The Feminization of Man

In the essays you say homosexuality has “emerged”! homosexuality has been catalotgued in every culture pretty much since time began!

Furthermore, do you think this levelling of man is - good/bad?

If homosexuality is a mutation - does that necessarily make is “unncessary” -
is mutation synomymous with EVIL?

Could homosexual and the levelling of man not be part of the process - of a more intimate race, not necessarily sexually, but subjectively, interpersonally?

i won’t read all that, but i’ll chip in that i do tend to despise most males i know for their utter lack of balls/guts. so who knows, he might be even right

Back in those days homosexuality was an aesthetic practice and it evolved from the indignation of women as mentally and physically inferior to men. They are, mind you, but this indignation was of a psychological import rather than its appropriate physical import. Men flattered themselves by devoting their sexual activities to one another, keeping women for reproduction only. Sex, for them, was divided into the aesthetic, as an artistic and hedonistic expression, and as a means to reproduce. The women did not deserve the pleasure of sex for its own sake, and sex as a pleasure was exercised between men. This, I believe, is a decent explaination for the few cases of homosexuality.

Today, a new kind of homosexuality has emerged, being the result of role displacement. “Gender” is no longer a physical designation, it has become a psychological ‘mentality’ resulting from consumerism and a lack of physical stature due to increased technological advancements.

A ‘man’ is no longer determined by his rivalry to the ‘woman’ because a woman can do, today, what a man can do. A larger percentage of masculinity was maintained not only by the evident physcial gender differences, but also by the tasks which only the man could perform. Another percentage of masculinity was lost by the disintegration of physical prowess and cunning. Men, today, are on average weak, over-weight, cowardly, and gullible. This is in part a result of consumerism; life has become easier and role distinctions are no longer identifiable or even necessary.

The difference between the homosexuality of the Greeks, for example, and the homosexuality of the modern world, is that the role of the female, through her power of sexual domination, has turned the tables. Today, rather than the woman being reduced to an ‘object for reproduction only,’ the man has been reduced to an object of subordination for the female. The female, by aquiring the new inferior male, allows sex to happen rather than submitting to the males original dictation and ruling of sexual activities. This has happened simply because men are degenerating into weaklings while women are becoming more capable of performing tasks which, at one time, only the man could do.

The woman sets up a competative element between man and man. The men who do not succeed in impressing the women become gay, normally partners to other inferior men. The men who win the female become the slave to the womans dominance. As Zappa once put it: “men will do anything to get some pussy…and that’s why the woman always had control over the man.”

The other side of this coin is here. There is also a competative field between women. Those ugly women who cannot attract a male victim become homosexual as well. The game plays in both directions.

Observe the mannerisms of the gay man and woman. Generally speaking, each of them mimics the opposite sex; the lesbians ‘act’ masculine, the gay men ‘act’ feminine. This is the displacement of the original roles, lost in the mix of consumerism and technology, and sexes become “played” rather than exhibited.

As Satyr mentioned, it is inevitable. I would say it is bad. Eventually the human race will self-destruct because of over-population, disease, Capitalism and its exhausting the resources of the planet. Meanwhile, genders will become obsolete as reproduction will be orchestrated by technology and biological reproduction will no longer be necessary. I can even imagine that the human genome will become ‘sexless’ and males and females will unify into one impotent gender. Sex might once again become an entertainment and not a necessity. That is, if we still have our sexual organs.

Evolution occurs through mutations, but mutations are, ironically, advancements in growth. Only if homosexuality is genetic, which I don’t think it is, could it be considered a ‘bad’ mutation because it would threaten the imperative dynamic of reproduction for the species.

There is no need to make the evaluation “evil” here. In fact, “evil” has its origins in religion and is not a moral value in itself. There is no such thing as ‘evil,’ better yet, its etymological origins are irrelevent to the appropriate ethical evaluations necessary to identify ‘good’ and ‘bad’ conditions.

Explain further, Colinsign. I’m not sure what you are intending here.

The crux of your argument…
Shame it is ridiculous.
Your ‘bad mutation’ would never be passed on, homosexuals do not reproduce. If homosexuality is genetic the so called ‘bad’ gene would never have the chance to replicate.
Eventually the ‘bad gene’ would be eradicated.
This line of logic is what lead me to the opinion that homosexuallity is not genetic.

but seriously, detrop…have you ever examined the source of your hatred for homos?
Or are you worried about what you might find? :wink:

Pay attention, Damien. Your rebuttle is a redundancy.

A ‘bad’ mutation is one that stops the process. I made that clear.

Am I gay? Certainly not. However I love my brothers unlike I will never love a woman. Perhaps it is you who finds it hard to embrace a brother or pat his ass during a football game.

You look cute in that cheesy dragon shirt you got from Wal-Mart, though. If I were gay, I’d do 'ya.

Wow, I see this subject has been reawakened, somewhat.

Colinsign

It all depends on if you are judging it from an individual or a species perspective and on what your ideals are.

There is no “good/bad”, only preferences based on personal tastes, character, experiences and ideals.

Where exactly did I use the term “evil” in relation to homosexuality?

I would say that bestiality isn’t inherently “evil” either, but if the right cultural alterations occur, it might become a norm or acceptable or even a virtue.

Killing another human being isn’t “evil” or “good", from a natural perspective, as well, yet it is considered a sin and even disgusting and disturbing in today’s western Judeo-Christian world.
The sinful label of murder and of theft and of many other social no-no’s serves a systemic function and is nothing more than a rule that has been raised up to the level of an ethical code.

I would say that homosexuality from an evolutionary, natural point of view is unproductive, superfluous and a genetic dead-end.
It is only sustainable as a viable alternative in a world of technological methods and where sex is becoming redundant and used for entertainment or where it is merely a dying psychological remnant of a bygone age and which hasn’t been evolved out of our genetic makeup yet.

As a consequence sexuality has become blurred and interchangeable. Sex has ceased to have a mystical character - or even a serious one - and has now been slowly degraded down to mechanics and whimsical entertainment.

It all depends on what you mean by “intimate” or if this is even possible between distinct entities with conscious minds burdened with an added self-consciousness.

An ant colony is primarily female and one can say their un-individualistic, undiscriminating, harmonious union is a sort of homosexual unity.

We can say that the cells in our body coexist in complete harmonious union and that this is possible through the total annihilation of difference and through the elimination of individual choice; is that the type of future you envisage for humanity?

1. Homosexuality does not need to be (re-)productive because homosexuals are part of the larger human reproductive mechanism
(Some other sections of human society that don’t reproduce are: single people, ill people, infertile people, No Kids Couples, handicapped people, etc.)

The non reproductive sections benefit from the reproduction of others while adding different benefits to the ‘breeders’ in exchange.

Evolution often works like a free market economy where people input their strengths (abilities) and withdraw their needs (weaknesses). In systems like this, nobody does everything; mutation and specialisation is the evolutionary key. Everything is based on practical exchanges.

2 I don’t know what you mean by 'homosexuality from an evolutionary, natural point of view…. is ….superfluous’?
Do you mean from an evolutionary, natural point of view homosexuality is unnecessary? i.e. not needed? If so, your vision is amazingly narrow.

Evolution is a very complex system and with modern humans, it’s even more complex.

For instance, imagine our world without some of the gay people below:
Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Alexander the Great, Oscar Wilde, William Burrows, Michel Foucault, Marcel Proust, Tchaikaovsky, Andy Warhol, John Maynard Keynes, Nureyev. Plato, Alan Turing (first computer machine/WWII code breaker) Wittgenstein and many, many more.

These people can not be called ‘superfluous.’ Many of them are the very founders of key areas we call ‘civilization’ like culture, philosophy, economics and science. If homosexuality ceased to exist, so too will the original insights the homosexual mind is capable of producing.

The most important part of human evolution is NOT the ability to reproduce – bacteria can reproduce (and look where it is). The most important component of human evolution is the human mind. Whether the human mind is gay, straight, black, white or belongs to an infertile, unmarried old lesbian makes no difference. The meme is as important as the gene.

What homosexuals have added to the development of the human species is far from ‘superfluous’.

km2_33

Firstly, describe how homosexuality facilitates reproduction.

Secondly, ‘singlehood’ is a cultural construct and not a natural state.
Being single is only possible in relation to a cultural norm which has made marriage an artificial norm.

Thirdly, the ill and the handicapped within which we can correctly include homosexuality or any divergence or mutation that goes against health, are superfluous from a natural perspective.
The fact that they are tolerated in our present society is due to multiple reasons, many of which I’ve mentioned in my original essay, but here are some of them again:

1- Superfluity, excess and luxury are only possible in environments of abundance. Within such environments toleration is possible because it doesn’t threaten immediate survival and so the unproductive and the unessential are produced through wealth. Decadence is the final stage of such abundance.
2- Technology is making sex, and as a by-product gender, superfluous. Copulation is, presently, not the only method of reproduction and if we can imagine a near future where cloning and artificial insemination progress, the act itself will be relegated to a primitive remnant of a bygone age. Also with the advent of contraceptives the act of sex has ceased to have much significance. As a consequence sex has lost its weightiness and severity. It is now practiced as a physical release and a psychological need, which also serves as a social bonding mechanism. Eventually these functions will diminish in time as well. Sex is now a means for entertainment and its past mystical character, as a way of producing life nonetheless, and its spiritual qualities are devalued. This is how alternative sexual practices and life-styles are gaining acceptance and ‘normality’. In a world where sex does not necessarily lead to life and where it has become a pastime, a hedonistic tool or a preference and in a world where other methods can be used to reproduce sex and sexuality ceases to mean anything. Male/female labels diminish as relevant and especially the concept of maleness becomes obsolete.
3- The present system itself is dependant upon resources, and human beings are another resource. The maintenance and growth of a system, particularly when it exceeds a certain natural limit as ours has, demands a reinterpretation or a breaking of the original natural rules that made it possible, in the first place. As such the system creates its own ideals and its own rules, which are promoted and enforced through mechanisms which include religious and institutional authority. Law and order, and morality are two ways by which the individuals, or the parts of the whole, become indoctrinated within a framework of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. Because of this systemic requirement, particularly in the west, for growth and stability based on access to resources, imitation and conformity are raised as virtues, while still maintaining the illusions of individuality which have not yet been cleansed out of our species psychological makeup, consumerism is promoted as an emblem of contentment and extreme thoughtless risk taking is presented as an ideal to be strived for, ethics play the part of keeping harmony, law punishes all that threatens the stability of the whole and punishes all expressions of disregard for cultural norms, life, and the hypothetical respect for human life especially, becomes a sacred concept to be protected by the systems institutions and by religious dogma and in the process diminishing the value of life itself.

In other words evolution diminishes the individual and promotes larger, higher unities.

The act of offering “strengths” and withdrawing “weaknesses” is the act of ‘plugging into the system’ and becoming indiscernible from it and totally dependant on it.

I won’t speak for all of them but Wittgenstein I’m not sure was homosexual. He was more asexual.
Michel Foucault, as well, had a low opinion of sex in general so we cannot say his thinking is a derivative of his sexuality but despite it.
But anyways.

As for Alexander the Great!!! and Plato!!! You fail to take into account the cultural settings within which these two figures lived in.
One can say that homosexual practices were popular within the Aristocracy of later day ancient Greece and this because of multiple reasons and especially as a sign of decline and decadence.
Are we then to say that all Greeks were homosexual or all upper-class Greeks were so?

It was customary for a teacher to teach all aspects of life to a student, back then, and this included sex. Also they did not have our Judeo-Christian sexual hang-ups about intercourse.
This, however, does not denote a preference or a homosexual inclination.
Homosexuality denotes a preference and an exclusive attraction for members of ones own sex as sexual partners.
This cannot be said to be the case for Plato or Alexander.

We can say that these ancient Hellenes were more ephivophiles [love of youth and adolescence] than homosexuals.

But that’s not the point.
We aren’t talking about these individuals here from a sexual perspective.
When we speak about homosexuality we are focusing our attentions on individuals from a sexual perspective and so we infer what productive elements are derived from this particular characteristic.
When we speak of an individual who is creative and talented we are talking about those aspects of him/her and we are not concerned as to what they prefer to fuck.

It can be said that heterosexuality is productive since it leads to an outcome.
Where does homosexuality lead to?

Sex, in nature, exists for a specific, simple reason: Reproduction.
It only has added functions because of social reasons which divert the original intent.

From a genetic perspective homosexuals are a dead end, even if they might be helpful or productive as thinkers or artists or workers or whatever.
So homosexuality per se is superfluous and is only tolerated because of the before mentioned reasons and because the individual within society, if he is not disruptive or overly free-thinking, offers other productive qualities which are more essential to the group or culture.

The fact that homosexuality coincides with the general trend towards a more docile, passive, unchallenging male makes it all the more tolerable to the present system and to the culture, since it serves the ‘Feminization’ process or perhaps it is a symptom of it.

You mean, like yours, right?

I agree.

While I agree with the first sentence (there is much research, and many fine arguments that employ the idea of evolution to support this) doesn’t it seem more likely, in practice, that if a male cannot impress female X he will simply settle for female Y (who herself is simply settling for him, as she lacks the means or traits to garner attention from more ‘impressive’ males).

Also, as far as the aesthetic appeal of homosexual intercourse, couldn’t it also be argued that in the ancient world the practice of an older male adopting a younger male as a lover was done not for reasons of aesthetics (solely) but also contained with it a relationship underpinned by political power? In other words, by agreeing to homosexual intercourse, a younger male was not just gaining an older lover, but also a mentor and a provider of future political power? Is that not what Plato has Socrates basically argue, from which we derive the idea of Platonic love, being intimate friendship free from intercourse?

GCT,

I think Satyr’s comment here explains:

I wouldn’t doubt that sex as a means to something else has been around since the dawn of civilization. But sex for its own sake, that’s how I think one can identify a true heterosexual. A real, and dare I say ‘normal,’ sexual attraction affects us physically. In other words, its pretty realistic to say that a man who gets an erection in the presence of a hot woman, and not in the presence of another man, is a safe heterosexual, or at least bi-sexual. But getting an erection in the presence of the same gender wouldn’t happen unless that person was conditioned psychologically through a period of time.

What should be under scrutiny here is a question of physiology. How does the homosexual’s hormone regulation differ from a heterosexual’s? Is there an identifiable physical characteristic, or is the erection triggered in the homosexual a psychological and intentional event?

I think that unless there is a “gay” gene it will remain a mystery.

Another interesting way to look at it is like this. Ask a heterosexual man why he just doesn’t masturbate if sexual pleasure is only physical. Its much easier, right? Well then there shouldn’t be a sex drive in a male who has the opportunity to masturbate. He wouldn’t still seek out women, unless he wanted to mate of provide a service. Sex for its own sake is in question here. So then there must be a psychological urge to have sex and not just a physcial response to a sexual stimulus…like a hot woman. If a man didn’t want to mate, didn’t want to provide a service, and could masturbate, the logistics say that he would.

So some degree of the bio-psycho-sex-drive can be conditioned externally and therefore sexuality is not a completely genetic product. Men have been raised to “be attracted to women,” while also having ‘normal’ horomone levels.

Its hard to tell. There’s a big grey area here. Maybe that’s the essential question that modern neurology and psychology is trying to determine.

But yeah, I wouldn’t doubt that sex was used as a political means at all. Giving pleasure has always been a service I suppose.

[edited recently “…man who gets…”]

Good point, GCT. Didn’t John Nash handle that one? Governing dynamics and game theory, perhaps. I don’t know the details but I have an understanding of the gist. What I believe is that although there will be as much mating, just as your point indicates, as unattractive or more ‘feminine’ men will, well, settle for less, where is the quality in that? Are not more and more men becoming mundane and mediocre? Are not more women losing their grace and beauty?

The balance maintained, or the governing dynamics, work out averages that prevent any sudden major change, such as the human species becoming extinct through a rise in homosexuality. But this moderation is only that, a moderation, and the type begins to decline because to compensate for the loss of heterosexual relationships, men become either gay or decadent, being attracted to, and attracting, mediocre women.

So if we look at this wholistically we might be able to say that homosexuality is indeed ‘normal,’ given the fact that it could either be a genetic defect, psychological condition, or natural reflex of the species during some kind of quality control or self-extinction process.

Let me say this in a conclusion. I’m not saying that the general case of homosexuality is any evidence that men only turn gay because they feel inferior to women, or that because women have become more masculine. But, like I said in Colinsigns Cock-Dude thread, there are many individual cases that involve that very logic. One needs merely to work from the other direction; if men were more masculine on average, there would be less cases of homosexuality in general. How about that?

And another thing. There shouldn’t be any mediocre women. Women are the most important counter-part to men. When one loses its quality so does the other, and the whole things begins to look like a Jerry Springer show.

There is also an interesting side matter to which I’ve alluded to and which, I think, relates directly to the subject matter.

This harmonization of mankind, I would say this homogenization and domestication of mankind, is structured around specific cultural ideals and moral frameworks.
Ideals, beliefs and morals that we take for granted and we unquestioningly consider reasonable and true, while forgetting their arbitrary and often delusional nature, and which result in particular modes of thinking, and as a consequence, of acting.

One such belief is the one concerning the inherit dignity of labour, for one. It is mostly used as a means of ensuring a disciplined slave/wage class in a culture which pretends to defend freedom.
We now misconstrue labour for creativity, and productivity for meaning when most jobs in our western world are devoid of any creative element and are only bureaucratic positions of control and efficiency and the only meaningful thing about production is that it enables the continuation of individual consciousness and it ensures some level of physical and mental health and social viability.

The relationship of self-worth and work is so intimate, in our capitalist civilization, that we often judge others and ourselves by the jobs we do or the careers we pursue. Our profession becomes integrated into our overall persona and we are associated with it to such a degree that it often becomes a substitute for our name.

This ‘dignity of labour’ coupled with the association of consuming with happiness and consumer choice with liberty are the driving forces behind capitalism and the foundations of our western Democratic ideals.

Another such cultural belief is that which pronounces the inherit dignity of human life, as a whole.

This is how Nietzsche, who spoke so eloquently about such matters, put it:

This sanctification of human life and of life in general, might appear to raise the value of the living and to promote respect for all living things, at first.
In fact it has the reverse effect, if one considers its long-term effects.

In environments where life hangs on a precarious balance and where death and misery are ubiquitous, respect for life, especially for ones own, is more prominent.
Within dangerous and uncertain circumstances one gains an appreciation for existence, not only of ones own but for ones companion and ally but also for ones adversary or prey or enemy.

In more primitive cultures where food, for example, was scarce, the act of taking nourishment included a thanksgiving to the unknown forces that made it possible and a deep respect for the very beast that died for our own survival.
If I’m not mistaken, Native Americans preyed to and honoured the spirit in the animal they killed and ate, as a way of acknowledging their own participation in the chain of life.

Today, when food is in such abundance that we must force ourselves to not eat it, disrespect for our privilege has replaced acknowledgment and the mystical in nourishment has been replaced by a ‘taking for granted’.

This same respect and spirituality has been expressed in other ways as well.
In past times of warfare and battle, it was not rare for a warrior to pay homage, not only to his fallen comrades but to his enemies also.

There was a reciprocal connection between victor and vanquished and honour and dignity were offered to both as an acknowledgment for their efforts, and pains and spirits.

Today, in this world of human rights and undiscriminating Christian compassion and love, the very concepts of dignity and of honour have been diminished and the ideas of love and compassion have been degraded due to their universal application.

What is the value of a thing that is offered to someone or something based entirely on a characteristic it is not wholly responsible for or offered without discrimination and selection?

Through the practice of offering a presumed dignity to all life, no matter the circumstances, and to all humans, no matter their character, we have, in actuality, taken away the essence of what this means.

There is nothing inherently dignified or noble about life or about labour.
What makes them so is how they are applied and used by each individual entity.

It sounds like you believe that hapiness, for guys, can be found when we act more closely to our classic/‘primitive’ nature. I know you said that you weren’t interested in personal questions, but I like your theory, and I would like to know how you apply your philosohpy to your life on a practial level. How much do you as a person give in, relative to your perception of guys, to pressure to conform against your nature, and do you think that is related to your hapiness?

Is there any person that is well known or famous that you feel is making headway in promoting and changing society to be more supportive of what you think men’s nature is? JacK Nicholson, Mick Jagger, perhaps?

Do you try to change society in order for it be more supportive of the nature of man?

Do you think it is possible for a society ever to support man’s nature, or are society and man’s nature so opposed to one another that they cannot exist together? If you could live in any society, which would it be?

sdwilson2002

Guys and girls.

It’s just that the current circumstances are closer to female nature and female nature is mostly contented in adapting to whatever circumstances it finds itself in. It is less antagonistic.

Being social, in general, requires a feminine dispositions.
The larger the social group, the more feminine the disposition.

Female psychology, which males also possess by the way, is more interested in harmony and cooperation and fitting in, which coincides with group cohesion and social interests.
This, and their sexual power, is what makes them ‘genetic filtering systems’, as I’ve explained in the original text.

Like everyone else I am confronted with the daily choice of “giving in” or facing the social consequences.
This every day choice is directly related to my contentment and my sense of well being. In other words, I have very little of it.

My mind tells me what is the reasonable choice but my soul screams out for a relief from that choice, for an alternative, for confrontation and resistance.

When someone threatens me, for example, or pisses me off, I desperately want to unleash my fury upon him, knowing what pleasure this will give me, my every molecule screams out for it. Yet, my mind considers the implications, the social consequences and I begrudgingly repress my instincts.
This is the root for many anxieties and mental disorders. This repression can build up over time and express itself in other ways.

The choice is between allowing one drive to be expressed and risking all future expressions of many other drives or between a genuine self and well-being. .
The system is set up in such a way so as to result in a reasonable decision, which forces adaptation or quarantine or extinction.
We are dependant on society and so we are bound to social rules.

We live in a distinctly “reasoned” culture. A culture defined by its optimism concerning rationality, an “Alexandrian/Socratic” world Nietzsche called it.
Weber called capitalism and the industrial revolution, the “rationalization” of society.

Within it efficiency and productivity become paramount and all spirituality, and artistry are diminished. The mystical is defamed and instinct slandered.

Bureaucratic facelessness is the end result. A system governed by the indifference of numerical values, where everything, even individuality, is given a number.

Reason is cold and soulless and, as we are now discovering, unable to fully offer explanations for the universe and existence. It, and its product science, now reverts to artistry to describe quantum phenomena. Superstring theory is a highly artistic interpretation of things beyond our capacity to fully comprehend.

Famous people are caricatures and creations of image making machines and not real people.

Since, I don’t know either Nicholson or Jagger personally and only know of them and their pop personas, I cannot comment on their real nature.

All the ones that have not had the self-control or the mind to make that reasoned choice, I mentioned before, are either incarcerated or dead.
Kaczynski comes to mind, but he had the audacity to believe he could change things and the idealism to care.

The maleness I describe thrives in frontiers.
There are none left, which are accessible yet. So, this maleness, hibernates in us all.

Man’s nature is the product of a more challenging, austere and dangerous environment. Man has also evolved to participate in and feel more psychologically attached to smaller social groups, than the present ones.

Evolution works at a snails pace, so we can say that human nature is being slowly affected by current environments and that ‘feminization’ is this adaptation of the individual to more affluent, safer, easier circumstances. The term ‘feminization’ can be replaced with the term ‘domestication’, if you wish.

The discontentment many feel, the sense of not belonging and of alienation is often the consequence of this slow alteration, as the repression of the parts in us which are considered unwanted from a cultural perspective, burdens us with the constant necessity of keeping ourselves under the control of reason and only express instinct in small bursts [pressure releases] or within particular areas and under special circumstances.
In this slow change of psychology, environmental circumstances as they are culturally [in other words rationally] defined, impose themselves upon us.

For those with more docile, passive personalities, the adaptation to the change is less painful.

Pre-Socratic Hellas because they found that balance between reason and instinct [Dionysian/Apollinian] and they enjoyed the sense of tragedy/comedy this invokes or amongst the natives of North America before the white man came because they exemplify a man living within nature, with both awe and respect, or amongst the Norse because of their mythical prowess.

Perhaps what you are really addressing here is a male frustration that women do not have to be “mirrors” any longer?

For one, your argument builds upon the past which was completely controlled by patriarchy, where women were property, and they had no choice about their lives; they had to be mirrors. Man MADE woman be his personal looking-glass. Now the mirror is smashed and men must truly define themselves, with no advantage of feeling immediately superior to half the population. Thus, what your argument really points out is the male NEED to feel dominant by thinking of women as weaker, less intelligent, more conformist, and controlled.

As long as sex is used to procreate, women will be genetic filters who define the future by buying into ideals.

As long as there is no frontier to require male characteristics and technology makes individual traits, such as intelligence, physical strength or whatever obsolete, then gender will be irrelevant and the feminine, more docile sex will become dominant and preferable.

Males, females are becoming indistinguishable from one another and are converging into asexuality, not because they are the same or because they have ever been so, but because technology and culture has made any differences irrelevant and obsolete.

I am between tears and rage at this wonderful revelation, Satyr. I was just watching ‘Mad TV,’ my favorite show, and as you know they have a guest band play a song between the skits. This band was called the “Stokes,” if I remember correctly, but you should have seen these skinny little fuckers.

They had the whole “my life is miserable and I’m suffering because nobody understands me so I’ll sing a depressing song to express my sentiments, which will be sold as a product to miserable people everywhere who don’t know the difference between finger-nails across a chalk-board and an actual piece of music.” They exhibited the the new modern retro/goth/beat-nik style, you know, the sports jacket over the t-shirt, the tight jeans with holes in the knees, the messed up ‘bed-hair,’ the ‘druggy’ look, etc., etc., and they played some of the worst shit I have ever heard.

The song was composed of a couple chords, and of course it was in the predictable and mundane 4/4 time signature. It was absolute trash. In addition, the band members were ‘posturing’ with their instruments, the drummer had this look of intense concentration on his face, you know, the “if I make this look more complicated than it really is, people will think the song is better.”

Now get this. The audience was actually grooving to the music, but it wasn’t sincere. It was the “oh, this must be the part where we are supposed to support the band by swaying back and forth to the beat” deal.

What do I see here? I see the spirit of the age. I see the signs of decline in this ‘art.’ These guys weren’t ‘men’ or ‘women,’ they were some kind of empty automaton product, some kind of robot created to make fat men rich in the music industry.

Anyway, I thought I might share this with you. You have a very profound and sublime knowledge of things to come, Satyr, and I see it perfectly, especially on TV. The commercials, talk shows, sit-coms, all of it, geared to hypnotize a world of mindless consumers.

You and I might just be the last men standing on Earth, my friend. And its funny to think that the larger percentage of ILP are these people who I describe and they think to themselves “no way, detrop isn’t talking about me, just because I wear body-spray, have accessories all over my car, and listen to ‘hip-hop’ doesn’t make me a disaster.”

I speak too soon. These people are not ready for their destiny.

God - you’re such a cynical guy!! I dare sya this band “Strokes” are generic pish, mediocre showmanship and marketed for cliched depressive youths…but really your tone of self-righteousness, self-elevation…is a cliche tantmount to the pish you are so cynical of…

Ignore what I am saying - most thing’s are never meant.

Colinsign?! Where the hell have you been?

I’ve missed you girlfriend…uh, I mean ‘buddy.’

I know, isn’t it great? I have no time for these lesser mortals and I shan’t stop for anyone.

Now are you with me or against me? If you are against me…

RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN.