A place for a


Good birds do not fly downwards

A bird was born. His father said: Good birds do not fly downwards. The boy was eager to soak up this wisdom.

The next day, the boy went to fly towards a mountain. He ascended and ascended and left behind meter after meter.

He arrived at the top and felt fully worthy of his father’s love.

Yet then it dawned upon him that he coult not possibly ever tell his father about it unless he were to fly back down to him again.

He flew back down again. His father was cold towards him. He felt ashamed.

The next day, he had a good idea. He flew back up to the mountain and decided not to fly back down. Instead, he let himself fall down, only to catch himself in the last few meters.

His father looked at him in shame and said: Did I raise a swindler and trickster?

The boy was devastated.

Hours over hours he spent wondering about the riddle’s solution.  He desperately wanted to make his father proud.

And then he made the only logical conclusion there was: He was not to return to his father after his flight!

Well, of course, it really was that simple. He was to forever explore the mysterious heights above the mountains, get lost in them and find enlightenment!

Thus, the next day, he for the last time threw a proud and understanding smirk at his father and jolly flew up the mountain and then kept flying up until he exited earth’s atmosphere. And just as he thought he was approaching exaltation, his lungs failed him and he died. His father would be proud of him.

The end.

1 vote

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Pingback: Good birds do not fly downwards | Manosphere.com()

  • Oliver Maerk


    We all have
    to be very careful what “wisdom” we accept in life. Fathers can be great, but
    sometimes they give bad advice. In any case they are way better than our

  • Micah Geni

    Didn’t get it at all. But who cares ;-)

    Great bird on the picture. I love that stare

  • Smokingjacket

    Why would only good birds fly upwards? That’s illogical and the moral to me would be to say that just because a power say’s it so that doesn’t mean it’s so- even if the power- is one’s own father. Power without understanding and perhaps wisdom should be rebelled against, and indeed this is exactly what lots of teenage sons end up doing, even if the reasons are often different.

    • The moral could also be that the word ‘good’ is meaningless. It is more the meaning that one associates with the word ‘bad’: Disappointed parents, getting beaten.

      • Smokingjacket

        Well, we read a word as it’s generally meant in common usage. If it was meaningless then it’s not the word that’s become that way, but rather the logic, behind saying one thing is good while another is bad. This is where meaning can be lost and where people can end up following a “higher power” doing evil things they believe are good.

        • The problem is that ‘common usage’ is often contradictory, making a word effectively meaningless.

          Anyway, I am going to tell you one of the insights about language from a book called ‘Language in Thought and Action’. We learn words by association. When you ask a kid what ‘punishment’ means, the kid will say ‘that is when I have to go sit in the staircase’. We learn the meaning of a word by how it is used. That is why people searching for ‘true meanings’ of words get nothing but headaches.

          • Smokingjacket

            I don’t agree. Language is only a very rough approximation of what we mean when we talk about the world. However, we know this and that’s factored into the way we negotiate our way through the world on a daily basis. If this wasn’t the case we’d lapse into a state of perpetual confusion and misunderstanding which is evidently not the case.

            I don’t subscribe to the positivist proposition that meaning is somehow fatalistically determined through word associations. This is to deny the counter-factual context that all language gives us, even, from experiences we may have found painful in our own past. Words are not our jailers, but, rather the underlying experiences we “speak of” through words are.

          • The point is that the things one person associates with a word is not necessarily what another person associates with it. And yes, it does lead to confusion. The best example here is when I as a man who grew up with a single mother talks to men who grew up with their dads. Their usage of the word ‘good’ is often 180 degrees opposite to what I would expect.

            In fact, I was so confused at times about the meaning of words that I thought I was going mad and this is especially true for words regarding morals and judgment.

            I am not sure what your point about that positivist proposition is. How do you know the meaning of a word if not through the association in your mind? When I say ‘friend’, what do you see and feel in your mind? The exactly same thing I do? I doubt it.

          • Smokingjacket

            It’s not the words which are causing the confusion, but, the contexts that were created by different experiences. The word good has a general positive emotive sense to it which can be understood regardless of one’s private experiences. There’s no such concept as someone who understands public language in a completely different manner to what’s generally accepted as a given word’s sense. If this was the case, such a person who understands the word bad as good, when everyone else knows the opposite is true, would surely render such a person to be insane.

            The word friend denotes the exact same sense and meaning in my mind as it does to anyone else. If this was not the case, then they’d be no such ability as being able to communicate with another human being. If there are people that have completely different meanings for the words that are used in everyday discourse, well then they must by strict definition live in a private universe where they converse to themselves alone, because no one else could understand their language.

          • Ah, now I get where you are coming from. You mean to say that the underlying emotion is the same even if the context is different.

            But you completely miss the obvious here: The emotion that is felt by someone who learns the context of the word ‘good’ is later identified as ‘good’. Whenever I heard the word ‘good’, what I felt was less a positive emotion than fear and a strong urge to be obedient. To me, as I learned it, the word ‘good’ is a power instrument to be used to control others with their own fear of being ‘bad’.

          • Micah Geni

            Interesting point.

          • Smokingjacket

            “But you completely miss the obvious here: The emotion that is felt by someone who learns the context of the word ‘good’ is later identified as ‘good’. Well, no. For this to be, you’d have to assume that any given word has a singular fixed emotive sense that you reference in your mind alone. Even if you associate the word good with feelings that are “not good” because of your own experiences this in no way invalidates what’s generally meant by this particular word in society. Besides as you develop as a social human being who uses “public language” in the everyday world you will soon realize that the word good has many meanings that are not circumscribed by your limited experience.

            The point is much broader too. It doesn’t just pertain to language, but, to our sense of being in the world, namely that no human being, no matter how isolated from the rest of society he or she is- cannot state- that they alone are unique from its ideas, senses and expressions. With the exception of schizophrenics and the baby who happened to be washed up on a deserted south pacific island in a wicker basket and grew up to be a man who developed his own private language with its own unique senses and references- no other men are islands as John Donne correctly posited a long time back.

          • You miss that people are able to get along with each other very well despite those misunderstandings, as the superficial interactions stay the same. A group can decide to do ‘good’. One does it out of love, the other out of fear and obedience. But they never really speak about how it makes them feel, so everybody just assumes that everybody feels the same.

            Something else about me, a bit connected to my trauma probably: I always thought that emotions were not real. I thought that emotions were just power plays. When people cried or displayed joy or whatever, I thought they were just faking it out of obligation. That is why I never thought happiness was real. I felt that happiness was an emotion that needs to be faked to be accepted by others.

            But you can see how such a belief is hard to be challenged, because a key ingredient of it is dishonesty. The way your parents bring you up pretty much predetermines the way you will interact with society. Take an overly authoritative parent where the kid is basically forced to become a master manipulator to not get beaten up all the time. Classical narcissism? That kid will get into society and have no other reference experience.

            You really make the mistake of not having any idea what it is like to not have a clear mind to overview everything and see the whole picture. You can not imagine what it is like to only have a tiny selected fraction of the information you have now and that mixed with a lot of fear and lies. It is an intellectual weakness of yours. You see things ‘simply as they are’. Have you had some glimpses into the mind of a madman? Maybe you have and I am being unjust. But I have and I can tell you that your certainty about the general validity of concepts is naive.

            Sure, you can say that the mad ones got it wrong. But when the mad guys suddenly are the majority, what do you do? How do you know whether it is not you who is mad? Difficult questions.

            You also overestimate the effect of peers and society on one’s thinking after one has left the house of the parents. A problematic upbringing potentially leaves you with a tunnel vision and fear-based resistance against all other ideas.

            I encourage you to watch the movie ‘Gaslight’. It is a pretty genius piece of work and it would help our dialogue here.

            As for being unique and all that, we had this topic before and you are interpreting something I did not say. I am not completely original – but my delusions were passed on to me from my parents and these delusions are very alien to the reality you know. They use the same words, but they mean different things. And in that microcosmos of the family, it works. It is a finely tuned self-sustaining system of terror.

          • Micah Geni

            Auth. parenting tends to force the kids to shut off their personality related emotions. Empathy becomes a weakness. And as you observingly points out, manipulations becomes a vital matter. The norm. Bullshit rules. Not much “humanity” left. But there is still physical pain. Which again, is a part of our “reptile”, animalistic element of our make up. So the kids do become more materialistic. That does not always mean consumers, as we normally consider it to be. Symbolically it can evolve intro “body-consumption”. That can be sex, eating disorder, power freaks by violence by steroids…. and even religion, like Islam. Standard Islam, is more and more only about body. What you do and dont do with your body, physically speaking. A good fundamental muslim, dress accordig to some “norm” decided by some others, and think little.

            “Survivors”, those who did not bury away all their empathy, may risk become the opposite extreme. Those no self-defense protagonists. Turn the other cheek, style. It is better, socially speaking, but still self-annihilating.

            Intersting that you consider yourself a spoiled kid (from a material point of view), yet so also claim to have become, or been, a man of many similar symptoms.

            One may obviously propose that over- and underdoing, both leads to deterioration.

          • Good points.

          • Smokingjacket

            “One does it out of love, the other out of fear and obedience. But they never really speak about how it makes them feel, so everybody just assumes that everybody feels the same” Yes, but if they did speak they’d understand each other, so this is not a problem related to the meaning of words, but, rather to do with feelings people have about not communicating with each other because of shame and guilt related to past event in their lives. The words may infer a private emotive feeling to the person in question, however, the fact remains that when the original experiences are actually known and brought “to light” one may register their original meaning of good or bad as something colored incorrectly by their own unique private rendering of that phrase or word.

            “The way your parents bring you up pretty much predetermines the way you will interact with society” I agree, although we can escape with much hard work and will-power some of these negative influences. However, it does give one phase for thought about those reared by loving parents? They never experience this need and all the resultant energy to escape these forces, a bit like a probe trying to escape the forces around a black hole.

            “Sure, you can say that the mad ones got it wrong. But when the mad guys suddenly are the majority, what do you do? How do you know whether it is not you who is mad? Difficult questions” Well, this comes back to public language. I can be reasonably sure (but not certain) that I’m not mad if the community of other public language speakers I encounter understand what I say and they understand what I mean on a daily basis. However, the posses another question. Language doesn’t just refer to objects in the world, it also refers to other states and feelings within us too, in which we nevertheless mutually understand each other in a public way via language. However, this is problematic as essentially we may be all able to understand each other and derive meaning, but, it mightn’t bear any relationship to the real empirical world outside. In this case we’re left asking questions about the nature of “reality” and about how human beings can derive their most significant meanings from states that perhaps have no objective place in the world we perceive.

            Perhaps, this is the critical juncture or synapse where more unstable states of mind can take departure from our world- however, I would still contend that this world is describable through the common public system of words we all use, no matter what a given individual’s emotive sense of that word might be.

            I must think more over the next while.

          • I disagree. The best example from my personal life – and I have seen this positively confirmed by other sources – is love. My mother told me she loved me, but I did not feel love. Thus I associated love with anguish. When I felt pain over a girl I could not have, I thought I was in love. Weird shit.

            Words can often be distractions. Words can summon feelings in us that a situation does not warrant. Polticians can appeal to our emotions by conjuring emotions through words that have nothing to do with what is happening. A state may force you to go fight and kill people in war and use the word ‘love your fatherland’ or ‘patriotism’ and suddenly, you feel warm feelings about the idea.

            Have you seen the movie ‘Ghost Dog’? In there, there are two guys who are friends with each other. One speaks English, the other speaks French. They converse, but neither understands what the other is saying. And yet they get along. It disturbed and frightened me. Why? Because words can be used as buffers, masks and smokescreens to distract from the real nature of an interaction. To not understand each others words makes the souls shine through transparently. With no way to deceive through common associations, all there is is an innocent interaction between two souls.

            I also like to imagine what it would be like to game a girl without using language. Fucking frightening, is it not? Especially since most PUAs are only out to disguise their true self and pull off some NLP tricks and distract from their true intent. But how do you distract from your true intent without words? When you look into her eyes and stop talking, what will she see? What will your soul tell hers? And what will her attentive gaze tell you about yourself? Things you know or things you do not want to know?

          • Micah Geni

            Another one… Fear of loneliness. I wonder how many who have called that “Love” throughout history.

          • Smokingjacket

            ” My mother told me she loved me, but I did not feel love. Thus I associated love with anguish. When I felt pain over a girl I could not have, I thought I was in love. Weird shit.” Well again this comes back to your private association with this word based on your unique experience of what this word means to you. Your mother aught to have taught you what the word love means, but, obviously she couldn’t, as some parents evidently do not have the capacity to do this.

            However, our public language system works on the convention that we must agree to know generally what a word denotes such as love. Without this convention that infers meanings to states that we can all know- the world would be meaningless and incoherent- even in a physical sense through sign language two different language speakers won’t have a clue what they meant if one of them had a private meaning for the act of pointing at something.

            Even in your case you were taught a completely different meaning to the word love that generally most people associate with joy, freedom and contentment. However, the fact you know that what you were taught to be incorrect, means, that you know what the real meaning of that word actually denotes. We can, I guess only find these true or authentic feelings for these words once more, especially if we’ve experienced very negative states opposite to what’s generally meant them, by experiencing states outside of our own empirical framework with its own unique history and story. We do this in part everyday, almost subliminally in our interaction with those “others” or that “other” that is not-of-us in the world each day we exist. This can teach us perhaps a meaning for words and the states they represent that are true to their organic sense and ultimate meaning.

          • You are making a very basic mistake here. You are saying ‘language only communicates accurately if we all agree on the meanings of words’. And that is correct. But you are assuming that just because good communication is desirable, it is not thinkable that we are actually miscommunicating all the time.

            I learned the true meaning of love in the past months only. It did not enter my mind that I had the wrong idea in the past. I read articles that resonated with me and brought to light exactly this misunderstanding, else I would never have understood.

            See, my point is: Our world is so focused on being efficient and functioning that a precise meaning of words is often not even necessary to survive. You can basically just follow the rules and do what is expected of you and die without ever knowing what love is. What masculinity is. Whatever.

            You are saying that I was taught wrongly and that I then learned the right meaning. But what if the whole world shared my ‘delusion’? Would then the word love not in all actuality denote just the thing I experienced, lacking any other reference experience? We would then have another word for the thing that we now call love. Maybe ‘narcissism’ or ‘psychopathy’, because real love makes you independent and confident and arrogant in the eyes of those who lack it.

            That is why I used to say: Fuck love. Who gives a damn about stupid love all the time. It is not necessary.

            Well, I was saying: Fuck anguish. Stop chasing anguish. No one needs it.

            I repeat: You are saying that good communication is desirable, thus it exists. That is like saying: I want that girl, therefore it is impossible that she is not mine.

          • Smokingjacket

            “But you are assuming that just because good communication is desirable, it is not thinkable that we are actually miscommunicating all the time” This is indeed correct, but, miscommunicatiing is very different from complete incomprehension, which would be the case if we all had our own private meanings for words we use everyday

            Anyway, let’s no labor such points. They’re theoretical and abstract and important only to people who think about these things from a more holistic viewpoint. Your point about love for example is quite a salient observation, perhaps true love is a much rarer flower than most people suspect. When people say they love a person, it’s tragic that it’s often only said when the person is on their death beds. How much bullshit does it take for so many people to really feel true love in the sense that this is a “complete person” and not a thing or label like “son” “mother” “wife” “boss” “friend” etc that can compartmentalize our true feelings often?

            I like the phrase that a mystical minded friend of mine said to me about love once- he said “it’s the most private and unique experience a being can have in our universe”. I like this. It stands opposed to so much of our empty public rhetoric about the value of “true love”.

          • I do not think it is theoretical and abstract at all. Reading the book ‘Language in Thought and Action’ has opened up my mind to a very large heap of bullshit. What I was doing before that read was to communicate more or less automatically. After that, I became more concerned with what it is that I am actually saying and whether the other person truly understands.

            Yeah, good point about love. But the thing is that in our Christian culture, we literally often love another person ‘like ourselves’. That is, we see a part of our self in the other person and do not see the person for who they really are, thus we often do not really love that person.

          • Smokingjacket

            Benjamin Whorf’s idea on the language systems of the native american peoples and of certain mesoamerican cultures taught me the importance of seeing outside the grammatical strictures or “cage” of the Indo- European system. These peoples way, especially the Hoppi Indians that he studied, have a completely different relationship with nature and the universe to our way of being in the world. It’s open, creative and dynamical where world and its events “meet them”. The system of verbs for example is radically different to our sense of verbs and the way we use them, so, their relationship with the world and indeed with their own dead ancestors is transitional and open-ended which is very different to our black and white way of demarcating reality.

            Yes, I do agree mostly about Christian love, it could be as Nietzsche suggested, be nothing more than a form of love that enslaves the “other” into your ego and control system, even if the people doing this believe that they’re loving the other person in the right way. How could such a form of love let the “other” develop freely and independently as a being that could love them back in their own unique manner. Perhaps, this would be an almost near impossibility for the majority of people brought up under the Christian ethos to consider?

          • That sounds fucking great, that native American people stuff. It really does. I dig it.

            I believe you are right regarding the Christian love thing. Yes, it is pretty hard to consider, because Jesus as an idea and perhaps as a spiritual entity works with deep-seated terror to discourage straying. Just to bring up an example from ROK: When Jesus turns water into wine, it is a wondrous miracle. When another demon/wizard does it, it is dark evil occult magic that will turn you into a vampire and send you to hell. Our whole culture is full of Christian indoctrination against evil supernatural entities.

            That form of love can not let others develop freely, because that love is inspired by the narcissistic spiritual entity Jesus Christ who needs to keep others down and control them and have them obedient so that they need him and his greatness. That is the way he loves them – by making them a part of his self. And that is the way he encourages the emotionally crippled minions to love.

          • Micah Geni

            a bit like a probe trying to escape the forces around a black hole.


            Each “culture” is an illusion. If one culture do not fit you, it is more “mad” in your point of view. You can dig into it, to see if you may have overseen something, but that could easy be the “probe trying to escape the black hole”. You could also just register, that each culture, each subbaculture, is “mad” in its own way, and some may simply be more accordring to your own preferred delusions.
            So the probing would be to search one’s own “delusions”. Then again, that does not have to mean one is entering the black hole. On the other hand, one may become even more self-assured and trusting.

            We could also try to figure out the common denominator. That would be something in common for Mankind in general. Cultural variances around those common values, would then become more enriching, and less “psychopathic”

          • Ah, and never forget the law of attraction: Delusion attracts people who share one’s delusions. Echo chamber effect. Why else is there such a gap of understanding between radical feminists and manospherians?

          • Smokingjacket

            One person’s delusion can be another’s vision of perfect sanity. However, this problem doesn’t relate to the sense we derive from the exact same words meaning two different states to two different people.

            The issue relates to meaning and in particular what we refer to in ourselves, namely our personal subjective experiences, that cause people to derive two completely divergent meanings from the same arrangement of words. One man will see the Devil in the detail, while another we see God.

          • Then again, is it really an issue? I say it is simply the way we work. How we must work.

          • Smokingjacket

            Yes, but it’s good to know how things work! Helps you understand others.

          • Wald

            Referring to me?


          • Ha! You are always welcome here, Wald. But no, I did not consciously think of you when I wrote this.

          • Wald

            Good to know. Likewise with you on my blog (if it was not obvious already haha).


          • Now it is. But you need to write more, brother. I keep checking in, but there is still that old post on your front page.

          • Wald

            I’ve got a lot in drafts. I only need to find the motivation.


          • I have a kingdom of ideas. But you know what? I think that this motivation thing is something that can hardly be controlled. Sometimes you have an idea that sounds good and you kinda say ‘Yeah, I should write about that someday’. But you never do. On the other hand, there are those ideas that just grip you and you can hardly do anything but spit them out there. Like being possessed by a writing demon. I think that those moments when we really do write stuff are the moments when our soul knows that this is something important. And the moments when we feel like we ‘should’ be writing about something, but have no motivation, that is our soul telling us that it is not really that important. It is a good thing to learn to trust that gut feeling. By now, my mind is pretty much like this: I trust myself that I will write the right things at the right time and that they will find the right people. I also trust myself that I will not miss writing anything important if my gut does not find it important enough to motivate me to write it.

  • thordaddy

    The moral to the story is that no father should fear a son who flies higher and no son should heap contempt upon a father he has flown above… The pathology of the West is the perversion of this very scenario… Lesser fathers fearing greater sons and “greater” sons loathing “lesser” fathers. The father’s “disappointment” was not in a son coming back to his father, but of a son not yet progressing to fatherhood himself.

    • Not what I intended to communicate. But there is more beauty in your interpretation than in my story. I like it.

      • Wald

        It’s my hope that my sons are better men than I’ll ever be. I believe my father wishes the same for me, though that may be a daunting task.


        • I think that this is a fine motive, but slightly misguided. I want my sons and daughters to be whatever they want to be. If they want and can be better than me, I will welcome it. But I would not want them to feel the burden to have to surpass me, if that is nothing they are keen on doing.

          • Wald

            To each their own of course.

            What did you think of this post?


          • I skipped it, because that seemed like such a remote and improbable thing for me to be thinking about. I am a bit clearer in my head now, so I left ya a comment there.

          • Micah Geni

            A thought. I have no idea whether it is true or not, but I wonder if you have thought it before: What if.. your father simply thought that you would grow a better man, without him around

          • Yeah, quite possible.

          • Micah Geni

            If so, in some way, you almost gotta respect him for that choice, as sad as it is though. It implies that he did put you above himself. Wish more politicans did so

          • Worth pondering.

        • Micah Geni

          This idea, I ve had it before, makes me think of a song:

  • Micah Geni

    The narcisstic grid of bullshit:

    You posted about blowing some stuff out in the forest as a kid. I did a lot of “bad stuff” too. Bad ? No, it was curiousity or simply impulsivity (sometimes, or actually often, triggered by justified anger) and as a kid with no father, one did not really learn to understand a lot of potential consequenses. They simply didn’t enter my thinking.
    So there was an episode. I was sent to out headmaster. Everybody used to make jokes about him, calling him a “softy”. He hardly ever yelled at people. I sat down and he started asking me about what had happened and such. Explained to me how that could have turned out really bad. And I just sat there and thought to myself “yeah… he’s fucking right. I didn’t think about that”.. I said I was sorry and we split. Classmates came to me “what did he say ? How was it ? Was he mad ?”.. I just replied “nothing”, because I was too busy digestion what we had talked about. It was “deep”, for a kid. And even more interestingly, I did not feel ashamed, but mostly plain stupid. Unlike those others, who like to yell, he did not make me feel ashamed, but only thoughtless and childish.

    So what was the difference ? This teacher, he didn’t try to break my self, nor self-confidence. I only have to assume that he wasn’t a narcissist. He did not have the need to feed off my energy, by making me feel smaller than him. By shaming. As Sheridan talks about, he was probably capable of producing inner energy by himself. In contrast to so many people living in the narcissistic grid of bullshit

    Is it your fault, is it mine ? No fucking way. If someone should take responsibility more than us, it is the pro single-mom systems. Educational system. Child custody. But those narcs, like to blame it on the kid..”Drug em down”

    I remember 2 teachers, as “good guys”. As positive influence, when it comes to “behaving”. And how many teachers did we meet during our days in school ? I dont know.. You tend to forget most of them very easily ( Im not saying that other teachers did not have their good sides. Some were excellent teachers when it came to the subjects, and less so when it came to child-rearing)

    To dare to speak out about a lot of the bullshit, maybe it does take a more spiritual mind in a Draconian-Reptile body ?

    If I shall sum most of my experiences of “people” into 1 (or 2) deadly sin, judged by their point of view, I do think it is Self-Confidence and the Lust for Life. 2 traits they fucking seem to hate and envy.

    Those people, are like the black hole, Wald mentioned. Extraverts often too, because they cannot stand themselves. Touch their false ego, and they’ll throw a drink in your face and never apologize. On the contrary, they will get the bouncer to have you thrown out. Hilarious..

    They eat up themselves, mentally and physically. Which is why I am actually not necesarrily pro stem-cells medicine research and such. Now they even drain other humans physically to be able to prolong their own nasty lives in the narcissistic grid of bullshit

    • To dare to speak out about a lot of the bullshit, maybe it does take a more spiritual mind in a Draconian-Reptile body ?

      Sounds intriguing.

      Your headmaster seems like a cool guy.

    • I am starting to understand your narcissistid grid of bullshit, by the way. For me, the roots of it lay in Christianity. I needed to ‘fall from god’ to realize I do not really care sucking up to patriarchs.

      This whole ‘success’ madness. Keep chasing something. Keep competing. Keep being the best.

      For what? So that daddy will love you.

      There is no other fucking point.

      Just perform, perform, perform, because ‘life is hard’. And suffer, suffer, suffer, because god wants you to. Wait, no. Jesus wants me to suffer. Why? Good question. Jesus does not want you to dabble in the ‘occult’. He does not want you to develop self-love and healing powers so that he can feel like the great shepherd upon whom everybody is desperately dependent. When another demon (from the Greek daimon = deity, genius) enters in his presence, Jesus creates a grid of bullshit himself, in which the demon is ‘revealed’ as a foul ugly evil creature while he shines in bright light and rescues you. He is a fucking insecure narcissist who needs to tear others down so that he can feel great. Think of it. There is magic in the world. It can heal. It can bring wonder. Why the fuck would god create such a world, but then damn you for using it? Why would god create a world with the necessary energies to heal yourself and be a perfectly confident and independent person, but then damn you to hell for using them? It does not make any sense.

      Fucking idiots.

      • Micah Geni

        It may be Christianity. I don’t know what it is. It haven’t been working very well lately though. And I’m not accusing single parents per se. Not all have the chance to choose. Some think they can manage, and fail. Others do manage. Most care I’d think, if to varying degree. Generally, they probably do their best. But who told someone it was the optimal way to go…

        Christianity ? Probably involved. Then there is this lost Gospel I came over.. I think it is yours ;-) (Toma(rrow)):


    • Smokingjacket

      I agree about the narcissistic extroverts types. I used to feel drained after interacting with these types. They feed off one’s energy. Now, I don’t let them in.