There is a festering cesspit growing like a post modernist cancer on the fringes of our crumbling society. This smoldering disease is the concentrated essence of all that is weak, detestable, impotent, and irrational about the human species concentrated into one viral organism of nihilistic decay. I speak to you of the Gender Nihilists.
The Gender Nihilists, through an accident of inferior genetic stock, liberal petite bourgeoisie upbringing, and entirely too much exposure to radical feminist literature have literally managed to sodomize themselves with a gender neutral “phallus” of pure slave morality. To the Gender Nihilist’s delicate and sensitive constitution, the mere existence of generalized “norms” regarding human preferences and interests based on their sexual orientation is Oppression. The scientific FACT that human beings don’t conform to their insanely naive concept of tabula rasa drives them into a pique of righteous indignation. Just the merest glimmer of possibility that their non-mainstream sexual orientations and preferences might be seen as a “deviation from the norm” or an “eccentricity” instantly offends, hurts, and marginalizes these defective little untermenschen. Why the very unmitigated GALL of the universe to put them in a position where they might feel inferior to someone!
There is perhaps nothing more detestable and toxic in present day political discourse than the unwarranted arrogance and snarky attitude displayed by conventional liberals thoroughly convinced that their oh so enlightened social views are based on science. Apparently passing high school biology, watching Carl Sagan’s Cosmos and thumbing various Neil Degrasse Tyson memes on Facebook has lead these intellectual nobodies to believe that they are qualified to speak with authority on topics ranging from biological evolution to the proper application of the scientific method. Unsurprisingly the conclusion they draw from all this scientific expertise is that non-liberal political and social views are unscientific. What a shocker.
The hysterically pathetic irony of this world view is the blatant religiosity of it. Countless debates with “scientific” minded liberals and an examination of their beliefs have made it evident that this system of thought contains a soft, nuggety core of pure theology masquerading as “science” for outside observers. This illusion of intellectual authority is further reinforced by the adoption of a pedestrian form of “scientific atheism” that allows these liberals to fancy themselves as over and above those stupid Creationists. While theist notions of “science” such as intelligent design may be laughable, this paucity of intellectual credence does not work to elevate non-religious science by default. As we will examine, supposedly non-religious science is still warped by confirmation bias emanating from a clearly defined ideology that presupposes certain premises. Unlike most scientific methods of inquiry, liberal scientism starts with certain a priori universal assumptions, akin to religious values for atheistic liberals, which are then “proven” through deductive reasoning rather than inductive science.
What are these assumptions? Why, they are the same old spooks that we have been getting from self-styled progressives for the last century or so.
“The first Kings were Fathers of Families.” – Patriarcha, Sir Robert Filmer (1680)
You’re doing it wrong.
As the diannihilect swept past for another spiraling lap, what was forgotten became profound once again.
In world of ceaseless and senseless deconstruction, it is both surprising and not surprising that a male’s innate ability to socialize with other humans has been repackaged and mythologized by spurious and slimy men as “game.”
Apparently, being able to talk to a woman without seeming a pathetic child needing mommy’s kiss for his little boo-boo is pivotal towards achieving Man’s biological goal. Apparently a boy must become a Man if he desires the company of a female in any pleasing capacity. Whodathunkit?
Anti-natalism is based on the simple concept that reproduction brings humans into the world, and humans will suffer and die, ergo, “breeding” is ethically evil in all respects. We’re not going to go into how this system trips all over the Naturalistic Fallacy with evolutionary ethical claims or go full abstract into how positing that suffering is evil requires you to believe in a metaphysical ethics system in the first place. Instead, let’s hoist anti-natalism with its own petard.
By asserting that we *should* prevent suffering, and that humans suffer and cause ecological “damage”, the anti-natalists and voluntary human extinction crowd are being incredibly short-sighted. They never actually seem to be conscious of what happens AFTER humans voluntarily vanish from the planet, which seems strange since most of them have probably read Daniel Quinn’s “Ishmael” at least once. Essentially these childlike intellectually bankrupt nihilists just assume that with no humans, the earth goes back to being a verdant Eden-like paradise, free of the nastiness of homo sapiens putting down shopping malls and strip mining everything. The actual reality is, the earth will go back to remaining a paradise right up until the NEXT species in line achieves sentience, then you’re right back on track for more suffering, ecological damage, and internecine warfare among whichever animal species figures out written language first.
While in the western world faith in God has long since been sent to the graveyard, faith in God’s concept of ethics and morality still haunt the human mind. Despite the victory of existentialism and the words of philosophers like Nietszche and Stirner finally shattering the fragile glass of moral realism, in actual political thought these philosophical advancements have remained in their infancy. Commoners still bray like donkeys about “Natural Rights” and “Social Justice” as if these concepts have the slightest shred of validity. Even with the advancement of moral non-cognitivism and the gradual shift of non-theist philosophers from any sort interest in discovering the One True Moral Order Hanging There Out In Space, there is still earnest discussion, even among ATHEISTS about the question of ethics.
The history of egoism is of course tied to Max Stirner, who in turn provided the basis for existentialism. Nietzsche’s contributions further advanced existentialism into the mainstream where it eventually coalesced into a more popular philosophy in the hands of writers like Jean Paul Sartre. Existentialism is essentially the Western acceptance of the Zen Buddhist position that “The Great Truth is that There is No Great Truth”. Western thought has merely just now caught up to something eastern thinkers and monks have known for quite some time, which is that ethics, morality, and conscious constructs have no sort of intrinsic meaning or weight, and are merely the vain imaginings of the human mind. However, Western thinkers, unlike their Asian cousins, did not have a tradition of meditation and intense personal focus to enable them to peacefully absorb this knowledge. While a Zen Buddhist can smile at the nihilism of the universe and calm the vigorous horse of his mind with Zazen, the Western philosopher often found this final knowledge to be an endless torment, and had no refuge from what he saw as the terrifying implications of this reality. (Given this perspective, the insanity of Nietszche and Sarte’s “Existential Angst” should now make perfect sense)
The Steubenville rape case has gotten everyone talking, and predictably, the most effeminate, pansexual white genderqueers with “Asperger’s Syndrome” have weighed in with their nauseating platitudes on the “origins” of this “social epidemic”. Nathan Goodman from Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) had this to say:
“Evan Westlake testified at trial that he saw one of the perpetrators, Trent Mays, smacking the victim’s hip with his penis. He also saw Ma’lik Richmond, the other perpetrator, penetrating the victim’s vagina with two of his fingers. When asked why he didn’t intervene, he answered “it wasn’t violent. I didn’t know exactly what rape was. I always pictured it as forcing yourself on someone.”
What Westlake witnessed was violence. It entailed physically violating another person’s boundaries. But, as is often the case in real rapes, there was no struggle, no armed stranger in the bushes, no screaming victim. What Westlake witnessed was rape. But it wasn’t the comparatively rare stranger rape that haunts the popular imagination. So Westlake did not even recognize it.
We need to change that. In a culture that educated young people about respecting boundaries and treating other people’s bodily autonomy as sacrosanct, Westlake would have known exactly what rape was, and he would have intervened. Throughout the night, when boys assaulted the victim, joked about raping her, and carried her unconscious body between rooms, multiple people would have intervened. But evidently, we don’t live in that culture.”
You would think a progressive group of egalitarians obsessed with the religion of psychology would recognize the damage their own narrative does to their cause, but the anticipation of intelligence from a secular humanist is always an assumption proven wrong. Nor do we find the ranks of anti-racists and Bleeding Heart Liberals to be the only dwelling places where the official party line is sorely contradicted by the blatant subtext.
In regards to minorities, liberals are fond of encouraging racial pride, a religious like dogma of pure “equality” among all men and women, and an environment designed to herald the achievements of every race and culture. Well, except for one race, that is. The Race That Dare Not Speak Its Name is not actively encouraged to celebrate its achievements and historical legacy, for much the same reasons that speaking the name of Satan was shunned by past generations for fear of drawing his attention. While the “African Americans” have an entire month devoted to their history, those of caucasian descent are encouraged to jealously chastise their own kin for the slightest hint of “white supremacy”, much as men are made to self-punish their brothers for the sin of sexism. While at first glance a person of crude understandings might consider this to be a simple double-standard, or perhaps even the justice that whites (or shall we say, white males) deserve, a subtle mind can discern there is a deeper reality here that even the most zealous anti-racist has not considered.