Delicious & Nutritious

There are an increasing number of products on the market which might be termed ‘pseudo-food’. Indigestible noodles¹. Artificial sweeteners. Wood.

But there’s one little flaw with all of these things: they just keep costing you money. And for what? It’s not like eating these things is causing them any harm; they come out of you in more or less the same shape they went in–or, at least, that’s why people buy them.

So I have devised the final solution: reusable food.

A combination of various modern marvels, these fraught cuisine items would be composed of a self healing plastic compound which would allow them to be recomposed into their original shape after digestion. Being impermeable and organically inert, a simple high-temperature spin in any modern dishwasher would restore them to their factor-fresh, quasi-edible state — ready for another exciting trip through your quivering digestive system.

But who wants to go through all the trouble of fishing through their bowel movements to retrieve these indigestible pieces of plastic? Ah, but I have the solution! A handy-dandy, combination toilet/dishwasher will automatically collect, clean, and compose this exciting new product into the Food of the Future²! The all-purpose dishwasher detergent with added artificial flavour will ensure that it’s ready to eat as soon as you open the door–and since you’re already accustomed to eating disturbingly huge quantities of detergent in the form of residue from your old dishwasher, you won’t even mind the implications of what you’re eating!

Now all I need to do is find an investor who’ll give me millions of bucks to make this bright new American Dream³ come true!

¹I know it’s a traditional food, but the Japanese didn’t traditionally eat it specifically because it failed to nourish them.
²Dystopian
³For a given, all-too-horrifyingly-modern value of “American”

And they is us.

I read an interesting article by Ted Dziuba. It’s not entirely wrong; the amassing of weapons by the US gov’t and by private citizens does amount to an arms race — from a certain point of view. However, his ‘solution’ is untenable and, ultimately, deluded.

The first problem is that it’s not, ultimately, just the police one has to worry about — it’s the USMC, and the Army, and the Navy, and the USAF, and the National Guard, and the Coast Guard, and the FBI, and the Border Patrol, and every single other gov’t organisation in the United States which arms its members.

If the US gov’t were willing to consider disarming the military, the notion of mutual disarmament might be tenable — even if it was still wrong — but that is categorically impossible for many reasons, some of which are even good ones.

Besides, there’s a bigger problem: guns aren’t the problem and never have been. There is no such thing as an ‘evil’ object which should be banned. Guns are a non-issue, except that they are slightly more convenient than, say, explosives in inflicting violence. The problem is people; the problem, the screaming white elephant in the room, is us.

Us.

Our culture; our society; our community. World wide.

We are the problem.

Craziness is contagious. Not in the sense of a flu, or a meme, but it is contagious; it spreads and it mutates and it comes from that inexhaustible reservoir known as the mass consciousness. The only thing which differs from time to time is the state of health of that mass consciousness; right now it’s looking a little under the weather — in the same way as an Ebola victim looks a trifle peaky.

Minds operate singularly, in the sense of individuals, but they also operate collectively; anyone who has ever been in a business meeting probably knows that the collective IQ of the group is usually the lowest IQ in the group divided by the number of people present. Groups inevitably trend toward stupidity; imagine the collective IQ of a city.

The ‘crazies’ who have committed these bizarre and impossibly evil crimes in our lifetime are simply more susceptible to the feedback loop between mass consciousness and individual consciousness; they’re the canaries of the mind: the ones who couldn’t numb themselves with TV and Facebook, or dope themselves up strongly enough on prescription meds (or who suffered psychosis from taking them), and hadn’t the fortitude required to simply stand above the sickness in every single one of your black and rotting hearts.

When guns are taken away, they’ll use knives instead. Or fire. Or explosives. A garbage truck could make a real mess of a kindergarten in the wrong hands.

But we don’t hear people talking about banning garbage trucks, do we?

No; because that would be glancing around the room, which carries the risk of us noticing the elephant — noticing that no matter what we ban or legislate or control, there will always be us. Perhaps we should ban independent thought; if everyone’s on enough pot and enough Zoloft and never logs off Facebook, perhaps we can simply stop functioning as human beings; that would stop us from engineering these disasters.

Or we can own up to the failures of racial integration, of feminism, of suffrage, of radical religion (including atheism), of gay rights, of modern divorce laws, of pension laws, of modern wealth distribution systems, of industrialization, of the news and media complex, of every gov’t we’ve created to magically fix our problems; and instead of always pushing the blame onto some fiction (comic books, reefer madness, guns, video games, rock’n'roll, alcohol, drugs, Irish Catholics, Jews, &c.) take a hard look at ourselves instead.

But that would be looking the elephant in the eye, and you’re too cowardly to do that.

“Rape” stories

For ‘traumatised victims’, the women who write stories about being raped are incongruously pornographic in their descriptions.

When people are legitimately traumatised, they do not generally talk about their experiences in loving detail. This is for two reasons: first, it’s unpleasant enough to live through such an experience the first time; second, having suffered so, one is generally hesitant to inflict vicariously the experience upon others which they knew themselves. When the dam does break, as may be necessary to find peace on the matter, it is done with confidantes — trusted individuals whom the speaker feels comfortable burdening with their sorrows — rather than in some orgiastic circus of narcissistic exhibitionism.

For rape to have value as an especially traumatic experience, there must be some exceptional aspect to the crime — some loss or damage which is absent from more mundane physical assaults, such as mugging or battery. Thus, for a complaint of rape to have legitimacy, the woman must be able to demonstrate that she possessed some virtue prior to the act in question; as an analogy, consider a ghetto-dwelling degenerate, who has obviously been in a recent fight, asserting that he was mugged and robbed of $5,000. If he failed to give some proof he actually had that kind of money, law enforcement would assume that, at best, he was trying to inflate the complaint against his opponent, and, at worst, that he was actively engaging in fraud — perhaps, in reality, the bum had been the aggressor against a moneyed target, and was trying to induce law enforcement to help him finish the job he couldn’t himself; and who would take him seriously if he bore no signs of violence upon him at all!

As a consequence, when a woman complains of rape, the first action should be to examine her prior reputation and behaviour; obviously, as in any criminal pursuit, one must presume her innocence in the absence of evidence to the contrary; but if she has a demonstrable history of sexual wantonness, infidelity, or the kind of utter carelessness which is categorically incompatible with a concern for her own virtue, then her complaint cannot be taken seriously as per se rape; it is simply an assault which happened to include fluid exchange — which is hardly noteworthy, since even something as mundane as punching someone in the teeth can cause an exchange of blood between the two combatants. If such a complainant can provide proof she was assaulted, she deserves whatever remedies are available in her jurisdiction for the victims of aggravated assault, but no more. It is when her history and character do not fall under question, that exceptional treatment is warranted; then can the assault be taken as being an attack upon her very womanhood.

It is difficult to imagine such a woman publicly discussing the violation of her most sacred essence with the world at large. In contrast, most of the “rape stories” online are loudly and publicly averred by women who seemingly take pride in their very lack of good character! Such women will discuss their infidelity, their dishonesty, their lack of care and carefulness, and their complete lack of concern for those around them, in so stridently brazen a fashion that one can but assume they take pride in their sluttish conduct.

This makes the very magnitude of their complaint all the more hypocritical — they seem to specifically think that they are above accountability; that they can engage in behaviour far more degenerate than that they were forced into by their supposed attackers, and then make complaint that they were ‘violated’; that they can flout the system which exists to protect them, and then run to it the moment they find themselves in a situation they find distasteful.

Such slatterns and harlots are beneath contempt, and serve only to further destroy the legitimacy of the crime ‘rape’ in the eyes of the common man; for though women have been prized throughout history for their virtue, for the first time men are beginning to wonder if women are capable of love or virtue at all — and this author weeps for the future in which their suspicions are escalated to belief or dogma.

Storms

How desperate we are for news of the mundane.

Hurricanes happen every year; their appearance is routine, predictable, and inexorable — choosing to live in places where hurricanes pose a risk is an informed decision.

So why do we hoot and bray, every year, when the predictably inevitable occurs? Are you really so wrapped up in your self importance that you think that waving your tiny fists in object to the laws of Nature will change anything? Or are you just touched in the head?

On affairs current

The life of the proletariat is an uninformed one.

You live your lives informed by the news, the press release; sound bites, public statements, official positions, and what of the supposedly ‘public record’ that is actually accessible, describe the outer limits of your knowledge.

A long time ago, there was a Hollywood starlet who had a reputation for class, civility, and being a perfect lady; it was not until her memoires, many decades later, that the public learned she had shared practically every bed in stardom. Secrets keep; dirty secrets keep longer — for you chase tabloid sensations far more fervently than you pursue the truth of your world.

There is a world of hazy innuendo, of back-room deals, of smoke-clouded decisions among people who prefer to remain outside of public awareness, which does more to determine the shape of your daily lives than any vote or referendum or article of legislation — and it defies sensibility, that you could not be aware of this.

Either you are stupider than you seem, or you simply don’t want to know — not the particulars, since those are by definition obscure, but you disregard the implications of even the existence of such discoloured deeds; you pretend to ignore the indications which do manage to emerge from the fog — for example, every election I can easily remember has been a 50/50 split. If you were to think for a moment, you would have no better an answer for why than I do — that is to say, without the right kind of backstage passes, neither of us can ever know for certain.

It is for this reason, among others, that I don’t ever stipulate specific causes for these affairs, but the absence of discussion or even acknowledgement that these things happen — where, for example, is the outrage over Obama’s about-face on civil liberties; why did not Romney capitalise on this flagrant presidential failing? — fills me with dread.

I haven’t yet decided if the public awareness is suicidal, mad, or both. No matter; the result is the same in the end, and though I might disagree on my own behalf, I hold most categorically that we deserve what we get.

Discussion of ‘rape culture’

As sexuality has been devalued by feminist interests, the social taboo against rape has become a caricature of itself.

Men are the enforcers of the taboo against rape. Women, by definition, are vulnerable to rape — and if a woman can’t protect her own virtue, she certainly can’t protect anyone else’s. That means that the primary deterrents of a potential rapist are other men. For any social defence of a woman’s virtue to function, men must be wholeheartedly on-board.

In order to support their increasingly extremist and oppressive campaign against men, the feminist movement has been forced to exaggerate the frequency of rape, and to impugn social response to it, by implying that it is tacitly supported by the very structure of our society. The goal is to effect increasingly hysterical restrictions on men, because like any social bubble, the ‘rape culture’ agenda will fall apart if it ever makes a single concession to reason.

The picture painted by the feminist movement would have one believe that a truly preposterous portion of women experience rape; one in four is the commonly cited figure. This figure can be empirically supported, if one adopts a sufficiently broad definition of ‘rape’ — up to and including counting women who categorically state they do not believe they were raped. It is worth mentioning that insisting that women were raped, who say they were not, is gaslighting them: feminists are willing to use psychological torture to advance their agenda.

Whereas the word rape once connoted a violent crime — a helpless woman beaten until she could not defend herself, or put in fear of her life, and then brutally ravished by some predatory monster — the term can now be trivially applied to any woman who regrets sex after the fact. While promulgating hysteria over the phenomenon of ‘date rape’, and insisting that a woman can retroactively redefine any act she does not feel happy about later, will certainly increase ‘rape awareness’ in the short term, the long term effect is devastating: the term will come to mean exactly what it’s being used to describe.

In the mean time, multiple generations of men are being exposed to the idea that they can and will be falsely accused of rape. Nearly every word of the preceding sentence is a link, including the period, and those are but a drop in the bucket. Many of the false accusations were to cover up infidelity; others were due to embarrassment, or regret after the fact. Some of the men falsely accused spent time in jail, while others simply lost their social standing because they were presumed guilty by the courtroom of society, regardless of what the judicial system determined.

Men have only upheld their end of the bargain — enforcing the proscription of rape — because it is in their best interests: men love women, and they love protecting them — but not without limit. Men have protected women that they might have families, familial security, happiness, and children. When all of these things are being stolen from them by a narrow and short sighted assault on masculinity itself, mounted by a class of women whose grotesque over privilege had caused them to entirely forget their appreciation of the gender which gave them such luxury in the first place, the incentive to risk themselves, to defend without question, and to even assume the virtue of women in the first place, is compromised.

Now the writing is on the wall: our culture is only a ‘rape culture’ in the sense that actual incidents of rape are becoming statistical anomalies amongst the false and overblown accusations, hyperbole, and flat-out misrepresentation by the supposed victims, but this state of affairs cannot last: men will stop even attempting to protect women as a class, if it is not in their best interests. By treating men as misogynists when they are not, women are conditioning men into misogyny, and if the trend continues, we truly will develop a ‘culture of rape’, and yet not: because women, as they behave now, are asking for it.

Feminism & the dilution of sexual value

Feminism has, among its many other bêtises, effected a complete dilution of the phenomenon of rape. More bluntly, feminism is directly responsible for the so-called ‘rape culture’.

To begin with, the very foundation of rape as a special crime (as opposed to mere assault) is rooted in its ramifications as a profound and irrevocable violation of the woman thus victimised. For this to make sense, one must predicate a woman’s worth upon her virtue, chastity, purity, and faithfulness. These precise quantities are those infringed by a sexual assault; rape, in this context, is an assault on the fabric of society itself — and effects a permanent deprecation of that woman’s worth.

Feminism acts to undermine the special value of sex, by attacking the notion that chastity and virtue are meaningful terms; because tangible evidence exists that these qualities directly impact familial stability, feminists must divert the course of enquiry from a simple analysis of societal benefit, to a purely rhetorical battle where their sophistry will be effective. Since the qualities in question can be construed to limit the license of women (much as the tabus on murder restricts the behaviour of people generally), feminists have asserted that these ‘restrictions’ are a form of deliberate oppression.

In order to remain internally consistent, the rhetoric employed must excise all primary value from sex, and re-define it as a quintessentially empty act which inherently symbolises nothing. This is necessary because the admission of any inherent value in sex would create the situation where an opposing party could claim that a woman should reserve this special quantity for her husband-to-be, which would in turn weaken the position that this particular restriction of behaviour was oppressive. By denying this quantity, feminists can create a purely relativist notion of sex, where ‘it only means what you make it mean’ — which is another way of saying that any meaning perceived therein is entirely fanciful.

But if sex is inherently meaningless, then it is nothing more than a complicated sort of handshake which happens to involve more fluids; if this is the case, then sexual assault is merely a mundane physical assault, similar to being beaten in a bar fight, or getting mugged on the subway.

The implications are obvious: when rape is no worse than beating someone up, then the taboo against it begins to lose its foundation; the barrier to entry (pun intended) is lowered significantly, and women can and should anticipate that men who have been normalised to a feminist culture will be orders of magnitude more likely to engage in sexual assault.