The origin of self-deviation, self-denial and self-deception

The origin of self-deviation, self-denial and self-deception:

If there ever was a desire -- of which, due to some complex factor, could not be released immediately when it wanted to release [a sexual attraction, or also a sort of anger, are examples of this] -- it would still have priority in itself. The desire, though unmet, would demand to be met later, and so it would find a way to hide or relocate itself, up until it could finally be discharged somehow. This means: What ever a man or woman was originally meant to do, they can put those meanings on hold, and then release those intentions into something other than their original purpose. This especially became a helpful attribute -- when certain tasty foods were realized as poisonous, or when certain attractive friends were discovered as corrupt and dangerous persons. And so, the majority of all human meaning and all human desire -- has been suppressed due to complications, but it was adaptive enough and versatile enough to survive through this situation, and work passed this situation. But, if suppressed for too long, strayed too far from home, and mutated too deeply in such an adaptation, the long-suppressed Will shall become sick, and that is when it becomes twisted, warped, or meaningless. If someone pinched the ears of a wolf, it would probably bite that person's hands off, in the very next second. And that is how man was originally meant to be, also. A creature whom instantly attacks what it dislikes. But later, it proved to be more adaptable, more adaptive to change, when man was suppressing such desires, and storing them up for a later time. This would conserve Will, and recycle Will, and liquefy Will, instead of wasting it.

At one point, a certain desire may be so accustomed to its new, deviant path, that it would feel natural and normal in this way, and perhaps the reasons for its deviation have become permanent? For example, when one is abused by family, they may soon begin to abuse themselves, due to the incapacity or difficulty to ever attack the one whom abused them. All forms of insanity might even exist in place of a complete death of the mind, as a twisted deviation has always been preferred more than an instant death. This is the deeper essence of aversion, too, which makes indirect-meanings, tactics and flexibility so very possible today. But the meaning of men and women has always been clear at the root: Their meaning is the same as any other pack-hunter [such similarity led to their domestication and union with dogs, also]. But before such domestication [deviation from the passed], there was only the wild-dogs, and there were only the wild-humans, also. The wild ones are not so much different from the tame now, except that they have become weaker, more harmless, more various as breeds or as races, more easily controlled and more dependent.

When-ever something which one merits attention towards becomes an experience, there also happens that its application is mostly aimed and armed, also. It would be much like loading and aiming a cannon, in many cases, and when it fires, it is both applied and remembered again. In the mental-society, the new immigrant images are soon put to work, given a job of some sort, so that the whole mental-society can stay strong. But if shabby and vile images are taken in with great number, the mental-society may soon rot, for it is possible to absorb a swell of deceptive and sly sub-personalities, which would willingly undermine the whole person for the sake of their own petty interests. And at the same time, there could be a swell of glorious sub-personalities [richer images], which would come to revolutionize and improve the entire individual. In either case, such images did not come about easily. Ideas that behave like warriors -- came directly through various sorts of wars, in the same way that sharper teeth existed through meat-eating. Such specialization is when one instance rises above all the others, and it is better fitted for the task which brings reward, so then it reproduces itself and replaces the lessers.

The style and persona of bottled instincts is hardly simple, and in my own English-language, there exists nearly a total ignorance of this [thus certain words for real meanings do not exist]. For example: There are the two types of hate. One hate, which all persons seem to say is the only hate, will make a person sick if they keep it inside of themselves. This is the injured warrior instinct, so maimed that it attacks it many of its masters and its helpers. Such warriors are so desperate and exist in such small number, within the mental-society, that they would best be exported terrorists, mad-men or rebels. But then there is the second hate. The calm, fine, sharp hatred, which is the well-trained and healthy warrior. This sort of hate is almost always healthy, though it becomes so professional that it gained new names and offices rather quickly. And so, it becomes a part of the critic of critical thinking. It is the inspector, which kills off certain immigrants whom fail its tests, and that is how it keeps its society clean. One can never have too much of these cleaners, for they also can say: "I have destroyed the lesser, and cast it out, because I myself can create the greater!" so, they not only destroy, but these ones even begin to construct a greater city [as did the Roman soldiers build roads, but this is much better].

There are also two styles of empathy. The dominant-empathy [the dehumanized, objectified empathy] and then there is the submissive empathy [which lives under the laws of another, as best it can. The conformist, whom self-sacrifices to some degree.] Dominant empathy is not painful, and thus, it is naturally less violent. But despite its true form not being bitter, sick or lowly, it will also not stop itself from destroying a diseased thing [for it can create better than the disease]. So, that is why the dominant empathy is also without pity, and it also has no mercy, for it is not sick, and it does not even need mercy. If it had mercy, in any case, that mercy would exist to deal with an insane or misguided violence, but this simply isn't the case with dominant empathy. The dominant empath understands the target in order to master it, and it need not literally feel the pains or the desires of its target. Its goal is to properly master, not to lower and submit. But the submissive empathy always enslaves part of itself. As the pain and the desire enslaves the inner-powers, so will they control someone outside, if someone outside feels them constantly. Sadly, due to the human history of insolent lords and tormented slavery, all masterful and noble qualities, in modern culture and before -- are viewed with suspicion and hate. Little bits of injured rebels are scattered everywhere, within the mind today, and they will not hesitate to attack any growing master before it even begins to bloom. They themselves now oppress the master, instead of the master ever oppressing them, but their tactics are cheap, underhanded and subtle [requiring less health and less power to preform].

The underhanded and cheap mastery of such rebels is this: To kill the child before it grows into a stronger man than he. Because when or after it is fully developed, it would have been stronger and better than him. So, the rebel poisons the eggs, squanders the seeds and beheads the babies, in order to preserve itself. This will be closed-mindedness, quick prejudgment, misuse, a total lack of patience, apathy, and all the like, which kills potential before it can even start. These rebels have become even more decadent than their hated masters, too, for they want the laziest and most half-assed debauchery they can handle. They want a minimization of all strength, all health and all aggressiveness. They want a weak, sick and passive friend to take care of themselves and be equal to themselves. They've won at the bottom, and they now want to drag all others down with them. The mind must throw up for many days, in order to discharge even a grainual of this bitterness. This bitterness of the rebel is so sower that it can make almost anyone sick and stupid, and it is the manifestation of thousands of years of human strife. The rebel wants to fight after he has already lost! [Though,] The challenge is this: To somehow cast out all of the drunk and filthy warriors, replacing them with wise, fast and sharp sorts. Then one will truly gain "self-control". Petty abusiveness and sower pity will leave near the end of such a victory. No longer will the rabbit eat her babies when the rebel decedent ends.

Why was the insanity seen as divinity -- within ancient moralities or values? And why is it so lowly today? The glorified insanity of the ancient times was the wild mental deviation. They admired the ways of the wild, back then. That insanity was a wild mental experimentation. And these crazy persons were both the inventors and the scientists of new world-views. They were allowed to reproduce, and they bore new ways of thinking into the tribes. Theirs was the less-suppressed and more direct form of psychadelia. An extremism which would reach for new mental heights, even at a greater cost. But today, the opposite is true. What is glorified [today] is the tame and the un-wild insanity. The tame insanity is at-least amusing, for the house-pets which can barely digest anything other than their own especially refined gruel. The glorified insanity of today is a safe little fantasy. It is a comedy... But the glorified insanity of the ancient-man -- was far less safe. The ancient one was not really a comedian, and he was not playing with wild new fantasies; Instead, he was plunged into wild new realities, and was the founder of metaphysics. He was a destroyer of mental boundaries, writing prophecies which came true at later times, and, not filtering the wild slosh which sprayed from his head. That is why he was difficult to understand, but also viewed in a glorious way, for the ancient mad-man would Will to transcend all reason and all logic! Such a high and unrestrained goal was thusly admired. Though these psychological explorers were admired back in those days, today, they are quite shunned. Today it is as if every little fool believes that they know it all. And so they are quite ready to shun all sorts of wild new ideas. Nearly all of human history has been shunned, and refuted, because of this, and they are setting deep trenches for their logical decadence.

A society of supplementation:

After one is fully fed, he will not keep on eating. That much is certain. And after someone is born, they will not need to go through the womb a second time in their lives. Thus, a completed process no-longer needs itself. And that is also why, on the death-bed, some persons feel a sort of enlightenment wash over them before death, for so much of their energy and mind has now been freed from the cycles of life, that it can move in a far-more unobstructed way, thus nature begins to make much more sense to the person. That is the way it is sometimes, when a process is completed. But what happens when it is ever-incomplete? That, my friends, is a life-time.

If a person has had their complete fill of the sexual, there would be no more need for the erotic in the media. The non-hungry would simply not eat of it. But instead, society will often take in more power through the general weaknesses of the masses, and they may even wish to inflict much weakness: dependency, simply so that those parasitic sellers become vast. "Business", the work of the worms. It is hardly tasteful, and no-wonder people often have found such less than appealing, for it always exists along-side some kind of defects, which have been perpetuated for too many years, and are in constant need of crutches. In this society, we see each life is full of business. Each society is full of shops. Such a society entirely revolves around its own defects, like a dog licking its bloody injuries. It is no wonder to me why domesticated animals all become bigger, fatter, weaker and slower, and longer-lived. They've toned down everything into a sort of cattle, of which they constantly suck some sort of blood or milk from. Certain attributes -- of perpetual immaturity have also been favored, in such a climate. Its hunger for the breast never ends, and it cannot chew its own life. It glorifies how cute it is, ever hiding its shitty diapers and ugly immaturity. Everyone is to be motherly, in this situation, or childish, but barely ever a man. They are usually motherly and childish men, whom have a suppressed and deformed masculinity, which becomes a macho-aggressive nonsense at the front. Deep down, they have no masculinity; it's been supplanted, so that it can be eternally re-sold to them at a high price, and THAT is the process from which "male dominated society" came from.

There is nothing feminine about tears, softness, cuteness or innocence. Childish, yes, but feminine? No. To be more honest with You [for a change, though the twisted ideas are more appealing] -- the real femininity of men has been seen in the teachers and the givers. That is what mothers do. Sustain and teach, in charitable style that uplifts from below. She is constantly maintaining and babysitting the needy society that she lives within, and the foundations of civilization [though some may claim are male foundations] -- these foundations are, in fact, female: Education and agriculture: The growing and the teaching, and the taking care of.

Masculinity has been thrust out, and misinterpreted, though others claim it still exists where it does not. The male was neither the giver of the supplement, or the taker of it, for those were the motherly and the childish. That real masculinity of which I speak, has been thrown out so long ago, that I could barely think of it, and perhaps there are few words for it? None-the-less, I will at least try to make mention of its nature. The macho-sadistic circumcision of man -- was in fact part of the twisted, sick and dead masculinity, wreaking havoc on the body. So long suppressed, it was, that it went deeply mad. But if ever it could bloom, for even a moment, this would be its desire: Not to nourish or to take in the nourishment, no, it would want to revolutionize society! That is what he wanted, and that is what has driven such masculinity mad, for revolution and individualism of that sort has been one of the most hated and neglected processes society has ever witnessed. He does not want to be dependent, childish, immature, or having to look after another. That is not his way. He is something other than the woman and the child, which outgrows the both, and needs them no-longer. Then, much later, they come running after him, in need of him, but they have not the power to take him, so they only have seduction left as an option. In this way, there has been a constant and extreme moral appeal for motherliness in all men. Each one was told again and again to look after the deficient, instead of growing beyond the deficient. Seduced and harassed, and nagged into a low-low submission, in which his own life had no value at all! All that mattered after that point, was how well he could give himself to others. And because he had no breast-milk, he had to give blood, instead! So that is what he did, and then came the wars. Masculinity itself is a kind of completion, of which society secretly hates most. Masculinity is not "love", either, in so far is at is not a leech. It does not suck away eternally and cling. But it is not "free", either, for it is something other than [and in some cases beyond] "free". Due to masculinity being mostly assassinated, it is semi-impossible for anyone to manifest it today, but if they ever did, that person would no longer be turning towards any religion, would they? He would not be turning to the teacher and the savior, which secretly keeps its disciples in poverty and in foolish stupidity. In fact, he would not be turning for anyone, and not turning against anyone, either, for the process of turning had ended there, and he had reached completion. No-longer having to constantly strive after the motherly, and no-longer wasting entire life-times taking care of the child, he would reach a sort of un-obstructed enlightenment, which revealed the parts of life more important than the bliss of childhood or the soft seductive warmth of altruistic idealism. Many philosophers had quested towards this long-lost masculinity, steering away from the limitations of marriage, wanting the liberation and emancipation via "truth", seeking out "free thought", only to turn and get caught up in some kind of moral snare, which chokes the life out of them, and drops them down into ascetic, wretchedly "refined" civility. They all fell under some sort of sick temptation, because they had not the deeply sensual bliss of a fully mature masculinity. And lo, what is worse!? A fully mature masculinity can only be made by a proper femininity! That is to say: A son failing to mature fully, was also from failing mother. She did not know how to bring him up and set him free beyond herself. Instead, she wanted to keep him as a sort of pet, in a tiny, emotionally suffocating box, and then he gasped for affection, crying for mommy again. This sick game has repeated for many centuries, eternally, so that the doctor keeps making the injury, and then takes delight in supposedly healing it. I call this: Circular Femininity, and it is no wonder to me why the Yin was attributed to it the cold, the wet, the dark, the negative, the passive, and the Feminine! Normally it was meant to die into the Yang, at its peak, that is to say: Once the motherly reaches completion, it comes to an end, it dies, and is replaced by the masculine [Yang]. But in order to preserve this bazaar motherly oppression forever, the process of Yin becoming Yang was undermined by the mother, and almost all society, throughout all of the ages, has produced shabby, twisted, low-grade masculinity because of this.

Such a happening [retarding mothers] did not go on without revenge. That is why the domination of women began, because her child, of which she twisted, went back against her. His pain became his violence. His neglectedness became his coldness. And this, he treated her with less respect and less rights than fellow men would have received. She never took the blame for this, and never could stop this sort of process, either, so it is no wonder that such a cultural process happened for so many thousands of years. All the while, she is supposedly the victim of her children. Hah! The snake bit itself, cried, bit again, and kept crying. That is how it was. But the snakes tears were worse than its venomous fangs. It would scream and poison the mind with its pitiful and gnawing hunger for blood, as it subversively tried to open up the skin. "Take care of me!", it cried, as it attacked itself, and made much noise, whilst only blaming others for its hunger. That sort of noise would drive anyone mad, but to destroy the noise-maker would also destroy the producer of the next generation of children, so, the less brutal of the two evils were chosen [and to this day there is a higher female than a male population, aswel as women living longer].

In order to reach a mature and complete masculinity, when faced with the troubles of having an incapable mother, each must themselves become a better femininity than that of the women before themselves. And so, they must be a better self-teacher than the “educators” of society. And they must give better to themselves than any other can give to them. And they must be a better friend to themselves than any other “friend” they have had in a society. And they need not “love” themselves in the old, whining, clinging, irritating, childish and forceful dogmatic style, which was for so long the only “love” they ever knew. Instead, they must realize this sort of “love” as an attachment which must be totally outgrown; A phase BELOW friendship, which is more troublesome, less helpful, and more needy than a friend [because a true friend does not draw blood before he can justify himself in his charity; he does not need to feel seduced by the body-parts before he can care and help. In short: His gifts are less retarded].

Why isn't society a female-dominated society? Why aren't women at the helm of all the most important civil tasks? It is because they can't be, and that is why they did not, but if they could have, they would have done so. In fact, men had to take over for them, in this way, and do what the women were not capable of. Thus male-femininity will always be different than that of women, and is meant to pick up wherever the women left off at.

The human deviation away from direct nature has been a long and complex process. Only a few of its many factors have I spoken of. But no matter how toxic and distorted it may be in some places, it was that or nothing at all which it had to choose. So, it chose to live lesser than not live at all, for the zero cancels itself. Eventually the myth of masculinity invented by foolish women, and the myths of femininity created by distorted men, can be cast aside, no longer being fed or feeding. Vomited out, too bland and too thin, there can be a sort of person whom has better developed their original nature, after the transcendence of the supplementation; after the true creation of strength!

Excellently expressed. This cuts right to the heart, I believe, of one of the biggest problems of modernity - the resentment of the herd towards anything they cannot instantly cognize as coherent and/or ‘useful’.

That kind of ignorance and intolerance is probably a defense-mechanism. Conformism is the way that a system keeps firm.

I see society as highly alergic.
It can barely handle the unique.
It cannot digest or make good use of unique individuals or new ideas. Lots of good people are isolated because of this. It just wants workers for money.

Maybe it is their laziness and their weakness more than their resentment? If they are unadaptive and inflexible, then they find anything requiring creativity or adaptation as too frustrating or hard, thus it is shunned. Try to make an ape write a good book and it will go crazy out of frustration, too.

Even if their media is cheap and superficial, it is at least fast and it has a strong taste. It’s very good at controlling them, even if it does not enhance them. Maybe these sheep have fallen in love with their shepards, and they now find the forest disgusting?

[Part Two] ~ The personality of character: ~

I'm to blow into a whistle here, near their nests, for their eggs are all rotten. A negative side of certain philosophical characteristics. First of all: Dogma. A desperate sort of thing, which must force itself into another, because it does not belong there, and so it can only fit once shoved in [and sometimes ripping the passage]. It is the subtle little rape that happens all the time. The never-ending violation of propriety. It is only enforced, because it does not belong, but is so sick and so vile that its hunger makes it go in. Not having a body of its own, it thinks that it needs a body or maybe two? And at that very same time, it does not actually feel like a whole thing. It does not feel complete at all, and so, it needs to go in, like a virus, only multiplying once forced into the blood-stream. The weakness that makes others weaker, as it replicates, and it violates, and it penetrates. The dogma. The twisted and maimed instinct, which was once a part of necessity, has now become a cancer, after being separated from its original purpose. It was cut off, and now it has began to rot. Too long has it been, so rotten, if it was sown back onto the body, it may even infect the rest. Not even dogs would eat it, unless it was shoved up their asses instead, and that way it would go in. That very rotted thing. The dogma. Who could have made such an abomination?

Really, it takes so long to be right. It takes so long to be wise. It takes so long to learn harmony. Wouldn't it mentally easier, and physically easier, and chronologically faster, if we just skipped passed all of the issues of "quality", in order to mass produce a quantity? [That is the way of the passive, lazy parasite, of which I make detail of later.] That kind of thinking was [also] the creator of dogma. The creator of all rapes, was in that process. It was lazy, in the most disgusting way. It was a virus due to its half-will. An extremely inefficient leap towards the goal, when the path-there was of even greater importance! The carriers of this plague are shallow, wretched, and dumb, so they pound their plague into any whom tell them to cure it. The dogmatists: The ruiner's of human history. The sickness with brute strength. The original evil that turned authority into dictatorship. It turned command into tyranny. And that is when humanity began to hate strength! That is when the rebel began to stew. That is when the feminine began to hate the masculine. So then came the thousands of bloody years in humanity; During all of that time, morality was turned on its head, turned inside out, and the individual was turned against himself! So much history, eventually leading up to this point today, in which tolerance and mildness is allowing too many parasites in. Society is getting so rotten, and as it took so long to strike at its children on enemy fields, the enemies already blossomed in their own home fields, too. Such a great failure, this was. Society has failed. Something great had died, and all that was left over was the tiny rotting little bits [of domestication]. Now, everything is done wrong. All wrong. But it's still got enough power to repeat itself again-and-again, so that it can call itself "right".

It all began with the mistreatment and the misuse of children. Either abusing and neglecting them, or, on the other hand, spoiling and distorting them. Either way, sick-minded old men and women took one last chance at preserving their ways: By stamping that old filth on the new generations. Those old fools could not even die properly. That was the first of the vile dogmas, which was such a parasite, that it put itself in every soft, tender, defenseless place. In these modern days, the bitter, unreal and ideal common-public would have such an outrage of a teenager killed their parents. But, how acceptable it is when the parents kill the child, whether it be slowly or quickly [psychological abuse and abortion]. When the fellow-man is weak, and small, that is when the weak will attack. But they leave the adults alone. They're too twisted to do anything right. They cannot fight properly, for proper fighting gives more strength to the strong as a later result. Bad femininity is the source of this social turmoil, and thus society tried to counter-act this [Via the nanny-state, supplementation, etc.]. This resulted in the common person becoming a parasite [immature child, feeding off of others, and copying others], instead of proper mothering finally producing true masculinity [independence and self-sufficiency]. So, fake-children, calling themselves adults: they were the foolish, low, malformed, parasitic, clinging, crying, rotten, over-reactive, superficial worms which came from none-other than the shitty and failing mother-or-family. It is hard to say which is more harmful today. Dogma, or immaturity? One probably feeds off of the other, anyways, as it shits all over its safety-net and screams for more.

Displacement is the only option; that is to say: it is not possible to completely or properly destroy the inner desires, and so, they instead must be set free, like birds out of cages. Most men forget about this, when they consider dealing with life in general, and that is why they have such problems with internalization [because the Will is invincible whenever it has a body, and no amount of suppression can reduce it back to its raw elemental form]. So, displacement, that is to say, self-expression and self-actuation, is immediately a necessity, and anyone whom denies that will bring a little hell unto their insides. Certain sorts of will -- are elemental energy. And that means they are literally indestructible [though somewhat reconstructible]. Some sort of discharge is needed, or holes and explosions will eventually result within anyone. As far as I am concerned, none of a man's desires are "bad", unless they are sufficiently misplaced and deformed. Thus, an injured or malformed creativity is the hole which bad things fall down from. This injury comes from the suppression and mistreatment of the instinct [because the instincts of life are all related to something creative], and to retard the creative instinct -- will result in a retarded creation. I believe man has adapted greatly, in this short time of civilization, for he is dealing with his suppression better than any other animal would. In some cases, he even turns his suppression into a great tool, creating clear redirected channels of more appropriate choices [self-control]. But that self-control was definitely a displacement!

Suppression [which some people call control, though control, at its highest nature, is the brain's direct impulse]: suppression has been one of the most popular forces in all of society. So popular, has it been, that the progression of suppression has only been stopped by extremism. Extremism only happens when desires or drives are overstimulated and at the same time never released. The pressure builds up until an explosion of madness. Everyone has been trained not to actually take what they need, and instead, to slowly wait for it, ask for it, work for it, or buy it. [All of the animals simply take the food that they see. They take opportunities immediately, not wasting time. In fact, the ones with weak and passive survival-instincts simply died off, compared to the ones of stronger will.] As the civilized and refined gentlemen [unnatural and suppressive] declared a long war against the barbaric and carnal [natural, direct, unsuppressed], there was a shift, which eventually resulted in the parasitic and the childish taking over control. This was not easy, or simple, but when the opportunism of man met with the technicality of conservative human fears, man learned that he could threaten with barely ever having to substantiate his threat. [The mafia is an example of this.] If he were to destroy the ones he fed upon, he would also himself die out. But if he could simply keep them in a condition of submission, whilst not killing them, he could have the works and power of many men go up into his single self. [Thus slavery of all kinds became common. This, along with cannibalism, was the process which gradually turned humans into a more parasitic race, more immature and more self-exploitive.] Suppression, in and of itself, is dis-empowering, and hardly appealing. Suppression was only sustained through the survival and success of the parasite, which exploited the fear and the motherly altruism of humanity to such a degree, that it became powerful enough to keep on suppressing everyone indefinitely. At some point, even sex, one of the highest desires of any creature, became morally "bad", due to so much fear and madness. Besides this, eating became morally bad, unless it was first permitted by the biggest god in history [money]. Say please and thank-you before you take. Make damn-sure that you at least appear to be conforming to the invisible laws of custom and fear. That's how it is right now. All fear-makers have become the most powerful. Who is it that dominates the "intellectual"? It is the critical: The nay sayers! "Fear" is always "No, no, no!" And that is how it controls, by isolation. And the entirety of "logic" was built around that kind of power-order! That is why logical factors and principals are all heavily questioned, isolated, separated, named, extracted, and basically destroyed down into these tiny left-brained refinements. Why wouldn't he keep stopping himself, and taking himself apart, and questioning himself, if he did not doubt himself? And why wouldn't he doubt himself, unless he feared himself, and then suppressed himself? This suppression has transcended the very word, and has littered all of the streets. It's become such a way of life, so common, that it is invisible like the air, everywhere! The original man was too fast, too wild, too smart, too strong, too pure. In every way the woman was jealous of him, and she secretly wanted to destroy everything in him that was better than herself, if it did not enslave itself under her. In her fantasy, and in her terrible idealism, she suppressed her children, making sure that none of them ever misbehaved in the way that the original man did. She wanted a slave, to support her, because a strong person does not need a slave! Only the weak want others to do things for them. And so, she wanted him as her slave. But, as she taught him suppression, he grew still not to serve her. Instead, he suppressed her, besides suppressing himself! This is they way that hypnosis works: The childhood produces all sorts of universalized behavior principals. And so, he was suppressive to both women and men. But he did suppression better than her! Thus, men became more domineering [though true dominance needs not suppress another, for it can easily handle the lessers]. And so, the woman, being the more needy, was also more parasitic, and initiated human parasitism through suppression of her children; after which, men and women both copied the sick pattern.

Suppression and feminine "love": Suppose someone did something stupid or harmful to you, but you loved them, in a protective and nurturing, motherly way? Well, I'm sure most persons would tolerate almost anything, and never have the will to kill such an intruder. That is motherly love: Love for parasites. Such a dangerous roll to play. She could only counter-balance this lacking, by herself becoming parasitic and childish. And last, the least parasitic of the three, (the man) was made parasitic, otherwise the family could no-longer function. If the immune-system was too tolerant of intruders, then it would get sick easily. Otherwise, its intolerance kills any unwanted guest. That is a healthy intolerance. The killing of the parasite. But what happens when you need your parasite? Then, the intolerance and the inner authority must all be suppressed, or the parasite which was needed would be destroyed. Today, in America, "intolerance" of any religion or race is one of the most forbidden concepts imaginable. Why? Because that is how the poor child is protected, through tolerance. And everyone is expected to be a submissive baby-sitter. Masculinity, in the field of personal-choice, is one of the most forbidden concepts today. So "selfish" and "unkind", it is, because it wants to improve itself and maintain itself, instead of another coming to feed upon itself. Let us not forget -- how painful love is. It makes the defenses all fall down, and exposes the weaknesses, and cries, and craves, and screams. So horribly defeating. So open for attack. The skin literally falls away, and the "loved one" is allowed to do all sorts of sick things to the "lover"... Why? So that the parasite can be let in, and hopefully [though this is another hurtful idealism], the parasite will turn out to be actually a savior, or a symbiote. How much easier it would be, if this could all be replaced by a brief little orgasm, and then it was over. Wouldn't that be less painful? But no, not at all, the human mother is very needy when pregnant. Her and her child are such parasites, that love of this terrible sort HAD TO exist, so that these needy phases could also exist. Some would call this "erotic love", though I know what it really is, and it is something other than the sexual attraction. It is the sort of love which makes unsanitary slime so appealing. It IS female social subversion. This is not simply an attraction or an affection, no! This is something especially meant to put on a sort of display, which cries terribly for pity. It is meant to sting the heart so deeply, that it opens a hole, and its painful subversion is what makes it so powerful! If it did not cut so deep through the flesh, how could it ever have so much power over the insides? This not-so-momentary insanity, like any lie, is meant for power, not truth! And so, a normal, not-so-great person, suddenly becomes some idol to be worshiped. This sort of "love" is a disgusting insult to original masculinity, but it is so dangerous and so powerful, that he must submit to it now-and-then, or someone's going to die.

Multiple suppressions, and the next level of inner-mutation: It is not difficult to imagine, that in some cases [for example], a suppressed sexuality, and a suppressed predatory instinct, may eventually result in a particular vore fetish [the strong attraction to the concept of literally eating one's sexual partner, or, a fetish with being eaten alive by some sort of beast, etc.]. Now suppose these two instincts, each suppressed to some degree, cannot manifest themselves alone? But, if they were to ever band together [as a team], their combined strength might be enough so that they could finally release themselves. [Thus the eroticizing of predation.] This is like mixing piss and blood, this level of suppression. This level of suppression is very sick, very unwell, and yet, it's everywhere in today's society. Compound suppressions are all-over the world, as far as I have seen, most of which exist because of the moral ideal. These kinds of things are common. And it may even become so this twisted [or more twisted], Example: The will to have pleasure of the tongue [eating], is suppressed along with the suppression of the concept of a person being lovable [because they are fat and "ugly"], and then, to top it all off, they believe that they should be punished for their non-ideal behavior [resentment/vindictive revenge], and so, in order to deal with this problem, they punish themselves, by eating more, and becoming more fat, and more unworthy of love, etc. Oh, that is such a wild case, but it's happened everywhere! A circular ring of suppression, which eventually loops in on itself, and causes the problems which it punishes itself through, causing more problems again. What terrible, terrible madness that is! But is it any wonder that so many are stricken with such a state? This kind of situation is various, for the number of combinations and styles of displaced suppression combination are almost limitless, but that's what happens when the ideal is shoved over-top of nature... The result is no less damaging than rape. Deep injury and retardation is the general result! Man has been made so stupid by the gnawing of the weak and the filthy, that his insides have been transformed into an enemy against himself. That is the tragedy of moral madness, of over-suppression.

Gradual and underhanded manipulation. The falsely-innocent crimes: Just out of reach of all forms of self-defense, this persecutor is not willing to literally fight. No battle will this one manage, and this one would make a terribly poor-quality soldier. No, this one prefers instead to insult and to pick away at his enemy. Not even able to kill it, instead, he will only torture it, all the while, pretending as though he does not deserve some sort of blow in return. This sort of person secretly wants the entire world to follow his commands, but he is only willing to use irritation, subversion, and torment, in order to accomplish such. Constantly putting out petty ideals, dogma without even a strong or a healthy force behind it. Pain for the sheer sake of pain. Strife only for strife. He secretly hates all weapons, because the weapons destroy the enemies. Too cowardly to even be an enemy, he would prefer most of the entire world was a defenseless abuse receiver. And thus, he will preach "Do not return violence for violence. Do not strike back at the one striking you." His morality is so bad, and so vile, that he wants everyone to be even sicker than me, whilst claiming his own divinity. Unable to handle anything other than a degenerating and useless pile of passivists, he constantly preaches disarmorment, self-neglect, and paves the road clearly for the very worst forms of abuse ever heard of. "Don't hate anyone" he says, "only love can cure hate". And so, he wants to give money and safety and love to his abusers! He's gone so mad, by now, that he should be dead with such twisted ideas. But he cannot even die properly. That would be too peaceful, and too un-annoying. No, instead, he wants all life to become rubbish, like him, and then suffer through itself, for the sake of false piety. The greatest of all diseases, shall each function in this way [no matter whether they are a micro-organism or an ideology]: The natural defenses and self-maintaining of the target or host -- is destroyed by such a disease. This plague of absolute "non-violence" is, in many ways, worse than the AIDS and the HIV epidemic, for one destroys the cellular defenses, whilst the other destroys the defenses of the future, of the character, of culture, of spirit and of mind! They tempt persons first with the fantasy of a life that nobody even fights for. Something too easy. So lazy and incomplete. This kind of thinking is definitely a virus! To simply kill another, is nothing, really. When we hear the beautiful song of the birds, and see the majestic eye of the eagle, do we think that they may make their daily lives through killing and eating other bodies? In many ways, a quick death, which is at least put to some better use [the body is recycled directly into another] -- is allot better than death by decadence. A death by disease is much slower, much less efficient, much more painful, and by the time it is nearly over, all of the dignity and the hope and the pride is gone also! Wouldn't it be much more lively, if each died fighting? They would have at least been trying. But as things stand now, the poisonous narcotics and the self-hate seem much more "morally correct". Why? Because such slow and hideous degeneration is weak, and thus, its pitiful state is entirely acceptable [as it is conceptually non-threatening towards the insecure and rotten observer]. The never-ending agony of their pity, as they never even go so far as to let a weak one die, would prefer the sick to stay and suffer with them, instead of ones dieing young, strong, firm and fear-inspiring, for the sake of an advancement in personal power. In this way, they hate to fight, but they love to torture. But, one willing to fight, wont even allow one badness upon himself, whilst the unwilling to fight would allow 1000 evils to go unstopped. Abuse and suppression become customary for these "passivists". Their poison is watered down, and put everywhere, hurting everybody OTHER THAN their true enemies. They are also the child-abusers, which strip away all pride and confidence from their children, so that life is hard and bitter for their children. But then, they will at least add a sort of pleasure to it all. A self-righteous, false sort of pleasure: "I hurt myself for the right reason. I denied myself for the right reason." Imagine that! Denile of life itself is "right" for living persons?

Sadism: Pleasure with another's pain, and pleasure-at-destruction. The first sort [of which the moralists believe is the only sort to ever exist,] is a sort of slow and persistent infection. The gnawing and meaningless sadism. It slowly feeds off of the excitement and the satisfaction of another's suffering, and continually causes thus. It does not want to kill, no, it wants to make others sick, instead. It wants to maim and degrade. Now, it is the shameless and unrestrained version of "passive-aggressive behavior". This means: Instead of slowly making others sick through insults, nagging, seduction, stupidity, guilt, shame, suppression, etc. It will make others sick through insults, nagging, seduction, stupidity, guilt, shame, suppression, etc. [HAH!, but faster and more strongly this time!] They, the moralists, do not realize that the disarming, suppression and the civilizing forces, [which are today so common] are actually part of a sadism, which has bent so far away from its own awareness of itself, that now it feels more like dept than pleasure [for it has run out of raw personal desire to inflict, and has no more personal reason to inflict, but it still has an impersonal and ritualistic incentive]. But there is also the noble sadism; [of which the moralists would try to destroy, for it would actually undo their own gnawing sadism of self-pity, shame and guilt, so:] the noble sadism finds pain and death fascinating. The wonder and the curiosity of this noble sadism -- results in an attraction towards sickness and death, but not a submissive attraction. He does not want to submit to death or sickness. On the contrary, he wants to master it. And with his sufficient, unafraid attraction, he will soon gain a better understanding of the process [which will later make cures and defenses more possible, aswel as offenses becoming easier for him]. All things considered, this sort of sadism only makes him more powerful [but his enemies do not want him to be strong, so, they do not want him to understand the forbidden "dark side" of his own natural existence]. But if the two were ever to meet, at a later time of development, the noble sadist would recognize exactly how and why the gnawing sadist was aiming to torture him. [For the gnawing one does so out of personal deficiency and insanity, so bored and uncreative that it can only repeat its same old oppression again-and-again, where as the noble sadist sees an infinite variety of helpful opportunities in which he can make use of, or control -- pain and death.] The noble one would most-likely avoid or destroy the gnawing one, and he would have a strength-increasing purpose behind his offenses [whilst the other one had a strength-decreasing purpose behind his]. The noble sadist takes great pleasure in killing his enemies. His relief and his joy comes along with the understanding that he is removing entities which make life either difficult or miserable. He is the embodiment and the epitome of self-defense. The exact opposite of a passivist. But, he makes life more unsure and scary for the majority of individuals, which naturally tend to be of lower quality [as any observant person could easily recognize]. Though the flock cannot match his quality, they can out-number him, and defeat him through a gang-assault. And after these gangs of low quality, afraid, jealous and hateful persons destroyed the most well-defended and the cleanest persons in all of society, their victory-cry rang out for many ages, echoing in the morality of utilitarian ideals. Their message was clear: "Never attack the flock, even if the flock has hurt you." As usual, their way is suppression, and their sadism is gnawing slowly, whilst a true, higher victory -- is out of their reach.

The personality, the character, the values, the goals and the morals -- are all parts of the same, underlaying root. Every ideology, belief, desire and goal is merely a tool of this underlaying root. Quite simply, and usually, the sick and bad root will exist under a roof of unearned power [like an insolent and insane king, inbred and arrogant, only powerful because of himself inheriting thus from his anscestory.] Knowing that they could not earn or create power, they spent much time setting up civil systems -- which would ensure that they kept some degree of power for no reason at all other than a sort of dogma, which was so firm and so suppressive, that it comforted them and was a steady safety net for them. They may even have wished to enslave their own children [ex: child slavery in England] in order to maintain an old and sick, unearned power, via steeling it from the clean, the young and the more-pure. The noble and good root, of which a different kind of value and character comes from, is nested within personally-earned power. At times it is the predator, but it is not the parasite. It is faster, stronger, more efficient, more obvious, more clean and more direct. It does not cage and suck blood from others. It breaks cages, it breaks enemies, and it does not simply take little bits of blood at a time. Instead, it takes the whole prize, all at once, and can handle it! [Usually, as it takes on the whole prize, of which it has earned, it will not actually destroy its prize. Thus, it is a good master, and does not torture itself or its tools.] This noble root must at some time or another cause harm, but, it does so like a predator, whilst the sick and bad root causes harm like a parasite. The predator is more evolved, more intelligent and more clean than the parasite. The predator is self-exacting, and sometimes fear-inspiring. The parasite is constantly hiding inside of things. It is lazy and under-developed. The way of the parasite is to slowly erode all of the higher powers and all of the higher forms. The parasite wants its target to become numb, and defenseless. It wants a meek, mild, submissive, broken pet in order to feed off of. The predator destroys its prey quickly, from the outside-in, after catching and earning its prey. But, the parasite destroys its friends from the inside-out, slowly, after being taken in by the host. More deaths still come from disease and decadent parasitism, today, in this society, compared to the minority of true predation [if that even exists anymore]; so we live in a society of slow death, and worms. The predator kills sometimes, but the parasite abuses all of the time.

That’s a good point; laziness and weakness. It definitely takes willpower and patience to create and understand new ideas, something that the ‘all too many’ have a problem with. But I stated resentment due to the herd’s obsession with narcissism. They have taken Decartes’ “I” and distorted it for their own narcissitic purposes. There seems to be this belief amongst the herd that they are the pinnicle of human evolution and that they stand at the ‘end of history’, thus new ideas become impossible to penetrate their thick skulls.

For sure. I even admire the media’s control and manipulation of the masses, not that I agree with the idiotic messages they introject into the herd’s mind.