racism and being 'WOKE"

[Alexis Jacobi]

some women's health charities are replacing the word 'vagina' with 'bonus hole' …

You know, that might catch on!

[iambiguous]

This gets more insane by the minute. Does ANYONE here know what's actually going on in the world right now?

It has got so bad, that women are resorting to cutting off their own testicles in anguish.

''Police reopen probe into trans activist after she told crowd to 'punch TERFs in the face': Met reviews Trans Pride speech made by convicted attempted murderer turned campaigner who cut off her own testicles while serving 30 years in prison.''

Now, this is typical of the reactionary Woke mentality...

There are thousands upon thousands of transgender and homosexual men and women who live their lives pretty much as those in the "straight" world do. They have jobs and friends and families. They are in committed and loving monogamous relationships. They might play sports go to the movies or museums or concerts. They like to fish and hunt and have all sorts of hobbies. They are liberals and conservatives. About the only thing setting them apart is that, for whatever complex personal reasons, sexually, they go off the beaten path.

But those folks are basically ignored by the right wing Woke crowd. No, instead, they scour the internet looking only for those really, really off the beaten path "deviants" who do truly extreme or outrageous things.

Worse, every single one of them is intent on "grooming" all of our children to be just like them!!!



There's a new documentary series on HBO: https://www.hbo.com/last-call-when-a-se ... r-new-york

It notes just how far some homophobic folks will go to "save" civilization from these "deviants".

[iambiguous]

ME:

You're right. Why should I spend more time making a fool out of you when no one does a better job of that than you yourself.

Hmmmmmm.

Clown World!!

Note to Satyr: I knew he was you!!!

Satyr?

Well, you have to understand that he has actually allowed himself to get into "discussions" with ecmandu over at ILP. Ecmandu, a man who claims to have personally spoken to God, the Devil and to Buddha.

Here's what the "serious philosopher" has just opined:

There is no 'god' crazy.
God is a term used, by Abrahamics, to represent an ideal man, usually a collective's ideal.
Aryans used it to represent natural forces.
Jews use it to represent their collective.
They are always into collectives, and so they invented Marxism.
They sell individualism to keep the competition weak, but they practice collectivism - nepotism, networking, inbreeding etc.
This is why they want to be judged individually, so that their methods are not exposed.

And now, as he often did with me, he starts to get really, really, really agitated...

Fuck your 'consent violation,' moron. Your stuck on that idiocy and like the other bitch, you are in a hole you cannot escape.

Life is about exploitation.
Sex is full of deceit, you imbecile.

Why do women say 'no' when they mean 'yes,' naive, pathetic moron?
This is difficult for you to understand?
It is YOU who is "mentally retarded".....stunted, full of resentment and guilt, like your entire clan of genitally mutilated.

Just as, in my opinion, vegetariantaxidermy does here.

Only, of course, to VT, Satyr is just another pathetic MAN.

So, anyway, settle it: is "Alexis Jacobi" just another one of his many, many invented personas...like Lyssa?

Hell, for all I know, "iambiguous" is one too.

And then, of course, whatever this...

It’s kind of like Russian Nesting Dolls then? The Fool recognizes another fool in a greater state of foolishness, but is himself described as a fool by someone else who in turn is described similarly in an infinite array?

...means?

This is (perhaps) why I situate myself in the Supernal Clouds from whence I look down on the myriad fools, with disordered minds like furious hungover monkeys stung by wasps, who tear about screaming at each other. Or to quote Lucretius (I am a late incarnation of Lucretius I’ll have you know)...

No, in my view, you go up into the clouds, because there you can entirely avoid bluntly stating what the fate of the deviants, and the inferior races and the Jews -- and women? -- would be if you were ever to walk your talk in an actual flesh and blood community.

The part...

I'm just interested in exploring how your value judgments relating to human sexuality and race and gender, etc., might unfold "for all practical purposes" in an actual community in which you were able to shape the social, political and economic mores of that community to be in alignment with your own set of assumptions regarding things of this sort.

...you ever and always avoid. You just won't go down there. Down there has nothing to do with "serious philosophy".

Or, perhaps, is there another more, say, ominous reason?

YOU:

Ecmandu, a man who claims to have personally spoken to God, the Devil and to Buddha.

That’s beginner-level stuff. There’s a whole other level when you make contact with Attofishpi’s sage up there on the Akashic steppes ….

Note to others:

Enough said?

[phyllo]

There are thousands upon thousands of transgender and homosexual men and women who live their lives pretty much as those in the "straight" world do. They have jobs and friends and families. They are in committed and loving monogamous relations. They might play sports go to the movies or museums or concerts. They like to fish and hunt and have all sorts of hobbies. They are liberals and conservatives. About the only thing setting them apart is that, for whatever complex personal reasons, sexually, they go off the beaten path.

How do you know this?

And if it's true, then what's all this talk about transgender genocide?

If they are just living normal lives, then what's the problem? Why the activism?

[Alexis Jacobi]

This just in…

Today the NYTs alerts us that climate change has now moved to subterranean levels.

Heat Down Below Is Making the Ground Shift … Scientists call it “underground climate change.”

I thought it sufficient to stand terrified before atmospheric gods but now the chthonic gods demand their own stage in paranoid, creeping fear!

[phyllo]

This just in…

Today the NYTs alerts us that climate change has now moved to subterranean levels.

Scientists call it “underground climate change.”

I thought it sufficient to stand terrified before atmospheric gods but now the chthonic gods demand their own stage in paranoid, creeping fear!

You don't think climate change is real?

Tell it to my rose bushes. It's 30C and dry as the desert.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You don't think climate change is real?

Tell it to my rose bushes. It's 30C and dry as the desert.

In my opinion, and from examining different arguments, climate change is totally real but human C02 is not the cause of the changes occurring on the planet.

The climate change hysteria is on one hand a psychological phenomenon, but it obviously has a social and political dimension.

These presentations influenced how I see the issue:

See Alex Epstein

See Dr. Patrick Moore

[phyllo]

The great thing about climate change not caused by human activity is that we don't have to do anything.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The great thing about climate change not caused by human activity is that we don't have to do anything.

Adapt. Just as people are adapting to rising oceans, flooding, heat waves, droughts, and all the rest. C02 is described by those in the video presentations as a huge boon. But it is not the cause of climate change. (If what they say is true).

[Immanuel Can]

The great thing about climate change not caused by human activity is that we don't have to do anything.

It's worse than that. The problem is, "What do you want to do?"

The proposed solution is to punish advanced, Western societies economically, and deprive them of resources, until the problem goes away. Do you think that's going to work? How's it working in Germany, right now? Shall we wait for the winter, and then assess how it's going to work in England?

Here's the bigger problem: even if human beings have created climate change (which we don't know they have, but let's play along) the countries that will determine its future are China, India and the rest of the developing world. Period. Western countries, even if they stopped today, would make no impact. Not a little impact: none.

Why none: because every bit of slack they introduce into the system of the production of carbon and other gasses, by cutting back in the West, will be instantly vacuumed up by China and India and the developing world, and it will be as if they had done absolutely nothing.

There are, in fact, no serious discussions about climate change that do not begin with the words, "China, India and the developing world." None. Everything else is just more gas expelled into the atmosphere.

But we don't want to face having to deal with China, India and the developing world. That problem's too big. So we sate ourselves with ridiculous and futile self-flagellating gestures of recycling, building windmills, creating solar panels, new electric cars...and by every one of these measures, we make the situation not better but far worse, because all of these actually pollute more than the alternatives. But we don't look at the environmental impact of any technology that claims to be "green." They're off limits to any critique, we think. We're busy being "good people." Anybody who says "Nay" is evil.

And then there's the economic and social price we're going to pay. By destabilizing and impoverishing the West, we will kill people. We already have, but we'll kill many, many more. And they won't be the Hollywood types: they'll be the urban poor. They'll die first. And we will call their deaths "necessary," because, we will say, we are "saving the planet." We'll say, "There are too many people alive anyway," so what are a few dead ones?

It's all a wicked shell game, with human lives at stake.

[iambiguous]

There are thousands upon thousands of transgender and homosexual men and women who live their lives pretty much as those in the "straight" world do. They have jobs and friends and families. They are in committed and loving monogamous relations. They might play sports go to the movies or museums or concerts. They like to fish and hunt and have all sorts of hobbies. They are liberals and conservatives. About the only thing setting them apart is that, for whatever complex personal reasons, sexually, they go off the beaten path.

How do you know this?

And if it's true, then what's all this talk about transgender genocide?

If they are just living normal lives, then what's the problem? Why the activism?

Well, among other things, over the years I have known and interacted with many, many, many of them as a political activist. And in numerous films, books and articles that I have encountered pertaining to the gay community over the years, that is often stressed again and again.

Or have you accumulated evidence that the sort of stuff we get from Satyr and VT is actually the rule instead? Satyr does the same thing with blacks. He scours the internet looking for blacks behaving in a manner that "proves" how superior the white race is. Most of what he posts now is straight out of YouTube land.

And, no, they do not live normal lives...sexually. But they are often mainstream in regard to other aspects of their lives.

But, okay, as with AJ, I'll ask you to note what behaviors, if you were in a position of power in a community, would be prohibited? No gay marriage? No gay clubs? No gay pride parades? Sodomy with become a crime again? Homosexuals and transgenders would be arrested and sent to jail?

Is there a religious -- Christian -- component to your own convictions? Is the manner in which I rooted individual value judgements as an existential component of dasein not applicable at all to you?

And the activism often revolves around the fact that there are reactionaries on the right who really are intent on ridding America of anything that is not straight out of the 1950s Father Knows Best mentality.

Again, often emanating from the politicized -- and sexually repressed? -- evangelical Christian communities.

Again, this part:

Maurice Brinton in The Irrational in Politics:

In learning to obey their parents children learn obedience in general. The deference learned in the family setting will manifest itself whenever the child faces a 'superior' in later life. Sexual repression----by the already sexually repressed parents---is an integral part of the conditioning process.

According to Reich, the 'suppresion of natural sexuality in the child....makes the child apprehensive, shy, obedient, afraid of authority, 'good', and 'adjusted' in the authoritarian sense; it paralyzes the rebellious forces because any rebellion is laden with anxiety; it produces, by inhibiting sexual curiosity and sexual thinking in the child, a general inhibition of thinking and of critical faculties. In brief the goal of sexual repression is that of producing an individual who is adjusted to the authoritarian order and who will submit to it in spite of all the misery and degradation...the result is fear of freedom, and a conservative, reactionary mentality. Sexual repression aids political reaction, not only through this process which makes the mass individual passive and unpolitical, but also by creating in his structure an interest in actively supporting the authoritarian order'.

Psychologists and psychiatrists have written pages about the medical effects of sexual repression. Reich however constantly reiterated its social function, exercised through the family. The purpose of sexual repression was to anchor submission to authority and the fear of freedom into people's 'character armour'. The net result was the reproduction, generation after generation, of the basic [psychological] conditions essential for manipulation and enslavement of the masses.

Some suggest that the "deep state" emanating from Wall Street, K Street, the U.S. Congress and the White House take full advantage of these religious fanatics in order to sustain their own amoral "the rich get richer" economic and political agenda.

Or, should we just stay up in the intellectual clouds until logically and epistemologically we pin down technically how serious philosophers are first obligated to grasp such "deviant" behavior "theoretically"?

Or, as is often the case, will you just configure into Mr. Snippet and Mr. Wiggle in responding to my posts?

Or Mr. Stooge?

[Gary Childress]

So we sate ourselves with ridiculous and futile self-flagellating gestures of recycling, building windmills, creating solar panels, new electric cars...and by every one of these measures, we make the situation not better but far worse, because all of these actually pollute more than the alternatives.

Are you suggesting that recycling pollutes worse than not doing so? Do windmills and solar panels pollute worse than old fashioned coal refineries? It seems to me that some progress is being made.

What we are encountering are questions of whether marginal gains are being made by using more wind and solar to supplement fossil fuel power, or whether the risks of nuclear are acceptable to going that route, etc.

As far as I'm aware, it is extremely difficult to accurately calculate marginal gains or losses between various approaches that interact with waste production in complex ways. For example, it's difficult to calculate how pollution from burning windmills compares exactly to burning fossil fuel instead. It seems like a lot of guess work, some of which is being funded by those who have economically invested in various means of producing electric power. It can be difficult to separate fact from PR propaganda campaigns funded by investors more concerned with personal profit.

[Harbal]

The great thing about climate change not caused by human activity is that we don't have to do anything.

Adapt. Just as people are adapting to rising oceans,

I'm quite looking forward to living closer to the coast.

[Immanuel Can]

So we sate ourselves with ridiculous and futile self-flagellating gestures of recycling, building windmills, creating solar panels, new electric cars...and by every one of these measures, we make the situation not better but far worse, because all of these actually pollute more than the alternatives.

Are you suggesting that recycling pollutes worse than not doing so?

Did you not know that? Yes, that's exactly right. The recyclers only take in clear plastic of a single type...they can't make a profit on the rest. So the rest of the recycling goes in another truck, and to the dump.

That's right: you're now having additional diesel trucks to pick up those balloons of air, and then move them two places instead of one. And we call it "recycling."

Do windmills and solar panels pollute worse than old fashioned coal refineries?

No, but much worse than other sources, like nuclear. But we're so concerned about nuclear waste that we've shut many of those down. Windmills and solar panels also don't produce nearly enough power to fill the need. Then, the windmills last 15 years, and then have to be scrapped. And the solar panels themselves are exceeding difficult and expensive to "recycle," so they end up in dumps, too.

It seems to me that some progress is being made.

You're being misled, I'm afraid. The facts are otherwise. Check them out for yourself.

[commonsense]

'Interesting' how 'transrights' activisits (you know, the 'most vulnerable and helpless' people in existence) violently try to silence women every time they try to gather to speak, yet women NEVER try to disrupt 'transrights' mob gatherings, where rabidly misogynistic, dangerous men walk around with 'I kill TERFS' written on their T shirts and make speeches demanding that people punch women. In fact they avoid these gatherings like the plague. Hmm. I wonder why that would be? You would think women wouldn't be so intimidated by society's 'most vulnerable and helpless'...

And you would think that a trans person would want to appear as and pass for a person of their new gender. If so, why would they ever want to self-identify as a trans instead of as a regular person of their new sex?