TTruthseeker (Ethics | EI | Fanon | Fed) || DNApes (Sexual Success) || Amerika (Prole Run Amerika)

TTruthseeker: Economic Comments

At 18:12 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

This post has been removed by the author.


At 18:37 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

This post has been removed by the author.


At 20:53 , Timothy said...

The truth is the truth.


At 05:02 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

This post has been removed by the author.



____________________________

TTruthseeker: A New Sense of Direction

At 13:21 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Carnegie Council: The voice for ethics in International Affairs.

Good god; I wonder how they define 'ethics'.



At 13:33 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/about/info/frequently_asked_questions

Doesn't look like they have a definition for 'ethics'; I guess its just whatever they think will make them feel morally superior.

Doesn't matter if their 'ethics' works. How the fuck can you be a movement for 'ethics', if you have not clearly articulated what you mean by 'ethics'?

What is the Carnegie Council?

The Council was established by Andrew Carnegie in 1914 to work toward the ideal of world peace, and today it aspires to be the "voice for ethics" in international affairs. We provide a home for those who explore the ethical dilemmas posed by issues such as deadly conflict, human rights violations, the ethics of globalization, global economic inequalities, and the increasing role of religion in politics around the world.

Says absolutely sweet fuck all; about addressing the root causes of vague abstract bullshit language, so as to be crystal clear about what you mean by 'ethics', so that you can honestly address the alleged problems you describe as 'ethical' problems.

Two faced vague abstract liberals! Ain't got a goddamn fucking critical thinking braincell of sincerity among them.


____________________

TTruthseeker: Economic Information


At 18:15 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Ray and you, or is it Ray and Peaches, want a trebuchet?

I am flattered, and wouldn't deny its more than tempting; almost beyond control.

However, as far as I understood our agreement, or can't say we agreed, but it was my suggestion and you have not objected to it, yet to my knowledge.

If we continued, nobody would be motivated to help us do whatever it is we need to do to be together, physically.

If we say yes once, what do we say next time? Do you need the information for decision-making purposes? Do I need the info for decision-making purposes? It depends what the ultimate (beyond trebuchet) decision you are asking me to make?

Are you messing with my head? Why do you do this, when I ask you questions? You pretend that your answers are exactly mine; and sometimes they may be, but not always. When you ask me questions, I answer you in detail. I am still waiting to hear from you what women you slept with in the past ten years. You know the most intimate details of my life; and I don't know so much about your life.

You/he want the information for zion concept decision-making purposes? Faith based craps?

You realize if we agree; and we are not all clear about what we agree upon, and there are misinterpreted expectations, then that leads to feelings of betrayal and violation of trust. The person I shall be furious with will be you.

If this a test from you to see how I would respond?

Okay, lets hear your answers Mr. Testy! Lets imagine we go ahead with this, and for some reason or other I misinterpreted you, or Ray; and you don't clarify. How am I supposed to interpret heartburn on my right breast, and an itchy crotch all day? Thanks NSA, or should I rather say Thanks Army Strong? ;-)

Well, if you can be more specific, so I am clear, I shall think about it.

Tell you what: I am going to bed soon; can hardly keep my eyes open. If you wake me up in the middle of the night, and I sense you and him around; we can proceed. Maybe we succeed!

I imagine Erik agrees?

..x


At 12:06 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2011/11/comments.html

The 2364x6412x6666 truth is the truth, huh?

You are on a canning Ring Quest?

Shenandoah Ice or Mican Symphony C-Bay?

X.X

____________________

TTruthseeker: Real Black History

At 19:36 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Allot of what he writes is true, some I don't know if it is true or not, and then there is the 'poor me' victim crap.

When will blacks and browns give up their addiction to the liberal poor me victim story bullshit?

Malcolm X articulated it in such crystal clear language, and yet blacks in the millions ignore a black man who told them the brutal truth; and they go flocking to liberal poor me human welfare vote farm slavery plantations.

Unbelievable. But if that makes them happy; what can you do?

Frantz Fanon was wrong: The black man will never achieve 'freedom' on the rotting corpse of the settler; no matter how many settlers he slaughters, until he drowns in a bloodbath of his own making. He will never achieve 'freedom' even if he breeds all whites out of existence, and they no longer exist. The white man is not the black man's problem (at least as far as his psychological inferiority is concerned), his own thinking, or lack thereof, his lack of motivation for self-analysis, of the fundamental root of his insecurity is his problem. His projection of his psychological insecurity, only exacerbates it. Slaughtering whites is to such an insecure black, the same as drinking a bottle of vodka is to an alcoholic, gives them a fake sense of security. He seeks an external solution for an internal problem.

This is not a critique on violence vs. non-violence; which in my view depends on the circumstance. It is simply a critique on Fanon's analysis of violence being the solution for insecure blacks psychological problems. Violence or non-violence can in certain circumstances be a solution, to a problem. It just depends what the problem is, and whether it is accurately identified and articulated.


At 20:23 , Timothy said...

This is my response to you:

Real black people don't embrace some victim mentality. That's an old lie shown by white reactionaries. People are tired of that accusation. People who are black (like me) are just showing the past as a means to promote a better future.

Also, showing oppression and fighting for radical solutions isn't protraying victimhood, but manhood. It is a part of the freedom of speech to justly promote liberation and freedom.

It has nothing to do with a liberal vs. conservative philosophy, but an authentic means of mental liberation. Malcolm X was right that establishment liberals were snakes. Yet, Malcolm X exposed both parties and didn't want blacks to be Republicans. Republicans obviously are overt with they think about people who look like me. Welfare to the poor isn't evil as long as it isn't corrupted.

We can do a lot. People can create mentorships, help the poor, allow black people to be educated on their real history plus culture, fight by showing the truth, demand power, promote real black culture, and other solutions.

Black people will recieve liberation by slaughtering imperialism, oppression, and injustice. I don't believe in indiscriminately harming all white people, but I do believe in opposing racist whites by any legitimate means possible.

White people who try to harm my people are an enemy. White people who are trying to do the right thing aren't, but I won't lay up whites. I respect my black heritage. The fundamental root of the problem is white supremacy. It was that system that is the origin of the slave trade and other maladies in world society. The solution is to destroy white supremacy using a multifaceted approach.

No real black person has a insecurity. We just are sick and tried of some whites (possessing a false superiority complex) ignoring racism and ignoring how oppression still affect some black people today. As for violence, Fanon is half right. People have the right to use self defense to enact a reformation, but indisciminate violence is always immoral since innocent people are going to be harmed in the process.


At 10:39 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Thanks for your response:

Real black people don't embrace some victim mentality.

Who, according to you, is a 'real black person'?

Do your 'real black persons' speak 100% brutal honesty? Mine do. According to my definition of a 'real black person', his name is Greg Small.

That's an old lie shown by white reactionaries.

Maybe, depends on how you define 'real black person'; I guess.

People are tired of that accusation.

Black people, I assume you mean? Or which people are tired of an accusation. Frankly, in my experience if someone is seriously tired of an accusation, then they do whatever needs done to remove the particular behaviour that is the point of the allegation. I ain't seen many black people breed like they are using their brains, so I don't see why I should not continue to call them kaffirs, if htey behave like kaffirs. I don't call black people who breed responsibly with behaviour that shows they love their children, plan for their children's future, kaffirs. Because they don't behave like kaffirs.

People who are black (like me) are just showing the past as a means to promote a better future.

You are not black, certainly not biologically; but if you prefer to call yourself black, thats your choice.

As for showing the past to promote a better future. A better future can only occur, if people want a better future enough to do whatever the fuck it is to address the root causes of their problems. If not, they can know every fucking detail about the past to the big bang, and it will make zero fucking difference to their future; if they aren't serious about problem solving.

Also, showing oppression and fighting for radical solutions isn't protraying victimhood, but manhood.

Ag please give me a fucking break. How many black people do you know who are serious about addressing the root causes of their goddamn fucking problems? Is it manhood to deny the root causes of yoru problems, and to lead your black followers around like fucking zombified animals on viagra? If that is the definition for manhood, fine; why not say so? Why ain't manhood got the balls to say, this is our definition of manhood; and give a crystal clear definition of what they mean by 'manhood'?

Clearly my definition of manhood and just about every single black person (except perhaps Greg Small) on this planet, and many white men's definitons of manhood ain't the same thing!


At 10:39 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

It is a part of the freedom of speech to justly promote liberation and freedom.

Well they are certainly entitled to their freedom of speech; they are not entitled to me respecting their opinions as being worthy of serious enquiry and investigation, when their 'free speech' opinion is so riddled with self delusionary bullshit, it would make a five year old with 5 critical thinking braincells laugh. The right to say what you want, does not mean that whatever you say, is intelligent or worthy of being considered intelligent. In my view 'intelligence' is the ability to clearly articulate yourself, so as to be clearly understood. I don't follow this hegelian dialectic bullshit crap. In my opinion that is for people who are too goddamn fucking gutless to say whatever the fuck they got to say honestly. It their choice, and htey may have their reasons, for doing whatever the fuck they do. I just prefer blunt honesty.

It has nothing to do with a liberal vs. conservative philosophy, but an authentic means of mental liberation.

Well it depends what you mean by authentic mental liberation. In my view if you are lying to yourself, and not willing to confront your beliefs, and make impartial enquiry into them, and you tell yourself you are interested in authetnic mental liberation, you are lying to yourself. An act of extreme hate if there ever was one. So if you hate yourself, why the fuck should anyone else love you; who the fuck must they love, since you don't even love yourself enough to be honest with yourself about who you are, let alone someone else?

Malcolm X was right that establishment liberals were snakes.

I agree.

Yet, Malcolm X exposed both parties and didn't want blacks to be Republicans.

You may be right; I don't know whether he did not want them to be republicans. He simply said liberals are hypocrits and republicans are honest.

Republicans obviously are overt with they think about people who look like me.

Well, if you were really black, would you prefer someone to be honest with you about the reasons that they don't like you; or would you want them to pretend they like you, and you are too stupid to know they really hate you? How can you fix any problem about someone not liking in you (if you really want them to like you) if you demand htey lie to you? Isn't it gutless cowards who prefer people to lie to them and pretend to like them, when they really don't?


At 10:39 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Welfare to the poor isn't evil as long as it isn't corrupted.

Welfare from the goverment is a form of slavery; whether it is corporate welfare or individual welfare. It leads to dependency and destroys the republic and turns a nations future into tyranny.

We can do a lot. People can create mentorships, help the poor, allow black people to be educated on their real history plus culture, fight by showing the truth, demand power, promote real black culture, and other solutions.

It is pointless helping people who do not want to be helped. You do them more harm, by encouraging htem into codependent relationships. If you want to enslave people, lead them around by liberal fake two faced hypocrit 'welfare' help. I have far more respect for people, even those that I hate, I don't hate them nearly enough to want to enslave them. Liberals pretend to love htem, and enslave them. I fucking hate them, and I refuse to enslave them.


Black people will recieve liberation by slaughtering imperialism, oppression, and injustice.

Black people will never receive liberatrion, until they confront the lies they bullshit themselves with in their own fucked up minds, which are totally oblivious of critical thinking skills. They prefer to be lied to; they hate honest people who speak to them honestly face to face; they spit on people who are honest with them face to face; who treat them honourably. They invite liberals to enslave them; and hten they wonder why the fuck people consider them inferior!

I don't believe in indiscriminately harming all white people, but I do believe in opposing racist whites by any legitimate means possible.

The most racist white you will ever meet is a two faced liberal; who encourages welfare breeding of blacks; because they believe blacks are lower than scum and have to be bred like vote farm cattle. Such liberals are ten thousand times more racist than the worst KKK member you will ever find.


At 10:40 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

White people who try to harm my people are an enemy.

Black people have far more enemies in their own black leadership. Take a look at black leaders! Al Sharpton, Nelson Mandela, Tutu, the list goes on and on and on, about black leaders who lie and deceive blacks, and are rewarded by racist liberals for treating their own people like vote farm cattle fodder.

I respect my black heritage.

Your John Brown 'black heritage'?
And how many niggers have confronted you to your face, and said 'thanks for being our modern day John Brown'? How many niggers objected to your execution, on their behalf? None. Fighting for niggers is pointless. Those niggers who have lifted htemselves up, out of niggerhood, deserve recognition for who they are; and that they -- unlike the Oprah and Sharptons - don't continue to lead niggers around like Pied Pipers, encouraging them to be victim pity parties, addicted to their victimhood like crack addicts.

The fundamental root of the problem is white supremacy.

Bullshit. If any white person or white tribe is in any way superior to a black tribe, then honesty and honour demands that we be honest about the one being superior to the other and vice versa. Everyone in the world is not exactly the same, people have different superior and inferior skills. To deny such is to live in fucking cuckoo land.

The matter is about being honest about what is superior and inferior; and not just assuming because you are white or black that you are superior or not to another. Very seldom is one not superior to another, but to determine the true superiority is a matter of evaluating the facts. There is nothing wrong with anyone being sueprior to another, or acmnowledging such. If you are superior to me, in any given task, which you are, then I can acknowledge that and learn from you, by being challenged to do so; and the same with you in tasks that I am superior to you at. If we deny which tasks each other are superior in, we cannot learn from the person who superior in the given task.

It was that system that is the origin of the slave trade and other maladies in world society.

If blacks had not sold hteir own people into slavery, and had stood unified against slavery; then slavery would never have existed. Blaming white supremacy for slavery, when it was black inferoirity and greed that allowed blacks to sell each otehr into slavery is just more black victimhood bullshit.


At 10:41 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

The solution is to destroy white supremacy using a multifaceted approach.

The only white supermacy that needs to be destroyed is the white supermacy fascism political correctness of liberals. It is the white supremacy, that pretends that everyone is equal, and that to honestly admit that whites are superior in particular skills, and blacks in others does not exist. Blacks are too addicted to being bullshitted by white liberals about how all their fucking problems are white supremacy of hearing honest criticism about their faults and disgusting behaviours. When blacks welcome hearing honest criticism and truly support honest dialogue from honest whites, and listen to such constructive criticism and stop behaving like animals on viagra, or whatever the criticism is; then there shall be no more need to inform blacks of how and why anyone considers them to be kaffirs; or whatever the criticism is. Whites (not all) are more willing to hear criticism, and if they cosnider the criticism justified to amend their behaviour, thereby removing the source of the criticism. Blacks lack that honour to do so, for their own benefit. They want to be liked, just cause they make a rule that says they can behave like reptiles would not even behave, and nobody can criticise them. And then they wonder why people think they are moronically stupid.

No real black person has a insecurity.

Name one 'real black person'?

We just are sick and tried of some whites (possessing a false superiority complex) ignoring racism and ignoring how oppression still affect some black people today.

I agree there are some whites who possess a false superiority complex. If blacks really give a fuck about doing anything, why don't they engage such whites in an honest honourable conversation and debate. Invite them to a discussion; with a challenge: Prove to us how and why you think we are inferior; and if you are right, we are honourable men and will acknowledge your superiority? But they don't; so what does that say?

As for violence, Fanon is half right. People have the right to use self defense to enact a reformation, but indisciminate violence is always immoral since innocent people are going to be harmed in the process.

There are to situations in which I consider violence to be justified (there may be more, but these are the two I can think of). Both involve honour and listening.

It is almost always true that you shall find in a disagreement, one party having a greater amount of, or access to force, than another. So you have - in physical terms - the strong and the weak.


At 10:41 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Simplistically, between two individuals:

If the strong or weak refuses to listen to the arguments of the other, acts dishonourably, by avoiding an opportunity for discussion and debate and impartial evidentiary enquiry into the matter; then either party has the option of using force.

Both parties are honourable, the violence is fully informed consent by both parties: Both have sincerely listened, and both believe the matter can only be resolved by violence: a force of strength. Like two boxers arguing about who is the strongest. The only way to find out is the give them boxing gloves so they can find out.

One party does not consent to violence: It would depend on the circumstances, but if simplistically I think you could say that (A) If the party consenting to violence, considered violence the first option, and made no efforts to resolve the matter (which could be resolved without violence) by listening and impartial enquiry; then violence is their default problem solving tactic; (B) if the party refusing to consent to violence, pretends it wants to solve the matter by listening and impartial enquiry, but passive aggressively or deliberately avoids honest discussion; then its representation that it does not consent to violence is simply a bunch of PR bullshit and self deception, beucase their behaviour is deliberately opposed to their alleged commitment to honest discussion problem solving. Their behaviour states that their preference for problem solving is violence, but that they lack the honour to admit so publicly, wanting to prefer to bullshit their followers about their alleged commitment to non-violence crap.


The choice to use violence -- for me -- involves whether I think the violence will have any effect. If I can slap billy wimsatt once, and it manages to wake him up from his fit, and hear what I have to say, or he can do the same for me; then the violent slap has had a positive result. It opened our ears.

In my attempt to 'slap the SA goverment' awake, after sending them dozens and dozens and dozens of letters, complaints and documentation, visiting their offices, and phone calls, all of which fell on deaf ears - with a bomb-threat - my slap did not result in getting them to listen whatsoever.

The ANC SA Goverment is not interested in honesty, honour or anything remotely considered to be 'truth' and 'reconciliation' by anyone willing to give a clear definition of those terms. They are interested in being 'right' and in 'power'. That is all they give a flying fuck about; and it does not matter how much they lie to themselves, or SA citizens, as long as they remain in power. My efforts were based on the belief and working hypothesis that Mandela, Tutu and the ANC were sincere and serious about truth and reconciliation.

I WAS VERY VERY VERY WRONG.


At 10:43 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

So, if we make an impartial enquiry into a matter that we believe we are 'right' about, and find out that our belief was incorrect; and we are 'wrong', then anyone who is sincere about being honest with themselves, must have the courage to say: I WAS WRONG.

Its no big deal. It does not matter how much I wish they were sincere; when I am provided clear evidence htey are not; I must confront the truth.

But I can be happy, that at the very least I no longer live under the bullshit deception and lies, that I deceived myself with; about their alleged sincerity to truth and reconciliation.

If or where I come across any statement they make, I no longer consider it as being that made by a person of sincerity. I am no longer deceived by their bullshit.


_______________________


TTruthseeker: The Fed

At 19:44 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Zenbumi Winny?


_________________________


TTruthseeker: Chemtrails


At 06:10 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Hmmmm, wierd stuff.

So eugenics is changed to transhumanism. Well what I consider to be eugenics and what those transhumanists consider to be evolved, ain't quite the same thing.

wierd world we live in.


_________________________

TTruthseeker: OWS, Events, etc


At 05:45 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

The reason is that they want the myth of true rugged individualism (or if you want a job, get it or you’re lazy, etc. That lie).

That may be your interpretation of what I said, but why the fuck don't you ask: This is my interpretation of what you are saying; is this what you mean?

Instead you prefer to call me a liar.

In a local or regional ecosystem where there is a truely impartial justice system; and everyone, whether the richest or poorest person in town has access to In Your Face justice; then the statement that anyone who wants a job should be able to get a job, and only the lazy are the ones without jobs.

In an ecosystem where the justice system is manipulated or corrupt; such a justice system is used to manipulate the system to provide employment for their tribe, whether it is their mafia, their race, their ethnicity, their religion, etc. In such a case where the system deliberately excludes someone who wishes to work, who has the skills and whose skills are greater than those who are in the job; then such a person clearly is being deliberately excluded from the job.

In an ecosystem where the justice system is manipulated or corrupt; such a justice system is used to manipulate the education system to provide employment for the particular elite's ideological profits and those who are obedient to the corrupt educational and justice system. In such a case where the system deliberately excludes someone who wishes to work, who has the skills and whose skills are greater than those who are in the job; then such a person clearly is being deliberately excluded from the job.

Why do you think Law Societies and Media corporations and doctors want to regulate themselves?

Why are they incapable of implementing a simple impartial regulation system that exterminates the corrupt among them; and thereby keeps their profession honourable and credible?

Because they are pretend-problem solver parasites.

It is easy to implement a totally impartial system to regulate media, journalits, or lawyers, or doctors, or politicians; but none of htem want such a truly impartial system, that is not capable of being manipulated by the corrupt elements among them.

At least I have not come across any yet.


At 05:56 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Most Buddhists -- particularly their leader the Dalai Lama -- are passive aggressive two faced kaffirs. Their 'religion' is nothing but a tribe they chose to join, cause their mama or papa was one, and they have such fragile ego's that they stay therein, in order to find some sort of 'i belong' solace. Its fucking pathetic. The never ending story of religions and cultures and ideologies that are more interested in a bunch of ignorant moron imbeciles to join them, so they can all passive aggressively massage their fragile ego's; while not being committed to any of the alleged doctrines, not admitting to themselves their fragile ego attachment to their religious or cultural tribe. They live in illusions, they deceive htemselves for hteir entire fucking lives, and are too monumentally fucking stupid to even cognitively enquire into why htey do, or believe the shit they do.

I have yet to meet a pure Buddhist who is interested in a brutal honest conversation.

They say they are pacifist, but do fuck all about the root population policy causes of violence.

Sure if you end up in a prison cell amongst buddhists, there will be much less violence than if you end up in a prison cell amongst african kaffirs.

But nevertheless, the internal violence they practice on themselves, by suppressing and denying their honest thoughts and opinions, results in a different from of violence upon thier psyche's.

Thats my working hypothesis. There are many good lessons to consider from Buddhism, just as their are from Christianity, etc; but organized Buddhism is -- from what I can gather -- massively corrupt.

Why anyone would want to become a Buddhist, when they have a leader such as the Dalai Lama, a two faced passive aggressive schmuck; I have no idea. Supposedly a pacifist, but does fuck all about overpopulation colliding with scarce resources. He is just another two faced kaffir; I have not come across anything he said, worthy of serious consideration.


At 06:02 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Is this what you meant by accusing me of having deceived you?

The reason is that they want the myth of true rugged individualism (or if you want a job, get it or you’re lazy, etc. That lie).

If so, I appreciate you for clarifying what you believed I had allegedly deceived you about.

I hope my answer is more clear; if not, let me know.

If that is not what you believe I deceived you about; please tell me what you believe it to be; so that we can sort it out.

Lara


At 16:14 , Timothy said...

You believe in social Darwinianism and using the K slur. I don't.


At 20:24 , Timothy said...

You need to grow up Andrea.


At 04:06 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

I need to grow up.

Really? Well since I am capable of listening and willing to sincerely listen and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are correct; and I am ignorant of the reasons for why I need to 'grow up'.

Tell me: How exactly am I 'not grown up' and what exactly do I need to do to 'grow up'.

Should I 'grow up' to become an adult who pops open her legs for any man who comes along, to breed him a passel of children, that he has fuck all comitment to creating a future for? Should I grow up to be a brood sow without a brain, who breeds like a cow or horse, without using my brain?

Should I grow up to be a two faced coward, who practices political correctness and avoids calling a Kaffir who fits the description of bieng a Kaffir, a Kaffir? Is it grown up to be a two faced gutless coward hypocrit who cannot say what they think to your face; but instead kisses your ass?

Or tell me what exactly I should do to change to be 'grown up'?

I am listening.


At 08:31 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Silence.

You got no advice for me how I should grow up?

Get a job! For who? If anyone wants to give me a job, they can let me know what the job specifications are, if they think I qualify. If not, I am just fine as I am.

Now that you deleted the other comment I made, by refusing to let me post it. Of course you think that is 'adult' behaviour? Is it?

So, why don't you define 'grow up'?


At 08:38 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Tell me, clearly and simply, what you want from me?

Is that not what grown ups do?

If I can give you waht you want, and you state it clearly, I have no problem doing so.

Is that what adults do?

If I cannot, I will tell you I am not able to.

Is that what adults do?

I have told you what I want from you; and it has not changed in ten years.

Is that what adults do?

Clarify what the fuck it is that adults do, who have 'grown up', that I don't do, and need to do; and why?

I should breed like the worlds 'adults'; who couldn't give a flying fuck about the future of hteir children?

If I do so, that would mean I have 'grown up'?

Fuck them!

So tell me what do I need to do to 'grow up'?


At 08:52 , Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

If you want me to post the stuff to the JAG blog about Shendoah; why the fuck does someone fuck with Windows while I am trying to write and post it?

Is that godddamn fucking adult? Is that what growns ups do?

You want someone to do something, and then if they happily go along and have no problem with helping you with whatever it is you need help on; then you slap them through the face for agreeing to help?

What the fuck? Is that fucking 'grown up'?

So, if I did not hear you clearly; why the fuck don't you articulate it more clearly; so that I am crystal fucking clear about whatever the fuck it is that you want.


___________________________________

DNApes: Dolphins team up to get the girl


Andrea Muhrrteyn said...
Amazing how this 'passing on your genes' meme seems to be considered -- without any impartial scientific enquiry, I might add -- the be all and end all of 'success'.

Frankly: I think that men and women who consider passing on their genes as the most important success story of their life, have had their mental faculties hijacked by the gene-reproduction-is-most-important meme.

Is a man who passes on his genes, to continue his bloodline', while living a life of misery (even if too unconscious to know he is miserable), devoted to being a slave to the endless ratrace (on behalf of his bloodline), endless attempting to bullshit everyone how 'successful' you are (which includes your possession of 2.2 kids), a wife, you used for a broodsow, whom you have never gotten to know passionately, to the depths of each others souls, but whom was the correct genetic look for being your broodsow.

In short a life of mindless conformity: your entire body, and entire identity, all your actions of education, work and play existed purely to serve your genes, so they could reproduce themselves... you, all you consider yourself to be, was just a fucked up illusion, a deception that your 'reproduce my genes' memes deceived you with for your entire life... You -- your entire life -- was nothing more than a slave to your genes to reproduce themselves. Like a good slave you were obedient. you reproduced your genes, and sacrificed joy, honesty, honour, passion, all in the service of your genetic reproduction genes' orders...

or would you rather live a life of passion, investigate every meme ordering you to run around and be a goddamn fucking little slave to serve its 'reproduce your genes' cause, to go and fucking reproduce itself; until you find someone who turns your world upside down, in whose presence you would happily push a nuclear button that blows the entire milky way to its glory, whose priority is you and your happiness in this life; not whether you are a slave to your genetic fascist memes....

Might there be a difference in the child who is conceived from love and passion and with a passion for its conception, as an act of love; to a child conceived purely for perpetuating the orders of your genetic fascist memetic masters?

Man A is a man who breeds 40 children, whom he hates and whose bloodline of hate continues for another 400 years, on a planet nobody in the universe gives a fuck about, whose bloodline is only considered 'important' to a bunch of neanderthal homo-kaffirs without any critical thinking faculties; who for all intents are purposes is nothing more than a homo-kaffir; whose entire homo-kaffir life was one of misery and self deception and delusion and lies and self hatred.

Man B is a man who breeds no children, or only one or two children, whom he loves and cherishes, whom are conceived out of passion, whose conscious choice to limit the number of children conceived provides him with an opportunity to love, learn, and explore a world of finding himself, of challenging himself, of refusing to be a slave to his genetic reproduction meme fascists, and isntead choosing to live a truely meaningful life.

What factors do science use to consider A as more successful than B?

When the fuck do scientists start asking htemselves these types of questions?

When do scientists consider the possibility that it is the quality of the questions we ask ourselves that determine our current reality and our future?

7 November, 2011 8:36 AM


_______________________

Amerika: Prole Run Amerika


Andrea Muhrrteyn says:
11/09/2011 at 1:47 am
>>The root cause is that we have handed power to the group least suited to wield it, which is the average (meaning not distinguished by any superior performance) citizen.<<

You have done exactly what you accuse the bandaid to braintumour brigade of doing; failure to dig down to the root cause; and instaed bullshitting yourself that your root cause is the root cause, instead of digging deeper.

Your 'root cause' may be a little deeper than the liberals, but it still ain't at the root of the matter.