Michael ([info]nebris) wrote in [info]e_speaks,
@ 2007-03-14 15:11:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
A Few Thoughts On The Out-Breeding Of The Male
..re-posted to provide context for the post below..

I love the reactions I'll get to this, as if it was something along the lines of “A Few Thoughts On The Feeding Of Puppies And Kittens To Alligators”.

Men tend to grab their Johnson's in hostile terror as if I was personally coming after them with a hedge clipper this very minute. That leads me to suspect that my conclusions about The Phallo-Centric Universe are correct. Just speculating is this direction generates castration fears, which are then explained away with furious arguments about 'balance'.

Heterosexual women get a rather nervous as well, as if I'm telling them that they have to Give Up All Cock Right Now and start licking pussy tomorrow! But think about it, ladies. How much of your life, your identity, your very being, revolves around The Male, the acquiring of one, the care and feeding of said, etc? How many of you even know who you would actually be if all of us guys were suddenly gone?

These reactions are all fear reactions, which then contaminate all the thoughts that fellow. If you got all wound up by just reading the title, then stop reading this whole thing and walk away for a few minutes. Calm down, take some deep breaths, try again. If you still get wound up, then just forget it. Go do something else and have a nice day.

As for the rest of you, [and those too stubborn to follow the above advise] let's look at that one word/phrase: out-breeding. Say it with me: Out Breeding. To breed out. Not to murder. Not exterminate. Not even to sterilize. To breed out, plain and simply. More females, less males, over a period of time - generations in fact - until all females and no males. This is a Process, not an Event.

There is some scientific evidence that Nature Herself is doing something along these lines already. All I am proposing here is that we look at the benefits [and I believe the necessity] of actively and consciously implementing this concept as a species. Attacking the idea without even considering its merits is, to say the least, non-scientific, and it certainly invalidates those who use 'science' in their attacks.

First let us look at history. We have tried everything, from monarchies to republics, capitalism to socialism, democracy to dictatorship, and yet we as a species come up the same result every single time: oppression, violence, destruction, and chaos. I say if you want to change the outcome, you have to change the equation.

And the equation is very simple. It can be summed up in four words: “It's A Man's World.”

'But wait', you cry, 'women can be violent, too'. Yes, my Sisters are mad little monkeys much like their Brothers. And, yet, can any of you deny the truth of those four little words? If you raise children in a violent household, you tend to produce violent adults, so, of course, we will get violent women 'in a Man's World'.

Men are not Evil - though I believe Evil to be a human invention - so let us not get into hairsplitting over philosophical issues of Good and Evil. What is at work here is basic biology.

Men and Women are obviously constructed differently. Part of that fundamental difference is behavioral make up. Men and Women are 'wired' differently

The emotional default behavior of The Male is aggressive. He is The Hunter.

The emotional default behavior of The Female is passive. She is The Nurturer.

Of course, that is a broad simplification of our very complex species. Men can nurture and women can hunt and both can be quite effective in those roles. But those are respectively 'secondary' behaviors. We are talking Primary Behaviors here, where men and women go 'in the crunch'.

And that is the key, where each gender goes instinctively.

I am a male, a large, aggressive Alpha Male, what I call a True Man. I don't say that out of ego or bravado, and yet, of course, I do. That is the nature of the beast. The Swinging of The Dick is the most important ritual in the Phallo-Centric Universe. It lets us know who can kill whom without the unpleasant necessity of actually killing...up to a point.

Let me tell you a story in the language of the above ritual.

Years ago I was on the subway in New York City. I was going to see my lawyer. I was angry because a business deal had crashed out of stupidity and greed. (a movie deal, of course)

This little fucker was smoking a cigarette on the subway car. Words were exchanged and he produced a knife...which I took away. The Red Haze of Battle enveloped me and Time. Slowed. Down.

I had him pinned up against the subway car door, my naked fist smashing him in the face over and over and over again. The feeling that flowed through me was palpably erotic. I can still summon that moment with ease.

Afterward, walking through the streets of the Financial District, I felt...'expanded'. And I wanted to FUCK!! Most of the women – and the men, as well – avoided my gaze, though some of the women looked at me with clear lust. I expect I could have taken some of those women into a doorway and they would have happily let me fuck them then and there.

This is the essence of The True Man. We still run this world and if you seriously challenge that, we'll fucking kill you!

'But wait!' you cry, 'there sensitive, gentle men'. Yes, I've met them. Most of them are Beta and therefore slaves. Think about the Sensitive New Age Guys (SNAGs) that you know. The majority of them are passive/aggressive manipulators underneath that 'sweetness'.

There are only a few who like me, men who have been through some kind of nearly fatal process that forced us to become Spiritual and Nurturing or it would have killed us. We are rare and the exception to the rule. And not many males can survive such a passage, fewer still who do not become monsters instead.

True Men have by and large been the primary driving force that has built the civilization in which we live, a civilization that generates much Good, but, at this moment in history, far more Bad. We are at an Adapt or Die turning point.

All my experiences and studies and observations over four decades have led me to a single conclusion: The Male must End. The chains of reproductive necessity that have bound men and women together are on the verge of being broken by genetic science, so the time is ripe.

'But wait!' you cry, 'can we not create a new race of men who are gentle and sensitive?' A race of SNAGs!? By Kali's Black Tongue, NO! That would produce Beta Half Men slaves, their natural aggressiveness subsumed into whining and manipulative backhanding. Not only it that repulsive, it as a half measure and half measures always avail us nothing.

A more honest and rigorous path would be to create a series of real servitor classes, genetically engineered cyborgs using Y-chromosome DNA. Harsh by our social standards, but more genuine and certainly more effective. And of course, how much that is 'harsh by our social standards' takes place every single day around the world? However, that is mere speculation and generations away in case.

The issue at hand is the survival of the species at more than a merely survival level.

So far, no one has presented a solution that will not be undermined by insistent masculine egotism. Think that through. Conceive of your paradigm and then place it into the world. What is the first obstacle that it encounters? Someones political, economic, and/or theological interest. Examine the fundamentals of that opposing interest. If you are really honest, you'll find threatened masculine ego, individually and collectively.

The Male must End. Conscious True Men who are secure in their own masculinity will understand this harsh necessity and steep forward to save the goodness in the civilization that we have built. Some Beta Males will be 'taken in hand' by my Sisters and learn to work their more enlightened Bothers.

Of course, most men will fight, but that is what men do. I keep telling my Sisters over and over again that there is no peaceful coexistence with men, not even upon their own terms. Yes, there are times of truce and yes, some of my Sisters have established peaceful, even loving relationships, with some of my Brothers.

But as one group with another, overall, this is not possible. Men are unable to even live in peaceful coexistence with their own Brothers, much less achieve such a state with beings that they are compelled as a group to consider inferior to them as a group.

My Sisters, you can have the peace of the slave or the peace of the grave, but, believe me when I tell you that the vast majority of my Brothers will never, ever, allow you to have the peace of the autonomous being. The only way you will ever have that is when all of my Brothers are gone.

That is the day I work toward, though I do not expect to see that happen in this lifetime, or in the next one. This will take a few generations. But I have pledged like The Sacred Tara to only reincarnate as a woman from the next life on. And I shall ask all my like-minded Brothers to do the same. This is about Re-Evolution and that is a Process, not an Event.

And so it is....


© 2006 Michael Varian Daly



(Post a new comment)


[info]dorianezra
2007-03-15 03:00 pm UTC (link)
i've been reading your writings for a while and i'm no longer able to discern whether or not the 'temple of pentavalence' was created with humourous intention or if you're actually serious. mind you, if you're serious, i'm going to have to present counterarguments for just about every paragraph above and reveal all the flaws in your logic and all the cognitive jumps you've made in it.

however, the second you run out of arguments in your defense and you start attacking me as a person, you will be revealed to be a fraud (as i strongly suspect that not only is it serious, but you are already aware of all your jumps in your conclusions and are using it effectively to mislead), so i suggest you don't resort to judgements of character where you cannot (as you do not know me) and i will respect you enough to do the same.

now, are you for fucking serious?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

are you for fucking serious?
[info]nebris
2007-03-15 03:41 pm UTC (link)
If you have to ask that question, then you haven't been paying attention.

And I have no need to justify myself or this work to you or operate under your criteria. This work for my Sisters and they shall be the final judges of its worth and utility.

~M~

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: are you for fucking serious?
[info]dorianezra
2007-03-15 03:55 pm UTC (link)
in other words, you're not sure of the truth of your own words? or is it that i'm not worthy because i'm going to ask questions?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: are you for fucking serious?
[info]nebris
2007-03-15 03:59 pm UTC (link)
or maybe because your tone is rather trollish.

~M~

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: are you for fucking serious?
[info]dorianezra
2007-03-15 04:10 pm UTC (link)
you've assumed something about my personality without even once giving a shot at my counterarguments: exactly what i warned you would point you out to be a fraud.

all of you manipulative con artists who prey on the insecurities of women are all the same. you personally attack anyone who you feel threatened by. a man confident in his words can handle even a troll, you are a man who fears being outed and your actions and speech confirms it.

is it the fact that you don't know heads or tails about any Vedic literature and yet use words like Karma and Chakra with confidence out of context? "but that is outside the frame of our discussion". of course it is, the last time i asked you to redefine Karma instead of wielding the authority of the vedas out of context, you said that you didn't care to.

you seem to be an intelligent person, as most manipulators are, and are very well aware of the consequences of someone presenting counterarguments to a 'theory' that is so full of holes.

i thought you were an Alpha Male? can't handle a troll? where's your confidence? where's your lack of fear? i asked you specifically not to make assumptions about anyone's personality because you will look like a fraud for not being able to defend yourself.

now i'll try again with a very small question:

Karma is defined by both the Upanishads and Buddhist Sutras to be a form of 'intentional action' ; that is, action with the intention of accomplishing something. this is the source of Dukkha, and the cause of Samsara. but i'm getting ahead of myself. you've obviously not used Karma in its proper context. praytell, what is the meaning of your version of Karma? surely that disembodied authority from which all your truths come from can help?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Fuck The Vedas
[info]nebris
2007-03-15 04:25 pm UTC (link)
I have no fucking idea who you are, but I can read, ya know. Your first comment is snarky and clearly has an agenda to 'tell me how I'm wrong'. Why should I bother being even handed then?

As for your last paragraph: Most 'truths' are Case Sensitive. This ain't Ancient India. Their Truths and Constructs have shifted with Time and Place. The attempt to force them upon us Here and Now is reactionary cultural bullshit and I ain't buying it!

Karma is simply as it translates: "The results of actions taken." Nothing more. Nothing less. If you'd bothered to read the second part of this below, you'd see that I said, "Of course, I might fail. If so, then that is The Lesson. But part of all Lessons is the need to attain Consciousness and Take Action in accordance with what is Revealed. Goddess Knows, I certainly can do no less than that. And maybe I can do more."

I do not claim to Know It All, which, by inference, you seem to do.

~M~

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Fuck The Vedas
[info]dorianezra
2007-03-15 04:53 pm UTC (link)
personal attacks all over, eh?
but at least we're getting somewhere.

Why should I bother being even handed then?
because you shouldn't state things with authority if you cannot defend them. especially when there are people taking your words for truth.

Their Truths and Constructs have shifted with Time and Place. The attempt to force them upon us Here and Now is reactionary cultural bullshit and I ain't buying it!
nice try. i'm not trying to force truths down your mouth, i'm correcting your usage of cultural words out of context so that the things you say have an air of authority. it's subliminal twirks and twists in the lexicon used for your writings with the purpose of inspiring falsely. kind of like using sex instead of gender for no reason at all other than word association in the reader's mind. oh wait, you've done that.

secondly, you've missed the point of vedic and buddhist literature if you think there are truths contained in them, or even if you think there are truths in the 'here and now', but 'that's not in the frame of our discussion'.

Karma is simply as it translates: "The results of actions taken." Nothing more. Nothing less.
agreed, but sanksrit languages and germanic languages have differences of perspective that don't allow fluent translation. you are right about the 'results of actions taken' but at the same time it also means 'action with the intention of bringing about a result'. it is both the intention and the result at the same time.

now kindly explain how this pertains to control of physical reincarnation instead of just swatting such questions away with an air of pretentiousness. if you're pretentious you should have reason to be, and i want to see your reasons.

If you'd bothered to read the second part of this below, you'd see that I said, "Of course, I might fail. If so, then that is The Lesson. But part of all Lessons is the need to attain Consciousness and Take Action in accordance with what is Revealed. Goddess Knows, I certainly can do no less than that. And maybe I can do more."

I do not claim to Know It All, which, by inference, you seem to do.


i did bother to read the second part, and i understood that bit about failure to be failure in bringing about what it is you intend to bring about. in fact, i don't think it can be understood to be anything other than that. now what does this have to do at all with anything?

and why is it that you get the impression that i, like you, have an obsession with my ego? i simply stated that you use vedic terminology out of context and it makes you look like a dunce. does that make me a better person? no, not at all. now stop being insecure and let us continue.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

not too condescending, are we?
[info]nebris
2007-03-15 05:23 pm UTC (link)
This is all 'bait and switch'. You start off with "i'm going to have to present counterarguments for just about every paragraph above and reveal all the flaws in your logic and all the cognitive jumps you've made in it.", in other words, 'I'm right, you're wrong, try to prove otherwise..tho my mind is already made up cause I'm a Vedic Master! Roowwaaaahh!'

And then use the "however, the second you run out of arguments in your defense and you start attacking me as a person, you will be revealed to be a fraud" gambit, so when I call you upon the above 'set up', you can claim 'a win'.

Well, friend, I ain't buying that either. If I wanted to play that kind of No Win Circle Jerk Mind Fuck, I'd argue Bible verses with fundies.

~M~

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: not too condescending, are we?
[info]dorianezra
2007-03-15 06:40 pm UTC (link)
you've misunderstood my first post and this is why there was a whole bunch of useless post following it. i guess i wasn't clear. i was simply making sure that you wouldn't personally attack me simply because i disagree with your perspective of the world (which happens all the fucking time on the glorious interwebs), which you did.

but fuck it. read my counterarguments and defend yourself is all i ask. i am a skeptic, not an asshole. if you can defend yourself well, you'll win me over.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]magyarok_saman
2007-03-15 05:20 pm UTC (link)
You know, he's right. You're setting yourself up as judge and jury when you really don't have that right. Why don't you have that right? Because nobody of authority has granted you that right.

It's obvious that all this time you've commented in this community, you have made the incorrect assumption that the Temple is nothing but bullshit. Well, time to wake up and realize that nobody would put this much work into something which is pure bullshit.

You are also forgetting that he is no longer alone. I am here, I believe in his work, and I am a very stable, self-sufficient woman.

It's not that uncommon to garner some pretty negative responses from the male half of this species, and yours does clearly point up your inherent fear of extinction, not to mention your fear of losing your Patriarchal-granted "rights".

If you insist on nitpicking terms and such, you may as well save it. Nobody wants to hear your puling in that regard. While nebris is not sticking 100% to the definitions of certain terms, he is using them in a context that is quite understandable, even to the Vedics. He's right - terms morph and change over time. The way he employs them is more akin to the way many Pagans do.

When you can cite your degrees or other proofs of authority which give you the right to be judge and jury - and not only cite, but prove - then perhaps your comment will be regarded as more than mere snarkiness.

L

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]dorianezra
2007-03-15 05:56 pm UTC (link)
You know, he's right. You're setting yourself up as judge and jury when you really don't have that right. Why don't you have that right? Because nobody of authority has granted you that right.
what's this about rights and authority? so basically i'm not allowed to challenge your big bad master because he didn't give me permission to? i'm sorry, do i have oppressed white female written on my forehead? i reserve the right to challenge the validity of anything i wish, and i judge for myself, not for the rest of the world. i am only in control of myself and i am only responsible for myself.

so tell me again why i'm not allowed to challenge what i read? it sounds incredibly familiar to the bible-thumpers' mentality that you all seem so detested with.

You are also forgetting that he is no longer alone. I am here, I believe in his work, and I am a very stable, self-sufficient woman.
and this is supposed to effect me how? i seldom allow personal lives to change my perspective on a viewpoint on the world. if i did, i would be a fucking idiot.

It's not that uncommon to garner some pretty negative responses from the male half of this species, and yours does clearly point up your inherent fear of extinction, not to mention your fear of losing your Patriarchal-granted "rights".
i don't value my own life as it passes, just as everything else. there is no spirit apart from my body, no mind apart from my spirit. fear of extinction isn't something that ever enters my mind, and this would be obvious to anyone who knows me on a personal level and has seen certain reckless things i have done to keep my friends out of trouble. this obsession our time has with death is disturbing. death isn't here right now, when it comes i will see it. i have only life to worry about now, so what is there to fear so long as i am still breathing? and what is there to fear in my not breathing? can you tell me that?

this type of mentality has also lead me to embrace more anarchistic concepts such as lack of a patriarchy, matriarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy (mob rule) and/or plutarchy.

this is why it's more intelligent not to judge people, because you can't be certain of who they are by the words they speak. but feel free to judge my words, for that's what enables more efficient communication. but anyone with martyr syndrome like yourself and your master wouldn't understand that and would get terribly insulted and hence defensive, the way you are demonstrating.

"He's right - terms morph and change over time."

absolutely, but at the time, words such as the ones he exploits were coined specifically for the reason that there are a great deal of ideas that cannot be expressed. so they made up words from pre-existing notions to express themselves. the understanding of the words themselves would free the clutching mind. now what happens if the words are used out of context? a different understanding will come about and hence the original idea is lost. this is partly the reason why zen sprang forth (with its utter lack of any cultural vocabulary at all). and just like that a culture is lost because our understandings of the original texts is diluted.

When you can cite your degrees or other proofs of authority which give you the right to be judge and jury - and not only cite, but prove - then perhaps your comment will be regarded as more than mere snarkiness.
my 'right to judge' is really just me being skeptical, which i am free to do because there are no rights or restrictions imposed on me. i live free to every extent and have freed myself of every social convention of behaviour and thought. i simply asked to examine his writings and point out the obvious flaws (which i see for myself and am allowed to notice and point out) without being attacked personally because i expected it to happen. and it did.

if you want an essay outlining and proving by logic, reason and intuition that one shouldn't have made the conclusional jumps nebris made, i will write one within the week.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nebris
2007-03-15 06:17 pm UTC (link)
"if you want an essay outlining and proving by logic, reason and intuition that one shouldn't have made the conclusional jumps nebris made, i will write one within the week."

Knock yourself out, kid. Use proper caps though please. =)

~M~

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]dorianezra
2007-03-15 06:26 pm UTC (link)
hahaha.

I apologize for my lack of capitals, I generally tend to type fast and don't have much regard for punctuation and grammar. But if it will help, then i suppose i can.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

On being serious
[info]docjeff
2007-03-15 07:07 pm UTC (link)
The seriousness of what he is putting forth should be readily apparent. I, for one, would like to see your counter-arguments.

Your second paragraph here seems to imply that you will only accept debate on this under your own terms or else "you're a fraud". That seems to indicate that you only have a narrow argument base from which to work. Do feel free to prove me wrong on this if you wish.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)
Re: On being serious
[info]docjeff
2007-03-15 07:33 pm UTC (link)
You began the ad hominems yourself. Here you did so indirectly:

however, the second you run out of arguments in your defense and you start attacking me as a person, you will be revealed to be a fraud

And here, not so indirectly:

all of you manipulative con artists who prey on the insecurities of women are all the same.

Yet you don't want him to use them with you. Therefore I believe you are looking for a very narrow argument.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: On being serious
[info]dorianezra
2007-03-15 07:43 pm UTC (link)
there is no such thing as 'indirect ad hominems'. what you pointed out to be 'indirect' is actually me telling him that that is what i will think of him if he resorts to a personal attack without defending himself, which he did when he called me a troll that wasn't worth his time.

but it doesn't matter who started what anymore anyway, nebris has agreed to see my counterarguments, so what's the problem now?

and i'm sorry, but i'm a con artist by profession, i know what words a con uses and i simply wanted to out him. which i am still going to be able to do unless he can defend his beliefs well.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: On being serious
[info]docjeff
2007-03-15 08:03 pm UTC (link)
there is no such thing as 'indirect ad hominems'. what you pointed out to be 'indirect' is actually me telling him that that is what i will think of him if he resorts to a personal attack without defending himself, which he did when he called me a troll that wasn't worth his time.

You assumed that he would reveal himself as a fraud before even debating. And you're right, I should've said "indirect attack" there.

and i'm sorry, but i'm a con artist by profession, i know what words a con uses and i simply wanted to out him. which i am still going to be able to do unless he can defend his beliefs well.

I'm hoping to see a lively debate.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

i'm a con artist by profession
[info]nebris
2007-03-15 11:04 pm UTC (link)
So maybe you see The Con everywhere. I know that can happen real easy. My 'tutor' when I was a teenager was a man named Ponzi, nephew of the original. More than anything else, from him I learned the trap of paranoia. He thought everyone was on The Hustle...and it killed him horribly, literally piece by piece.

I also grew up in the entertainment biz, which is wall-to-wall bullshit, a place where 'trust me' means 'grab your ankles' and ever deal is a crap shoot. My favorite quote from The Biz is, "You know what this business is? It's kill your parents, fuck your friends, and have a nice day." Love "Swimming With Sharks". =)

I've even admitted to running a Long Con. All 'holy men' and 'prophets' throughout history have run a con - except for Jesus and that's only because He's just a literary construct [Saul's Long Con..lol] - they have to, it's the nature of the beast, because you usually have to hustle people into doing anything new or different as they have such a fear of Change, even if it's good for them. Shit, especially if it's good for them! [Evil cons seem always seem easier to pull off. *sigh* Base Instinct, I guess.]

But, while I am very serious about The Work, I don't take myself all that seriously. I'm old enough to know better than to make it about me. So you can't 'out me', dude. I live in the open for that very reason, all my flaws and foibles plain to see and I regularly share them when I find new ones.

Anyway, these beliefs play well with the Target Demographic, so if I don't convince you...*shrug* we'll be fine. We're still in the 'blah blah blah' talking about talking about it phase. Once we move into the Action Phase, most of what our critics say can be safely ignored. And the Action Phase is going to be spectacular. Trust me. lol

~M~

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: On being serious
[info]dorianezra
2007-03-15 07:17 pm UTC (link)
if you mean to say that me not allowing ad hominems is a 'narrow argument base' then you should probably look up the various types of argument fallacies and see how many times ad hominems ruin a perfectly good exchange of ideas on the internet.

resorting to ad hominems immediately without engaging in debate generally means (in my experience) the person who postulated the idea is fraudulous and doesn't believe their own words.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: On being serious
[info]docjeff
2007-03-15 07:35 pm UTC (link)
That word is fraudulent not fraudulous. And, again, you started the ad hominems yourself. So does this mean you are fraudulent in your intention here?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…