A place for a


“Big Game” praises a father’s disrespect

Some days ago I visited a nearby forest. It was almost dark and when I approached the trees, I heard animals move hastily. I was afraid. As I entered the woods, I was immediately immersed in a feeling I recall from my Ayahuasca ceremony, as I had been running from the others.

Trying to make out shapes in the noisy dusk, I became very alarmed and realized I had no weapon. I intuitively looked around and saw a dry branch that I decided to break away from the tree.

As I went about doing it, this sheep voice entered my mind again.

But that is just a piece of wood. You are naive. You must ask a professional hunter how to do it the right way. You are not even a real warrior.

That was when I realized how profoundly I lacked confidence in my own judgment.

I asked god for love and trust in my reason and my wish was fulfilled. For the first time since I can remember, I trusted my intuition. God’s respect for me accomplished it.

I broke off the branch. It was hard and stiff. I decided it was a good weapon and moved on without further doubt.

My father’s disrespect

I moved on  through the woods. It was a mythical feeling. I was certain I could die and yet I trusted myself. It was an initiation I had chosen for myself. One of many to come.

Yet no challenge came. And no tribe would be waiting outside to welcome me among its men.

Sorrow and rage clouded my senses. I uttered a primal scream. And another one. Bring it on! Bring it on, forest! I am ready to kill or die!

I did not feel like a civilized human. I felt like a raw, wild animal. A betrayed and exiled animal, burning with merciless existential rage, completely immersed with its surroundings.

And finally I dared to be furious at my father. My father, who had not even respected me enough to give me a chance to prove myself. My father, who had betrayed me of my chance to earn a place among men.

I knew I would have made a great warrior. I am tall.

I would have made him proud. I would have submitted to his teaching and discipline, oh, there is nothing on earth I would have loved to do more than that.

But my father deemed me unworthy of submission, unworthy of a chance to be a good son. He left me alone with that fucked up bitch. His blood. His own kin. When I was ready to lower my head before him, he turned his back, metaphorically speaking. My family seems keen on insulting me!

I cried and sobbed. I was reminded of the boy from Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, who was likewise denied respect by his tribe.

I screamed and beat up the trees in my vicinity in rage. I hoped for an animal to attack me. I wanted to massacre something, wanted to savagely drink the blood of a life I would take with honor, in a battle of life and death. I had never felt anything like that before.

And then I spat at God’s feet, because there was nobody else to listen. Spat at his feet with contempt and rage for the male youth I had been betrayed of. It was half spit, half scream.

God tolerated it. He tolerates everything.

How am I supposed to respect men after the most important man in my life offered nothing but disrespect to me? Rejected me? I want to fight him for the insult. I want to humiliate him, just like he humiliated me.

And then I recalled that movie, Big Game.

Hollywood’s toxic masculinity

In the movie, a boy is to earn the tribe’s respect by going on a successful hunt.

He fails the initial test, drawing a bow. He is dismayed, but his father begs the other members of the tribe to let his son do the rite anyway. That is his first betrayal, taking a burden that belongs to his son.

But the much greater betrayal becomes apparent when junior reaches the hunting ground his father marked on a map.

He finds a freezer with a dead deer’s head.

How much more clearly can you state this: You are a useless man. You will never be a hunter. You annoy me and I do not even trust you to fail with dignity. I am giving you the best I think you capable of. A life as a fraud.

The son is, of course, shocked by this finding. His father urged him into a test he was not prepared for, then offered him a life as the shadow of a man.

But then along comes the nigger president of the United States. The kid saves his life and as the president congratulates the boy, his father finally feels pride. The burden of being the father of a failure falls off of him. They reconcile.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Firstly, the father greatly insulted his trusting son. He did it for his own approval in the clan, his son a mere status symbol to him.

Secondly, the happy ending of the movie consists of the son finally earning the approval of the man who betrayed him. The son sucks up to the person who insulted him, glad to be finally acknowledged. Abuse, as good as it gets.

Thirdly, he gains his father’s approval through the approval of the official monkey, the president. That makes it even the more worthless. A father’s approval, earned by impressing him with a meaningless status symbol. How can he even still respect his father after that lack of individual judgment and integrity?

It actually reminds me of my mother, who always sided against me, with the authorities.

What a gutless fuck.

The son is not supposed to be codependently glad to finally have earned his father’s approval. He is supposed to burn with rage and crumble under the insult, crumble under his loneliness and communicated worthlessness, crumble under his father’s promise to become a man, a false promise. And the only conlusion for the little boy can be: Becoming a man means to stop believing in manhood. Growing up means to let the world – reality – crush your soul and give up all hope for genuine happiness. Growing up means to stop believing in the fairy tale of manhood, expose it as a childish whim and become disillusioned.

Big Game is a movie that praises authoritarianism and lack of pride and respect. It is an insult to masculinity and in no way a movie to be positively watched by a man. It devalues the most basic male virtues that make a man’s life worth living. Self-responsibility, individual judgment and thought, confidence and integrity.

If the setting of the movie was not a male initiation rite, it may as well have nothing to do with masculinity at all. It may be a gossipy chick flick.

For a second there, I thought the movie’s message was:

Every real man is a fraud. Growing up means to give in to manipulation, accept the pain of living a lie, give up one’s dreams and ideals for there seems to be no place for them in the real world. But worry not, for you still can reap the benefits of your pretense! You can still get drunk on the meaningless praise of ignorant fools!

This concept is exemplified in a scene where the president reveals to the boy how he wet his trousers before a press conference and skillfully hid it. You see, boy, it is not really about who you are. It is about who others believe you to be.

So the pretender becomes the new role model for the little hunter.

How fitting in today’s gutless political climate! How fitting for the pitiful and pussified world that teaches: It is all about the appearance. It is all about putting on an act for others!

I wonder which movie is really crueller. 1984 or Big Game. Both set out to crush your soul. Both succeed remarkably. But I think 1984 is milder, in that it is more honest. It does not pretend to want to entertain and enrich your life. 1984 convinces you that love is not worth pursuing. Big Game convinces you that love does not exist.

Shame on the makers of Big Game.

2 votes

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Pingback: “Big Game” praises a father’s disrespect | Manosphere.com()

  • thordaddy

    Well… WHO defines the real man? WHO can articulate his essence and WHO is emblematic of his showcase. And WHO is truly Him, real man?

    • You tell me.

      • thordaddy

        I already told you… REAL white men are white Supremacists EVEN if by mere intellectual coherency. Gazed upon another way, YOU “see” a great white man and you just know him to be a white Supremacist… Likewise, you can “see” no great white men and thus logically conclude no genuine white Supremacists exist.

        Equality = anti-Supremacy…

        Anti-Equality = Supremacist…

        You cannot transcend this paradigm as a “white” male this deep in the zeitgeist and so close to Final Liberation.

        You write with epic flare, yet with an inexplicable detachment from the creation of your Epic. A cognitive dissonance unexplored and unexamined.

        • So your argument is intuition. It somewhat makes sense, but I can not quite grasp it.

          What is Final Liberation?

          What does the term epic entail for you?

          • thordaddy

            It’s part intuition. It is also NECESSARILY acknowledging Perfection as empirical fact even if one’s vision is ultimately too blurred to “see” Perfection TOTALLY at any particular instant.

            Final Liberation is that “place” of Ideal Freedom which for the strict materialist always brings one to the edge of the universe. There, he recognizes a limit to his autonomy… Recognizes a kink in “absolute freedom.” Here, he takes a leap of faith or self-annihilates and tempts the material bounds.

            The BIG Epic is whether we shall return to our Father… The little epic plays out in my own world. You too perhaps?

          • If you had to describe what your Father is to you, how would you?

            The little epic – so you are too struggling with that proposed decision? Or someone in your family?

          • thordaddy

            Perfection and nothing… Literally. With myself as the metaphysical convergence.

            This is how’s it’s playing out… A total immersion in radical autonomy from conception and now a moral duty to steer myself and children towards white Supremacy.

          • Why do you choose Father over nothing?

          • thordaddy

            I choose BOTH as the opposing metaphysical assumptions of which to craft “game.” The domain of total action falls within the purvey of BEING a perfect father and possessing nothing, ie, no father.

          • Dude, have you ever tried to write English in a way that is comprehensible? Half the time, I struggle to understand what you are trying to say.

          • thordaddy

            Lol… This to me is you mired in radical autonomy.

            You desire FREEDOM…

            But you also have your own unique concept of freedom…

            But which “one” is more true BECAUSE they cannot be “equal” unless you strive to make them equal and there is no evidence of such an effort ALTHOUGH IT most certainly may be transpiring. And because these “things” are not equal — Freedom is not equal to your concept of freedom — then one will be more freeing than the other. And if you so choose that which is less freeing then I stand corrected in the idea that you desire Freedom. And if this is now established that you do not in fact desire Freedom, but in some respect desire control THEN this new input may perhaps create new output?

            What can legitimately control you, Tom? Nothing?

          • The things that seem to control me are the parts of my self that I have not accepted as a part of my self.

          • thordaddy

            So no more EXTANT external controls… ONLY residual control internally-centricated?

          • Internally centricated? What?

          • thordaddy

            Lol.. Our language has been liberated by our “intellectual masters” and is thus ALWAYS open to new entries…

            Centricate = center + intricate…

            To intricately derive from the center…

            Your only “controls” are intricately central… Centered… Of your own creation.

          • Haha. Yeah, that is a valid assertion.

          • thordaddy

            And with no acknowledged external controls, you are wholly accountable for your state of being… This is a RARE desire degraded and dissipated by “equality dogma.”

          • thordaddy

            The true battle cry of the “brotherhood” is “Perfect Father or no father!”

          • But is that not a childish conception that needs to be grown out of? A pouting little boy who either rejects Father completely or embraces a perfect version of him? But alas, the real world father can not be perfect, thus can not be embraced, leading to disappointment and eventually to embracing imperfect reality. Is that not the classical mythical way it is supposed to be?

          • thordaddy

            I “see” it more a logical necessity of those who demand the liberal “brotherhood.” It is at its core an unruly and anarchic logic WITH totalitarian impulse… Penning it a “childish conception” DOES IT GREAT SERVICE… It is in every respect the savage male’s attempt to maximize his autonomy at your expense under the guise of some undefinable “brotherhood.” It’s a hustle.. It’s chutzpah… It’s “game.”

          • thordaddy

            But more to the point…

            Those who shriek most loudly for “brotherhood” are either true believers in The Perfect Father or true believers in no father at all!!!

            The white Supremacist finds convergence.

          • Why?

            When you say brotherhood, are you referring to my expressed wish to be part of a tribe?

          • thordaddy

            Why are those that shriek for “brotherhood” either/or? Because the dichotomy is either/or… A mass fatherlessness (single mother’s hood) or immersed in Churchianity were “fathers” abound.

          • Who are ‘those that shriek for brotherhood’? What do you mean by that term?

          • thordaddy

            WHY call for a global “brotherhood?”

          • I am not doing that.

          • thordaddy

            As a general question…

            The answer to which is mass fatherlessness or deep immersion in Churchianity.

          • I am not following.

          • thordaddy

            Why does it rain…

            Why doesn’t Tom go by Thomas?

            Why not self-gratify without human intervention?

            THERE IS A CALL for “brotherhood” because the dominating paradigms that overlap are mass fatherlessness, ie., living in single mother’s hood, and pseudo-Christianity covering, residually, another large swath. Between them (mass fatherlessness and mass pseudo-Christianity) is a very dark and insidious nexus where the greatest things are SUPPOSED to happen, but where the worst things keep emerging.

          • So you are encouraging autonomy. But you oppose radical autonomy. what is the difference?

          • thordaddy

            What’s the difference between moral autonomy and radical autonomy?

            It’s the difference between desiring Perfection and desiring Nothing.

            And “equality dogma” collapses the mental dilemma into oblivion where most stay mired in radical autonomy… A nothingness.

          • Interesting, please elaborate.

          • thordaddy

            Perfection throughout or “from nothing, something.” These are the competing metaphysical assumptions of the “white man.” Existential crisis is evidence that the latter mindset now dominates the “white race.” The grand deception is the memetic disassociation between a belief in “something from Nothing,” its Hegelian rejection of Perfection throughout AND the inevitable annihilation of the “white man.”

          • I can identify with ‘from nothing, something’. Seems very right to me. Perfection is just a part – a vision – of something. An idea that can be lived inside the nothing.

          • thordaddy

            Exactly… You are a high IQ “white” self-annihilator.

            The “problem” is when such a state of being is explicitly presented to you, you “hypocritically” reject it.

          • Which one do I reject? Annihilation? Yes, perhaps.

            Then again, annihilation is unfortunately impossible to choose. My existence can not end, no matter how much I desire it to.

          • thordaddy

            So you reject total annihilation as absolute truth?

          • Necessarily, because it is impossible.

          • thordaddy

            What’s impossible?

          • To end my existence.

          • thordaddy

            Factually, actually or willingly?

          • What do you mean?

            What I am saying is: Even if I die, my existence will not end. Even if I go to hell, it is only because I choose to believe in it.

            I can not choose to not exist eternally. I can merely choose to forget eternity for a limited amount of time. A lifetime.

          • thordaddy

            Interesting insight…

            So you believe in the right to existence?

          • Right implies a choice, but it is not one. So I may as well stop trying to bring about something impossible.

          • thordaddy

            I’m trying to pinpoint your exact idea… You believe your soul, ie., your existence, is indestructible?

            And for those whose right to mortal existence was terminated, there is no one to speak to their right of mortal existence at conception?

            Let me be more specific…

            When Tom Arrow was conceived, did he then have a right to mortal existence?

          • Yes, that is what I believe.

            A right to mortal existence – what is that? It is a mere choice to live a mortal life.

            Heard a nice quote in the movie Troy: The gods envy us. For our mortality makes our lives valuable.

          • thordaddy

            If there is a “fundamental right” to kill one’s son in utero

            Then there is no right to mortal existence from conception…

            Those that embrace this line of thought are de facto self-annihilators.

            Do you believe the above to be true?

          • Ah, that is why you used the term conception. I would call it simply one way to die. One kind of experience to make.

          • thordaddy

            I’m not following and I can’t decipher, after all you have written about your mother, if you still believe she had a “right” to kill you AT CONCEPTION, ie., your VERY BEGINNING of mortal existence, or whether you deny her this “right” THEREBY DECLARING a right to mortal existence from conception, ie., from the very beginning of your mortal existence.

            There are PROFOUND consequences for each belief and they are never equal.

          • That is nonsensical. Both scenarios exist in reality, therefore there is no distinction. Both can be chosen.

          • thordaddy

            Can answer to simple questions with yes/no precision?

            DID your mother have a “fundamental right” to kill you in utero?


            DID you and do you still have a fundamental right to mortal existence from conception?

            Your answer seems to be “yes” and “yes” without perception of the empirical self-refutation.

          • I do not see your point. A ‘right’ is a human construction derived from authority. Authority declares rules and thus creates ‘right’ which is enforced through punishment and shaming. That is about it. There is nothing ‘fundamental’ about rights.

          • thordaddy

            Yes… And in America, a “mother” has a humanly constructed authority to enforce death upon her child in utero as an explicit authoritative expression of the declared rules of the masses. (Not really though… We’ve never voted for a national “right” to self-annihilation)…

            And SUBSEQUENTLY, a generation of “Children of the Whim” who LITERALLY CAN FEEL NO AVERSION to the above state of affairs.

            De facto self-annihilators…

            NOT JUST passive on their INVOILABLE RIGHT to mortal existence per unprovoked conception…

            But down right AFFIRMATIVE AND WHOLLY TOLERANT of a murderously-minded “mother.”

            Symbiotic regression.

            You were/are deeply immersed in such a procedural descent.

          • Ah, that makes sense.

            But we are touching upon another point here, which is: I may choose to fight the mothers in this world that deny a life to exist befoer it is conceived.

            That is an earthly decision, not an eternal.

            And this also completely disregards the possibility that the souls that were annihilated in utero actually wished to have just that experience. To gain that karmic imprint.

          • thordaddy

            The problem with your conception is in the unsubstantiated assumption that you can know of your soul sans mortal awareness to which the right to mortal existence is absolutely necessary.

            In fact, reality tells “us” that [mortal] existence just is awareness of our soul.

          • Interesting idea. Maybe you are right, I do not know.

            But I can easily prove to you that this inalienable right does not exist, no matter whether it should. The proof is: Babies have been killed in utero.

            End of story. The first time it was violated, it disqualified as unalienable.

            Also, do not forget that each mortal existence is just one incarnation of a likely endless series of incarnations. It is – by probabilities – impossible to never enjoy a mortal existence.

            So we may debate whether we should enforce such a right, but not whether god wants it. If he wanted it, he would indeed have made it unalienable and untransgressable – like the laws of electromagnetics.

          • thordaddy

            Yet, my paradigm easily swallows whole and thus entirely assimilates your predicated mindset. Perfection CAN ACCOMODATE ALL SORTS of “imperfection” without blemish. Such that, you may wish an endless array of false things and I may wish an endless stream of truthful things OR any combination thereof due our mutually EMPIRICALLY corrupted natures AND we will get EXACTLY what is the justified consequences when the time comes. This “law” usurps mere electromagnetism. It gives such thing pertinent existence amongst those who actually care.

          • thordaddy

            In real life though…

            Tom just asks his mother if she believed in her right to abort Tom and if she has ever confessed to revoking that personal right?

            Don’t you seek the most VALID AND LEGITIMATE justification for your hate?

          • Interesting…

          • thordaddy

            Even more interesting is how very, very few high IQ “white” males have ever pondered the self-duplicity.

            This says something fundamental?

          • What is self-duplicity?

            I read an interesting remark on gettinbetter.com. It proposes that once kids develop the ability to speak, they start rationalizing and explaining their devastating emotions instead of feeling them, leading them into neverending circles of pointless reasoning. I reckon that ‘high IQ’ individuals are more prone to that kind of intuitive self-defeating behavior.

          • Thor, if I was to ask you as my cyberdaddy. If I was to tell you that I am coming to realize my devastation over my lost sexual youth, the lost decades of possible friendship and innocent experiences and discovering my body and those of girls. If I told you that I feel like giving up on life, that I can not and want not take this shit anymore. If I told you that I just can not give a fuck anymore, because whatever I can gain can never replace that which I have lost. If I told you that there is nothing for me to win, no matter how hard I decide to fight. If I told you that I am a pathetic loser without any chance of being redeemed.

            What would you tell me?

          • thordaddy

            The first thing I would ASK you is, “why do you reiterate these beliefs in your head over snd over again as though stuck in a redundant nightmare?”

          • Because most of it is simple truth, man. I can not go back and be 16 and have a girl that is 14 and deflower her. I can not learn how to be a man from the start, from puberty. I am here now, somewhat cured, realizing how everything should have gone, all the experiences I could have made. They are gone, forever. It is pointless to even try to chase after them, because they are experiences to be made as a 16 year old, not as a 26 year old.

          • thordaddy

            Well… You’ve somewhat answered your own question when you suggested that reiterating these lost experiences is “pointless.” Maybe you can now focus on experiences you might well have not experienced if it weren’t for the EXACT way in which you were brought up? How many can validly and legitimately hate their parents? Is this an advantage in your direction over and above those raised in a far less dysfunctional situation who are nonetheless in an equality disoriented state?

          • Maybe you can now focus on experiences you might well have not experienced if it weren’t for the EXACT way in which you were brought up?

            Can you rephrase that?

            I think it is an advantage, I think, for it makes my mind clearer and my soul wiser.

            Thanks for answering, by the way, I appreciate it.

          • thordaddy

            You are looking back with guaranteed regrets. In other words, you IMAGINE these regretfully missed experiences as the GUARANTEED EFFECT of a particularly caused upbringing… But reality does not entertain such a certainty as yours. Meaning, you might have had an entirely different upbringing and still experienced not deflowering a virgin… Not learning real manhood from your father… Not doing such and such, etc. So your hedge backs towards the “pointless[ness] of these regrets IS IN A SUBTLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT that you are to some extent SIMPLY IMAGINING a cause and effect from the past that to this day is really still false.

            On the other hand, you possess unique experiences THAT MAY OPEN DOORS to new, future experiences THAT WILL ALWAYS BE CLOSED to those who did not have an upbringing similar to yours…

            What are those “open doors?” Do you ever IMAGINE THEM AS a guarantee in the future?

          • That is some good food for thought. Thanks.

          • One of the open doors may certainly become an admirable resistance to bullshit.

          • thordaddy

            But in an age of all out cynicism… And putrid irony about… Admirable resistance to bullshit needs an until now unforeseen style.

          • What do you mean?

          • thordaddy

            Can a redundant stance ever be admirable?

          • I see your point. But most of the resistance to bullshit is just the search for better bullshit. My style is to not give a fuck about any of it. A life without empty slogans.

          • thordaddy

            Do you work to create this perception IRL?

          • To create it in others? I do not really care to. Part of the point is that everybody can think what they like. But you read my article about the police.

          • thordaddy

            I thought you said you desired to give admirable resiSTANCE to bullshit? How then can an indifference to the perception of others not make uncertain your actual admirable resiSTANCE in your own mind? Meaning, if no one can perceive your admirably resistant stand then how do you know it to be real and not just imaginary?

          • I know it by the amount of peace of mind I experience, not getting hung up on bullshit. That is all that matters to me and it is – for me – easy to observe.

            But yeah, I may have used the wrong words here. It may neither be admirable – because not obvious to others – and it may not be resistance as much as immunity.

            I figure your point here is to get me to be honest to myself and see that I am not as special as I think I may be. Guess that is true. I am torn between wanting to be special and not wanting to give a fuck and being a regular dude.

            But if you are out to prove to me that I am nothing special, why bring up the point about the doors that are open to me and not to others? Which doors do you see in me?

          • thordaddy

            I’m definitely not out to prove that you are not “special.” In fact, I believe in no truly redundant phenomena which would, by definition, have me perceive you as a unique phenomenon, ie., a singularity. I think all high IQ “white” males are torn between Singularity and a meaningless redundancy.

          • Well, I do have a black hole.

          • thordaddy

            lol… Ironically, the one “traditional” singularity proven to be false.

          • Do I really have to prove to you that mine exists? I would rather count on your faith here.

          • thordaddy

            No… But just admit that within is that which you have not had the vision to “see” out. It is to your great advantage to NOW KNOW that the secular physicist’s “black hole” is capable of “letting go” of radioactive energy.

          • What? Are we still talking about my butt?

          • thordaddy

            Nah… That’s too homo… I’m talking about that imaginary “black hole” you’ve made real… But ONLY UP to an outdated conceptual model.

          • A butt is homo? Not sure about you, but most of the stuff I do with it has to do with bathrooms and toilet paper. Of course, the radiactive radiation part is a bit difficult to reconcile with that concept – it is not THAT smelly.

            As for real black holes, I do not know much about them. I imagined being sucked into one a few times. Felt peaceful and magnificent. Some scientists theorize that they are birthplaces of new galaxies. Cosmic evolution. Portals. Who knows. Does the physical explanation of black holes have any relevance in your world view? If so, please try to explain it in a manner that I understand. I know you take pride in using extraordinary words and abstracting your thoughts, but unfortunately, it leads to me mostly being in the dark about what you are trying to say. And I am really tired of that kind of intellectualism. Most stuff can be said in really simple terms.

          • thordaddy

            Lol… You said you were possessive of a “black hole” and there was an expectation that such thing was real. But you don’t seem to believe it able to release all its negative energy THEREBY clinging to an outdated conception FOR REASONS UNKNOWN outside of just simple desire. In other words, you desire possession of this “black hole” or else it would not exist within you.

          • Nah, I was making a joke about my arsehole.

            Unable to release its negative energy. What does that have to do with radioactivity? Radioactivity is negative?

            Anyway, how is the conception outdated and how does my conception of a physical cosmic object have anything to do with my own life? Are you suggesting a real correlation or are you suggesting that I am identifying some part of myself as a black hole that can not release negative energy?

          • thordaddy

            Yes… That is the implication… This “black hole” of yours (assumed to be a void) SHOULD BE ABLE to release its negative energy… Or is your “black hole” really full of nothing?

          • Full of nothing? Will you ever stop making me guess the implications of your words?

            I quite like some of my negative energy. Kinda attached to it. Guess that why it is hard to release it.

          • thordaddy

            Lol… You have it exactly backwards… I have been “forced” to confront the meaning of your words…

            To have a “black hole” means what EXACTLY?

            You have a void?

            You have what amounts to infinite energy chaotically bubbling within zero space?

            You have something that you cannot quite articulate more fluently than just “black hole?”

            You were just using a oft used phrase to explain a missing aspect in your life?

            “Black holes” in the scientific parlance were once thought to be “singularities.” But as science is wont to do, it has falsified this once thought of “singularity” leaving no known material singularities and forcing us back into a totally redundant reality where “equality” gains its gravitas.

            So you use the phrase without full understanding of its ultimate implications…

            Most boys raised in the single mother’s hood are products of linguistic abuse arising from an “out of nowhere” physical fear of a mother toward a son maturing into adulthood.

          • I never really considered black holes to have zero space. But now that you mention it.

            Again, I do not understand your poont about singularities.

            Please elaborate on that linguistic abuse part.

          • thordaddy

            One can only faithfully hate that which truly threatens his existence… The wisest men always seem to conclude that our worst enemy is thyself. But basic instinct negates self-annihilation. Although, many have clearly lost their basic instinct. This is what I believe you to mean when you speak of your “black hole.” You are a threat to yourself provoking a self-annihilation that has you question your most basic instinct OR lack thereof.

          • Makes sense, after all. You learn how to treat yourself by how your parents treat you.

          • thordaddy

            Yes… Thankfully God-ordained free will can help one unlearn bad things.

          • I call it the gut. Note the similarity between god and gut.

          • thordaddy

            The “gut” seems an insufficient mechanism capable of motivating one to unlearn self-annihilating habits.

          • I disagree. The problem is that I did not trust my gut most of my life. Trusting it would have been to painful in my formative years, I reckon.

          • thordaddy

            But you seem to be saying that you did not trust your basic instincts and I am saying that this distrust was rooted in a rejection of your God-ordained free will.

          • That is a somewhat meaningless sentence, because free will is hardly a conclusively defined concept.

          • thordaddy

            Then claiming to not “trust your gut” is rather meaningless… What does it mean that you didn’t “trust your gut?” What would someone “see” Tom “do” that had them say, “Tom doesn’t trust his gut.”

          • It is not meaningless. It means that I was using my rational thought exclusively, trying to live ‘by the rules’ and do it all right. But rational thought without the gut and intuition is practically worthless and prone to adapt itself to what is expected of the majority. That is why I had no stable identity.

          • thordaddy

            Did you somehow “not trust” unwillingly?

          • No, I did it to protect myself from pain. I did not even let most of the information reach my gut. I micromanaged my gut and ‘protected’ it from the truth like my mother had done it with me.

          • thordaddy

            So is your free will not critical in this analysis?

          • I do not know what free will is supposed to be, so no.

          • Your sentence came back into my mind yesterday. How many can legitimately hate their parents? Yes, indeed. That is who I am. I am grateful for that experience. You are right, most can not.

            As for what you said about the right to existence, I imagine I may already have started to hate my mother in her womb. Felt that she was wondering whether she would want me and let me live. But I guess that is largely speculation.

          • thordaddy

            WHO calls for a “brotherhood?”

          • Depends on what that means. I would like to have a tribe.

          • thordaddy

            Well who defines what “it” means?

          • You said it, so speak your own mind.

          • thordaddy

            I don’t desire a tribe… I desire maximum moral autonomy for myself and my children and this belief faithfully imbibed takes care of the details. I want to fly with those that want to truly fly free… Not contingent on anyone outside one’s chosen circle of intimacy.

          • Interesting. But you can not go without a circle of intimacy. Why not call that a tribe? What os the dofference?

          • thordaddy

            Why not say you want a wife and children… You want a family? Why call it a “tribe” as though you wanted something primitive versus something normal? What difference does it make? Never heard of “war of words?”

          • Because I refuse to deny my primitive roots. They are a part of me. I want a wife and children eventually, but I also want to fuck around first.

          • thordaddy

            Very well… AS LONG AS you are willing to pay the price of your refusal and suffer singularly the fallout of all your radical sexual autonomy?

            Do not forget that your primitive side is only empirically verified in relation to a civilized understanding. In other words, for most, embracing one’s “primitive side” is just an imaginary license to self-degrade in a self-loathing fit of rage where no external controls actually exist.

          • I pay the price for all my decisions. How could it be any other way?

            What do you mean with ‘only empirically verified’?

            What do you mean with ‘where no external controls actually exist’?

          • thordaddy

            Huh? You’ve never heard of socialism. It’s an ideology all about having others pay the price…

            What is your “primitive side” other than imitated heresy with a dollop of your own imaginative flair? You know not REAL PRIMITIVENESS outside its relation to white civilization.

            Who actually CONTROLS YOU?

          • Why is my heresy imitated? It is quite an authentic protest against my father.

            I have watched some documentaries about tribes and I also visited one in Peru. I have a vague idea about what it is like and it has its nice sides. Civilization is overvalued.

          • thordaddy

            And I’ll NEVER BE my “brother’s” punk!