Liberals usually claim that homosexuality is inborn. Religious people and manospherians usually claim that homosexuality is a mental illness. Both commit the same fallacy, an appeal to nature based on personal bias. Both assumptions, when declared doctrine, are potentially harmful.
If we declare that homosexuality is inborn, we take all hope away from those who truly suffer from emotional disturbances and developmental setbacks. They are left in a desperate situation and when trying to reconcile the conflicting voices in their heads, they feel forced to support the voice that urges them into homosexuality, inflicting strong pain on themselves from even thinking about it.
On the other hand, I think it is plausible to make room for the assumption that some people are truly homosexual at their core and suffer gravely from having to repress that. Telling them that homosexuality is a mental illness hurts them just as much as those who experience the dilemma from the other perspective.
To make a little analogy, there may be a man who truly enjoys photography and art. And there may be another man who truly enjoys hard work and carrying around big bricks at the building site. Now let’s assume that each of them thinks that his profession is the only true and natural thing to do for a real man. They get children. The artist’s kid would secretly love nothing more than to be a hard worker. The hard worker’s kid would love nothing more secretly than to be an artist. Let us assume that both shame their kids for not doing what they think is the right way. Both kids suffer for having to be something they do not truly wish to be, feeling guilty towards their parents for not truly wanting to be their narcissistic mirror image. And yet, the fact that the kids suffer from having to live a life that does not fit them does not mean that this life would not perfectly fit somebody else.
Continue reading “The pseudo-intellectualism of contemporary discussions about homosexuality”
Nietzsche suggests in his book On the Genealogy of Morals a historical account of a nation that was harmonious and peaceful inside, while periodically going on crusades against other nations, committing the most heinous crimes; rape, murder, torture. And they enjoy it. He suggests that this nation has developed this mechanism as a way to vent the more animalistic tendencies that are suppressed inside its civilization.
Why do we get so angry about politics? Why do we see a flag or a famous monkey and are so hyponotized by it that we elevate it, in our minds, above all of those who oppose it? Why are we seemingly ready to kill people who disagree with us about political issues – and yet seldom dare to speak our own minds if they oppose that which is morally accepted?
I think the answer is simple.
Political issues and political leaders give us the permission to be angry. Something we are generally not allowed to be.
To be angry and violent, those are qualities that are looked down upon in society. To use force and power to get your own way, that is perhaps the greatest crime of all. Beware the selfish man. Serve the others, always be compassionate and so on. And yet, when our personally chosen leaders talk about the enemies of their values, we become feral, with foam at our mouths, ready to do almost anything to silence them. Very peculiar.
Continue reading “Anger hypnosis – why do politics enrage us so?”
A double bind, as I see it, is a situation where one is confronted with two conflicting desires, effectively rendering the person helpless and making a solution of the problem impossible. It is the scenario of being between a rock and a hard place. Having to evade an approaching train by jumping down from a bridge.
One of the meanest double binds I have experienced and lived with most of my life is something I would say is typical for co-dependent men, especially when it comes to dating, or, to be more precise, living out the sexual drive. But it does not only apply to fucking girls. It also applies to situations of open confrontation and conflict.
The double bind goes something like this:
- You have to be liked, wanted, desired and respected.
- To be liked, wanted, desired or respected, you have to be confident.
- To be confident means to not be dependent on being liked, wanted, desired or respected.
Now, note that I am not talking about objective truths. I am talking about deep, ingrained beliefs and compulsions.
Continue reading “The devilish male co-dependent double bind, or, anatomy of a cuck”
I will try and make a logical argument that morals are an exclusively human invention and therefore less important in the big picture than we may think. A part of the argument is of Machiavellian nature, but without the negative connotation.
A fine conclusion from it is that it is okay to forgive ourselves and others even the most so-called heinous crimes. And let go of pain.
My argument is really simple. I will give you the short version now and then elaborate a bit. It goes as follows:
Morals in the way we know them are exclusive to the human species. God likely does not punish animals for acting in a manner that would be considered immoral from a human perspective, nor is it likely that they feel guilt or shame for such behavior. Also very likely, our soul – the essence of our being – is not human. Therefore, it is unlikely that God favors human souls over animal souls, since the soul in itself is not human and is thus equal to any other soul. Hence, morals are an exclusive human instrument, primarily used for intra-species power plays – be that a good or bad thing, if you get the pun.
Well, that turned out to be not quite as clear as I hoped it would, but it should suffice to give you the gist for now.
So now, let me elaborate a little.
Continue reading “Proof (?) that morals are man-made fiction”
You walk the streets and you see some stupid protesters, do-gooder activists, hippies, oh damn, whatever thing you can think of that makes you want to throw up. You sneer at that thing or person. You say to yourself, society is going to hell. You say to yourself, but I know better. You say to yourself, I know who I am.
And you walk the streets and think of yourself and fancy what you see. A man of integrity, a man with a firm set of values, a man who thinks for himself. You know stuff like:
- Homosexuality is a mental illness.
- Liberals suck and are dumb.
- Life is hard.
- (fill in whatever fits you)
So that’s you. That’s your identity. You know who you are, because you know what you believe. You think, therefore you are. And the thing that keeps you You is the strength to stand by your beliefs. Standing by your beliefs is a good thing, you heard it many times. Not giving in to people who want to manipulate you, change who you are.
You grew up in a culture that constantly wants to feed you its propaganda, constantly wants to control your life in every which way. You are smart, because you look through it. You know who you are.
Continue reading “Does rejecting societal influences make you more You?”
BBC reports that former Auschwitz guard Reinhold Hanning was sentenced to five years in prison. The man is 94 years old. He did not actually kill anybody. He just did nothing to help and, well, he was there.
So burn him, for fucks sake, if it brings you pleasure. What do I care. Who am I to judge you for judging. But let me ask you if you had sacrificed your life in the vain attempt to help all those people. What is your answer? Probably something like: Well, I want to think I would have.
But there is something else that I find interesting about the article. It is a form of rhetorical manipulation that I think is very common and also very moronic.
As Mr. Hanning sits in court, confronting some super-duper victims, he is described as follows in BBC’s article:
Observers said Hanning, in a wheelchair, remained silent and emotionless for much of the trial, avoiding eye contact with anyone in the courtroom.
While one of the super-duper victims is described as follows:
Mr Glied, a dignified man with thick white hair and a ready smile, now lives in Canada. He was accompanied today by his daughter and granddaughter.
Side note: Glied, in German, means member. When used in slang, it usually means dick.
Continue reading “Let Reinhold Hanning go free, you bloody do-gooders”
Paul got a letter from his daughter. He hesitated to read it. He put it away for a long time until he brought up the courage to open it. It said:
I had this voice in my head all my life. A voice that was telling me that I am a miserable piece of shit. That I don’t deserve love, don’t deserve pleasure, don’t deserve a fulfilling sex life.
Once the voice appeared in my dreams. It was the devil. A horrifying black cloud of terror. In that dream, I tried to fight him. Was it a him? Or was it an it? I tried to fight it, but my limbs were frozen. I could not move, as much as I tried. It ridiculed me and said You are mine. I whimpered and kept repeating to myself, No, no, no, oh please, god, no! Reality was disintegrating.
I woke up shaken and out of my mind. I pushed it all away, it could not be. I forced myself to forget about it.
Continue reading “A letter from his daughter”
A friend passes by as I sit around smoking a cigarette. We talk about something of no consequence. I show him the headline of the newspaper on a stand nearby. 26-year old girl raped by 5 men. I ask my friend why anybody wants to read this. Why anybody cares. Because it happened near us and we are interdependent with those people.
No, I’m not, I realize. It could happen in the same house I live in and it would have nothing to do with me. Why don’t the newspapers write about a father who passed the street with his kid without accident. Sure, it happens all the time. It is normal. It is not important. But a raped girl is not any more important.
My friend says that this stuff concerns us because it shakes our worldview. Does it really? People die all the time. And more than that, the newspaper is full of it all the time. There is nothing worldview-shaking about it at all. It is just a cheap effect. Why did I care in the past? I was proud of living in a horrible world. Of thinking I was better than that. I fantasized about saving the world, making it good. But it is not bad. That’s just our judgment.
Why do we care about rape? Why do we care about massacres? More people die of hunger than of any massacre. We eat animals and never think of their lives. So why care about other people’s misery? Because it harmonizes with our own?
My friend gets angry at me. I don’t know why. For suggesting the newspaper write about something equally unimportant, but much more uplifting?
Continue reading “A moment of clarity”
May 9th, 2124 – The United Science Foundation of Altropia celebrates a critical breakthrough in space-time research.
June 15th, 2130 – The United Science Foundation of Altropia develops the first functioning prototype of the time machine.
January 1st, 2135 – The government of Altropia decides to travel back in time and bring a citizen from the 20th century back into the future, to grant him the great privilege of witnessing the society of Altropia – the first successful society consequently based on the altruistic principle.
February 2nd, 2135 – Jack Sober wakes up in a luxurious apartment in the Redwood District of Altropia’s capital, Veritruismo, after falling into a drunken delirium in the gutter of 1950’s New York City, U.S.A.. Jack thinks he must be the happiest bum on earth to have such a marvelous dream.
March 2nd, 2135 – Jack has been in Altropia for one month. Now follows the description of his day in the past tense.
Continue reading “Short story: Altropia”
An interesting little exercise came to me. Trying to love myself never really worked for me. Basically, I would focus on something I do not love, and then try to love it. I couldn’t. But I noticed something of value: When I try to love, I create a distinction between the loving entity and that which is to be loved. The loving entity fails to love the thing which is to be loved, so I assumed love was nonsense. But you can take it a step further and instead of focusing on loving that thing, focus on the loving entity. And when I do that, I get an image in my head of the loving entity. And when this happens, it becomes obvious why the loving entity is unable to love that thing – because this entity is a representation of a form of conditional, rather than unconditional, love. A representation of a form of love that I have come to learn as real love during the course of my life.
To continue, I then try to love this loving entity. Which brings up a different loving entity that is trying to love the first. Again, this is a representation of conditional love, and so I go on and try to love that entity.
This is a great exercise because it shows me from which place the love that I am trying to give is actually coming. And the farther I go back in the chain recursively, the purer the love becomes and the less susceptible it becomes to doing it the wrong way. The farther I go back, the more the voice of love becomes my own – and not one that is learned.
Continue reading “Recursive self-love and false lovers”