge do that your friends ( for we have concluded they cannot possibly not want you to conduct your duty if such it was under the condition you were a judge by definiton) do not want you to do?
What does a "public authority" do when it "hears and decides cases? What are "cases" after all?
Case: legal quesion to be decided in the court of law.
What is a court of law?
What is law?
Law:rule made by authority for the proper regualtion of a community or society or for a correct conduct of life. Aha.
So, laws are regulations of sorts. For maintenance of certain standard either in community or personal life. When a question about propriety arises and parties cannot seem to agree, it is believed that a third person with a superior learning and knowledge (that is why she or he is given authority over others. Not because people like to be bossed around. To serve the people.Original intent of the people who compose the community) will be able to see more clearly and decide upon a correct conduct. "Decide" seems to be the key word. What does "decide" mean?
Decide:settle a question or doubt, think about and come to a conclusion.
So, the judge thinks and comes to a conlusion. And what is "think?"
Think:use, exercise the mind in order to form an opinion, come to conclusions, examine, consider, take into account.
So a thinking person uses mind to look at things. Then, she or he decide. And what things do they look at? If the case is about murder, does a judge consider the price of the toaster in an online store? Or is the case is a dispute over property of two divorcing individuals, does a judge consider the repurcussions of an irrepsonsible restaurant owner who has poisoned his customers because the food regualtions were not observed? If the judge does, then boy we are in trouble.
So, the judge obviously thinks about the case. In case of tennant-landlord, the judge looks at the living arrangements, the lease, the rent pais or unpaid, safety and otehr conditions met by the landlord. If the case is about stolen bike, the judge will look at the evidence presented against the thief. If the case is about physical abuse the judge will look at the severity and consider laws regulating that aspect.
So a judge uses a DISCRIMINATION.
Discrimination: to make, see difference between; make distinctions.
The judge discriminates the cases and decides by thinking about them, coming up to a conclusion.
So, maybe people that tell you not to" judge" really mean that they do no want you to see with differentiation, a discrimination their behavior, and think about it in relation to a standard, or a law of sorts and decide something about them or their behavior. And why not? Are they 5 year old children where anything they do is adorable babble and cute tooshie? A 5 year old can shit on the floor and we'll understand. Though not actually at 5. 2 maybe. A 10 year old may be rude enough to comment on your pimple or to beg a guest for money. A teenager slams doors and screams "I hate you," an elder person may hit you with a stick because you brought them a wrong slice of toast. But these people are not adults. They are subject to different "laws." Based on their age - because biology has something to do with this. A child's mind is yet undeveloped and she or he is unable to DISCRIMINATE between polite and impolite. An older person's mind is afflicted by age, there is such fact as aging, and she or he does not control his or her impulses.
So, discrimination of behavior. Why can you not "judge" them? Why if somthing appears to be doubtfully proper social behavior in relation to YOU and you feel either insulted or hurt or even abused can you not use your own mind to think, to examine the facts of your friend's behavior and using a standard applied to the situation and your own feelings decide, discriminating between instances and facts, if what he said or done to you was not proper? "You don't know!" screams your friend. Of course you don't until you think about it. And human civilization, thank God is old and has many instances recorded, many human personalites outlined in literature, much development to be offered through music and art. Human mind capable of creating legal systems, technology and dreams that engender Geneva convention and equal opportunity amendment, and civil rights movement is surely capable of evolving, and learning, and making proper to the situation discriminations that would lead to a good, solid judgement. And, human beings are neither red carpets for anyone to tread upon nor stepping stones. They are not garbage refuse where anything can be dumped. Even that is not possible today: there is recycling. So why would a human being be less discriminatory than a deer than would not just mate with anyone, and a cat that would not just be petted by anyone? Must we mate indiscrimatorily? Must we be petted indiscrimatorily? Ans since cats and deers do not have spoken language, and complex systems of mathematics, music, art and literature, not any we could see, they may not require a "judgement" of people's characters and persons. A cat may not care how you look at her. A dog may not pay attention if you call it bad names in a sweet voice. But to humans words mean things. Also, living in society there are certain expectations relied on from both sides, and certain human unspoken uderstandings that we as species have accumulatd over thousands and thousands of years of evolution and selection. Of course we need to examine them once in a while. But a person who is genuine and wants change will not prevent others from examing her or his actions and words, in fear. They want change, and therefore aim for the truth. If mistake has been made on their part, they cannot arrive at the truth, therefore they will allow the examination. But who would be afraid of it? The ones who aim for the truth? Or the ones that fear something from your "judgement"? And why? IFthey are afraid you will judge incorrectly, that's understandble. But that is why there is communication and verbal and logical structure. But under the analysis with proper tools all falsity will come out. Therefore, buddy, do not judge!!!
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Here is a vocabulary to demonstrate that the things that are bad become things that are good if thrown a different light on and the opposition is suppressed. This is a main tool of bad and low people who give their crimes a high name, their vices – sense of glory and their abuse of developing people who need their protection, a name of liberators.
The terms listed below are terms used by patriarchy to glorify its misdeeds and to shame a woman into putting up resistance with their abuse.
The vocabulary can be broke down by the lines by which it is used in real life. Bad intention. Preparation of the ground for conduction of acts of murder, thievery and abuse, tools of preparation, suppression of the opposition during the time of preparation, suppression of the opposition during the time of abuse, abuse itself, conditions set up for abuse to be ignored, conditions set up for abuse to be overlooked if seen, conditions set up for abuse to be tolerated, conditions set up for abuse to be accepted, conditions set up to change abuse into good thing, abuse being changed into a good thing, abused and suppressed people presented as winning, passage of time, abused people become indentured slaves, serfs, complete slaves, domestic animals.
Whore: a woman of independent thought and action, who not always engages in freely chosen consensual sexual activity. Used by patriarchy in times of anger at frustration at not having gotten one’s way.
Slut: a woman of independent thought and action who is known to have engaged in sexual activity at some point in her life, at her own consent and at her own choosing. Used by patriarchy as a means of preventing the growth of this person’s influence and mind development. Often is a way to cut the person out of conversation, win a point in an argument and destroy the validity of that woman’s point.
Cunt: a woman of mean and annoying character, who is at fault for having a vagina: a.k.a “cunt”. Used by patriarchy at moments of frustration and lack of knowledge to that woman’s sexual endeavors. When she cannot be accused of having had sex, she can still be accused of having a “pussy” – a vagina. That is most despicable on her part and she should be put in her place when she attempts to become anything more than a sex and kitchen breeding slave.
Man: a superior and godlike being given powers of life and death over woman. He is to be respected at all times, obeyed and served. No woman can know greater happiness than in serving him, her master.
Woman: a necessary evil. A secondary species of a human race by many not even considered human. She is an animal with whom men mate and produce male children. Female children are not “children” but little female of the species of the Homo Sapiens animals. It is unfortunate when a man has many little animals. It is embrassing. A woman exist to cook, clean, give birth and serve her master and commander: the man. She must gets trained properly lest the evolutionary growth will take place in her and render her aware to the fact that she is actually a human being.
Love: a narcotic given to lower males and all females to ensure the procreation of the race. It eases the pain of these very low animals – women, and make them willingly stop their own development and evolution. The drug is extremely addictive but effective: women are known to have done fits of Herculean labor on it.
Education: kitchen, church and nursery for women. College, sports, languages, mastery and evolution for men.
Work: life activity based on one’s expertise and accomplishments for men, life activity based on what’s left after men have shopped around for women. For women criteria of expertise lies in: sexy dress, enticement, enhancement of the man. Any sign of activity or accomplishment on the part of a woman should be and will be punished by termination and further persistent effort to become better and proficient will not help a woman to enter the work force as an independent and equal contractor but will reduce her employment opportunities because of her reputation for being self assertive and free. Only female SLAVES can have jobs, free women are an anomally and should not be allowed to perpetuate.
Freedom: a recognition of a man as an equal participant in a society with a right to live and express himself, and for a woman it means freedom to choose to assent or dissent to an act of sexual penetration.
Equality: all men are created equal. All women are equally allowed to compete for a male by utilizing the available means of seduction.
Children: workforce or sex force.
God: an ultimate version of a patriarchal authority designed to appease protesting against unfair labor and fighting masses of males, a unalterable decree for women to kept reproducing and obeying the master, the man. A great preventive of questioning the status quo and a possible evolution.
Diversity: a concept to appease the growing majority of slaves and degenerates. Used through forcing women of the tribe to sell out their bodies or time to these slaves. The belief in this “diversity” is fostered only in women’s mind until she comes to believe nd practice an attitude of amoebic non-discretion towards anyone and anything. Her person, her property, her time must become a property of the lave population lest the rebellion erupts. It is like loosing a pawn to protect oneself from loosing a Bishop or a Queen.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Unsafe New York:Part Nine B
AMAZING STUFF. JUST AMAZING. NO, NO HEADING
Ok, I am back. Sadly. Sadly because every time this blog fills up some more, it means that someone, somewhere, yet again, did or acted in a way to merit this mention.
I have observed that it became almost impossible to engage in any activity without either inciting questions such as: what are you doing it for? This question attempts to pose as "innocent" but it is anything but that. This question is a major reflection on the mind state of the asker: things must be done with a purpose for something else. Something tangible, too. If you are not doing it "for" anything, just for the intrinsic value of itself, then people believe you must be doing someone else's biding. I will explain the latter in a detail and demonstrate how I have concluded that.
First, the "intrinsic value" concept that so many of you have such diffuculties understanding exists. It is practiced. It is loved and it is upheld. Your attempts to flatten out the reality and make it a sickly and controlable grazing field will sadly, fail. Why, oh sad creature, every time I look at the building or "check out the scenery" I must think about buying the building or attacking the ones who own it because they are "ruining the city with all these extra buildings"? Can't I just look to see the artchitectural piece? Maybe I have a memory connected to the similar looking building but a while ago? Perhaps in another country? Must I always think "profit" or have political activism attached to my sleeve? How about: I am an artist. How about: I am an educator. How about: I am feeling it. How about: this looks nice. How about: I am enjoying it.
So, a person doing things. That peson could be doing that thing for a reason, or without. Surely if your force her or him to give a reason he or she has no choice, but in its origination there could be something completely different from what you imagine. Like that person could do that thing not as means to some end but for that thing's intrinsic value and worth. There are things we do for something else. Like shop in the supermarket because we need food. And go to the bar to drink because we like the taste of alcohol or the accompanying socialization process. And we eat because we are hungry. And we buy cheap stuff because we are broke.
So, let's imagine a person with a life and people whose life is in doing things for the sake of something else. The two meet. One time this person who has a life and does not make a life out of an outting to a supermarket, and does not seek reasons to enjoy art, meets a group. And within that group is much talk about helping the planet, and feeding the poor, and helping people to connect and all that good stuff that makes this person who has a life and wants to help, to respond. And so she or he joins the group. And then starts performing the activity of help in accordance to the rules and ways. Suddenly, out of nowhere, somebody comes by and engages that person with nonsense and false excuses. Soon enough, very soon, the engager starts subtly attacking the genuine person. The genuine person naturally responds, and since the attacker is better in attacking, he or she finds a way to continue to harass a person regardless of attempts on the part of the harassed person, to have the harassment stopped. But this is a loosing game for the genuine person. The attacker is better and does things for a reason. The harassed is doing things for intrinsice value and fails to see a ploy. Before you know it, the genuine person looks bad, the attacker looks "good" for "exposing" the "bad guy". All that situation the attacker has created to aggrandize himself. And all this happening within the group that is supposed to be practicing something good or spiritual or activist! Within that group a person who does things they all subscribe to and support somehow gets attacked and questioned for his or her motives! All because people see everything for the sake of something else and are unable to perceive the natural and true behavior. This is how sick people's mentality undermines the very effort the organization is engaged in. How is the attacker like that succeeds in harassing the genuine person and how it is that people overlook it?
A genuine person is a true person. Her or his intent is to perform an activity. To buy an item. To eat the food. To help the cause. She or he separates intrinsic value from substitute value and keeps the boundaries clear. But alongside this person is a person who uses the aforementioned activites, or rather the structure they are in, as a playing field so to say, to play a human drama. He or she does everything wrong. His or her drive is impure, and heart, dark. He or she knows how human psychology works and hopes to gain points for being "strong" or "smart" or resourceful" in a setting that is simple and designed for a completely different goal. So, he or she, by doing a low and bad thing such as attacking a human being who is genuine, gains unfair advantage. What is wrong with that? THE SETTING IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT. IT IS NOT A PLAYING FILED BUT A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE LIVE THEIR LIVES. IT IS REALITY FOR OTHERS. Many come in there with a relaxed guard and to take advantage of them is to slaugter an innocent population. And so, here are the strategies of this pathetic mongrel:
At first, inflitrate places where good people gather.
Then, find the most genuine good person among them.
Then, engage her or him in a friendly interaction. Allow them to feel comfortable. Make them relax.
Then, suddenly, attack: make fun of the hair, lightly, pick up the potential intention in the phraze or voice (on that more - later), say something that does not make sense. Confuse. Muddy the waters. Make the person feel something is their fault. A genuine person will either get embarrased, upset, ashamed or confused. All of these are EMOTIONS. Emotions make one unreasonable and unreasonble people get caught in the net of wolves. [That is why if we want to develop and evolve further, we must have no wolves around.]
Then, when the other is overwhelmed by a normal human reaction, normal-to-the-situation, the attacker makes a few quick moves. He or she shifts the blame and blames the very reaction of the person on that person! He or she (the attacker) "concludes" something about the person based on that reaction. The trick is to cast that normal reaction into a different light, presenting the originator as bad, dumb or stupid. The new connotaions can be invented along the way because the power of the man and the power of the powerful bad are such as to be allowed, by society, to engage in name calling and making! (All that, of course originates from inherently wrong premise that men are superior and cannot do no wrong, as well as general societal love of blood and willingness to snap judge).
By the time the attacker shifts into an active-attack-mode, the person is so confused and upset, she or he become sad or dysfunctional.
Now, on the background of this the attacker gained points for: calling the
"bad" out, satisfying the blood-lust of the crowd, displaying cowardly prowess, and removing potential protector and defender. Moreover, the raw matter of emotion and pain is what many a wolf-vampire feed off. And the other person slowly perishes. Understand, that when normal human reactions are abused, people react normally. We are mammals and we react emotionally often. And we have to guard ourselves against that, we have to guard ourselves against being human. And this is what dehumanizes us and makes us sick.
Emotions, proper emotions, by the way, are the highest evolutionary development that gives us necessary guiding desire and material to create music, art, sculpture, theatre. Love, hate, friendship, family, human society arise from emotions; ability to walk in the streets and trust we won't get stabbed because we have created the police, who is now watching over us, protecting us from those elements that would have stabbed us and the others. Emotions guide us to our goal, higher goal and emotions properly maintained and in us, are an excellent lithmus paper for many situations. They are of course, insufficient in themselves and must be accompanied by reason and intellect. Therefore, those who hunt our emotions and capture us in the gatherings of peace, are despicable predators who should be removed from society.
But people who are like the attacker affect people in another way as well. Just like a contaminated tip of the drug needle leaving the body leaves, but leaves the disease behind, so so does that leech who feeds off a human situation, leaves eventually the poor victim, but leaves behind its disease. The same way the infected serum is a carrier only, so is the corrupt person, a carrier only. He or she is not a contaminated person, but the contaminated serum, the virus itself. He or she will not be affected by the disease, but is a disease, acting out its purpose, and leaving behind it those who get infected.
There should be severe punishments for people like that, who feed of the young, the innocent, the pure and the good. There are social consequences those who enter the contract with a false mind state, create. By entering the situation of a social contract with the negative intention and with a false mind, they violate the social contract and are in crime against the society in general, and an individual specifically. The outcome is so devastating, that I could only name few immediate results: mistrust on the part of the attacked people, their mental, spiritual, psychological, soul sickness. The resulting impossibility is a continuance of a normal and healthy life. The person's life has been taken away from her or him. These poor people now fear that everything they say, will be analyzed under a microscope and searched for hidden intentions and weak points, people will keep quiet and keep to themselves. Paranoia and false questioning will begin to give rise in their sickened mind: why did he say that? Why did she say that? People begin to listen-in instead of listening to one another. They look at one another's cloth and hair cuts. Waht follows is improper analysis of speaker's personality based on random or irrelevant observations, incomplete or prejudiced and biased data result. Normal human interaction becomes extinct as the infected passes the disease onto the next person. The person will either become infected, turn into a vampire or become a victim. A very strong a good person will be able to offer a cure. As the newly infected struggles to retain its focus, it becomes more and more impossible. What the person was trying to convey cannot be heard behind all that noise. The listener's mind becomes contaminated with a search for faults, and problems.
When the contaminated one leaves, she or he will go through after effects the growing disease will produce: inability to contain the flow of impuslive thoughts when either provoked by images or nothing, paranoid thoughts, suspicions, uncertainty, inability to keep a clear conscious thought. To do that to someone is just so wrong, in so many ways, I can't begin to count.
When we listen-in instead of listening-to and when we look at a person to judge her or him on irrelevant criteria, we do that person a great injustice. Her or his person is violated - his or her privacy is breached. We choose to see what we are not supposed to see and steal from that person their privacy, unfairly using the closeness to spy on. We should take what the person gives us and not take from the person what he or she does not give. Who gives anyone a right to search others minds and hearts? There are settings for that and people trained to do that, this is not an activity for people who have no business of conducting it. This is not a civillian activity. To seek an advantage over someone without merit, based on illegally gained information, through a devious use of psychology, stealing and sneaking in at the cover of the night, Watergate-style? And how about simple human decency, without the big names. And how about respect for a human invention of the place and time and of engagement? And how about who has set you above another, especially, in a democracy?
So eventually people learn not to listen. And not to be heard. And the inticacies of a human nature that evolve through sensitivity, trust, openness, love, friendship, connection (if you think the other will grab info about you and abuse you you will doubtlessly develop no connection, neither will you develop elevation and subtlety)? A word can mean a billion of things. So can a look. So can silence. But the leech runs in into a silence projecting his expectations: aha! you're silent! - must be ashamed of something. Or, must be ashamed of what I said to him. Or even better, must be ashamed because there is a hidden secret.A leech fills the word and a look with such meanings as do not exist in it, and he or she makes the originator's expression shacked and fettered. Look at Asian world: no expression, no creativity, dead zombie like faces. And why? From inhumanity resulting from overuse of psychology and abuse or power, people became like masks!
So, there are many reasons for facial expression,s words and gestures. Among a normal human strata, a certain language is developed. People understand it. When people who were young and innocent and have been vicitmized, like me, for example desire to evolve and go on, it is very hard for the amount of language to be learn and defences to erected, coming from such bottom, is simply huge. I may be all the genius that I am, but cast to the pits of this fiery hell, I am powerless to arise unless there is a ladder or a hand.
Silence has a thousand and one reason for its manifestation. A person may be silent for a thousand and one reasons. The person may be reflecting on some other things that you've phrazed: one cannot just keep going in a conversation, and speak all the time proceeding out of assumptions. But this type of behavior is possible proceeding out of bad intentions.
Here are a few examples of leeche's conversation-style. For example person being leeched off says: I want to see that sight you were talking about. The leech says: you don't believe me? -Assuming that you hate him. Or he says: you have so much free time? The implication here is either: you are a mistrustful person, or, you are not really intersted but simply wating my time.
What?!
First of all if someone says that a first time they meet you, they are simply RUDE. Regardless of their intentions, there are simple no-nos. You don't just blurt out to someone such a familiarity. Also, what is it? What gave you the right to attack, and who gave you the right to say something so obnoxious to my face?
Or the leech may state: you like sights. And the tone and speediness of the response indicate the defensive attitude. The attacked picks this up unconsciously. There is really no connection to that suspicion, and the leech does not really have it but knows that this type of hint at having it in reality will work the other person into a frenzy. The leech is sick and is sadistic. It is mentally deficient as well. But the attacked one does not know it. While the person digs in her or his heart to see what could have caused the leech to speak thusly, the leech uses that moment of confusion to deliver another blow.
Here is another example of a conversation with a leech. You could complement the leech on its bag and get this in return: you would love my roommate. Ok. Wait, WHAT?! Why? What did I say to make you say that? What gave you this refelction on my complex human personality? How dare you go there assuming things about me if I am complying with the proper process of behavior and giving you a compliment, when you are fishing for it and it is appropriate in the situation? And what if I genuinely like the color arrangement on your bag? Can't I be genuine? Or maybe I have a memory connected to something that looks this way? In any case, I act propely, but you - don't. Then the leech goes off having concluded that you are x,y,z - hey, he has stated that you would like his roommate, that means he concluded that his roommate personality and yours, for some unfathomable reason, is the same. Sometimes the leech although does not think this way plays as if it does and then proceeds to act with you out of these assumptions. The leech creates a false reality, enveloping you in its cacoon. There is no arguing with the leech and there is no allowing the leech to cast its cacoon over you, you must expose the leech, squiesh the leech and destroy the leech and its reputation and its maneuvers and its works. Before you become a bad guy, the uneducated guy, the stupid guy and the creepy guy, strike the leech and disengage from its tentcles. Run and take whoever you can with you. Build a fortress. Build a laboratory. Educate, engage propaganda, save the people and save yourself from the leech. It is coming to destroy the human race. The leech thus devolves the level of interraction and promotes ignorance of the population.
The leech reduces human compexity.
The leech makes wrong associations, attacking innocent people and making good into bad and bad into good.
The leech also creates a false cloud over a person: if the other person's true intentions are muddied over with either perceived (incorrectly) or imposed framework of false intentions upon her or his true intentions, then the person looses themselves and their own evolution.
The leech also sees everyone either as a biological male or female. It does not know subtleties. It does not recognize education. It does not recognize evolution. It does not know anything besides the simplest division in nature and he consciously intends to keep it as simple as possible and allow neither the betterment nor the evolution of the human race. People, trapped within the stupid world of false and denied and negated twisted word and thought associations of the same nature, surrounded on the sides by those trained to make them respond to a cue (aha, this association means "good" and this association means "bad"), engaged in conversations with a constant pressure not to give off a "wrong" impression (the impression that cannot arise in a healthy mind anyway) or simply unable to tap into who they are because they've been reduced to having conversation in a wrong format and in a wrong form, these people are you, me, and our friends, family and neighborhs.
Dear leech! Very few people are as primitive as to be all biological male or female all the time. We are an evolved species, our thoughts and beings have tints and hues and shades. We are not black or white.
Besides the leech creating a devolution and devouring human souls, the leech also destroys the beauty of hint and nuanse and of a debate, dialogue and a conversation. A loss of a conversation is a sad fact because a conversation may also be used to widen the boundaries of tolerance. A person who is nice and cultured is bound to be ruled by subtle rules and expectations. On all that leech shits and steps with janitorial boots. The cultured person either is too nice to say anything or too shocked. The leech meanwhile listens to the sound of its own voice resonating in the emptiness of the room while its fellow conversationalist is digesting the horrible shit and insult instead of a normal human interaction. The leech feels good. The leech feels smart. The leech feels powerful. Moreover, it has its cake and eats it too. It appears smart where it isn't, and then thus fattened on falsity, it turns around and sells some bullshit to the shell shocked person of whom it just leeched. Unable to find an inconsistency, a shell shocked person listens and agrees. The leech gained a blood donor and a supporter.
So, besides loosing the art of conversation and communication, besides devolving people though reducing human complexity and actively hindering and preventing the evolution from happening, messing up normal situations and getting people scared to participate in anything, the leech takes the joy of life away. People can't be in the moment! They are compelled to watch themselves in order not to be attacked by the leech and fear to display the natural behavior that has been associated with stupid or bad associations. And then people forget how to enjoy. They may have their minds all screwed up by then and think crazy things about normal situations... They become unable to be in the moment. They become unable to experience. To live. To breathe.
As we know the formula: experience creates thoughts and sensations, those later become recollected, that absorbed back into a person creates a potential for modification of behavior, that further reabsrobed creates a modification of a personality. If there is no novel experience, if everything is patterned out - this look means this, this phraze means that, then there are no new recollections. When there are no new recollections, no new information is being taken in and no modification of behavior that could lead to the modification of a personality can occur. All happens in the realm of the mind. Body is not involved. Soul is not involved. Spirit is not involved. No new things can arise if you already "know" everything.
So one keeps on regurgitating the old and cannot allow the evolution. Each new situation can be a novel experience. You just live. But "you" of the West is quiet different of the "you" of the East. Regadless,one learns new things this way of being in the moment, if not shackled like an Asian female, like a clam, to constantly process. Remember,without a recollection, there is no learning. And recollection is possible with reflection and being outside the moment. One needs to be in the moment to gather new data and material, but one must also be outside the moment to reabsorb and to complete the learning. You need not concern yourself with how you look every instant being concerned with creating the endless impressions. This is a preventor. If you know the rules of behavior and understand what a situation you are going to is, that is sufficient. Be. But the leech won't let you. It likes a loit of false power, and that type of power comes from classifying prejudicedly and biasedly data (people and conversations) and then following up on harassing them with false accusations. Power does not come from a true and real interaction. Also, the leech remains true to its reductionism to the end, the leech has reduced classification to the most simple pattern, biased heavily towards most basic and often wrongly defined as "defining" traits. Leech practices most blatant and obvious prejudice on everyone it meets and evokes discriminations. It's system of classification is so incorrect as to connect person's hair color with her religious affiliation. In leech's world, a person's lack of desire to curse refelcts on him as weak. Person's compliment is an invitaion to personality analysis and smug remark. Person standing doing his thing with tons of space around him, somehow explains to leech why somebody has to come right behind them and manage to put something on their foot. Leech justifies any power moves, and female leech rationalized male's leech evil doing. Female and male can be roles not connected to one's biological gender. But non-leech family knows that these actions are all a way to irritate, provoke, harrass. All intentions of those who love to abuse other indisriminatory.
A last classic example is a leech and you are in a team setting. You are both working. After having put in some good hours, you state "it is hot in here" as a way to start a coversation or share. With a leech. That is before you know that a leech is a leech. The leech, fully aware that you are sharing a human sentiment, instead of responding and talking to you, knowing fully well that you came voluntarily and put in good hours of work, asks you if "you don't want to be here?"
He or she loves to repeat your words back to you -apparently, to "clarify", inapparently, to imbue them with its own meaning and begin its work of feeding. Any opportunity, any, if a feeding opportunty for a leech. Leech only fears superior power. In other words, straw-man argument is not something the leech shys away from. In its mind the leech sees how to make your true intention shine in different armor. It is reflective of your intention with a crooked or broken or concave or convex mirror. This leech person obviously does not know what is the boundary. Her or his own thoughts are seen as a reality, and these thoughts are based on an invalid and irrelevant to the situaion criteria. You are made to suffer by explaining what you have not done and trying constantly to make your point.Perhaps some leeches are not leeches but are shcizophrenics.
The leech makes sure its victims remain uprotected and bleeding: after all, it needs to feed more than once. The leech makes sure that if you have somehow, evolved, the society is forewarned with false reports on you and you will never get accepted and be able to proceed further, to evolve. This way, you remain a feeding ground and cannot forewarn the others. The leech person, the anti-social, the dangerous element is cunningly superb in its cunning. The it also draws your knowledge and strength by provoking you and by forcing you to provide vital information while remaining unseen. Today, officially, they call it "farming."
What can be done to stop it?
Know yourself.
Know what each situation involves.
Know your boundaries.
Know to judge.
Know criteria.
Know right and wrong.
Know bad person when you see one. They do exist. By rationalizing and explaining people's poopoo away you only make yourself in a hindrance: both for yourself and the others.
Do not allow for untrue and fantastic accusations, assumptions and statements. Challenge each and every one or ignore leech and never engage again. Call it upon inconsistencies. They are notorious for that. They also love yanking what you say out of the context using key words and triggers. Remember, this is a creature, and as such should be treated as such. You are not a red carpet to their success.
Find the others.
Protect yourself and protect others.
Ok, I am back. Sadly. Sadly because every time this blog fills up some more, it means that someone, somewhere, yet again, did or acted in a way to merit this mention.
I have observed that it became almost impossible to engage in any activity without either inciting questions such as: what are you doing it for? This question attempts to pose as "innocent" but it is anything but that. This question is a major reflection on the mind state of the asker: things must be done with a purpose for something else. Something tangible, too. If you are not doing it "for" anything, just for the intrinsic value of itself, then people believe you must be doing someone else's biding. I will explain the latter in a detail and demonstrate how I have concluded that.
First, the "intrinsic value" concept that so many of you have such diffuculties understanding exists. It is practiced. It is loved and it is upheld. Your attempts to flatten out the reality and make it a sickly and controlable grazing field will sadly, fail. Why, oh sad creature, every time I look at the building or "check out the scenery" I must think about buying the building or attacking the ones who own it because they are "ruining the city with all these extra buildings"? Can't I just look to see the artchitectural piece? Maybe I have a memory connected to the similar looking building but a while ago? Perhaps in another country? Must I always think "profit" or have political activism attached to my sleeve? How about: I am an artist. How about: I am an educator. How about: I am feeling it. How about: this looks nice. How about: I am enjoying it.
So, a person doing things. That peson could be doing that thing for a reason, or without. Surely if your force her or him to give a reason he or she has no choice, but in its origination there could be something completely different from what you imagine. Like that person could do that thing not as means to some end but for that thing's intrinsic value and worth. There are things we do for something else. Like shop in the supermarket because we need food. And go to the bar to drink because we like the taste of alcohol or the accompanying socialization process. And we eat because we are hungry. And we buy cheap stuff because we are broke.
So, let's imagine a person with a life and people whose life is in doing things for the sake of something else. The two meet. One time this person who has a life and does not make a life out of an outting to a supermarket, and does not seek reasons to enjoy art, meets a group. And within that group is much talk about helping the planet, and feeding the poor, and helping people to connect and all that good stuff that makes this person who has a life and wants to help, to respond. And so she or he joins the group. And then starts performing the activity of help in accordance to the rules and ways. Suddenly, out of nowhere, somebody comes by and engages that person with nonsense and false excuses. Soon enough, very soon, the engager starts subtly attacking the genuine person. The genuine person naturally responds, and since the attacker is better in attacking, he or she finds a way to continue to harass a person regardless of attempts on the part of the harassed person, to have the harassment stopped. But this is a loosing game for the genuine person. The attacker is better and does things for a reason. The harassed is doing things for intrinsice value and fails to see a ploy. Before you know it, the genuine person looks bad, the attacker looks "good" for "exposing" the "bad guy". All that situation the attacker has created to aggrandize himself. And all this happening within the group that is supposed to be practicing something good or spiritual or activist! Within that group a person who does things they all subscribe to and support somehow gets attacked and questioned for his or her motives! All because people see everything for the sake of something else and are unable to perceive the natural and true behavior. This is how sick people's mentality undermines the very effort the organization is engaged in. How is the attacker like that succeeds in harassing the genuine person and how it is that people overlook it?
A genuine person is a true person. Her or his intent is to perform an activity. To buy an item. To eat the food. To help the cause. She or he separates intrinsic value from substitute value and keeps the boundaries clear. But alongside this person is a person who uses the aforementioned activites, or rather the structure they are in, as a playing field so to say, to play a human drama. He or she does everything wrong. His or her drive is impure, and heart, dark. He or she knows how human psychology works and hopes to gain points for being "strong" or "smart" or resourceful" in a setting that is simple and designed for a completely different goal. So, he or she, by doing a low and bad thing such as attacking a human being who is genuine, gains unfair advantage. What is wrong with that? THE SETTING IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT. IT IS NOT A PLAYING FILED BUT A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE LIVE THEIR LIVES. IT IS REALITY FOR OTHERS. Many come in there with a relaxed guard and to take advantage of them is to slaugter an innocent population. And so, here are the strategies of this pathetic mongrel:
At first, inflitrate places where good people gather.
Then, find the most genuine good person among them.
Then, engage her or him in a friendly interaction. Allow them to feel comfortable. Make them relax.
Then, suddenly, attack: make fun of the hair, lightly, pick up the potential intention in the phraze or voice (on that more - later), say something that does not make sense. Confuse. Muddy the waters. Make the person feel something is their fault. A genuine person will either get embarrased, upset, ashamed or confused. All of these are EMOTIONS. Emotions make one unreasonable and unreasonble people get caught in the net of wolves. [That is why if we want to develop and evolve further, we must have no wolves around.]
Then, when the other is overwhelmed by a normal human reaction, normal-to-the-situation, the attacker makes a few quick moves. He or she shifts the blame and blames the very reaction of the person on that person! He or she (the attacker) "concludes" something about the person based on that reaction. The trick is to cast that normal reaction into a different light, presenting the originator as bad, dumb or stupid. The new connotaions can be invented along the way because the power of the man and the power of the powerful bad are such as to be allowed, by society, to engage in name calling and making! (All that, of course originates from inherently wrong premise that men are superior and cannot do no wrong, as well as general societal love of blood and willingness to snap judge).
By the time the attacker shifts into an active-attack-mode, the person is so confused and upset, she or he become sad or dysfunctional.
Now, on the background of this the attacker gained points for: calling the
"bad" out, satisfying the blood-lust of the crowd, displaying cowardly prowess, and removing potential protector and defender. Moreover, the raw matter of emotion and pain is what many a wolf-vampire feed off. And the other person slowly perishes. Understand, that when normal human reactions are abused, people react normally. We are mammals and we react emotionally often. And we have to guard ourselves against that, we have to guard ourselves against being human. And this is what dehumanizes us and makes us sick.
Emotions, proper emotions, by the way, are the highest evolutionary development that gives us necessary guiding desire and material to create music, art, sculpture, theatre. Love, hate, friendship, family, human society arise from emotions; ability to walk in the streets and trust we won't get stabbed because we have created the police, who is now watching over us, protecting us from those elements that would have stabbed us and the others. Emotions guide us to our goal, higher goal and emotions properly maintained and in us, are an excellent lithmus paper for many situations. They are of course, insufficient in themselves and must be accompanied by reason and intellect. Therefore, those who hunt our emotions and capture us in the gatherings of peace, are despicable predators who should be removed from society.
But people who are like the attacker affect people in another way as well. Just like a contaminated tip of the drug needle leaving the body leaves, but leaves the disease behind, so so does that leech who feeds off a human situation, leaves eventually the poor victim, but leaves behind its disease. The same way the infected serum is a carrier only, so is the corrupt person, a carrier only. He or she is not a contaminated person, but the contaminated serum, the virus itself. He or she will not be affected by the disease, but is a disease, acting out its purpose, and leaving behind it those who get infected.
There should be severe punishments for people like that, who feed of the young, the innocent, the pure and the good. There are social consequences those who enter the contract with a false mind state, create. By entering the situation of a social contract with the negative intention and with a false mind, they violate the social contract and are in crime against the society in general, and an individual specifically. The outcome is so devastating, that I could only name few immediate results: mistrust on the part of the attacked people, their mental, spiritual, psychological, soul sickness. The resulting impossibility is a continuance of a normal and healthy life. The person's life has been taken away from her or him. These poor people now fear that everything they say, will be analyzed under a microscope and searched for hidden intentions and weak points, people will keep quiet and keep to themselves. Paranoia and false questioning will begin to give rise in their sickened mind: why did he say that? Why did she say that? People begin to listen-in instead of listening to one another. They look at one another's cloth and hair cuts. Waht follows is improper analysis of speaker's personality based on random or irrelevant observations, incomplete or prejudiced and biased data result. Normal human interaction becomes extinct as the infected passes the disease onto the next person. The person will either become infected, turn into a vampire or become a victim. A very strong a good person will be able to offer a cure. As the newly infected struggles to retain its focus, it becomes more and more impossible. What the person was trying to convey cannot be heard behind all that noise. The listener's mind becomes contaminated with a search for faults, and problems.
When the contaminated one leaves, she or he will go through after effects the growing disease will produce: inability to contain the flow of impuslive thoughts when either provoked by images or nothing, paranoid thoughts, suspicions, uncertainty, inability to keep a clear conscious thought. To do that to someone is just so wrong, in so many ways, I can't begin to count.
When we listen-in instead of listening-to and when we look at a person to judge her or him on irrelevant criteria, we do that person a great injustice. Her or his person is violated - his or her privacy is breached. We choose to see what we are not supposed to see and steal from that person their privacy, unfairly using the closeness to spy on. We should take what the person gives us and not take from the person what he or she does not give. Who gives anyone a right to search others minds and hearts? There are settings for that and people trained to do that, this is not an activity for people who have no business of conducting it. This is not a civillian activity. To seek an advantage over someone without merit, based on illegally gained information, through a devious use of psychology, stealing and sneaking in at the cover of the night, Watergate-style? And how about simple human decency, without the big names. And how about respect for a human invention of the place and time and of engagement? And how about who has set you above another, especially, in a democracy?
So eventually people learn not to listen. And not to be heard. And the inticacies of a human nature that evolve through sensitivity, trust, openness, love, friendship, connection (if you think the other will grab info about you and abuse you you will doubtlessly develop no connection, neither will you develop elevation and subtlety)? A word can mean a billion of things. So can a look. So can silence. But the leech runs in into a silence projecting his expectations: aha! you're silent! - must be ashamed of something. Or, must be ashamed of what I said to him. Or even better, must be ashamed because there is a hidden secret.A leech fills the word and a look with such meanings as do not exist in it, and he or she makes the originator's expression shacked and fettered. Look at Asian world: no expression, no creativity, dead zombie like faces. And why? From inhumanity resulting from overuse of psychology and abuse or power, people became like masks!
So, there are many reasons for facial expression,s words and gestures. Among a normal human strata, a certain language is developed. People understand it. When people who were young and innocent and have been vicitmized, like me, for example desire to evolve and go on, it is very hard for the amount of language to be learn and defences to erected, coming from such bottom, is simply huge. I may be all the genius that I am, but cast to the pits of this fiery hell, I am powerless to arise unless there is a ladder or a hand.
Silence has a thousand and one reason for its manifestation. A person may be silent for a thousand and one reasons. The person may be reflecting on some other things that you've phrazed: one cannot just keep going in a conversation, and speak all the time proceeding out of assumptions. But this type of behavior is possible proceeding out of bad intentions.
Here are a few examples of leeche's conversation-style. For example person being leeched off says: I want to see that sight you were talking about. The leech says: you don't believe me? -Assuming that you hate him. Or he says: you have so much free time? The implication here is either: you are a mistrustful person, or, you are not really intersted but simply wating my time.
What?!
First of all if someone says that a first time they meet you, they are simply RUDE. Regardless of their intentions, there are simple no-nos. You don't just blurt out to someone such a familiarity. Also, what is it? What gave you the right to attack, and who gave you the right to say something so obnoxious to my face?
Or the leech may state: you like sights. And the tone and speediness of the response indicate the defensive attitude. The attacked picks this up unconsciously. There is really no connection to that suspicion, and the leech does not really have it but knows that this type of hint at having it in reality will work the other person into a frenzy. The leech is sick and is sadistic. It is mentally deficient as well. But the attacked one does not know it. While the person digs in her or his heart to see what could have caused the leech to speak thusly, the leech uses that moment of confusion to deliver another blow.
Here is another example of a conversation with a leech. You could complement the leech on its bag and get this in return: you would love my roommate. Ok. Wait, WHAT?! Why? What did I say to make you say that? What gave you this refelction on my complex human personality? How dare you go there assuming things about me if I am complying with the proper process of behavior and giving you a compliment, when you are fishing for it and it is appropriate in the situation? And what if I genuinely like the color arrangement on your bag? Can't I be genuine? Or maybe I have a memory connected to something that looks this way? In any case, I act propely, but you - don't. Then the leech goes off having concluded that you are x,y,z - hey, he has stated that you would like his roommate, that means he concluded that his roommate personality and yours, for some unfathomable reason, is the same. Sometimes the leech although does not think this way plays as if it does and then proceeds to act with you out of these assumptions. The leech creates a false reality, enveloping you in its cacoon. There is no arguing with the leech and there is no allowing the leech to cast its cacoon over you, you must expose the leech, squiesh the leech and destroy the leech and its reputation and its maneuvers and its works. Before you become a bad guy, the uneducated guy, the stupid guy and the creepy guy, strike the leech and disengage from its tentcles. Run and take whoever you can with you. Build a fortress. Build a laboratory. Educate, engage propaganda, save the people and save yourself from the leech. It is coming to destroy the human race. The leech thus devolves the level of interraction and promotes ignorance of the population.
The leech reduces human compexity.
The leech makes wrong associations, attacking innocent people and making good into bad and bad into good.
The leech also creates a false cloud over a person: if the other person's true intentions are muddied over with either perceived (incorrectly) or imposed framework of false intentions upon her or his true intentions, then the person looses themselves and their own evolution.
The leech also sees everyone either as a biological male or female. It does not know subtleties. It does not recognize education. It does not recognize evolution. It does not know anything besides the simplest division in nature and he consciously intends to keep it as simple as possible and allow neither the betterment nor the evolution of the human race. People, trapped within the stupid world of false and denied and negated twisted word and thought associations of the same nature, surrounded on the sides by those trained to make them respond to a cue (aha, this association means "good" and this association means "bad"), engaged in conversations with a constant pressure not to give off a "wrong" impression (the impression that cannot arise in a healthy mind anyway) or simply unable to tap into who they are because they've been reduced to having conversation in a wrong format and in a wrong form, these people are you, me, and our friends, family and neighborhs.
Dear leech! Very few people are as primitive as to be all biological male or female all the time. We are an evolved species, our thoughts and beings have tints and hues and shades. We are not black or white.
Besides the leech creating a devolution and devouring human souls, the leech also destroys the beauty of hint and nuanse and of a debate, dialogue and a conversation. A loss of a conversation is a sad fact because a conversation may also be used to widen the boundaries of tolerance. A person who is nice and cultured is bound to be ruled by subtle rules and expectations. On all that leech shits and steps with janitorial boots. The cultured person either is too nice to say anything or too shocked. The leech meanwhile listens to the sound of its own voice resonating in the emptiness of the room while its fellow conversationalist is digesting the horrible shit and insult instead of a normal human interaction. The leech feels good. The leech feels smart. The leech feels powerful. Moreover, it has its cake and eats it too. It appears smart where it isn't, and then thus fattened on falsity, it turns around and sells some bullshit to the shell shocked person of whom it just leeched. Unable to find an inconsistency, a shell shocked person listens and agrees. The leech gained a blood donor and a supporter.
So, besides loosing the art of conversation and communication, besides devolving people though reducing human complexity and actively hindering and preventing the evolution from happening, messing up normal situations and getting people scared to participate in anything, the leech takes the joy of life away. People can't be in the moment! They are compelled to watch themselves in order not to be attacked by the leech and fear to display the natural behavior that has been associated with stupid or bad associations. And then people forget how to enjoy. They may have their minds all screwed up by then and think crazy things about normal situations... They become unable to be in the moment. They become unable to experience. To live. To breathe.
As we know the formula: experience creates thoughts and sensations, those later become recollected, that absorbed back into a person creates a potential for modification of behavior, that further reabsrobed creates a modification of a personality. If there is no novel experience, if everything is patterned out - this look means this, this phraze means that, then there are no new recollections. When there are no new recollections, no new information is being taken in and no modification of behavior that could lead to the modification of a personality can occur. All happens in the realm of the mind. Body is not involved. Soul is not involved. Spirit is not involved. No new things can arise if you already "know" everything.
So one keeps on regurgitating the old and cannot allow the evolution. Each new situation can be a novel experience. You just live. But "you" of the West is quiet different of the "you" of the East. Regadless,one learns new things this way of being in the moment, if not shackled like an Asian female, like a clam, to constantly process. Remember,without a recollection, there is no learning. And recollection is possible with reflection and being outside the moment. One needs to be in the moment to gather new data and material, but one must also be outside the moment to reabsorb and to complete the learning. You need not concern yourself with how you look every instant being concerned with creating the endless impressions. This is a preventor. If you know the rules of behavior and understand what a situation you are going to is, that is sufficient. Be. But the leech won't let you. It likes a loit of false power, and that type of power comes from classifying prejudicedly and biasedly data (people and conversations) and then following up on harassing them with false accusations. Power does not come from a true and real interaction. Also, the leech remains true to its reductionism to the end, the leech has reduced classification to the most simple pattern, biased heavily towards most basic and often wrongly defined as "defining" traits. Leech practices most blatant and obvious prejudice on everyone it meets and evokes discriminations. It's system of classification is so incorrect as to connect person's hair color with her religious affiliation. In leech's world, a person's lack of desire to curse refelcts on him as weak. Person's compliment is an invitaion to personality analysis and smug remark. Person standing doing his thing with tons of space around him, somehow explains to leech why somebody has to come right behind them and manage to put something on their foot. Leech justifies any power moves, and female leech rationalized male's leech evil doing. Female and male can be roles not connected to one's biological gender. But non-leech family knows that these actions are all a way to irritate, provoke, harrass. All intentions of those who love to abuse other indisriminatory.
A last classic example is a leech and you are in a team setting. You are both working. After having put in some good hours, you state "it is hot in here" as a way to start a coversation or share. With a leech. That is before you know that a leech is a leech. The leech, fully aware that you are sharing a human sentiment, instead of responding and talking to you, knowing fully well that you came voluntarily and put in good hours of work, asks you if "you don't want to be here?"
He or she loves to repeat your words back to you -apparently, to "clarify", inapparently, to imbue them with its own meaning and begin its work of feeding. Any opportunity, any, if a feeding opportunty for a leech. Leech only fears superior power. In other words, straw-man argument is not something the leech shys away from. In its mind the leech sees how to make your true intention shine in different armor. It is reflective of your intention with a crooked or broken or concave or convex mirror. This leech person obviously does not know what is the boundary. Her or his own thoughts are seen as a reality, and these thoughts are based on an invalid and irrelevant to the situaion criteria. You are made to suffer by explaining what you have not done and trying constantly to make your point.Perhaps some leeches are not leeches but are shcizophrenics.
The leech makes sure its victims remain uprotected and bleeding: after all, it needs to feed more than once. The leech makes sure that if you have somehow, evolved, the society is forewarned with false reports on you and you will never get accepted and be able to proceed further, to evolve. This way, you remain a feeding ground and cannot forewarn the others. The leech person, the anti-social, the dangerous element is cunningly superb in its cunning. The it also draws your knowledge and strength by provoking you and by forcing you to provide vital information while remaining unseen. Today, officially, they call it "farming."
What can be done to stop it?
Know yourself.
Know what each situation involves.
Know your boundaries.
Know to judge.
Know criteria.
Know right and wrong.
Know bad person when you see one. They do exist. By rationalizing and explaining people's poopoo away you only make yourself in a hindrance: both for yourself and the others.
Do not allow for untrue and fantastic accusations, assumptions and statements. Challenge each and every one or ignore leech and never engage again. Call it upon inconsistencies. They are notorious for that. They also love yanking what you say out of the context using key words and triggers. Remember, this is a creature, and as such should be treated as such. You are not a red carpet to their success.
Find the others.
Protect yourself and protect others.
Unsafe New York: Part 9A
BUT WOMEN ARE WORSE THAN MEN IN X,YZ, THEREFORE LET MEN DECIDE
OR AN UNBEATABLE LOGIC
Working of the heading: it's a falacy.
"Worse" is a comparison. Worse than. "Worse" does not mean "bad" although in the heads of many people 3=4. A term of comparison to becomes a term itself. Big difference. Huge. Now, when we compare something, just like in simple mathematic class proverbial apples and oranges do not ad: what do you get when you ad them? Orgepple?!...Really now. Only things same in basic structure can be added together. I cannot compare a college grad in philosophy to a basement dwelling 14 hours a day and 6 day a week working person with no previous background in a study of philosophy who has found somewhere a book of Plato's dialogues and reads it in the bathroom at nights before crashing herself or himself to sleep. I cannot say: oh, the college grad is better. It is obvious. She is better in philosophy. Furtherwmore, I cannot proceed to conclude that the basement person who works 14 hours and has no education is "stupid" because of that. That is called a stretch. When comparing objects, basic structure is a criteria. With humans things are a bit more complex. Education, nutrition, background, opportunites all count. Looking historically, women are not physically trained, nor encouraged to develop selves. They are defficient over centuries in the areas of knowledge and development. So, how can they be "compared" with men who have huge accumulation of knowledge in their genetic code by now? Also, I hear often people say: well, but women are slower, and not good in technology and if we have to listen to them where are we going to get.
First of all who is the "we." We - women, comprise more than half of human population, you cannot be speaking on behalf of "us" here. Because where are "we" - maltreated, uneducated, underpaid and extremely without any traces of self-esteem and self-respect would like to be going?! Where does a sick person want to go? And what does a hungry person want to do? And what the abused person wishes for? Also, where is it that we "have to get?"
We are living, buddy.
There is no agenda.
And if there is, "we" should have been respected, treated well and taught, then "we" could have considered. Also, as I said, agenda should be decided between the entire species: we.
The Homo Sapiens: females+males decide on the agenda.
"We" here have basic needs to be met.
"We" here are not working horses.
"We" here may not even find the "agenda" proper.
"You" are going to use might?
OR AN UNBEATABLE LOGIC
Working of the heading: it's a falacy.
"Worse" is a comparison. Worse than. "Worse" does not mean "bad" although in the heads of many people 3=4. A term of comparison to becomes a term itself. Big difference. Huge. Now, when we compare something, just like in simple mathematic class proverbial apples and oranges do not ad: what do you get when you ad them? Orgepple?!...Really now. Only things same in basic structure can be added together. I cannot compare a college grad in philosophy to a basement dwelling 14 hours a day and 6 day a week working person with no previous background in a study of philosophy who has found somewhere a book of Plato's dialogues and reads it in the bathroom at nights before crashing herself or himself to sleep. I cannot say: oh, the college grad is better. It is obvious. She is better in philosophy. Furtherwmore, I cannot proceed to conclude that the basement person who works 14 hours and has no education is "stupid" because of that. That is called a stretch. When comparing objects, basic structure is a criteria. With humans things are a bit more complex. Education, nutrition, background, opportunites all count. Looking historically, women are not physically trained, nor encouraged to develop selves. They are defficient over centuries in the areas of knowledge and development. So, how can they be "compared" with men who have huge accumulation of knowledge in their genetic code by now? Also, I hear often people say: well, but women are slower, and not good in technology and if we have to listen to them where are we going to get.
First of all who is the "we." We - women, comprise more than half of human population, you cannot be speaking on behalf of "us" here. Because where are "we" - maltreated, uneducated, underpaid and extremely without any traces of self-esteem and self-respect would like to be going?! Where does a sick person want to go? And what does a hungry person want to do? And what the abused person wishes for? Also, where is it that we "have to get?"
We are living, buddy.
There is no agenda.
And if there is, "we" should have been respected, treated well and taught, then "we" could have considered. Also, as I said, agenda should be decided between the entire species: we.
The Homo Sapiens: females+males decide on the agenda.
"We" here have basic needs to be met.
"We" here are not working horses.
"We" here may not even find the "agenda" proper.
"You" are going to use might?
Unsafe New Yor: Part Nine A
"WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU THINK THIS: THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD THINK"
Amazing! Nothing apparently gets some people more upset than you thinking from your own head. People try to "convince" that you really should look and dress some other way. At a closer examination, they don't really directly benifit from it or do they do? Now why would a person close to you fully aware of your process of thinking and personality and person suggest to act a way completely opposite to who you are? Who makes him, in a democracy, an arbitrator of people's tastes and behaviors? Why is varietry allowed among men but all women have to be sexual xreatures in mini dresses with make up? Why do they have to be naked? Why do they have to expose their bodies? Why are they called names when they want to assert who they are and their persons? Why no listening is given and obstructions are placed? How can anyone regulate a person's PERSON and deny practising SLAVERY? Why is an arbitrary standard, based on one's perception made into THE STANDARD? Why woman's body is abhored the wya it is? Why is there a sens of ENTITLMENT to her obedience and "change"? An adult, fully mature individual has tastes, preferences, liks and dislikes and should be either taken as is or not at all. "Changing" preaching or yelling at - how often it happened to women! They, even in their THIRTEES are still treated as children or pests? Ridiculous!
Why when you say "hey that was wrong to do to me" the person starts infliciting more pain and going off on a tangent? Why human standards are not applied to women? What is it that a sexual appearance devoid of thinking being inside necessary? Simple answer: conduction and promotion of one's goal. A woman is a means to an end. reduced to perceptory function and "dressed-to-impress" she is stimulating men's sexual energy and then processing what arises in herself, constantly being in a state of perceiving, producing novel connections and new ideas, and seeing with her long range vision (developed out of centuries of abuse and looking out for her life unde cruel and capricious monsters-masters) all potential obstacles. She can have no life of her own - statically pressed in a tutu on high heels with masked face and an ass sticking out in the air, she is a sight that makes even gods - cry. HOW CAN THEY, would a visitor from another plante ask observing the travesty. THIS ARE THEIR OWN SISTERS! THEIR OWN KIND. Oh, but they can, friend. They can this and much, much more. Of the two of us now, who, by concluded out of premises definitions is NOT HUMAN?
Till soon
PS Consider also how many adult fucntions are developed in "women." What is promoted and what is suppressed. Physical development is non-existent: a primary place where you exist is your...body! Self awareness? Self knowledge? Tutu and heels are not integral part of your personality nor your person. Then, when a "woman" displays an understandable lack of knowledge in the fields she was not trained in, she is mocked, abused and presented as "stupid." If I am discouraged from the childhood to study math (and trust me, in tmy case it is truth. And I have father who is a mathematician. Luckily for me, I always loved math and continue my studies in it.) and then a situation with mathematical ability required arises. How will the one without background and training know how to solve it? Thus is self fulfilling prophecy of "woman is stupid but pretty" arises. A "woman", friend, is Homo Sapiens whom if you teach instead of training her as Homo Spaniels, maybe will be different? How many colleges are observing that women lead men in thier grades and progress? Boys are failing the classes and not learning whereas girls are. Why must I say it and wait for an argument to have someone
"proove" me I really am inferior when apparently I am not? Also, if I was black, would you dare, even if you were a terrbile racist, say to me"you're inferior"? AND WHY NOT NOW? My gender is a lot more primary to species definition than race, color etc. These aree secondary to gender.
Amazing! Nothing apparently gets some people more upset than you thinking from your own head. People try to "convince" that you really should look and dress some other way. At a closer examination, they don't really directly benifit from it or do they do? Now why would a person close to you fully aware of your process of thinking and personality and person suggest to act a way completely opposite to who you are? Who makes him, in a democracy, an arbitrator of people's tastes and behaviors? Why is varietry allowed among men but all women have to be sexual xreatures in mini dresses with make up? Why do they have to be naked? Why do they have to expose their bodies? Why are they called names when they want to assert who they are and their persons? Why no listening is given and obstructions are placed? How can anyone regulate a person's PERSON and deny practising SLAVERY? Why is an arbitrary standard, based on one's perception made into THE STANDARD? Why woman's body is abhored the wya it is? Why is there a sens of ENTITLMENT to her obedience and "change"? An adult, fully mature individual has tastes, preferences, liks and dislikes and should be either taken as is or not at all. "Changing" preaching or yelling at - how often it happened to women! They, even in their THIRTEES are still treated as children or pests? Ridiculous!
Why when you say "hey that was wrong to do to me" the person starts infliciting more pain and going off on a tangent? Why human standards are not applied to women? What is it that a sexual appearance devoid of thinking being inside necessary? Simple answer: conduction and promotion of one's goal. A woman is a means to an end. reduced to perceptory function and "dressed-to-impress" she is stimulating men's sexual energy and then processing what arises in herself, constantly being in a state of perceiving, producing novel connections and new ideas, and seeing with her long range vision (developed out of centuries of abuse and looking out for her life unde cruel and capricious monsters-masters) all potential obstacles. She can have no life of her own - statically pressed in a tutu on high heels with masked face and an ass sticking out in the air, she is a sight that makes even gods - cry. HOW CAN THEY, would a visitor from another plante ask observing the travesty. THIS ARE THEIR OWN SISTERS! THEIR OWN KIND. Oh, but they can, friend. They can this and much, much more. Of the two of us now, who, by concluded out of premises definitions is NOT HUMAN?
Till soon
PS Consider also how many adult fucntions are developed in "women." What is promoted and what is suppressed. Physical development is non-existent: a primary place where you exist is your...body! Self awareness? Self knowledge? Tutu and heels are not integral part of your personality nor your person. Then, when a "woman" displays an understandable lack of knowledge in the fields she was not trained in, she is mocked, abused and presented as "stupid." If I am discouraged from the childhood to study math (and trust me, in tmy case it is truth. And I have father who is a mathematician. Luckily for me, I always loved math and continue my studies in it.) and then a situation with mathematical ability required arises. How will the one without background and training know how to solve it? Thus is self fulfilling prophecy of "woman is stupid but pretty" arises. A "woman", friend, is Homo Sapiens whom if you teach instead of training her as Homo Spaniels, maybe will be different? How many colleges are observing that women lead men in thier grades and progress? Boys are failing the classes and not learning whereas girls are. Why must I say it and wait for an argument to have someone
"proove" me I really am inferior when apparently I am not? Also, if I was black, would you dare, even if you were a terrbile racist, say to me"you're inferior"? AND WHY NOT NOW? My gender is a lot more primary to species definition than race, color etc. These aree secondary to gender.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Unsafe New York: Part Nine
"IT DOESN'T T BOTHER, THEREFORE IT IS NOT BOTHERSOME": OR THIS ACTUALLY DOESN'T FEEL GOOD
Interesting observation I have made just recently. It was with a friend and we were having what people would term - a discussion. Or rather a conversation. The process of exchange of information has turned into a discussion after the following happening. A friend mentioned drinking warm milk as being beneficial and waited for my reaction. I said that although I am familiar with its healing qualities and nutritional value, I have also heard that it makes some people get a stomach ache, or even worse, fall ill. "Not me," viciously said a friend. "I drink it, and I am ok. It is great for you." "Yes, I know that you are one of the few that derives benifits out of milk past the age of 5, but many people do not, and I..." "Bullshit! It's fine! Nothing happens to me." Being thustly disarmed with impervious logic, I"ve retrieved. And indeed, nothing happens to him: the milk must be great, therefore.
This little story is a prelude to a realization that many things in my life I often considered bad or good based on a prevalent opinion. Not unlike my friend and his conviction, the origin of many a "truth" and a grand "THE TRUTH" WITH ALL CAPITALS AND PREFERABLY DOUBLY SIZED is often a ...personal opinion.
As for out little "discussion", my friend was quite upset and at some point in our discussion he stroke against me on the personal grounds, as apparently we covered a few other points and found out that there were other ways than that of my friend's to react to things. My friend was terribly upset, again. He would have probably hit me. In an ideal universe I would be dead. Then I thought maybe it is my fault: do I really need to keep discussion intelligent? Can't we just swap opnions and be merry? I've attempted that, and to my surprise my friend was even more upset when I stated things I liked and I disliked. To each of my liking was a rule or a code (quoted as religious, but since we were talking about the same religion I've studied as well) deeming them as "incorrect" and my friend's opinion appeared to pose as the word of the God himself! Not every time this happened, but the "word of God" came into play every time my opinion differed from my friend's. It was like a bat with which I got hit when my friend felt he was loosing the ground. It's gotten worse when I continued to persevere in my obsequous desire to think and ponder the issues from a reasonable point of view, like could we really consider all experience a karma and a necessity for learning? Of course, if I've realized my friend was irrational and so beligerent, I would have never considered talking to him, but I have heard stories from him, about him and his friends doing things together, and apparently oftentimes his close friends would have different opinions from him on many subjects. Including religious. Se seemed to profess tolerance and to breathe wisdom. (That's the thing, he only "breathed" it, around other wise people.) So why would he treat our discussion differently? Things I stated were not attrocious. In the first instance they were facts I was quoting, with sources, in the second a matter of a choice of food or a book to read. Why was I always brought back into an arena of "should" and "should nots" like a small child? Continuing listening, I found out that all the friends my friend has mentioned were boys, and whenever a story of a "nasty" or "funny" or "stupid" individual appeared, it turned out to be, necessarily, a ...girl. Woman, actually to be precise. "Girl" is term incorrectly applied to a post-pubescent female human being.
So, the friend and I fought. Of course. And then I remembered my mother's words " nod, smile, don't fight." Indeed, maybe at a work place or in a political arena. But with people who consider themselves my friends, a part of my inner sanctum invitees, fellow artists, what am I supposed to do, nod?! And then again words of my mother came to my mind: let a man have his way.
And suddenly an understanding of what was to become out of that my mother's idea, came to me: a world where people with bigger fists run around and state categorically matters of personal opinion. The other people, with smaller fists nod and consent. And they do so without listening. Listening to someone say "5+2=9" may stimulate some feelings of protest and subsequently merit a blow in the face. These smaller-fisted people are dressed funny and like a defeated in a battle male (in some places after two males fight and one looses, a looser has to shave off his head, or shave his pubic hair or something. In some tribes where women don't shave - therefore to use that example as a proof of feminity would be incorrect, as in "the looser is weaker and therefore has to adopt a feminine role" is incorrect. Simply because the shaving practise is not a practice invented by women and not for women to be pretty. Shaving hair off has to do with the humiliation and putting one in his place: even your body is not your own. I am the master of it and can do as I please with it. Shaving hair is a perfect way to show one's power without inflicting damage to the body. A slave with a damaged body is a damaged slave. The slave who walks around with a sex drive on all the time waiting to be addressed and purchased (smiles, movies, money, blackmail, societal conditioning) for sex should not be damaged. )
When a smaller fist person is in the 21st century and a certain process of evolution has taken place, a bigger fist is shocked, surprised and even isulted by presentations from a smaller fist indentured servant: her job is to consent, stimulate the eye and the organ, and bear the young. She may speak a little just to be entertaining enough, a nice and stimulating addition to her highly manipulated and artificialized form but never enough to "challenge" the "fact" of somebody's divinity or nutritional content. Even if she speaks the truth. Truth and not truth are irrelevant in the condition of small-fisted people. How much so is irrelevant their personal opinions, likes and dislikes?
Who inhabits my body? Why can't I openly say: this hurts me, this is not pleasant, I don't like it. Why I am allocated a narrow circumference where I may state my preferences but as long as they don't "violate" the established norm. Even if this norm be foot binding, corsets, brutal hair removal procedures, rib removal, application of artificial substances upon HUMAN FACE! Are my likes and dislikes limited by what's EXPECTED? Am I not authority on the matters of my OWN body more than some guy out there somewhere?
So this is Why this friend feels that his milk preferences dictate the taste of the world and is not fazed by the fact that milk is bad for many a person. But when I bring up the fact of my physical body needing a walk, a run, a set of exercises, a proper nutrition I get shut up and down with the argument of some "god"? Why must I listen with a smile to a complete nonsense, agree with my slave conditon because it comes from "god," and a with a man who displays non-tolerant and objectionable attitude?
Might make right?
Why was slavery or Holocaust wrong then? In the first case "it's economics, stupid" and in the second some group proved to be impure in the eyes of superior (at the time) strength people and was done away with. How is it different from Indian widow burned ALIVE at a stake after her husband's demise? And treated with terrible disrespect if she chooses to stay alive, and is bound to poverty and begging (a concentration camp-like existence) for the rest of her life?! And the baby girls that get thrown into the Ganges and other rivers surrounding India? Their crime being only that they are not boys? And bound broken feet? And forced marriage, purchase of a wife?
Or we don't see it? No facts?
In the words of the same friend " facts don't interest me."
Indeed.
Interesting observation I have made just recently. It was with a friend and we were having what people would term - a discussion. Or rather a conversation. The process of exchange of information has turned into a discussion after the following happening. A friend mentioned drinking warm milk as being beneficial and waited for my reaction. I said that although I am familiar with its healing qualities and nutritional value, I have also heard that it makes some people get a stomach ache, or even worse, fall ill. "Not me," viciously said a friend. "I drink it, and I am ok. It is great for you." "Yes, I know that you are one of the few that derives benifits out of milk past the age of 5, but many people do not, and I..." "Bullshit! It's fine! Nothing happens to me." Being thustly disarmed with impervious logic, I"ve retrieved. And indeed, nothing happens to him: the milk must be great, therefore.
This little story is a prelude to a realization that many things in my life I often considered bad or good based on a prevalent opinion. Not unlike my friend and his conviction, the origin of many a "truth" and a grand "THE TRUTH" WITH ALL CAPITALS AND PREFERABLY DOUBLY SIZED is often a ...personal opinion.
As for out little "discussion", my friend was quite upset and at some point in our discussion he stroke against me on the personal grounds, as apparently we covered a few other points and found out that there were other ways than that of my friend's to react to things. My friend was terribly upset, again. He would have probably hit me. In an ideal universe I would be dead. Then I thought maybe it is my fault: do I really need to keep discussion intelligent? Can't we just swap opnions and be merry? I've attempted that, and to my surprise my friend was even more upset when I stated things I liked and I disliked. To each of my liking was a rule or a code (quoted as religious, but since we were talking about the same religion I've studied as well) deeming them as "incorrect" and my friend's opinion appeared to pose as the word of the God himself! Not every time this happened, but the "word of God" came into play every time my opinion differed from my friend's. It was like a bat with which I got hit when my friend felt he was loosing the ground. It's gotten worse when I continued to persevere in my obsequous desire to think and ponder the issues from a reasonable point of view, like could we really consider all experience a karma and a necessity for learning? Of course, if I've realized my friend was irrational and so beligerent, I would have never considered talking to him, but I have heard stories from him, about him and his friends doing things together, and apparently oftentimes his close friends would have different opinions from him on many subjects. Including religious. Se seemed to profess tolerance and to breathe wisdom. (That's the thing, he only "breathed" it, around other wise people.) So why would he treat our discussion differently? Things I stated were not attrocious. In the first instance they were facts I was quoting, with sources, in the second a matter of a choice of food or a book to read. Why was I always brought back into an arena of "should" and "should nots" like a small child? Continuing listening, I found out that all the friends my friend has mentioned were boys, and whenever a story of a "nasty" or "funny" or "stupid" individual appeared, it turned out to be, necessarily, a ...girl. Woman, actually to be precise. "Girl" is term incorrectly applied to a post-pubescent female human being.
So, the friend and I fought. Of course. And then I remembered my mother's words " nod, smile, don't fight." Indeed, maybe at a work place or in a political arena. But with people who consider themselves my friends, a part of my inner sanctum invitees, fellow artists, what am I supposed to do, nod?! And then again words of my mother came to my mind: let a man have his way.
And suddenly an understanding of what was to become out of that my mother's idea, came to me: a world where people with bigger fists run around and state categorically matters of personal opinion. The other people, with smaller fists nod and consent. And they do so without listening. Listening to someone say "5+2=9" may stimulate some feelings of protest and subsequently merit a blow in the face. These smaller-fisted people are dressed funny and like a defeated in a battle male (in some places after two males fight and one looses, a looser has to shave off his head, or shave his pubic hair or something. In some tribes where women don't shave - therefore to use that example as a proof of feminity would be incorrect, as in "the looser is weaker and therefore has to adopt a feminine role" is incorrect. Simply because the shaving practise is not a practice invented by women and not for women to be pretty. Shaving hair off has to do with the humiliation and putting one in his place: even your body is not your own. I am the master of it and can do as I please with it. Shaving hair is a perfect way to show one's power without inflicting damage to the body. A slave with a damaged body is a damaged slave. The slave who walks around with a sex drive on all the time waiting to be addressed and purchased (smiles, movies, money, blackmail, societal conditioning) for sex should not be damaged. )
When a smaller fist person is in the 21st century and a certain process of evolution has taken place, a bigger fist is shocked, surprised and even isulted by presentations from a smaller fist indentured servant: her job is to consent, stimulate the eye and the organ, and bear the young. She may speak a little just to be entertaining enough, a nice and stimulating addition to her highly manipulated and artificialized form but never enough to "challenge" the "fact" of somebody's divinity or nutritional content. Even if she speaks the truth. Truth and not truth are irrelevant in the condition of small-fisted people. How much so is irrelevant their personal opinions, likes and dislikes?
Who inhabits my body? Why can't I openly say: this hurts me, this is not pleasant, I don't like it. Why I am allocated a narrow circumference where I may state my preferences but as long as they don't "violate" the established norm. Even if this norm be foot binding, corsets, brutal hair removal procedures, rib removal, application of artificial substances upon HUMAN FACE! Are my likes and dislikes limited by what's EXPECTED? Am I not authority on the matters of my OWN body more than some guy out there somewhere?
So this is Why this friend feels that his milk preferences dictate the taste of the world and is not fazed by the fact that milk is bad for many a person. But when I bring up the fact of my physical body needing a walk, a run, a set of exercises, a proper nutrition I get shut up and down with the argument of some "god"? Why must I listen with a smile to a complete nonsense, agree with my slave conditon because it comes from "god," and a with a man who displays non-tolerant and objectionable attitude?
Might make right?
Why was slavery or Holocaust wrong then? In the first case "it's economics, stupid" and in the second some group proved to be impure in the eyes of superior (at the time) strength people and was done away with. How is it different from Indian widow burned ALIVE at a stake after her husband's demise? And treated with terrible disrespect if she chooses to stay alive, and is bound to poverty and begging (a concentration camp-like existence) for the rest of her life?! And the baby girls that get thrown into the Ganges and other rivers surrounding India? Their crime being only that they are not boys? And bound broken feet? And forced marriage, purchase of a wife?
Or we don't see it? No facts?
In the words of the same friend " facts don't interest me."
Indeed.
Unsafe New York: Part Eight: exposition on acceptance
"YES, I ACCEPT YOU": YOU SICKO
New York. A great city. A huge and important part of this wonderful Constitutional Democracy we live in. A democracy supported by the document called the "constituion." The Constitution of The United States. The extensions of the Constitution came to be knows as its "amendments" and the further expansions on the amendments or the original statures are the "laws" or "acts". The main focus of my work so far lies with observing the blatant, gruesome and screaming violation of what I call the "five factors. These five factors are prohibited discrimination handles: race, national origins, religion, gender, and dissability. The mention of these fives is used as protection against the violation of people' rights for employment, but it reflects on the idea of the nature of this country and its law: these five factors should not be used agaisnt people to take dissadvantage them. What is a dissadvantaging procedure, could also be a procedure of taking of a dvantage. Depending on whose perspective you look from: from the perspective of the victim of discrimination, the violations disadvantage her, from the perspective of the abuser, disscrimination gives him advantage. How so? On this will be this article, on how this taking of an advantage delivers a greater opportunity for the oppressor.
I will sing a song to the Constitution before I proceed onto a next step: the demonstration.
Ah, The Constitution. A document fed by the heart of the first Mayflower settlers who have arrived to the rocky shores of Massachusets to practice their oppressed religion in peace. The document that has matured in the anals of time, was forged in the heat of experience of injustice and bitterness, and terrible oppression. All of that and more was put together into a coherent whole by our Founding Fathers who believed in the rights of men and in the sacred right of the self and its happiness. Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness is what that vision and idea came down to us. People mock the "White male" but who else and in what country has envisioned such great ideals, such lofty pursuits and such freedom for women? Who has created a civilizations that is both encompassing and supreme in its works of art, music and humanity? Who else has created the Constitution, not to count France and its original form of government? It is barely the fault of these "white men" that the world at the time they've conceived a Constitution did not consider people of women-gender human beings. As for others, people of color, for example, not much could be blamed here. Although slavery is a terrble thing it was practiced across the world for thousands of years. I do see a connection between lowering a high creature such as a woman and enslabing one's own brother. Only the blind will fail to perceive the connection. Working with their time and the circumstances, the Founding Fathers took the concept of liberty and freedom a step further, and went where other have not gone before. The American Constitution is the pearl of Western Civilization. Of the Great Western Civilization. The civilization that gave rise to human rights, freedom for women, Red Cross, humanity for prisoners, no torture, help to other countries, acceptance and acknowledgement of homosexuals. The Enlightment, Molliere, Rousseau, Rembrandt all bequeathed its and their wisdom and insight.
People will start yelling at me with examples of how other countries are better especially when it comes to human rights. Really? Let's hear it, without the rebel-rousing. Did you know that in so wonderfully beloved lately Arabic countries, to name a few, women have no rights? NONE. The few countries in the region that allow some extent of humanity to women undergo sever attacks from other Muslim countries, thus indicating the popular belief that a woman does not possess her person, but is possessed by a man. The countries that are helping women to become more fully human are few and can be numbered, constituting an exception rather than the norm. The Muslims, people who differentiate themselves by religion they practice - Islam, read and revere Koran, their sacred book. In that book it states that women are secondary citizens. In different words than I have used, but the enumeration of women's rights and prohibition the men, MEN are supposed to instill, summarize to a conclusion: women are not humans and should be treated differently than regular humans, i.e. the men. Till this day in Iraq, women are made to carry objects like slaves walking with bags and stuff on them like mules, while their husbands languidly stroll by. These women share, no, not share -they have no choice but to have other women sleep with their husband and have kids with them. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT ITS LIKE NOT TO HAVE A CHOICE? Well, you could imagine it. Just imagine men dictating you a right to abortion, men dictating you your dress code, men dictating you your behavior and you have come to the same wavelength the Muslim women live on. The only difference is that they are living at the very end of the fundamentalist perception of a woman and her role in reality. And you are living on the other end of the spectrum of the same wavelength. My point is, it is the SAME wavelength and it is created by men and not by you. It is false wherever and however you look at it. It is created to dissadvantage you, it is created to keep you down, it is created to allow you to be low and become lower. If you did not divorce yourself from your mind and logick and thought, you would have come to see this simple connectio nat ease. But considering your child level of the knowledge of the mathematics, logic, physics, chemistry and biology, I am not suprised you, of all people, oh woman, do not see. These poor Muslim women are illiterate (I have no idea why liberals try so hard to find counterexamples. By that their action they actually perpetuate the evil doing towards a woman on the part of a man, and create her a space out of which she will not be able to get out. After all, if there isn't anything wrong in the country where 90% of its women is enslaved at home so long as you could find even ONE counter example why worry, right? Wrong. You, the liberal female asshole is the one who undermines the people who are struggling to become free), at home all the time, made to bear children continuously, could be killed, mutilated or thrown out on the street without any consequence! They are dull and dumb, with no work allowed and no speaking out, a woman's life is cheap and till this day there are religious Muslim heads who give courses on how to beat your wife properly, in acordance with the law of Shariah. A Muslim man in many countries who kills his wife does not necessarily have to go to court. How can you overlook this, really now? These are facts. The word of a male is the law and people, innocent people whose only fault is of being of a female gender, die by thousands or decay away in the darkness of their home which these Muslim men try to present as "protection for women." Sure, protection, but against whom?!
As a Muslim man grows in his haughtiness and pride, his word is still enough to get a woman killed, to deprive her of all of her rights and to send her to her death. Why? How is this allowed? Because Muslim women have no recourse to any action, they are complete and utter slaves while you in this country, with all the means available to you sit on your assess and make your male laugh, you do not extend a hand in friendship to these people. And so, he gets away with literally, a murder. No one will punish him, and a woman has no protection before the law or in society. She is easier to get rid of than an ass.
And how about being a homosexual in other than US countries? Did you check your facts? In some countries homosexuals get killed, in others imprisoned. True, Islamic Oman imprisons women into drapes and kitchen slavery and then dresses young, twelve year old boys into women's clothing and has sexual itercouse with them, but as in representation of homosexual people for real, as real human beings, without an imprisonment and abuse of a female, that is rare.
And transexual people? The funny thing in that other ancient civilization seem to take a lead so far in this matter. Apparently recognizing that the division into two genders is artifical and allows for usurpation of force by one side that results in lack of development for the other side, complete with the lack of fulfillment and repression of normal and proper desires of both sides, people who recognized the natural complexity of both genders allowed for a balancing act of nature to take place. Such was the third sex, which arouse as a compromise betweeen the two horrific mutations patriarchy has been breeding for centuries now: male and female, is supposed to even out the tension and create a balance and harmony, and communication between the two genders. The male and female genders are artificial creations and create much unhappiness and misunderstandings. Deaths, beatings, no progress, lack of true drive are all the results of this abnormal distribution. Let us reckon on the arrangment that created the genders and what goes into maintaining them:
No women are born with make up and skirts and heels. True or not true?
All women have limbs, muscles, skin and hair. True or not true?
They have muscles, hair on legs and arm-pit hair, desires to dominate and control. True or not true?
No men are born wild, selfish or uncarring animals they have been turned into over centuries to fight and to rip things apart. This we can observe by watching children and boys before they get trained by the patriarchy.
No man is born without a heart or with a single thought of murder and mayhem. True or not true? Observe the works of art, humanity and truth.
There are many, many more examples on the subject but for now it will suffice to say that the worst enemy of the truth is, of course, The Patriarchy.
The creation of two genders and maintenance of the artificial lines is a creation of patriarchy and its greed. It is solely done for the enrichment of own pockets and with a design to get one over another. But the ancients knew the greed of the great ones of the world to be great, and so they saw that nature will rectify the situation to its best ability. The third gender, the transexuals, the brave enough people to embrace their sacred form and content, arrived to bring peace and harmony and to assist the evolution of people. They were always honored and respected. But when the angry bearded patriarchal god came, he banished all the other gods, and not unlike emperor, sat himself on the throne, and without the council of his equals and peers.
America, today, does recognize Trans-community and grants it rights. However, America expects its trannies to line up to get testosterone shots and top and botom surgiries. Todays patriarchy has a difficulty embracing the nature of a third gender in bodies created by nature. Many countries still consider Trans people sick, even worse than homosexuals. The anicent lore has been lost and repressed. The only way America will have its transsexuals is through councilling and operation table. Don't forget the T shots. Those who are and always will be are killed off most mercilessly. This is called...it does not have a name because this genocide of the Natural Transsexuals is simply not recognized...
So, us here, in America. Although offcially we all here have arrived at a place where we don't call gay people "faggot" and lesbians "carpet munchers", as well as we do not call the practioners of Santeria and Voodoo (both religions require animal sacrifice, check the facts for yourselves) animal killers (I am very impressed that animal lovers contain themselves and do not spill red paint on the practitioners, like they spill on innocent and silly Causacian and other women clad in furs. A strange thing indeed, a woman has a madatory dress code and is forced to wear jewelery, furs and heels to be respected and treated with semi-decency in many circles!)So we may say that we have evolved, if a little.
And so, officially, this here should be Haven. We all "love" diversity" and "support" it, don't we? Or do we not, after all? I mean, we are, after all respect each other's religious practices, nationalites and races as well as genders. That is all good - but the funny thing that at a closer examination these profestations don't seem to match the facts...There is an inconsitency, a behavior that contradicts the statements made by the same person. Under the surface there seem to be a different sets of beliefs operating. Beliefs that state that a Jew is a Kike, a Black person is a nigger, a woman - a slave and a whore, and nothing but a bitch, a gay person -an abomination, a practioner of a different Chrsitian denomination - a deviant devil worshipper, a transboi sick, sick, and once more, sick. So, what is REALLY going on?
Use your head. Does a tolerant, loving person who respects another's right to self-arising and asertion will put her on high heels and make it an unwritten rule to have a mask instead of a face? (Check out "Mirror Mask" some good references to the point.) And how about to term a healthy normal sexuality, confirmed to be normal and healthy by mother-nature (isn't sexuality a natural thing, not a civilized acquisition like a computer skill and a skill in caligraphy?) in women: promiscuity? And a woman practising it - a whore? Where in nature do you find reserve among females? It is a fundamental right to be promiscuous and mutli-partnered. For a female. She is the one to choose. She is the one to have a system that is set up to be able to find a proper mating potential. And bad things happen when we stand in the way of nature. Also, why would anybody in a human society care about owning woman's sexuality and a woman herself? What is there that is makes it somebody else's business to regulate another HUMAN BEING? Why even conceive of such a notion...Even animals don't do it, and they are sorely lacking a capacity to reason. You, the ones who attempt to regulate other human beings, however, have capacity for reason which you use to rationalize the abuse.
And tell me, what is it that speaks with a smile to someone and says: you are a transsexual, I understand that. Great. I will call you by the chosen name and support you. And a few days later conducts a major gay and transexual bashing, complete with a total annihilation of any and all rights of a female-bodied to self ascertion. When pressed hard for evidence for such claims (forget about a question why would he betray a friendhsip and his friend's trust in him and say such bad hurtful things), and for explanation a...religion surfaces! And no intelligent conversation arises: yes, this is what it says, and that is why women are supposed to be treated like sex- slaves and slaves in general. God said it so, you see. God has commanded to make you a slave. And science stood to justify it. And the society was created to keep you enslaved. Woman-slave. Woman=slave. Woman=woman=slave.
No, not even a single piece of "fact" given by that person who claims he has spoken to "god" to support his point. This person calls himself "god's man". This person turned around and betrayed his lover who was transitioning and turned agaisnt him/her. This person practices Hinduism, where transsexuality is so prominent yet he turns around and denies its existence! This person thinks he's "got it." This perosn hates transsexuals so much that even when he had an itnercouse with one and finished inside his asshole, he managed to insult him/her and call the transitioning boy terrible and awful names, this boi still rememebers. This tranny trusted this man who has called himself "god's man". This tranny watched this man violate his oath and take advatange of the youth, trust and love of this younger transitioning boi. This person hurt the boi in a thousand and one ways, and then even stroke against the boy's race! And nationality! This man says he loves god and god loves him. What kind of a god could love a man like that? What kind of a god could command such evils? What kind of a Hindu god hates transsexuals and their sacred expression and work?!
I asked for quotes from the godly man, but none were provided. Instead, he got angry and tried to "convince" me with hatred and anger. He even got up a few times from his seat and towered above me, indicating his might and therefore, his right... (Upon pressing to know how it is that we know it is a God, an angry response: he just is!). Only a singular sentence with a singular facial expression: this is right. Why? Comes the answer: because it is in the book. Silence. And in other books too, added after some hesitation....What books, why are they sacred, what about the contradicting evidence -nah...what for?
So, in many books it states that women are to be abused and mistreated. What interesting godly way! Ok, got it. But wait, no, it does not say "to be abused and mistreated." It says: to be kept at home. To be subservient. To bear children (want it or not.) To obey. To not think too much. To be making artificiality out of one's face and body. To be sexually passive and a willing slave at all times to feed and satisfy The Master's desires. To not have the voting rights. To be excluded from the goverment. To be hit and "disciplined." This must be a great treatment - so why then when the same actions are taken with other groups: blacks, jews, arabs, etc - the World Opinion screams in horror?
And this is because the underlying premises of a treatment that women receive are really bad and inhumane. How do we know? Well, we don't because we never venture to examine them. Very simple. If actions are the same, but are reacted to differently depending on which group is receiving them,we may only conclude that some groups are allowed to be abused. Because if it was not the case, the people would react the same to the same abuse. But they don't have the same reactions. And when a reaction diffes to the same actions, we may only conclude that the only difference is the group in question. Or time. Upon examing we observe that the time is the same for all treatments: slavery, women oppresion, persecution of jews have happened during the same time, across the continents. We cannot claim a difference in place, because it is "World Opinion" that I am discussing here, not an opinion of Kenya, Israel, Russia, America or Greece. So, when the same actions produce different results, we observe an inconsistency. And an inconsistency may either be a product of time or place or a group. Since time was eliminated, so was the place, the only factor remanining that could cotnribute to this difference, is a group. And when one group of people is allowed to be mistreated while another isn't, we observe double standards and discrimination of a specific sort. "Discrimination" is a preferential treatment of a person or a group. And the "preferential treatment" in this case is allowance of violence against one and dissallowance of violence against another. And since this is the case, and violence against one group is allowed to be perpetuated while the same violence against another group, isn't, we observe prejudice. Violence is something bad, and when it is allowed against one group of people but not allowed against another, we observe an inconsistency of upholding the abstract nature of the statement "violence is bad". The inconsistency states that although violence is bad, in some cases the exceptions can be made (All animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others). And when there is an exception to an abstract absolute, irrational likes and dislikes are at play. These irrational likes and dislikes are termed "prejudices" and are defined as following: "Prejudice" is a type of discrimination that is not based on proper and relevant to selection factors but is based, instead, on factors that are based on personl likes and dislikes, and are at the end either diminishing or untrue of the value of a person or a group. And when an asbstract value of the violence is reduced to conditional and relative one, a set of prejudices is in operation. Why would anyone justify violence against women? How? How is it that the same violence against blacks or jews or foreighn nationals is not allowed? Why is it not allowed? Because "violence against people is bad, and especially violence beause of their skin color, race, nationality or religious belifs." And how is violence agaisnt women merits its existence? Since it is the same violence such as murder, mockings, mayhem, killings, rape, mental, physcial and emotional abuse as takes place agaisnt the aforementioned groups, it is abstractly the same. And it is overlooked or reduced to relativity, and therefore we can concluded the operation of prejudices in place. And a prejudice agaisnt a person because of their gender is unmerrited. Of course, is you state that women should be abused precisely because they are women, then, you, a member of a Anti-Female Ku-Klux-Klan should be justified.
And let us look again at the beauty of this inconsistency. An inconsistency, then, points to a inductive argument posing as an inductive one. Also we could say that behind the deductive profestations hides another argument that has a very set and marked criteria for women and other groups. An underlying system of beliefs that allows for a deductive argument not to be observed and skirted. And what is the implied argument in case of women abuse?
The argument is: these actions of abuse and violencce are ok so long as they are directed towards the females. When the same treatment is conducted against any other group but female group, the treatment is not ok and should not continue. And the truth of this can be observed when some groups make this argument against other groups: people scream "racism", "nationalism", and other "isms". Why do they scream? Because the abuse of people because of who they are is discrimination. Prejudice. Specific type of discrimination is prejudice and varieties of prejudices are racism, nationalism, sexism, religious persecution, mistreatment of dissabled people. But, regardless of the truth value of the above statements, somehow when the abuse is given to someone because she is a woman, the world does not object. Therefore the conlusion is, it is ok because she merits the abuse by the mere fact that she is a woman. The abuse that takes place against her person is because of her gender, and since it is silenced and allowed, the only conclusion to follow is that the abuse is ok. And because the same abuse is not allowed towards other groups, we conclude that teh abuse is allowed precisely because she is a woman. Either because of or because she is only. One states the sufficient and necessary reason for abuse a crirteria of being a female, another dismisses the claim of abuse on the grounds of a creature being insignificant enough to merit human treatement. Since abuse against groups is not allowed because it is inhumane because it is prejudiced and wrong to commit violence against a person because of who they are, the abuse of the same kind that is allowed against other group demonstrates the belief that the abused group is not human, and is therefore, not under a protection of concepts of "humanity, just, unjust, right and wrong." Therefore, pusuant to the laws of logic, common sense and mathematical precision, we follow to conclude that women are either not human or not considered human to merit proper and human treatment.
Now, to solidify this conclusion made in the abstract and in deductive framework, we can look around the world for the conclusion in experience, and in an inferential framework. In many countries women are considered to be secondary human beings. It is an official stand, not my conclusion. Books of Torah Bible, Koran, and many more do not suggest it, they openly state it. You would think that it is ridiculous? No, really. By the way, to state that a woman is "not human" is invalid. Homo Sapiens is a biological genus, known amongst lay people as "human". A species of animals that is, specifically - mammals. Amoebas, by the way, don't have a sex difference, but a species of mammals do and contain two genders. Female and male. Therefore, a woman - as defined by Oxford's dictionary is an "adult female human being". Homo Sapiens is human species.
So, what is going on, for God's sake? Do these people not know logic? Do people who abuse women and promote their abuse unaware of the simple biological fact? Are they dark and uneducated? Doubtfully. Those who make the arguments and conduct the treatment are highly educated and smart people with much success and good credit. They are exceptionally smart and well rounded creatures.
So, what is it that makes a friend say "I accept you" and then find subtle ways - hurful words, threats of removal of favor, mockery, etc. to try to "change you?" What makes smart, educated people versed in literature and mathematics make simplistic unsupported by logical conclusions arguments that are directed towards hate? What makes the employers nod to the employee's protective laws, while ensuring that only certain national or racial group of women, looking a certain way will work in available positions? What makes people to affirm the right and the natural, ancient existence of a transsexual, to only turn around and bash and bash until the person complies, like a Jew under Nazi regime with ghetto regulations and a yellow star? Actually, maybe more like a Protestant in France at the beginning of a reign of Queen Margo, or a Christian under Roman empire before it converted to Christianity. Providing you will change your "religion," you will live. "Religion" in our case being a person's biological, chemical, psychic, mental and self tendencies to an expression and a way of being. Basically, the person has to STOP BEING AND BECOME SOMEONE ELSE to live. These people take it upon themselves to command a human person and being.
What is that driving force behind open consent with the right of individuals and a secret but persistent practice against them, a practice that is against reason and is irrational: persecution by prejudice. And as we know, nothing feeds it best as old time religions. We are required to worship god that wipes out cities and states, commands to kill "women and children" in one case, everyone but the children" in another, "everyone except for virgin females" in a third. Sometimes it is the whole population "god" desires. Sometimes it is a minor trangression or an innocent question one asks that ensures terrible and severe punishments on the part of "merciful" lord. The punishments like a loyal servant who left his inheritance as a prince of Egypt and followed the Lord's word all his life living in tents and half hungry has received: denied the right to enter the "milk and honey" land of Israel. Bound to watch it from a distance. Bound to die away from it. And how about god who commands to be merciful and loving and gets tribes and nations erased in his name? And what about an alien descending upon earth and engaging in frivolous sexual actvity with cowherd girls, calling it "pure love," claiming titles and commanding love and obeyascence to him, a constant worship and mandatory perception of every relationship as the sexual one, with him? When people command us to do that in these terms, we call them selfish, or a prick, or childish. A behavior of a "god" is somehow different? Who and what makes him god? He surely does not act like one! Power is not godliness, by that definition Nazis and war mongers are gods too. It is a rationalization by the people that allows this shit to persevere. People, stop being superstitious and get educated.
So, once again now together: why is this behavior allowed? Because it comes from a god! And why is he god? Because he says so. And how do we know that his word is true? Why? ? Because he is God, you stupid! !
So, these "gods" command us to hate women and to destroy others who do not practice our religions.
Ku Klus Klan commands us to hate blacks.
Nazis commanded to hate Jews.
Some government will command us to spy on one another and to betray friends, lovers and neighbors.
Why do I even have to bring other groups in to demonstrate a point of abuse being bad?
Why is it to say "to hate women" is not enough somehow?
What have a long suffering group of people who have patiently bore all abuse, all children, hard house work, ungrateful and unrewarded housework, work in the fields, undesired sexual acts forced upon their person, angry fists, underserved mockings and beatings, lack of representation, lack of education, dehumanization, demonization for centuries need to be contrasted with another group to get the point across?
Why is it that to use religion as one's banner to justify abuse of these innocent people who are severely disadvantaged so that life could go on (the presence of a womb and the subsequent vulnerability) is sufficient to rally large numbers of people behind it?
Why when the evidence of women abuse comes out, the religion is not disqualified from the human community but when a racial discrimination comes out, it is disqualified?
Women constitute more than half of human population as it stands now. It is a half without which the creation process cannot go on. And why must they justify their existence with utility? What happened to intrinsic value attributed to a human life? Why always in words but never in action the value of a human life is supported? When it comes to a "woman" that is.
And transsexual? Especially the one in a female body? Openly supported, of course. Why the hate to the race ancient and acknowledged by Native Americans, Indians (Shiva's favorite represenation is a hermaphrodite: literally half man, half woman: Ardhanarishvra. ), among African tribes, in Assyria, Samaria, Mesopatamia, Phoenicia, Nordic beliefs, Greece? Why is feminity in a man is widely defended, whereas a masculinity in a woman is never even attempted to be understood? Why unreasonable expectations: a man may desire to resemble a woman, and in that imitate and act as it is traditional of women, whereas a woman wanting to resemble a man and taking steps to bring this into reality, is widely censured. Observe the ridiculousness of the situation. A gay man is expected to be a little feminine, a but a lesbian woman must still look straight? Always? She is given a look and a form from outside, by the boys? Where is the logic? It makes no sense. In other words: nonsense. That type of a man and a woman would be going in the opposite directions, from their assigned gender role and each other. Man will go towards feminine, and woman will go towards masculine. But somehow she is still made to stay at the feminine spectrum.
Why?
Who regulates?
What business anyone has regulating another human being in a democracy? What other group do we know of that regulates other people's lives: their nutrition, dress code, activites, income, thoughts, being, expression? No, not children, although it is a good one. I should ad: made work double and get paid less, made give out ideas, accomplishements, support, favors, is not in command of her own sexual urges but must service them out at demand (regulated by ladder standing association), produce children without regards to own desire, and put up with abusive words and behavior with a smile and obedience? Right. Now you got it. There are people who got treated similarly and are found in history book, who were in this country submitted to this kind of treatement. In fact, this country still can't live down the shame of only 200 years or so. You've read in your history books about slave-owners. Slavery.
So, the religion is apparently only one means of expressing a driving desire for slaves and power over other people. People that don't have a religion also practice that attitude. What is it? What it the denial of personality, intricacy, body rights, self rights, mind, intellect, soul, artistic creativity and hopes and dreams? It is the people who are used to slavery, rely on slavery, love slaves and will conjure any "god" in support of that "law" that will justify and rationalize slave ownership. Ok, it is female only who they own completely. But how completely and how prolific. How abundant. How absolutely unpunishible behavior one could display. How many varieties in benefiting oneself at a minumum expense.
Each woman is expected to like the same.
To think the same.
To want the same.
To respond the same.
To laugh the same.
To cry the same.
Actually, these are androidal slaves.
Real slaves were abused and called "lesser humans" or inhuman. Their reactions were ignored or laughed at, whereas with "women" the normal reactions are not even expected. The standard response is expected. The standard response is produced. And for difference in response, for a reaction that is own and independent, one gets punished, oh how one gets punished and with such cruelty.
Transexuals? When can we feel our bodies, our love, our self expressions? The female body is not self owned, it is inhabited with the concepts and ideas of a man. Of the men. Everything, including what one should think, how one should act, how one should respond is mapped out and directed by the men for women. Now imagine a waking consciousness of a woman.
************************************************************************************
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
************************************************************************************
Consciousness that wakes up to a
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
brick wall of dresses, make up, heels, no opportunities, no way of self expression without terrible judgment and punishment, no way to make money decently, no way to develop the skills. That consciousness has one choice only: to be and feel a guy. Now, imagine consciousness that screams "I am a guy" in a body that is battered and abused and denied, and you got yourself a recipe for a suicide or a bloody murder. No, still can't see? Of course, hate and irrationality are draped over your eyes, take the drape off and take out the ear plugs.
Why get angry though at what you have created and with your ignorance and cruelty allowed to become twisted and corrupted?
Why spit on transsexuals who already are and partially as sick as we are today, are a result of your work and your effort to destroy people's genome and selves?
We are a product of your work, daddy. Don't you love us? Or will you smite us? Again? And again? And again? Until the screams will resound in your ears day after day and night after night until we drive you so crazy, so crazy that you will split your own cranium in search of relief, you baby swallowing Cronos. ... inside your head, that like Athens we will break out of it, with Metis under our arm, unconscious, but alive? What's up, now?
Do your research and check the evidence. Historical. Biological. Scientific. Spiritual. Psychic. Astral. Own. Self. Other person is telling you, goddmanit!
"Friends" who "accept." "Accept." God bless you all, that God that is above and beyond all these squables and economics, and may she/he/it/them preserve you from "friends" who sneakily attempt to "heal" you or to kill you worst comes to worst.
You sicko, I accept you.
You know...
New York. A great city. A huge and important part of this wonderful Constitutional Democracy we live in. A democracy supported by the document called the "constituion." The Constitution of The United States. The extensions of the Constitution came to be knows as its "amendments" and the further expansions on the amendments or the original statures are the "laws" or "acts". The main focus of my work so far lies with observing the blatant, gruesome and screaming violation of what I call the "five factors. These five factors are prohibited discrimination handles: race, national origins, religion, gender, and dissability. The mention of these fives is used as protection against the violation of people' rights for employment, but it reflects on the idea of the nature of this country and its law: these five factors should not be used agaisnt people to take dissadvantage them. What is a dissadvantaging procedure, could also be a procedure of taking of a dvantage. Depending on whose perspective you look from: from the perspective of the victim of discrimination, the violations disadvantage her, from the perspective of the abuser, disscrimination gives him advantage. How so? On this will be this article, on how this taking of an advantage delivers a greater opportunity for the oppressor.
I will sing a song to the Constitution before I proceed onto a next step: the demonstration.
Ah, The Constitution. A document fed by the heart of the first Mayflower settlers who have arrived to the rocky shores of Massachusets to practice their oppressed religion in peace. The document that has matured in the anals of time, was forged in the heat of experience of injustice and bitterness, and terrible oppression. All of that and more was put together into a coherent whole by our Founding Fathers who believed in the rights of men and in the sacred right of the self and its happiness. Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness is what that vision and idea came down to us. People mock the "White male" but who else and in what country has envisioned such great ideals, such lofty pursuits and such freedom for women? Who has created a civilizations that is both encompassing and supreme in its works of art, music and humanity? Who else has created the Constitution, not to count France and its original form of government? It is barely the fault of these "white men" that the world at the time they've conceived a Constitution did not consider people of women-gender human beings. As for others, people of color, for example, not much could be blamed here. Although slavery is a terrble thing it was practiced across the world for thousands of years. I do see a connection between lowering a high creature such as a woman and enslabing one's own brother. Only the blind will fail to perceive the connection. Working with their time and the circumstances, the Founding Fathers took the concept of liberty and freedom a step further, and went where other have not gone before. The American Constitution is the pearl of Western Civilization. Of the Great Western Civilization. The civilization that gave rise to human rights, freedom for women, Red Cross, humanity for prisoners, no torture, help to other countries, acceptance and acknowledgement of homosexuals. The Enlightment, Molliere, Rousseau, Rembrandt all bequeathed its and their wisdom and insight.
People will start yelling at me with examples of how other countries are better especially when it comes to human rights. Really? Let's hear it, without the rebel-rousing. Did you know that in so wonderfully beloved lately Arabic countries, to name a few, women have no rights? NONE. The few countries in the region that allow some extent of humanity to women undergo sever attacks from other Muslim countries, thus indicating the popular belief that a woman does not possess her person, but is possessed by a man. The countries that are helping women to become more fully human are few and can be numbered, constituting an exception rather than the norm. The Muslims, people who differentiate themselves by religion they practice - Islam, read and revere Koran, their sacred book. In that book it states that women are secondary citizens. In different words than I have used, but the enumeration of women's rights and prohibition the men, MEN are supposed to instill, summarize to a conclusion: women are not humans and should be treated differently than regular humans, i.e. the men. Till this day in Iraq, women are made to carry objects like slaves walking with bags and stuff on them like mules, while their husbands languidly stroll by. These women share, no, not share -they have no choice but to have other women sleep with their husband and have kids with them. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT ITS LIKE NOT TO HAVE A CHOICE? Well, you could imagine it. Just imagine men dictating you a right to abortion, men dictating you your dress code, men dictating you your behavior and you have come to the same wavelength the Muslim women live on. The only difference is that they are living at the very end of the fundamentalist perception of a woman and her role in reality. And you are living on the other end of the spectrum of the same wavelength. My point is, it is the SAME wavelength and it is created by men and not by you. It is false wherever and however you look at it. It is created to dissadvantage you, it is created to keep you down, it is created to allow you to be low and become lower. If you did not divorce yourself from your mind and logick and thought, you would have come to see this simple connectio nat ease. But considering your child level of the knowledge of the mathematics, logic, physics, chemistry and biology, I am not suprised you, of all people, oh woman, do not see. These poor Muslim women are illiterate (I have no idea why liberals try so hard to find counterexamples. By that their action they actually perpetuate the evil doing towards a woman on the part of a man, and create her a space out of which she will not be able to get out. After all, if there isn't anything wrong in the country where 90% of its women is enslaved at home so long as you could find even ONE counter example why worry, right? Wrong. You, the liberal female asshole is the one who undermines the people who are struggling to become free), at home all the time, made to bear children continuously, could be killed, mutilated or thrown out on the street without any consequence! They are dull and dumb, with no work allowed and no speaking out, a woman's life is cheap and till this day there are religious Muslim heads who give courses on how to beat your wife properly, in acordance with the law of Shariah. A Muslim man in many countries who kills his wife does not necessarily have to go to court. How can you overlook this, really now? These are facts. The word of a male is the law and people, innocent people whose only fault is of being of a female gender, die by thousands or decay away in the darkness of their home which these Muslim men try to present as "protection for women." Sure, protection, but against whom?!
As a Muslim man grows in his haughtiness and pride, his word is still enough to get a woman killed, to deprive her of all of her rights and to send her to her death. Why? How is this allowed? Because Muslim women have no recourse to any action, they are complete and utter slaves while you in this country, with all the means available to you sit on your assess and make your male laugh, you do not extend a hand in friendship to these people. And so, he gets away with literally, a murder. No one will punish him, and a woman has no protection before the law or in society. She is easier to get rid of than an ass.
And how about being a homosexual in other than US countries? Did you check your facts? In some countries homosexuals get killed, in others imprisoned. True, Islamic Oman imprisons women into drapes and kitchen slavery and then dresses young, twelve year old boys into women's clothing and has sexual itercouse with them, but as in representation of homosexual people for real, as real human beings, without an imprisonment and abuse of a female, that is rare.
And transexual people? The funny thing in that other ancient civilization seem to take a lead so far in this matter. Apparently recognizing that the division into two genders is artifical and allows for usurpation of force by one side that results in lack of development for the other side, complete with the lack of fulfillment and repression of normal and proper desires of both sides, people who recognized the natural complexity of both genders allowed for a balancing act of nature to take place. Such was the third sex, which arouse as a compromise betweeen the two horrific mutations patriarchy has been breeding for centuries now: male and female, is supposed to even out the tension and create a balance and harmony, and communication between the two genders. The male and female genders are artificial creations and create much unhappiness and misunderstandings. Deaths, beatings, no progress, lack of true drive are all the results of this abnormal distribution. Let us reckon on the arrangment that created the genders and what goes into maintaining them:
No women are born with make up and skirts and heels. True or not true?
All women have limbs, muscles, skin and hair. True or not true?
They have muscles, hair on legs and arm-pit hair, desires to dominate and control. True or not true?
No men are born wild, selfish or uncarring animals they have been turned into over centuries to fight and to rip things apart. This we can observe by watching children and boys before they get trained by the patriarchy.
No man is born without a heart or with a single thought of murder and mayhem. True or not true? Observe the works of art, humanity and truth.
There are many, many more examples on the subject but for now it will suffice to say that the worst enemy of the truth is, of course, The Patriarchy.
The creation of two genders and maintenance of the artificial lines is a creation of patriarchy and its greed. It is solely done for the enrichment of own pockets and with a design to get one over another. But the ancients knew the greed of the great ones of the world to be great, and so they saw that nature will rectify the situation to its best ability. The third gender, the transexuals, the brave enough people to embrace their sacred form and content, arrived to bring peace and harmony and to assist the evolution of people. They were always honored and respected. But when the angry bearded patriarchal god came, he banished all the other gods, and not unlike emperor, sat himself on the throne, and without the council of his equals and peers.
America, today, does recognize Trans-community and grants it rights. However, America expects its trannies to line up to get testosterone shots and top and botom surgiries. Todays patriarchy has a difficulty embracing the nature of a third gender in bodies created by nature. Many countries still consider Trans people sick, even worse than homosexuals. The anicent lore has been lost and repressed. The only way America will have its transsexuals is through councilling and operation table. Don't forget the T shots. Those who are and always will be are killed off most mercilessly. This is called...it does not have a name because this genocide of the Natural Transsexuals is simply not recognized...
So, us here, in America. Although offcially we all here have arrived at a place where we don't call gay people "faggot" and lesbians "carpet munchers", as well as we do not call the practioners of Santeria and Voodoo (both religions require animal sacrifice, check the facts for yourselves) animal killers (I am very impressed that animal lovers contain themselves and do not spill red paint on the practitioners, like they spill on innocent and silly Causacian and other women clad in furs. A strange thing indeed, a woman has a madatory dress code and is forced to wear jewelery, furs and heels to be respected and treated with semi-decency in many circles!)So we may say that we have evolved, if a little.
And so, officially, this here should be Haven. We all "love" diversity" and "support" it, don't we? Or do we not, after all? I mean, we are, after all respect each other's religious practices, nationalites and races as well as genders. That is all good - but the funny thing that at a closer examination these profestations don't seem to match the facts...There is an inconsitency, a behavior that contradicts the statements made by the same person. Under the surface there seem to be a different sets of beliefs operating. Beliefs that state that a Jew is a Kike, a Black person is a nigger, a woman - a slave and a whore, and nothing but a bitch, a gay person -an abomination, a practioner of a different Chrsitian denomination - a deviant devil worshipper, a transboi sick, sick, and once more, sick. So, what is REALLY going on?
Use your head. Does a tolerant, loving person who respects another's right to self-arising and asertion will put her on high heels and make it an unwritten rule to have a mask instead of a face? (Check out "Mirror Mask" some good references to the point.) And how about to term a healthy normal sexuality, confirmed to be normal and healthy by mother-nature (isn't sexuality a natural thing, not a civilized acquisition like a computer skill and a skill in caligraphy?) in women: promiscuity? And a woman practising it - a whore? Where in nature do you find reserve among females? It is a fundamental right to be promiscuous and mutli-partnered. For a female. She is the one to choose. She is the one to have a system that is set up to be able to find a proper mating potential. And bad things happen when we stand in the way of nature. Also, why would anybody in a human society care about owning woman's sexuality and a woman herself? What is there that is makes it somebody else's business to regulate another HUMAN BEING? Why even conceive of such a notion...Even animals don't do it, and they are sorely lacking a capacity to reason. You, the ones who attempt to regulate other human beings, however, have capacity for reason which you use to rationalize the abuse.
And tell me, what is it that speaks with a smile to someone and says: you are a transsexual, I understand that. Great. I will call you by the chosen name and support you. And a few days later conducts a major gay and transexual bashing, complete with a total annihilation of any and all rights of a female-bodied to self ascertion. When pressed hard for evidence for such claims (forget about a question why would he betray a friendhsip and his friend's trust in him and say such bad hurtful things), and for explanation a...religion surfaces! And no intelligent conversation arises: yes, this is what it says, and that is why women are supposed to be treated like sex- slaves and slaves in general. God said it so, you see. God has commanded to make you a slave. And science stood to justify it. And the society was created to keep you enslaved. Woman-slave. Woman=slave. Woman=woman=slave.
No, not even a single piece of "fact" given by that person who claims he has spoken to "god" to support his point. This person calls himself "god's man". This person turned around and betrayed his lover who was transitioning and turned agaisnt him/her. This person practices Hinduism, where transsexuality is so prominent yet he turns around and denies its existence! This person thinks he's "got it." This perosn hates transsexuals so much that even when he had an itnercouse with one and finished inside his asshole, he managed to insult him/her and call the transitioning boy terrible and awful names, this boi still rememebers. This tranny trusted this man who has called himself "god's man". This tranny watched this man violate his oath and take advatange of the youth, trust and love of this younger transitioning boi. This person hurt the boi in a thousand and one ways, and then even stroke against the boy's race! And nationality! This man says he loves god and god loves him. What kind of a god could love a man like that? What kind of a god could command such evils? What kind of a Hindu god hates transsexuals and their sacred expression and work?!
I asked for quotes from the godly man, but none were provided. Instead, he got angry and tried to "convince" me with hatred and anger. He even got up a few times from his seat and towered above me, indicating his might and therefore, his right... (Upon pressing to know how it is that we know it is a God, an angry response: he just is!). Only a singular sentence with a singular facial expression: this is right. Why? Comes the answer: because it is in the book. Silence. And in other books too, added after some hesitation....What books, why are they sacred, what about the contradicting evidence -nah...what for?
So, in many books it states that women are to be abused and mistreated. What interesting godly way! Ok, got it. But wait, no, it does not say "to be abused and mistreated." It says: to be kept at home. To be subservient. To bear children (want it or not.) To obey. To not think too much. To be making artificiality out of one's face and body. To be sexually passive and a willing slave at all times to feed and satisfy The Master's desires. To not have the voting rights. To be excluded from the goverment. To be hit and "disciplined." This must be a great treatment - so why then when the same actions are taken with other groups: blacks, jews, arabs, etc - the World Opinion screams in horror?
And this is because the underlying premises of a treatment that women receive are really bad and inhumane. How do we know? Well, we don't because we never venture to examine them. Very simple. If actions are the same, but are reacted to differently depending on which group is receiving them,we may only conclude that some groups are allowed to be abused. Because if it was not the case, the people would react the same to the same abuse. But they don't have the same reactions. And when a reaction diffes to the same actions, we may only conclude that the only difference is the group in question. Or time. Upon examing we observe that the time is the same for all treatments: slavery, women oppresion, persecution of jews have happened during the same time, across the continents. We cannot claim a difference in place, because it is "World Opinion" that I am discussing here, not an opinion of Kenya, Israel, Russia, America or Greece. So, when the same actions produce different results, we observe an inconsistency. And an inconsistency may either be a product of time or place or a group. Since time was eliminated, so was the place, the only factor remanining that could cotnribute to this difference, is a group. And when one group of people is allowed to be mistreated while another isn't, we observe double standards and discrimination of a specific sort. "Discrimination" is a preferential treatment of a person or a group. And the "preferential treatment" in this case is allowance of violence against one and dissallowance of violence against another. And since this is the case, and violence against one group is allowed to be perpetuated while the same violence against another group, isn't, we observe prejudice. Violence is something bad, and when it is allowed against one group of people but not allowed against another, we observe an inconsistency of upholding the abstract nature of the statement "violence is bad". The inconsistency states that although violence is bad, in some cases the exceptions can be made (All animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others). And when there is an exception to an abstract absolute, irrational likes and dislikes are at play. These irrational likes and dislikes are termed "prejudices" and are defined as following: "Prejudice" is a type of discrimination that is not based on proper and relevant to selection factors but is based, instead, on factors that are based on personl likes and dislikes, and are at the end either diminishing or untrue of the value of a person or a group. And when an asbstract value of the violence is reduced to conditional and relative one, a set of prejudices is in operation. Why would anyone justify violence against women? How? How is it that the same violence against blacks or jews or foreighn nationals is not allowed? Why is it not allowed? Because "violence against people is bad, and especially violence beause of their skin color, race, nationality or religious belifs." And how is violence agaisnt women merits its existence? Since it is the same violence such as murder, mockings, mayhem, killings, rape, mental, physcial and emotional abuse as takes place agaisnt the aforementioned groups, it is abstractly the same. And it is overlooked or reduced to relativity, and therefore we can concluded the operation of prejudices in place. And a prejudice agaisnt a person because of their gender is unmerrited. Of course, is you state that women should be abused precisely because they are women, then, you, a member of a Anti-Female Ku-Klux-Klan should be justified.
And let us look again at the beauty of this inconsistency. An inconsistency, then, points to a inductive argument posing as an inductive one. Also we could say that behind the deductive profestations hides another argument that has a very set and marked criteria for women and other groups. An underlying system of beliefs that allows for a deductive argument not to be observed and skirted. And what is the implied argument in case of women abuse?
The argument is: these actions of abuse and violencce are ok so long as they are directed towards the females. When the same treatment is conducted against any other group but female group, the treatment is not ok and should not continue. And the truth of this can be observed when some groups make this argument against other groups: people scream "racism", "nationalism", and other "isms". Why do they scream? Because the abuse of people because of who they are is discrimination. Prejudice. Specific type of discrimination is prejudice and varieties of prejudices are racism, nationalism, sexism, religious persecution, mistreatment of dissabled people. But, regardless of the truth value of the above statements, somehow when the abuse is given to someone because she is a woman, the world does not object. Therefore the conlusion is, it is ok because she merits the abuse by the mere fact that she is a woman. The abuse that takes place against her person is because of her gender, and since it is silenced and allowed, the only conclusion to follow is that the abuse is ok. And because the same abuse is not allowed towards other groups, we conclude that teh abuse is allowed precisely because she is a woman. Either because of or because she is only. One states the sufficient and necessary reason for abuse a crirteria of being a female, another dismisses the claim of abuse on the grounds of a creature being insignificant enough to merit human treatement. Since abuse against groups is not allowed because it is inhumane because it is prejudiced and wrong to commit violence against a person because of who they are, the abuse of the same kind that is allowed against other group demonstrates the belief that the abused group is not human, and is therefore, not under a protection of concepts of "humanity, just, unjust, right and wrong." Therefore, pusuant to the laws of logic, common sense and mathematical precision, we follow to conclude that women are either not human or not considered human to merit proper and human treatment.
Now, to solidify this conclusion made in the abstract and in deductive framework, we can look around the world for the conclusion in experience, and in an inferential framework. In many countries women are considered to be secondary human beings. It is an official stand, not my conclusion. Books of Torah Bible, Koran, and many more do not suggest it, they openly state it. You would think that it is ridiculous? No, really. By the way, to state that a woman is "not human" is invalid. Homo Sapiens is a biological genus, known amongst lay people as "human". A species of animals that is, specifically - mammals. Amoebas, by the way, don't have a sex difference, but a species of mammals do and contain two genders. Female and male. Therefore, a woman - as defined by Oxford's dictionary is an "adult female human being". Homo Sapiens is human species.
So, what is going on, for God's sake? Do these people not know logic? Do people who abuse women and promote their abuse unaware of the simple biological fact? Are they dark and uneducated? Doubtfully. Those who make the arguments and conduct the treatment are highly educated and smart people with much success and good credit. They are exceptionally smart and well rounded creatures.
So, what is it that makes a friend say "I accept you" and then find subtle ways - hurful words, threats of removal of favor, mockery, etc. to try to "change you?" What makes smart, educated people versed in literature and mathematics make simplistic unsupported by logical conclusions arguments that are directed towards hate? What makes the employers nod to the employee's protective laws, while ensuring that only certain national or racial group of women, looking a certain way will work in available positions? What makes people to affirm the right and the natural, ancient existence of a transsexual, to only turn around and bash and bash until the person complies, like a Jew under Nazi regime with ghetto regulations and a yellow star? Actually, maybe more like a Protestant in France at the beginning of a reign of Queen Margo, or a Christian under Roman empire before it converted to Christianity. Providing you will change your "religion," you will live. "Religion" in our case being a person's biological, chemical, psychic, mental and self tendencies to an expression and a way of being. Basically, the person has to STOP BEING AND BECOME SOMEONE ELSE to live. These people take it upon themselves to command a human person and being.
What is that driving force behind open consent with the right of individuals and a secret but persistent practice against them, a practice that is against reason and is irrational: persecution by prejudice. And as we know, nothing feeds it best as old time religions. We are required to worship god that wipes out cities and states, commands to kill "women and children" in one case, everyone but the children" in another, "everyone except for virgin females" in a third. Sometimes it is the whole population "god" desires. Sometimes it is a minor trangression or an innocent question one asks that ensures terrible and severe punishments on the part of "merciful" lord. The punishments like a loyal servant who left his inheritance as a prince of Egypt and followed the Lord's word all his life living in tents and half hungry has received: denied the right to enter the "milk and honey" land of Israel. Bound to watch it from a distance. Bound to die away from it. And how about god who commands to be merciful and loving and gets tribes and nations erased in his name? And what about an alien descending upon earth and engaging in frivolous sexual actvity with cowherd girls, calling it "pure love," claiming titles and commanding love and obeyascence to him, a constant worship and mandatory perception of every relationship as the sexual one, with him? When people command us to do that in these terms, we call them selfish, or a prick, or childish. A behavior of a "god" is somehow different? Who and what makes him god? He surely does not act like one! Power is not godliness, by that definition Nazis and war mongers are gods too. It is a rationalization by the people that allows this shit to persevere. People, stop being superstitious and get educated.
So, once again now together: why is this behavior allowed? Because it comes from a god! And why is he god? Because he says so. And how do we know that his word is true? Why? ? Because he is God, you stupid! !
So, these "gods" command us to hate women and to destroy others who do not practice our religions.
Ku Klus Klan commands us to hate blacks.
Nazis commanded to hate Jews.
Some government will command us to spy on one another and to betray friends, lovers and neighbors.
Why do I even have to bring other groups in to demonstrate a point of abuse being bad?
Why is it to say "to hate women" is not enough somehow?
What have a long suffering group of people who have patiently bore all abuse, all children, hard house work, ungrateful and unrewarded housework, work in the fields, undesired sexual acts forced upon their person, angry fists, underserved mockings and beatings, lack of representation, lack of education, dehumanization, demonization for centuries need to be contrasted with another group to get the point across?
Why is it that to use religion as one's banner to justify abuse of these innocent people who are severely disadvantaged so that life could go on (the presence of a womb and the subsequent vulnerability) is sufficient to rally large numbers of people behind it?
Why when the evidence of women abuse comes out, the religion is not disqualified from the human community but when a racial discrimination comes out, it is disqualified?
Women constitute more than half of human population as it stands now. It is a half without which the creation process cannot go on. And why must they justify their existence with utility? What happened to intrinsic value attributed to a human life? Why always in words but never in action the value of a human life is supported? When it comes to a "woman" that is.
And transsexual? Especially the one in a female body? Openly supported, of course. Why the hate to the race ancient and acknowledged by Native Americans, Indians (Shiva's favorite represenation is a hermaphrodite: literally half man, half woman: Ardhanarishvra. ), among African tribes, in Assyria, Samaria, Mesopatamia, Phoenicia, Nordic beliefs, Greece? Why is feminity in a man is widely defended, whereas a masculinity in a woman is never even attempted to be understood? Why unreasonable expectations: a man may desire to resemble a woman, and in that imitate and act as it is traditional of women, whereas a woman wanting to resemble a man and taking steps to bring this into reality, is widely censured. Observe the ridiculousness of the situation. A gay man is expected to be a little feminine, a but a lesbian woman must still look straight? Always? She is given a look and a form from outside, by the boys? Where is the logic? It makes no sense. In other words: nonsense. That type of a man and a woman would be going in the opposite directions, from their assigned gender role and each other. Man will go towards feminine, and woman will go towards masculine. But somehow she is still made to stay at the feminine spectrum.
Why?
Who regulates?
What business anyone has regulating another human being in a democracy? What other group do we know of that regulates other people's lives: their nutrition, dress code, activites, income, thoughts, being, expression? No, not children, although it is a good one. I should ad: made work double and get paid less, made give out ideas, accomplishements, support, favors, is not in command of her own sexual urges but must service them out at demand (regulated by ladder standing association), produce children without regards to own desire, and put up with abusive words and behavior with a smile and obedience? Right. Now you got it. There are people who got treated similarly and are found in history book, who were in this country submitted to this kind of treatement. In fact, this country still can't live down the shame of only 200 years or so. You've read in your history books about slave-owners. Slavery.
So, the religion is apparently only one means of expressing a driving desire for slaves and power over other people. People that don't have a religion also practice that attitude. What is it? What it the denial of personality, intricacy, body rights, self rights, mind, intellect, soul, artistic creativity and hopes and dreams? It is the people who are used to slavery, rely on slavery, love slaves and will conjure any "god" in support of that "law" that will justify and rationalize slave ownership. Ok, it is female only who they own completely. But how completely and how prolific. How abundant. How absolutely unpunishible behavior one could display. How many varieties in benefiting oneself at a minumum expense.
Each woman is expected to like the same.
To think the same.
To want the same.
To respond the same.
To laugh the same.
To cry the same.
Actually, these are androidal slaves.
Real slaves were abused and called "lesser humans" or inhuman. Their reactions were ignored or laughed at, whereas with "women" the normal reactions are not even expected. The standard response is expected. The standard response is produced. And for difference in response, for a reaction that is own and independent, one gets punished, oh how one gets punished and with such cruelty.
Transexuals? When can we feel our bodies, our love, our self expressions? The female body is not self owned, it is inhabited with the concepts and ideas of a man. Of the men. Everything, including what one should think, how one should act, how one should respond is mapped out and directed by the men for women. Now imagine a waking consciousness of a woman.
************************************************************************************
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
************************************************************************************
Consciousness that wakes up to a
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
brick wall of dresses, make up, heels, no opportunities, no way of self expression without terrible judgment and punishment, no way to make money decently, no way to develop the skills. That consciousness has one choice only: to be and feel a guy. Now, imagine consciousness that screams "I am a guy" in a body that is battered and abused and denied, and you got yourself a recipe for a suicide or a bloody murder. No, still can't see? Of course, hate and irrationality are draped over your eyes, take the drape off and take out the ear plugs.
Why get angry though at what you have created and with your ignorance and cruelty allowed to become twisted and corrupted?
Why spit on transsexuals who already are and partially as sick as we are today, are a result of your work and your effort to destroy people's genome and selves?
We are a product of your work, daddy. Don't you love us? Or will you smite us? Again? And again? And again? Until the screams will resound in your ears day after day and night after night until we drive you so crazy, so crazy that you will split your own cranium in search of relief, you baby swallowing Cronos. ... inside your head, that like Athens we will break out of it, with Metis under our arm, unconscious, but alive? What's up, now?
Do your research and check the evidence. Historical. Biological. Scientific. Spiritual. Psychic. Astral. Own. Self. Other person is telling you, goddmanit!
"Friends" who "accept." "Accept." God bless you all, that God that is above and beyond all these squables and economics, and may she/he/it/them preserve you from "friends" who sneakily attempt to "heal" you or to kill you worst comes to worst.
You sicko, I accept you.
You know...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
