A New World Order

So ... with all that said and done - we come back to one of the basic Forms of the message: Cooperation. The thing is, that if we aren't united in what we're trying to do, we're basically ripping ourselves apart. It's like ... if we're trying to pull a Truck out of the mud, it's kind of counter-productive to turn it into a game of Tug-of-War. If we're focusing on this, we're bypassing a whole lot of stuff that can be, or is to be said about the matter at hand. The bigger picture as it were.
Well, naturally there's still the question of who gets to say what - and that of course is why we're seemingly caught up in this perpetual chaos that prevents us from doing reasonable politics. Sort of. I mean, I'd say that the politics of the immediate past haven't been all that bad. Which sure is where people come in throwing around terms such as incompetence and corruption; And if you know me, you know that I try to not entertain that discussion very much. Sure: "Where we are at today" is both, good AND bad. But overall: Democracy and Globalization has done some real good. I mean, Hong Kong might not be a perfect example, but it's kind of as good as it gets. Due to democracy and globalization, a sentiment of "Hong Kongian independence" found great resonance with "the people". However, on the other hand we may certainly question whether or not Hong Kong is actually independent. I mean, it isn't. It was passed from one dominion into another - and in that regard we may think about which one is better.

Uhm ... so yea. Iron mixed with Clay - it would seem.
The great thing about Democracy is, that the general sentiment of what a Government is supposed to do has shifted towards civic proliferation. Rather than national proliferation. And while the latter can encompass the former, the same is true the other way around.


Anyway. Sorry my rambling.
My point being, that things have sort of been generally fine while everyone agreed that Democracy is good; Given that everyone is sort of encouraged to act in everyone's best interest. At the very least our elected leaders. And for the one or the other selfish interest, there's the one or the other dent in the system. And the more we've forgotten; or were led astray from; these "true democratic values", the more have selfish principles corroded our democracies.
And in part I blame art and media for that. Though they sure have only been conductors for the greater evil among us. Catalysts. For, as art and media thrives more as it speaks to the greater "demographic" - there's something like "trend manipulation". Maybe we can't really notice it, but ... we can notice the effects when looking at our values. While once we favored heroes, nowadays we favor "badasses". While once we favored prudence, now we favor "YOLO". While once it used to be common sense that being a goodie-two-shoes is good, now it's like ... lame or uncool or whatever. Probably because being actually good doesn't give all that many badassery points.

And I don't say that it's as simple as ... some bad actors disproportionally pushing "bad fiction". Social dynamics also factor in. I mean, a youth that grows up without a clear idea of what this "politics thing" is all about clearly favors rebellion; For rebellion is easier to comprehend since it's usually about a handful of values. Most of which might even just be opposition to some vague injustice, oppression or personality. The thing within, I think, is that a person doing the right thing ... has become less and less relatable. Or even comprehensible. Though it'd say that that's mostly a US of A thing.
I mean, we have to take into consideration, that the average unlucky person of the EU is still very well taken care of - while an unlucky person in the US of A is pretty much fucked. So does their relationship with society and money eventually perhaps even necessitate an endorsement of hustle culture - whereas over here it comes with a huge amount of LARPing. (LARP: Live Action Role Play)

I'd argue, that the LARPing takes hold as the affected people learn to identify with those US of Badasses - producing a somewhat dissonant relationship with the reality around them. Because nobody teaches them, perhaps due to a lack of certain things, "the ways of society" (outside of that distant abstract called "the system and politics") - they are bound to turn inward and find a personal, emotional resolve. And yea, in extreme cases that would be a recognizable psychosis. Because ... not much if anything about it is actually real.
In the US of A however - "where the real sauce is made" - the reality is different. I don't question that the story of "the person who tries to do good but gets fucked by the system" is a somewhat common thing that happens over there. I mean, just trying to go to college might do that for you.
Or, sure ... the country voted democrat, but the Surpreme Court somehow ended up stacked against that and they don't seem to act in the spirit of democracy. Where's like ... the redemption in that?
I can imagine, partly from experience, that life sucks if what you get is the opposite of what you fought for.


Yea ... hmm. OK, that whole bypassing thing ... .
Cooperation ...

More to the point: "We" need to agree upon where to pull things. And therefore is this kind of unity a central aspect of Christianity. I mean, for all that can be said about this - yet - the big question is: Where are YOU going to find the unity YOU seek? Or need. Or want. Because that's the end-all-be-all of that narrative. For as long as we "let" people represent different, possibly contradicting ideals - we're going to be caught up in it. And while there's probably no way to change that - the onus is on you to ... "throw in your piece".

So, yea. Christianity or by extension me - are yet another player that doesn't particularly care to cooperate with ... at least certain positions. That's the cost of righteousness - and the taking of a hard stance even credits us some Badass points I reckon.

Part 2

So, what then separates Religion from Politics is that Religion can effectively mandate things that one is supposed to adhere to regardless of their opinions. Like science, but ... well. I mean, it should be exactly like science - as ... when we take Religion seriously we want to do the right thing and that should most certainly have a reasonable explanation behind it. More reasonable than just reasonable. And similarly is there an upper thing where the knowledge is at and a lower thing where things have to be more or less just taken at face value.
The thing being, that in religion there is less space for opinion. But ... to us, in our current situation, that's not really a good thing.

But because I'm at least of some religious significance, I'm like the best we got.
And as for me ... well. There's this thing ... where, there are games - like team-building exercises - where within any group some structure, or individuals, of leadership emerge. And in those games, I'm usually one of those. I personally prefer to let other people take control - and if I agree with them I support them; If I disagree I voice that; And if nothing is happening I try to take the lead.
And so ... "that's" me.
Thereby however ... I've made the experience that I'm bad at leadership. For some reason. It's like ... people don't listen to me. They'll engage with me - but I have problems pulling people in ... is the right way to put it, I suppose. It's like ... I NEED people to take control; Someone people will listen to, so that my contribution can be of value ... or something.

In this instance, I suppose I can try to set a few guidelines. Like, things that I think should be incontrovertibly adhered to. Like, I suppose, a political agenda. You might agree or not - but you should see it as a religious thing and not a political thing. Therefore it might sometimes not be easy or even immediately possible to follow through; But the more we collectively "get" where things should be going, the easier it will be.


[2024.08.02]

Part 3

Buuut ... I don't think we're there yet. If ever.
I mean ... there's a few sides to this and that's jamming my system right now.

For once I don't think we're in a place right now where my message is being heard properly. To say, that while I'm meaning to respond to what I think, or see/feel, is going on, I think I'm trying to reach beyond my range. And I believe that in due time, when things have cleared up, the truth of how self-understood I think the things I'm trying to say are starts to shine like ... on its own.

For here, my thinking was on immigration. How I felt that this conversation doesn't really add anything useful, while instead holding us back. I mean to say, that one reason why fascistic groups have grown as they have, is because they don't have any proper solutions. So in the sense that they don't have any because there are none. I mean, if you're a politician and concerned of a thing, it is your job to sit back and think about it - so that then you can bring something to the table that we can think about and possibly vote for. But if instead you just voice your concern, like ... "immigrant bad", you're doing absolutely nothing of value. I mean, I hate to be more fair here because there's quite a lot of things that I've been somewhat unfair to that I would have to be fair to first.

Turns out however, that with the right mind we can get to those concerns - in a good way. Or a reasonable one. But if you're being an uncooperative dipshit ... you're making it difficult if not impossible to get there. But maybe I'm being unfair because the issue is just ... big. Too big, as in ... way over everyone's heads. But ... if we start to properly think about a global something new - we're setting a stage for a looooot of these issues. And the reason why those issues seem out of reach is because they're not squarely any one singular government's responsibility. It can't be, because it would there and then have to assume, or require, various degrees of cooperation.
And that it should somehow be so difficult to set that stage ... that's like ... the problem.

And yea. I mean - here's like the important bit: If you want to do good - in this current day and age where you're seemingly removed from doing anything of significance while most if not everything around you is generally OK or in the gray enough so you're not required to "be a hero" or so - pay attention to politics and vote right!
And noo ... I don't believe that this is much of a "both sides" type of situation. We can sure entertain the idea that technically if you're voting for a fascist, that that doesn't make you a fascist too. After all ... it's like complicated and who knows, right? But ... if you're voting for something just because it touches the darkness within you ... well ... you lost to that darkness. And that's certainly not good!

Or could it just be that you dislike Liberals and good people so much that you would HAAAAATE it SOOOOO much to even just once agree with them, or say - even - that they were right after all?

So, in case it needs to be said: Look inside you and let go of the hate; Then the darkness will start crumbling from your eyes and you'll start to see more clearly!
And ... don't ... DON'T ... stop because you think to remove the splinter in "thine brother's eye" - don't make that a justification for keeping the beam that is in yours!
Like ... am I not guilty of the same bla dee bla? Maybe I am. But maybe I'm also just quoting the Bible and you taking issue with that as you feel like I'm addressing you in particular are is like why the verse exists in the first place. Rinse and repeat. Soon enough I'll have left this point behind me - done my part again and again - while you ... well ... what?


So, whatever the case. That's one side of it. The 'now' side, the "small picture". That immigrant stuff. And there's more. But if I were to be too concerned of these things, I'd ... I mean, it'd be kind of insulting to the people out there that are really trying! Or want to be a part of it.
And the big picture - well, I don't think I need to tell you ... . Or more so, I shouldn't make it my responsibility to more or less implicitly tell you where to go.
I mean ... it's like a slim yet blurry line - I think.
Sure, I should share my thoughts and thus do my part to the whole of human evolution - as should everyone - but we also should know when and were to stop. This is like ... a paradoxical thing about human existence. We could call it "the dance with the snake". Not the devil-snake, but ... I suppose ... the-devil-in-the-detail-snake. Or simply, a play with the fire; While we're all pretty much lit. So, we can't remove ourselves from the game; And yet have to try to not burn everything to the ground.

And ... that's not only about what I think is or isn't necessary or important or so - but also about how I'm taxing myself with this or that. And I think that's like ... the more advanced stuff. So, when you're firm enough in your identity, are stable and balanced - you can take that as a measurement for what you can or cannot do with your time. And here the thing with stress is that we can't avoid it - sometimes we have to exhaust ourselves more than other times - but generally ... we shouldn't do too much of it. It's ... another dance with the snake.

Part 4

I mean ... I'll go out of my way to say things in more words that I have to. Maybe making them more complicated; But also certainly to try and make it about something else. And that I suppose mainly to control the narrative in as far as I'm responsible for my part to it.
Like, I could also just say - or "shit"(tweet) - "Stop talking about immigrants (I'm sick of hearing it) and start talking about fixing the planet" - which is kind of what this is all about; And maybe in a different world that'd be enough. But I ... in this context ... don't want to take on the shoes of being that kind of ... person that has to say everything.

And that's just for how I feel. When I'm getting on here to write something, I in some way feel like I must. That there's a responsibility or obligation I have that encompasses that. And if I were to reduce that to the barest minimum, most obvious and lazy stuff ... I'd feel bad about it.
And that's also for you.


So, I'm not trying to remove myself or dodge responsibility. And that whether or not I do have sound reason to even assume I have any.
The thing though is that there are a whole lot of self-righteous freaks and weirdos out there - that try to sound like they're on the right side of history but if one thing has gotten more and more obvious the past decade, it's that they're full of shit.

I mean ... it's actually rather simple.
So, let's talk about

Platforms

If you're coming from a Platform that has established its identity as being concerned of just causes, proliferating them and fighting the good fight - I won't be surprised to hear you bring righteousness up as a concern. If you however come from a platform that has established its identity as one of filling the pockets of the rich, ripping off the poor, deception and lies - I don't think your opinions on righteousness are serious!

It's funny to me how US republicans try to sell themselves as a totally not racist but super inclusive political group - while all they ever talk about is how foreigners are lesser-than and how everyone that's different to them has get removed ... somehow.
In germany it's a bit more complicated. I mean, I'm concerned of the Planet and so I voted the Green party last time. That's been their whole shtick the whole time - there's no better option if I'm down with that - and generally the complaints I hear are of absolutely no substance to me. That's my pick, however, 'against' the AfD - which ... I suppose stands for different things depending on whom you're asking. And that I don't have a real idea of what's in their program nor what it is they openly advocate for is I suppose part of their strategy. What I know is that they're the party of anti-progressive rhetoric; While most of their political profile - as it appears to me - is pretty much a carbon copy of what the US republicans have been doing.

And ... the reality - it has to be pointed out - is that these parties ... US republicans, AfD, Russia, ... Israel ..., we shouldn't see them as ... these isolated groups. I mean, we can try to look at what the AfD for instance says it wants - but in some way that strikes me as incredibly naive and I have reasons to be cautious of such naivety. I mean, I'm sure that every political group has no perfect track record; Parsing for corruption and incompetence; So - that's good for the AfD because nobody wants to let them play with the rest. No track record is good, right?
I mean, let's start with YouTube. I suppose it's cringe these days to watch YouTube ... but take whatever next cringe Streaming platform or video sharing service you like, same thing. There are bullshit artists on those platforms and somehow, "miraculously", they all flock towards the same political groups. And that is just one layer of society that does that. Of many ... that do that.

Talking of conspiracy theorists, science deniers, pedophiles, rapists, war criminals, wannabe war criminals and all. Take all the worse that humanity has to offer - split into different groups - and all those groups do the exact same thing. Flocking towards the very same political groups.
And on the other side there are people who watch their content or have otherwise wound up in one of their webs. Be it that it's an immature asshole that thinks it's cool when children are getting nuked, or that having a texican accent while holding an AR-15 is the pinnacle of manliness, or that burning gasoline for no other reason but to piss off the libs is based - and they're then getting extremely pissy when they're told that they're assholes and in support of fascists because like "you so cereals bro! Chillax! It's just a joke!".


And so, from this topic we get to the next:

Delusions

But first ... I need a smoke.

Part 5

So, yesterday before I was falling asleep I had to parse through something on the internet that's giving me a headache; And so I was explaining the "horrors" of 'power scaling' to the John Steward in my head.
And the thing there is, that these discussions are filled with delusional people.

So, what is a delusion? To me it's a belief built on one or more assumptions that are incorrect. I suppose that's also just called "being wrong" - and so more accurately: It's being "so wrong" you've convinced yourself it's right. And the issue isn't necessarily that you've convinced yourself that Character X is stronger than Character Y, but WHY.

So, from my Gnostic/Esoteric standpoint, a delusion is a matter of having "faulty nodes". And this can range from benign (which we all suffer in some form, I'd argue) to severe.
So, our individual world-view is made up of thoughts, insights and experiences. They inform how we act; And that even apart from making decisions. It's in our day to day.
Say - one day you learned that fire is hot. The experience is strong, it sinks into your subconscious; And from there on you accurately assume that touching fire causes pain.
Well ... sort-of accurately. Like ... you might get told that fire is dangerous and to not play with it; And it makes a whole lot of sense. But as you get older you might realize that fire doesn't always burn you - and that it's even more difficult to light certain things ablaze than you originally assumed. So you might then become reckless and confirm once again why people are weary of it.

Hereby, we wouldn't really talk of delusions or being delusional. You might be too cautious or not cautious enough - in general that's just life. If you convinced yourself however that fire is the gateway to heaven and that the only way to salvation is to burn yourself to a crisp ... then we'd be talking of one.
So, a faulty assumption that informs a world-view.
Or is it faulty? Can we know?
I mean, I suppose that people start to call it a delusion once society should take note of it; Because someone is getting closer to doing something stupid. Delusion is then just the word for someone that's down one such path. Here the thing is that our caution from fire is very well founded and warranted. And a delusional belief can then make you disregard that, based on nothing but your own thinking.


Skip to the next part if you don't care about Power Scaling. With power scaling the thing is that ... it's fictional Characters we're talking about and so there isn't much in terms of ... reality checks. But still there are general frameworks and guidelines that can be used to having a discussion. And that's how I this time come back around to the Goku versus Superman thing.
But first maybe: "The Batman framework". To me, in my head, "the Batman Framework" is a meme - where the premise is that Batman can solo everyone in the entire Universe of existence ... 'with enough prep-time'. Batman and the concept of prep-time go together like matter and atoms - and with it, Batman essentially turns into a Dark-Souls dungeon of Fuck You @whatsoever.

Batman with prep-time is so strong, that it weakens Superman to the point where his superhuman abilities are over-ridden in favor of the Batman. Like ... Superman should be able to laser him from a distance or fly so fast that the physics do the rest, throw a building at him or whatever - but then again, that's Superman. Superman is BS and so is his weakness. It only makes sense when carefully crafted - with consideration - and that doesn't seem what Superman-stans think Superman is all about.
Or is it armchair Superman stans?

But so the point is that the story usually follows its own rules - and the rest has to somehow ... adjust. And I suppose that's a problem that Akira Toriyama faced near the end of Dragonball Z, because realistically speaking the Power Levels were so far beyond good and evil ... the Final Battle couldn't be realistically resolved that way.

But instead then of making it a Superman vs Goku thing, let's replace Superman with Saitama (the One Punch Man). I'm not familiar with it, but the whole shtick of Saitama obviously happens to be that he finishes every battle with a single punch. And by that Logic, he'd also beat Goku with a single punch. And there goes my issue: There are a lot of things that speak for Goku's power - so you can establish a framework for that. And a realistic conflict between any two fictional Characters would have to account for that. And when done poorly, it's effectively like Character assassination.
So, if you were to just go and said: "But one Punch Man" - that's the same as saying Batman+prep-time.
Like, yea. Magic exists in the Dragonball Universe so Batman might just find a way to revive every Saiyan in history, help them go Super-Saiyan ... and that's how Batman would save the day if he had to stop a Goku gone Majin-mad.
And then it all depends on what you think makes a Super-Saiyan. Like, I'd say that the transformation into a Super-Saiyan requires a certain Character development that would prevent them from fighting for unjust causes. Not because the power vanished - but because they wouldn't. And accounting for that would add a layer of consistency to the portrayal of what a Super-Saiyan is. And so if the Story is a Death Battle - with explicitly no antagonizing party - the Super-Saiyan also fights as if they had been antagonized ... yet.


So ... as for the topic, this isn't to argue who would be stronger - per se. It's that there are a lot of things to be considered - and some of them more elusive than others.

Part 6

The serious side of this ... takes us "back" to the matter of toxic masculinity. And that not in terms of what crazy feminists claim it is, but what stable men agree with it is. And yea, if you disregard it in its entirely, you're not a stable man - but you're delusional!

So, what other way is there to say it?
So - recently I stumbled upon a post asking for who'd win between these four: Doomslayer, Kratos, Masterchief and Samus. Right away there seemed to be a huge consensus that poor Masterchief (the protagonist from Halo) would be in way beyond his paygrade. Doomslayer: A mythical warrior on a one-man war against the Army of Hell. Kratos: A godlike being with anger issues. Samus: A woman with the power of mythical Sci-Fi aliens.

And so ... Samus, by the general way the conversations were going, wouldn't stand a chance against Kratos or Doomslayer. My issue here isn't with ... whether or not that's the case. It's more like: Nobody would stop to consider how many hits any one of them could tank from any one particular moster they'd face on the regular. Nobody would stop to consider, that Samus can literally obliterate matter by just running through it. What everyone - or what felt like everyone - was on about, was the Pathos of their individual journey. So, the Doomslayer being quasi a literal God fighting their way through literal (Sci-Fi) Hell. Or Kratos the (Demi?)God and literal God-Slayer.
And I might not have latched on to this as an example here, if I hadn't seen this very same trend also outside of such conversations.

It's difficult to call it a form of self-aggrandizement because I'm sure none of the people arguing there is even remotely close to any one of those protagonists. But there's certainly a power fantasy that those people are trying to satisfy - and so they identify with those Characters in ways that ... may at times make such claims a function of self-aggrandizement.


It's similar to "transvestigators". I mean, if toxic masculinity is a thing that has very strong misogynistic tendencies (a toxic male doesn't have to be consciously misogynistic to be very, very misogynistic) - there's the equivalent for that for the next weaker gender-profile: "NGC"s. In quotation marks because I'll count any trans person into that for the sake of argument.
And it's not merely the act of being an asshole to a given person directly; But the 'ethos' that develops around that mode of behavior.

It might go a little some like: Person accuses Cis-Woman of being trans. Turns out Cis-Woman isn't trans. Person finds new reasons to support their position anyway.
I mean, two of the three "trans people" that have now gained infamy in sports - are actual trans people. All of them are women. There are two more cases of trans women winning in a sport that I know of; And the "general consensus" of who may and may not participate in 'women' sports is probably just crafted by a bunch of basement dwellers that have never played a sport in their life. Might as well be! Those and Joe "Monke" Rogan I assume.

I mean, since people have complained about Trans women in women sports, the whole topic of intersex people that were identified female at birth has all of a sudden become controversial. And the "discussion" is toxic because the people who are most adamant about it are all trying to hurt trans people. Or rather: Protect the Women. But apart from the few women that felt personally offended by losing to a trans woman, I'm under the impression that there are at least as many female athletes that don't care! It's not like ... every trans-woman is like Marisa while every cis-woman is like Lily. I'd think - because science - they're usually of roughly the same build.


And yea, sure. There might be points that they latch onto that aren't necessarily wrong. But if we for sake of argument held, that those truths are neglible - they'd still insist because their delusional minds prevent them from thinking rationally about the issue.
So, all of a sudden people demand - or argue with utmost authoritative posture - that women that happen to have XY chromosomes shouldn't be allowed to participate in woman sports because somehow XY makes them 'men'. And it wouldn't matter how often you repeated the "assigned female at birth" part and all the reasons why they have thus far, and that without issue, walked the earth as a woman - because all of a sudden THEY insist it ain't so. And the fact that that's like demanding to remove men with genetic advantages from men sports probably doesn't even register.


And overall, the situation is like ... they get incredibly upset over a bread-crum that's still on the table, red-from-anger faced shouting down some wee person over it, while their best friend is currently shitting into the kitchen sink.

So, again: Toxic masculinity doesn't mean that masculinity in and of itself is toxic, it is to identify a form of masculinity (or: 'so called masculinity') that happens to be toxic.


And that's because delusions. So, faulty nodes sitting somewhere no matter how deep in someone's world-view that bars them from having a healthy relationship with the world at large. Or however we want to phrase out the nuances here.

Part 7

I mean, it's funny. I was thinking of writing something; And then the concept of the Patriarchy made me realize that the conversation seems to have shifted. I mean, I remember that I was upset about that narrative because it made me, back then, feel like all AMAB people were part of some secret cabal shadow group that ruled the world. Since I've come out and transitioned however, that changed. Now it's apparently trans-people that are all part of some secret shadow cabal that somehow rule the world. So, I guess - when in doubt - I identify as a Gundam or Entrepid Class (for the lack of a better model right now) Starship. Hmm ... no, a Warp Powered Deathwing (27 warp cores minimum).
Hmm ... that still makes me trans, doesn't it?

Anyway.
The concept of the Patriarchy still exists. It is an abstract term to describe this abstract of systemic oppression that emanates from this abstract concept of toxic masculinity. I would here call it a delusional state of mind that is conditioned to belittle any and all women - including trans-women and also trans-men for that little bit of extra feminity that sets them apart from cis-men; But I assume that's mostly just because they have to be upset about trans-people in general for consistency's sake/appearance; Because somehow they seem to be only capable of yielding self-worth from women sucking up to their whims.

Suddenly Feminism

But yea ... female self-determination is a thing that also moves trans-women. And I'd go even further. It's not female as in woman, but female as in feminine; In a way that affects all people.
Where masculinity is the stoic, immovable object - femininity is the considerate, ever changing sea.

And ... that's a neat lens to look through, always. Even so at the Bible. I mean, if you think that the Bible - so, speaking to Christians AND Muslims - is this book that requires stoic, immutable adherance to the written word, you're wrong! And the Quran certainly also instructs us to be considerate of that.

I mean, Christ's message is all about Change. You might not read 'repentance' like that; But conversely is stubbornness (and by virtue of that: Pride) a negative; Safe for one exception (me). And even there it's not explicitly positive; But more accurately a tolerated negative, malleable enough to be effectively a positive.

And if you're not sure if these claims are correct, you're not educated enough to argue that they're not!
It shouldn't surprise you however if they turn out to be correct, because I'm the chosen one of God; So why wouldn't my message be consistent with His?


And here's the thing: What if the deepest mystery of the Holy Scriptures was a Feminist revelation?
How would you know? How would "we" - humanity at large - be even capable of unlocking that mystery? How, if the dominant structures are so opposed to the very concepts entailed thereby, that the very notion of it would be outrightly dismissed as heretical if not blasphemous?

Like: "It sure is a fun theory, obviously [smirks] conceived by a feeble fem-brained intellect [mwhua mhua]; But certainly lacks any merit says I who doesn't have to back any claim up with anything [opens breast pockets (Southpark Reference)]".

Yet so, here's another thing: The problem portrayed hereby - this thing that we could call "bigoted dismissal of facts" - that's more obviously a theme of the holy scriptures. For "some weird reason" however, it doesn't apply to "female opinions" - or does it?
And that's like ... how deep the rabbit hole goes. That feminism is more removed from comprehension than all the most vile shit that mankind might ever do. Well, that is ... until trans-people started to have rights in the public domain.

Part 8

The Patriarchy needs to go!
The thing is, I'm curious. If my theories are correct, women are better at organizing. And that informs my opinion, that in a nationalistic setting we do need strong men to make sure ... err ... "the thing" is safe. But we also need wise men that don't foolishly jeaopardize it. And Hitler was no wise man! And we should learn from that. I am however under the impression that a bunch of people took the wrong lessons. And still they don't seem to be capable of keeping their hands away from possibly triggering another world war.

And at the end of the day, they still come back to the same old thing - having seemingly learned nothing. And that's because hate isn't one of the smartest motivations.

Now, that doesn't mean that we need a Matriarchy. But we need to find balance.


The story of feminism is well captured by the Character of Lilith. It's a story that seems to value all the worse aspects of the human mind; And yet, the very concept of justice repeatedly comes back to lend from them. Rebellion and self-determination, disobedience and spitefulness. Within the whimsical structure of masculine authoritarianism, these are the acids that threaten it's very foundation; And still it insists - though usually cloaked behind the appearances of virtue - on the very same to protect itself.

And time and time again have the weak suffered at the hands of the mighty. An eye for an eye gets called upon whenever one feels wronged; And yet it never gets considered prior to wronging others. But perhaps to find an excuse that then takes far more than just an eye for an eye.

To the one side man then cries about the injustices of God - while on the other demanding female subservience as a divine mandate. On the one they insist that their responsibility is to know better than God, on the other they forbid women to object to their posturing.
The duality of sex is therein only said to be complementary when it is the woman that has to complement the man; And hierarchical nonetheless. The woman doesn't get to have an opinion on the man's attempt to court her, while his standards may be ever-shifting when it comes to her pleasing him.

Life is farcical because these crooked conditions have throughout the time been bent more and more out of shape as they had to twist and turn to accommodate those lusting for power.


Ultimate power - an unattainable dream held the feeble masculine mind; Justice only to their own insecurities, yet lacking the true virtues of righteousness. It seems intrinsical to the masculine world, that things have to shift and bend to their liking; And yet they mustn't for the appearances of rationality.

They pillage and they rape, they celebrate disrespect and wastefulness, oppress the subservient and worship ignorance; But somehow demand we call that justice. They insist on the rule of law while handing the scales to bloated thugs; Demand we listen to those speaking to us with canes; And insist on our gratitude for upholding this order.


If you object, they'll tell you the real problem is another victim of theirs - and if you're making sense they'll call you crazy. They ask us to understand that they know because they know; And that when they didn't it's obviously our fault.
It is God who gave us this world to rule upon - except for YOU and I it would seem; Because that would actually make sense.
"Be fertile and multiply" it is said - but if they don't like it, it's called degeneracy.
And then they come and ask you to multiply with them - to give your daughters into their filthy hands while castrating your sons - calling it natural and God's will.


It is a false God that they worship; And its idols take many shapes. It isn't the true God that Lilith defied - but this crooked monster that has been established in His place.
An idol that lulls men into compliance and asks women to accept their role as victims.
An idol that teaches men they can be as disgusting as they want; And women to take pride in sucking up to what is asked of them.


And that Lilith is somehow said to be a part of it is a travesty if there ever was one.

Part 9

So, listen and learn, see and understand (and if you do not see, your a not-see), that this is the den from which Fascism crawls forth. The beast that has been slain and was as dead and yet was not. The ugly beast that that feeds on human selfishness; That grows and grows, never to be sated.
It asks you to give up everything to its guts, your blood, sweat and tears; Just so that the few can live in luxury beyond imagination while pursuing their most wicked desires.

It drowns us in filth so we can't burn down our cages; And yet starves us of water so we keep asking for more.

But woe and behold ... there is a fire that cannot be extuinguished.

The Flame of the Dark Phoenix

Say then, you've digested all this and yet fail to see where Fascism and Hatred intersect. Say you're a fascist, not because of hatred, but a sense of order and born from it a frustration over the chaos that seems to consume the world. So you would take it upon yourself to join ranks with "the dark Lord", ready to strap a phosphorus tank to your back to torch the planes, the mountains and valleys. Phosphorus ... that unbeknownst to you, is a precious substance - used to fertilize the lands. Maybe enough corpses can do the same?

At any rate would you then come to see how the tragedies of World War 2 could have happened; You yourself, tainted by a dark deathly grey - bereft of grace - ready to march with the Armies of Doom.

Devoid of Love, it isn't hatred you must seek; But Love you must find. The kindling, at any rate - that ignites the flame of graceful justice; A flame that shines with a spleandour scorned by the jealous eyes of the beast.

It will guide you to salvation; And be it the one awaiting beyond the pearly gates if all else fails.

It may seem weak; At first for sure - as its strength is that of your own. It may seem weak; Easily consumed by the temptations of injustice - and yet it is the key to bring about what it alone can illuminate.
It isn't a gift - but a reality; Yet exhaustable within the human mangle.
So take note, that there is a fuel that can maintain it within even the darkest of souls.


Can I get an Amen?