Hefemale_shemale

The Transsexual Myth

The transsexual myth

Now, I thought I might finish off my foray into sexual myths by saying something about transsexual/transgender people as part of the mythspace.

What it is is there are these people that want to change their genetic or birth gender.

Their self reports are interesting in that they often say that they’ve always felt like the other gender ‘trapped’ in the wrong body.

No one ever thinks to dispute this because of the believed infallibility of personal psychology. This is actually an extension of the believed infallibility of personal psychology because not only does the person themselves find it indisputable but others find it impossible to dispute. For instance if I said “I have been experiencing the existence of God since I was a child” Others might still dispute whether I have really been experiencing God whereas if I say “I have been a male trapped inside a female body since I was I child” no one will dispute my experience.

My biggest objection so far as transsexuality is concerned is surgery being used to correct the ‘problem’ especially if public money is used for this purpose.

Say if a person had any other sort of delusion would surgery be contemplated in order to change them into the thing that they said in their delusion that they were? Of course not.

See: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Most-of-the-Sex-Change-Operation-Are-Harmful-or-Disappointing-61906.shtml

If a household animal acted as one or another sex from its own then would surgery be contemplated? I doubt it.

(Using such search terms as “sex change surgery for pets” I was unable to find an incidence of someone actually doing that to an animal for that reason even in America!)

So actually people treat other animals better than humans in this case. It’s only because we live in cultural fantasy worlds that people are willing to mutilate themselves. With animals there’s no cultural fantasy worlds – no mutilation.

Secondly, it is so relative that its ridiculous. If you mutilate in that way (and this goes for most plastic surgery) then you’ve admitted that you’re completely subservient to societal expectation.

Basically you’re saying that if you woke up one morning and found that everyone’s nose had disappeared in the night except yours you’d b running to the plastic surgeon crying “Quick cut off my nose – I’m a freak!”

It’s the same for sex changes. If everyone was born in the situation that the transgender person says they find themselves in then everything would be equalised.

So if everyone was born having the behaviour and sexual desires of the other gender then there would be no problem at all – all roles would simply be reversed. It would only be that if there were a few people around that were what we call normal that there would be any problems. Infact they would then have to get surgery to fit in with the societally acceptable body for their ‘felt gender’.

How stupid is that?

Family

The Hetrosexual Myth

The Heterosexual myth.

In the same way as there’s a gay myth there’s also a heterosexual myth. There is no such thing as gay and there is no such thing as heterosexual (and just incase you’re trying to escape there’s no such thing as ‘bisexual’ either, but we’ll get on to that later.)

The heterosexual myth is that most of the population is heterosexual and a smaller percentage are gay.

The counter myth is that everyone is bisexual.

All ‘gay’ means is a mass of confused concepts.

All that ‘heterosexual’ means is myopic object fetishism.

Sure, if you’re willing to accept being embroiled in that kind of autism you can call yourself heterosexual, but otherwise you should reject it with vehemence.

The classic heterosexual dilemma is the transsexual. This is where the ‘heterosexual’ man may be more attracted to a transsexual than a biological woman (especially if he doesn’t know) because the transsexual may have even more cultural accoutrements than the average woman, and therefore be more attractive to the object fetishist.

The thing that the heterosexual is lusting after is not a human being as such, but a set of cultural and conceptual traits.

Therefore a heterosexual man may make out with a suitably madeup and attired male, but then when the pants come off there is this conceptual shock.

Infact so long as the penis and balls have been cut off, or turned inside out, or whatever, he may be perfectly happy to have sex with someone who is genetically male. He even gets to retain the title of ‘heterosexual’ if he does that.

After all, a heterosexual is not defined as someone who is having sexual relations with someone of the genetically opposite gender, but rather someone who has (or wants to have) sexual relations with someone of the culturally opposite gender.

This is where concepts in our rational minds, that have been developed over thousands of years take over from automatic responses that have been developing for millions of years.

Guess what? Animals don’t define gender by clothes and hairstyles as we falsely teach children to.

If you put a dress and lipstick on a monkey, it’s not going to make any difference what the other monkeys think of it. Why? Because they don’t accept our fucked up cultural symbols that’s why. They’d rather go with their inbuilt biological ones.

Basically the animals are smarter than us when it comes to this.

Bisexuality

With ‘bisexual’ we must reject it because it’s so bound up with the other concepts of homo and hetero sexual. It doesn’t mean that just because I reject those two ideas that I think people are infact bisexual, because that generally means all the stuff that heterosexual means plus all the stuff that homosexual means.

It would be like if we go to the ancient conception of the four elements of earth water air and fire. Now because I would reject something being described scientifically in those terms I would reject even more something being described scientifically in any number of those terms.

Besides if we are to look at the bisexual thing we come across the problem that people may never have experienced sexual attraction to one or the other gender. I’ve been in that situation myself.

So what is there then?

What there is, is you can either produce male or female behaviours, and you can either object fetishise particular culturally identified gender traits or not.

The normal individual in society is forced into producing a range of male and female and ‘other’ behaviours just to get along in the world. However, what matters in our culture is whether they have some or other types of apparel and styles of personal grooming.

If however, they are not interested in object fetishism of that kind then they get to be called ‘gay’ rather than ‘straight’.

That’s the kind of reality we’re trapped in.

Luckily for me in society, I’m heavily into object fetishism, which would be for one indicated by the number of objects I haul round with me such as pieces of vinyl and books etc.

Lucky for that eh!

Featured Image -- 167

Liberation

A response to the Gay Myth.  Not written by me as seemingly believed by certain idiots on Sluthate.com

Clare Flourish

I have lived my life with the handbrake on. Too prone to hit the foot-brake too, and terrified of the accelerator pedal, I seek to free myself. My project here is finding what stories, understandings, and responses serve my freedom, which increase my serfdom. Jtteop, despite a rebarbative idea which initially blinded me to the value which might be in what he says, seems to seek such freedom through words, so repays a closer look.

His “myth” is that one is born gay, only attracted to persons of the same gender. His counter-myth is that being gay is not innate.

The process starts when a person says words or performs actions that are outside the range of social acceptability for their gender. It will then be suggested to the person that they might be ‘gay’ and they will be asked to meditate on that possibility, with the hope that…

View original post 347 more words

headst_hearst-patty-w220

The Gay Myth II

The Gay myth – Part II, Witches and Stockholm

The latest in my series of myths that practically everyone believes. Last time was part one of the gay myth

We’ve got this big fat question for which there are scientific studies done. The question is: “Why do certain people of the same gender make love, not war – what is wrong with them?”

So you’ve got this supposed group of people unique in their sexual fixations, Oh and there is the additional factors that there is no historical record of such a defined group ever existing before (although it has been said that they were constantly repressed before).
“Oh, but what about the Ancient Greeks?” you might say. Only problem there, is that it was more of a man-boy love thing, so since everyone really hates that, you’re going to have to forget about your Greeks!

Secondly there is no scientific reason why such a group should exist.

“OK” you may say “I know what I am, and I know that some other people are a different way, so all your talk of lack of historical precedent and scientific reason is going to have to fall into line with that.”

This is a version of the old believed ‘infallibility of personal experience’ that I’ve discussed before.

Basically if you see one piece of evidence that seems to be presented to your psychology directly, you will be willing to dismiss the whole rest of your logical understanding of the world to accommodate it no matter how incongruous that may be.

For instance, if you had a minor stroke in the part of your brain that deals with emotional connection to people, when you saw those people you would automatically presume that they had been replaced by identical clones. Yeah, that seems likely!

Now, witches; That seems like the kind of thing that couldn’t exist right? (And I don’t mean members of the modern Wicken movement), I mean the old lady down the street who you presume is putting a curse on you because your dog just died and she looked at you funny in the street one day.

Yet once people did believe just that – they believed that there was this special group of devil worshiping people with special and destructive supernatural powers.

So where are all the witches now?

Hey, here’s a suggestion: Maybe they got all the witches when they had witch hunters and witchcraft trials!
They must have cleaned them all up so that all the genes of people with supernatural powers were made extinct.

The only other explanation would be that the whole witchcraft thing was a cultural myth at that time, which was used to get rid of certain individuals that weren’t liked.
But that can’t be true. Many of those individuals themselves confessed!

At the time of the witchcraft trials did people say “Hey, you know the historical precedent for there being witches is kind of weak?” So far as I know they did not. Did they say “science doesn’t have a clue why such people should exist”? No. (well fair enough because science barely existed then).

Let’s get it right here: What I’m claiming is that we have a concept which doesn’t make sense. It may have started out making some kind of sense, but which got twisted and formalised and now makes no sense whatsoever.

Part of this, is the rigidity with which a variety of sexual strategies that humans have developed over millions of years have then been described and then placed in the formal cultural environment. Now I won’t describe the reasons for people pursuing these various sexual strategies in the environment, because that is massively destructive to the formal environment. Suffice to say; that people’s sexual strategies are many, varied and entirely tending towards their survival and reproduction. To make this understood let’s give the example of one such strategy:

In some long hostage situations it has been noted that women will become romantically attracted to the men that are responsible for taking them hostage, and this attraction will continue past the point where the hostage situation is resolved and the men in jail for instance. This is called Stockholm Syndrome, and it can be clearly seen that there is a good survival reason for it, in that people are probably historically more likely to survive in such a situation if they form such attachments.

Anyway, we have that little bit of formal description of that situation. Now what if we were to formalise it some more, and add a vast amount more judgments to the analysis?

We could say that some women are Stockholm women and some are not. That is their sexuality. If they are ‘Stockholm’ women what they ‘want’ is to be abducted and then be in close confines with their abductors so that they may then form a romantic pair bond.
So once a woman decides that she is a ‘Stockholm’ she can register online and browse various men than might then kidnap her in the middle of the night and then hold her for a certain amount of time in his house and then release her and which point she would make a choice as to whether he was the specifically right Stockholm man for her. Because a man that had the fantasy to do that would be a ‘Stockholm man’.

At that point of understanding in the culture there could be kids playing and some boys lock a girl in a cupboard, so the parents decide that the girl is obviously going to grow up to be a Stockholm women and noone should tease her about that because that is her sexuality that she can’t change even if she wants to.

After all we can all agree that Stockholm syndrome is real and has been known about for X amount of time, so any kind of madness which we might create around it in the culture must be ok!

That’s how bad things are.

If a male is seen to be acting or looking in too feminine a way people say “hey he’s gay” But when some one asks who you define gay you say “Someone who is attracted to men” So the apparently ‘normal’ man who is merely being attracted to some female behaviour is then ensnared in this concept even though both parties actually doing two different things.

But then what if we find out that the guy who is producing the ‘female’ behaviour isn’t even aware of what he is doing, and the whole time his conscious thought is along the lines of “How can I score with a hot chick tonight”?
So then it’s just the other guy who is then ‘gay’ – and what if that other guy has a ‘mate’ or ‘buddy’ who doesn’t notice the first male’s female like behaviour, but instead is scoping out the room for women based on how superficially cute they appear?

By this stage what we’re forced to do is call one guy ‘gay’ for basically noticing female behaviour, whereas another one is ‘heterosexual’ for not noticing, and instead being involved in some sort of object fetishism based on clothes, hair and jewelry.

And as for the guy who was producing the original female behaviour – he’s already half way down the street with a nice young bird, thank you very much.

That is literally how demented our cultural ideas about the social landscape are.

On the other hand what if it’s the guy who notices to the female behaviour that isn’t fully aware of his own attraction? In that case he’s going to have certain feelings which will cause him problems. He’s going to have to run after the person, tell him, try to make him confess and then castrate him with the culture he’s going to make him wear. He can go: “Hey, you’re gay, and for some reason that forces me to attack you.”

…just like they attacked the witches.

How many real witches were there again?

In the year 1548 at Arnhem in Holland one of the city’s most respected citizens was brought before the Chancellor accused of sortilege, or enchantment. This man was reputed to be the regions most learned and excelent physician, and knew ‘the cure and remedie for all manner of griefs and diseases’, according to the churchman-scholar Hegwoad. But his wisdom was not restriced to medicine. He was always ‘acquainted with all newes, as well forrein as domesticke.’
Accusers stated that the physician obtained his powers from a ring that he wore on his hand. Witnesses claimed that the doctor – who later became known as the Sorcerer of Courtray – constantly consulted the ring. It was stated that ‘the ring had a demon enclosed in it, to whom it beloved him to speak every five days.’
Despite the marked reluctance of the Chancellor to pass judgement on such a valued citizen, he found the evidence was so overwhelming that he had no choice but to find the man guilty. The physician was immediately proscribed for sorcery and put to death.

David Day, Tolkien’s Ring, p20

Punishing-witches-Laienspiegel

black jack

The Gay Myth

The Gay myth – Part I

Whenever someone comes up with a myth, especially an entrenched culturally reinforced one I wonder exactly how many words its going to take for them to reject the myth. So when my younger sister said that a guy in her class turned out to be gay and that was “ironic” since he was the most popular guy in the class I thought it would probably be quite alot of words.

Actually, it wouldn’t be so hard if it wasn’t for the far reaching extent of this one into the global myth.

This is a dangerous one, because various element s of it impinge upon the global myth as well as people’s believed personal experience.
Furthermore, everyone believes it’s in their interest to promote this myth.

The content of the myth, is that there is this exclusive group of people (often quoted to be around ten percent) who differ from the general population in that they are only sexually attracted to people of the same gender.

It is usually insisted that such people are born like that and thus predestined from birth to act in such a way.

Ok, here’s the counter myth for you:

There are these people but it is merely their immorality and love of sin which causes it, and they can stop if they love some guy called Jesus.

Infact ,although the counter myth is couched in the language of some other myth it is correct in the fact of it it not being innate. That’s all its right about.

Now before I go any further, I just want to mention that I’m totally willing to go along with the part of the global myth about people being able to do whatever they want to, so I’m happy for people to be ‘gay’ if such a thing existed – or even if it didn’t , and it was simply some people’s idea of enacting a good time. The thing I’m set against is it being promoted as something it is not.

So what is it?

Here begins the problem – let me quote from Derren Brown, Tricks of the Mind.

“We know magic isn’t real: It just boils down to a diverse set of techniques expertly employed by a skilled and charming entertainer… we use the term ‘magic’ to describe the end result. The ‘magic’ is the final effect when all those methods are combined to form a particular kind of performance.”

Similarly there is no one thing that being ‘gay’ is.

What’s the diagnosis for ‘gay’? Well, it could be a man who displays behaviour that is very feminine or very masculine or who just seems apparently ‘normal’ – and the same for women.
In other words it could constitute any kind of behaviour. (I am talking here about anthropologically observable behaviour not self reports from people.)

So what this boils down to is anyone who doesn’t fit into their socially ordained gender role basically.

Under the current system any male who is too lively and social, and any female who is too independent and assertive is likely to be denounced as gay which is used as an insult that you can label people with.

Once they have been reclassified they can be excluded from the dominant group and forced into a culture that’s based on chasing their supposed core desire.

The process starts when a person says words or performs actions that are outside the range of social acceptability for their gender. It will then be suggested to the person that they might be ‘gay’ and they will be asked to meditate on that possibility, with the hope that they will have an epiphany of sorts that will lead to a confession. This is called ‘coming out’.

The human brain is very flexible in this regard and will presumably help out, as it always does, to let the denounced person see the previously unrecognised possibilities.

The funny thing is that they’ve actually got these scientists trying to work out how there can be this amazing thing that seems to ‘violate evolution’ when it is no more of a mystery than say masturbation.

There is simply the shortcutting of a natural process (same with drug use) . You gain pleasure without the necessity to go though all the usual mechanisms to get that pleasure.

Actually (for a good example) it’s no more of a mystery than alcohol use except with different social ideas surrounding it .

I’ll give you alcohol using the structure of the gay myth:

There are these people – and when they’re born they’re alcoholics.
If you like to drink alcohol it means you’re an alcoholic.
It’s wanton and leaves you open to diseases.
You can tell if you’re an alcoholic if you try alcohol and you like the taste of it – or even if you have the desire to try it.
Alcohol use will effect your sex life and your fertility levels.

Actually they should use that template to apply to alcohol – they’d save some lives!

There was the temperance movement but that was insufficient in it’s myth building around alcohol. The problem was that they wanted to save everyone from the evils of drink, whereas if they had simply said that some people have an alcoholic disposition and it’s an all or nothing thing then that would have been much more effective.
Because some people are going to drink, and if they could have just cordoned those people off into their own little society and said that they’re not allowed to reproduce, they’d actually have some justification because alcohol harms the unborn!
It could be quite a good social control mechanism – If someone did something socially unacceptable you could call them an alcoholic on the basis that drunk people also often do socially unacceptable things.

[example over]

I’m all for social control mechanisms to wipe out groups of people you don’t like, it just seems that a whole lot of creative and able people are targeted by this one, and although the elimination of such people may help the stability of society I see no ultimate benefit.

blacklike me

The Race Myth

Part one

The interesting thing about the race myth is that the once dominant myth has become the counter myth, but a version of that original myth is now the dominant myth.
Let me explain: I’m racist, right? – But don’t want to be.
I didn’t start out racist but I became that way because society wants me to be, so I have the racism of society.

I remember when I was a child and I continually came up against the concept of race but I couldn’t understand it. I was in effect ‘colourblind’. Don’t worry, society got that out of me quick enough!

Society itself wasn’t always racist either, but it became that way in order to advance the interests of some people. Society then dumped overt racism for a seemingly more benign form that discards the part about superiority, whilst keeping the race talk.
Imagine if scientists discovered that there is no scientific basis for the concept of race. – Well guess what? They already have!
Yet funnily enough even the mainstream media acts as if race a distinct reality behind it.

Consider for example if you got bitten by a dog and there was the question of whether it was a black coloured dog or a white coloured dog that bit you. That wouldn’t seem relevant. It would be like “who cares?” Whereas with humans people think they are going to be able to get some kind of social information out of such a fact.

Infact there are no races but everyone wants to keep on thinking that there are.

“There are races – but they are equal” Is the official myth, whereas the hated counter myth is that there are races, and they aren’t equal! (Notice the subtle difference?)

The thing about the existence of the official myth is that it guarantees the existence of the old myth (now counter myth) of the superiority of your own race.
Think about it in terms of self serving bias as a scientific fact. So, if you identify as being a member of one group, you’re automatically going to see that group as being superior (at least by virtue of your own membership).
You’re going to be automatically sensitive to things that make your own group seem superior and others seem inferior because that’s human nature.

It’s human nature to be racist, once you believe that there are races – Shit, it’s just rooting for your own team! Therefore, since I culturally have that belief, then I am racist.

Don’t worry, you’re probably racist too!

Anyway, even if you manage to defeat your own self serving bias on this issue, and if it was true that there are races but they are equal, then because of some other things we believe, it would only be accidentally true.

Accidentally true?

Say for instance, if you took a group of ‘green’ people and a group of ‘blue’ people, and you gave them some ability testing and determined:

‘That although there is some natural variation between the members of the members of the respective groups, the overall result is that the each group was the same.’

So you have the two races but equal situation all proved and sorted out.

Say if you even had that!

Then you got the highest ability half of people in the green group and you killed them and the lowest ability half of people from the blue group and killed them. Then what you did was you kept the two groups separate and waited for have kids, then you tested the kids.

In that case if there was any genetic influence on the ability levels of the two groups, then it would have to be the case that the green race was ‘superior’ to the blue race.
It would just have to be!
So if there are races but they are equal, then the truth of racism is only a Pol Pot style ethnic cleansing away.
However, if you don’t believe in races then none of that means a damn thing – all you did was kill a bunch of people. (Which is what everyone’s dying to do of course)

Actually, the identified ‘races’ are an arbitrary distinction made on the basis of irrelevant criterion; For instance skin colour. So your ancestors might be from Africa, Southern India or Australia and have absolutely nothing to do with each other at all.

A person from Northern China might be equally ‘white’ in skin colour as one from Europe.

So in that case there’s other parts of the face which people use such as eye shape or nose shape. But did you know that there’s actually more genetic variation within Africa than the whole rest of the world combined? So in other words if you had to categorise three races based on genetics then they would be three African groups, with all Europeans and Asians as an appendage of one of those groups.
Get your head round that!

Of course you could use skin colour and facial features as a kind of rude determiner of cultural origin, although that is becoming less and less relevant with the intermingling of various peoples.
People’s cultural origin is important in terms of how they act. For instance whether they came out of an agrarian or hunter gatherer society will determine how much emphasis is placed on delayed gratification.
What it all might come down to is: Are you predisposed to delay gratification or not?
The reason for this is that people in an agrarian society have to think a year ahead.
If there was any genetic influence upon gratification delay then this it could have quite an effect on perceived differences between ‘races’.

There’s a couple of other considerations: Firstly, if your ancestors were civilization based, then you might be physically less developed than people from other backgrounds and vice-versa .
Whether civilization increases intelligence is debatable, but it certainly allows myth builders to flourish – For instance if you can convince people of a myth they will feed you, as in the case of priests and moral philosophers.


The race myth was debunked many years ago but still persists:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11392926/The-white-man-who-pretended-to-be-black.html

Miscegenation

Race Myths part II – Race mixing

I have a theory as to the arising of a particular kind of racism that is seen in countries such as America and New Zealand.

Generally, if there is a difference between the economic performance of different ethnic groups it can be attributed to the culture of that group. But if you have a smaller less advanced group that comes into contact with a civilized group, then I would expect the tribal group to be genetically superior because they would have more eugenic processes occurring within it.

But if the larger genetically inferior group had all the power, then a complex psycho-sexual process would take hold whereby the members of the smaller group would attempt to become economically equal to the dominant group, and unless there was a strong taboo in intermarriage this would happen at an individual level.

What this means in effect is that men from the dominant group who could not get a desirable enough woman from within their own social structure could instead take women from the marginalised group. That way the woman could share in the resources of the dominant group. On the other hand even desirable men from the marginalised group would only have access to less desirable women.

If there was a no ‘identifier’ such as skin colour then it wouldn’t matter and the group would be absorbed – such as Irish and East Europeans (who were initially considered inferior) into American society.

However if there was an intergenerational identifier then it may well result in the ghettoization of the marginalised group such as American Blacks.

(The ghettoization would initially be a result of a less successful culture taking hold and using some genetically inheritable marker as a way of determining who should have that culture.)

Basically there would be an infusion of genes from lower status people in the dominant group into marginalised group, which might over the course of time take it from being overall genetically superior to being overall genetically inferior however this would be a result of the inferior genes from the dominant group rather than any inherent defect.

It is worth mentioning that this effect (if it were proven) should not be used to discriminate against any person in particular over and above other factors.

Yet it does seem that simple denial of difference is a little naive. There is the situation where various agencies announce that the races are existent but equal, and yet individual citizens notice increased criminality and/or less economic success amongst marginalised ‘race’ groups. So naturally those persons make judgments based on their own personal experience of races, that in turn increases the marginalisation of those groups.

If there is a genetic influence on at least it should be recognised that the object of discrimination is misplaced it is not the original genetic propensities of the marginalised group that is the problem but the rejected ones of the dominant group.

To give a final illustrative example; the British during the 19th century noticed that the Maori were able to construct military defenses that were more sophisticated than any in Europe at the time. So some argument might be made for Maori superiority. Yet now they are a marginalised group so how did that happen?

This theory would account for many ‘superior’ Maori genes being put into the overall European settler gene pool and not being identified by race, whereas in the smaller marginalised group because of its size retains its racial identifiers.

E.g Typical modern New Zealand European might be 1/20th Maori ‘good’ genes which aren’t identifiable and the modern Maori might be 1 half ‘bad’ Maori genes and 1 half ‘bad’ European genes and still identifiable by race.

Note: These figures are totally arbitrary for illustrative purposes only.

Note 2: When I use the term ‘bad genes’ what I mean is genes that may well be more biologically successful than ‘good genes’ but which (if they produced certain tendencies) are currently socially disfavoured.

The whole problem around this issue arises as a result of overt racism by society in western countries being got rid of by the 60s, because that was thought of as the cause of inequality, with the believed result that once blatant discrimination was got rid of then everyone would be equal. When of course it didn’t work out like that those hard won social concession were too important to give up. So what they did was turn it all around into some sort of crypto covert racism of something like:

Well it’s these people’s culture not being accounted for and respected which is now the problem.” – And guess what? They can tell what culture you’re supposed to have by what race you are, (and to do that they’ll still use the same 19th century notions of race)

That is how we got to our current racist society, which says it isn’t, but which infact assigns people to a particular cultural straightjacket based on race, even when it must be admitted that any traditional culture is going to have a negative economic performance in the modern world.

So it could be said that assigning culture by race is a tactic of dominant economic groups to ensure their continued economic domination.

devilsanddamned

Myths part two – Genocide and Holocaust

This is part two of my series examining myth. There are sensitivities involved in this particular myth. But don’t worry, I’ll be back with part three soon!

The Holocaust myth

Before I get started on this one I just wanted to say that I’m not some kind of Neo-Nazi or anything it’s just that the holocaust is a very good example of sacred myth in our society. Some people try to deny it based on the numbers of people that died or what they died of. I do not deny it on that basis but merely because it is myth. Don’t worry about it, nearly everything is!

I remember reading in the Guinness book or records that the greatest holocaust is the “Mongol extermination of Chinese peasantry” . But guess what? That’s not the one we think about!

The Dominant myth goes something like: For no reason a group of people called the Nazis under the leadership of Hitler decided to massacre all the Jews in Europe in specially built camps. This being because Hitler was a uniquely evil kind of person and the Nazis a uniquely evil kind of organisation.

This myth is so powerful that to even call it a myth can get you put in jail in some countries. And yet the counter myth denial of it focuses on the parts that actually are true like the fact of the numbers killed and the method of killing.
i.e the Holocaust denial myth says that they were ‘just work camps’ and that ‘they only died of disease’ etc

The dominant myth in this case starts with its conception as The Holocaust i.e its supposed uniqueness when the Soviets killed more in their camps – just not as efficiently.

Secondly there was obviously no conception of it being The Holocaust while it was happening – It was just some bad shit that was going down. What this means is that people didn’t wake up each day and go “I’m in the holocaust – my victimhood is total and the criminality of anyone guarding the camps is total”.

Thirdly the focus is always on the Jewish people that died they don’t talk about the millions of Russian prisoners of war that were killed – who cares about them?
The obvious reason for this is of course is the political power of the Jewish lobby in America.

Within this is a core problem with the holocaust as a unique event, that being the genocide part of it. genocide is an interesting concept. It means the killing of an entire race of people but the issue here is that if there’s something wrong with a race of people as opposed to large numbers of other people (like POWs being killed what is it? Surely it’s not that races are valuable things. If there was something more valuable about races as opposed to other groups of people then that would be playing into the whole cause of the genocide to begin with. If race has no biological meaning how can there be genocide?

Fourthly as opposed to it being all a Nazi idea it was the outcome of a combination of German and Jewish values. The Jewish value of the mass killing of populations as revealed to Moses, done by Joshua and recorded in the old testament, and the German value of efficiency and hard work.

That’s one of the reasons why Jewish people are so obsessed by ‘the’ Holocaust because they are excited by the idea of killing populations, except in this case since it was them so they can’t support it, but still want to think about it.

It would be one thing if that had happened as a part of Jewish history but now rejected as a bad thing but I’ve never heard any Jewish apology for the holocaust they inflicted upon the original inhabitants of Palestine. This is a part of Christianity too, but no one ever says “Oh God, got that mass killing wrong” So why should we expect a Christian country not to follow the instructions of their faith?

Today, missionaries continue to bring books containing instructions for genocide to all the least sophisticated corners of the earth. Guess what happens!

Fifthly, The conception of a bunch of helpless prisoners surrounded by guards who were controlling everything is infact false.

The book The Devils and the Damned by former prisoner Benedict Kautsky paints a different picture.

See:
http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1512

The first wave of prisoners and those in favored groups were able to form an aristocracy and live at the expense of the less fortunate. This included political prisoners (communists and social democrats), those from ‘anti social’ groups and Jews, Gipsies and criminals.

It’s interesting to note that these groups themselves accepted the labels that they and others had been given by the Nazis as meaning something in terms of how other prisoners should be treated. For instance the group of political prisoners who might previously have been battling amongst themselves were in one group whereas ‘criminals’ were in another. But what could ‘criminal’ mean in that context? i.e to be in prison for assault, murder or robbery by people who were doing the same thing but on a much grander scale.

If we look at why the holocaust myth was developed it’s easy just to say “It was the Jews” etc but actually it serves a function for German society because if it was just the fault of the evil Nazis then everyone else could be exonerated. If it turned out that the camps could not function without the support of society at large and the Jews, Communists and Social Democrats in it then that would be a terrible disaster. Luckily for Germany it’s illegal to say that there.

This is all linked in with another myth: That of the lack of responsibility of Germans for the holocaust. The French have a related saying about the occupation that nobody was a collaborator and everyone was in the resistance.
In the German context it is that everyone was silently disapproving and nobody was a Nazi. If it turns out that one of your ancestors was a Nazi, then you say that they had to be in the Nazi party to get along. If they were in the SS you say that they were in a part that didn’t have anything to do with the concentration camps. If they were in the camps you say that they were only following orders.

But in the end, because of the numbers of people that died, everyone is willing to say ‘oh to hell with it let that be a defining myth of evil in our time’.

And by the way even if you don’t think that that Holocaust is myth you likely think that ‘that’ Holocaust is not but other people’s “holocausts” are.  If you don’t believe me try googling “Abortion Holocaust”.

Anyway I’m sick of writing about this one – let’s move onto the next myth.

Clickable extra resources below:

Devilsback

devils_index

devils_and_the_damned_10-11 devils_and_the_damned_12-13 devils_and_the_damned_13-14 devils_and_the_damned_16-17 devils_and_the_damned_18-19 devils_and_the_damned_22-23 devils_and_the_damned_24-25 devils_and_the_damned_26-27 devils_and_the_damned_28-29 devils_and_the_damned_30-31 devils_and_the_damned_32-33 devils_and_the_damned_34-35 devils_and_the_damned_36-37 devils_and_the_damned_38-39 devils_and_the_damned_40-41 devils_and_the_damned_42-43 devils_and_the_damned_44-45 devils_and_the_damned_46-47

1200px-Creación_de_Adán_(Miguel_Ángel)

Myths and the Mythspace

Myths and the Mythspace

There are objects and there are facts in the world. Everything else is myth. So practically everything we talk about is myth.

Infact, there is so much myth that we really have to divide up the mythspace into first tier myths which are global, unquestioned, unquestionable, invisible and essential. ie myths that it is in everyone’s interest to believe.
I can’t really talk about the global myth although one might be summed up as:
“We aren’t animals”. (and all that is thought to mean)

There is second tier myths which are myths built on other myths and which serve some interest groups. Some of these may be recognised as myths by some people. e.g race.

Then there are third tier myths which are so implausible that they are actually called myths such as ‘urban myths’ as well as myths that children are told such as of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

From the perspective of first tier myth I am going to examine some second tier myths.

Where there is a case of disputation of myth there are two possibilities: The first is a rationalisation – what I call myth purification where the most outlandish aspects of the myth are washed away to leave a more plausible myth.

An example of this is the reformation, when the Catholic church stopped selling passes for people to get into heaven.

The other possibility is to fall into a counter myth where an idea is opposed from the point of view of another myth. An example of this would be during the Cold War with the ideas of communists verses the ideas of McCarthy. (both being mythical)

What myths?

A myth might be defined as a culturally relevant falsehood, which serves some purpose. They function by having some kind of emotionally motivating semantic content, which people believe and act on the basis of.

The reason why we have these myths, is that we need them in order to have the kind of advanced society that we do. But we don’t need all of them. I believe that we actually only need the first level global myth. It might also be an advantage if the global myth was known to be mythical – but (none the less) necessary.

Imagine for instance if you were watching a play or movie, but you believed it was all true. In that case you would be in the same situation as practically everyone is in regard to society.

You don’t run out of the movie theatre if a train comes towards you (as early filmgoers did) and yet you don’t find it all completely dull as you might if you thought it was just a pure lie.

This example will also show you that there can be a level of disbelief about such things but yet we can still get some social use out of them.

Often it is thought that if any believe is a myth we should instantly do away with it. And I know examples of ‘atheists’ for instance who laugh at the foolishness of religious believers, when any atheist I’ve ever spoken to believes in a whole range of moral myths themselves.

Actually, If any individual was to wholly disregards myth they would ironically be regarded as crazy. This is not generally a cause of insanity however, but rather people developing their own unique and thus unacceptable myths.
Infact what we call ‘madness’ may often be the use of a particular myth to indicate some kind of social distress. It was once a kind of madness to believe that your body was made of glass and would break if you moved it. We don’t have that kind of madness any more.

Social dialogue belongs to the myth builders. The person or group that can build the most convincing myth will be able to gain the most power.

Why Myths?

Why believe a myth instead of the truth? And why do people often choose another myth competing myth, when they don’t want to believe a particular myth?

The root of all mythical belief is an emotional appeal. Myths are emotionally appealing and action inducing. Merely exposing the myth as false is emotionally empty, so you have competing myths around emotional topics in order to determine the ‘meaning’ of these topics.

e.g we have natural emotions around death therefore we have many myths around death. The same is true of birth and sex. What is called ‘romance’ for instance is just a set of myths around sex and coupling.

Since there is no absolute reason to do anything; we only ever have emotional motivation to do things. Myth connects the semantic to the emotional by providing larger than life appeals to our basic instincts and motivates our actions.

The 911 myth

The official Bush administration myth was that there was a global network of terrorist sleeper cells headed by Osama bin Laden and connected to Saddam Hussein. On Sept 11 2001 one of these cells attacked America most notably the World Trade Center in New York.
An invasion of Iraq was then necessary to stop any of his massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Now we know that that is all pretty much false, except for the fact that some people did actually attack the towers and the Pentagon.

That falsehood should be enough, but for the counter culture that is not enough because it merely waters down the Bush administration’s case. After all some bunch of Arabs with something to do with Osama Bin Laden did attack America. Which Arabs? Ah, who cares about that?

No, they have to turn it around and say that the US government is so evil and insane that they actually staged an attack on their own military and economic headquarters. Now that’s a reason to be against the US government!

So myth and counter myth, each basically false but each emotionally resonant to some people.

Uniqueness

A feature of many myths is uniqueness – That some people or event has a unique feature that makes it worthy of worship. After all if something is not unique why think about it as opposed to the something of the same kind?
For instance in Christianity the suffering of Jesus is thought of as a unique event in torture and cruelty as opposed to a routine feature of Roman execution.

‘The’ Holocaust is thought of in this light. I remember reading in the Guinness book of records that the greatest holocaust is the Mongol extermination of Chinese peasantry . But guess what? That’s not the one we think about!

In the case of 911 the unique feature was flying a planes into buildings.

In the Lord of the Rings it was the one ring.

End of part one

New Project – The truth about Sexuality.

The Truth about sexuality

Greetings one or two people who may read this.  I have a new project explaining human sexuality because I’m just so damn sick of it not being explained adequately or sensibly.  So I have decided to make a start – again.  But before I do that I thought you might like to know where I got up to last time…

So what would you like to know about human sexuality?

Probably more than you realize.  There is of course the old puzzle that there seems to be such a variation in human sexuality, when there is such a simple evolutionary imperative of reproduction.  A question that might easily be summed up as “how can there be gay people”.  Of course this wouldn’t be a problem if you weren’t an evolutionist or a hard core genetic determinist.  But I am, and if you are also then that could be a problem.

Then there’s other issues, usually around ‘consent’ where the reporting of having performed certain sexual acts will cause you to be imprisoned whereas others will not.

In Africa at the time of writing there have been laws against homosexuality even more extreme than what they used to have in western countries, such that an African minister said:

“Homosexuality is worse than Malignant cancer.  It’s worse than HIV Aids.  It’s worse than terrorism, which you are fighting left and right because it will just wipe out the whole of humanity.”

Actually as we will find out the opposite view is much closer to the truth.  It is Hetrosexuality that has that status.

Now I just want to say that it is not my desire that I go into this whole morass, it just seems to be such a pressing issue of people getting it wrong over and over, and me having to experience that.

So why not give the correct account and then put it up for people to not read because there is no likely path to them discovering the information, but at least I can feel relieved that they could theoretically find out the correct information if they wanted to.

The only real problem for me is that giving the correct account verges onto information that it would be dangerous to reveal and this is about the political structure of structure of society.  I even worry that people might extrapolate from the information that I do reveal, to a correct understanding of society and the environment.  But what am I talking about?  People never extrapolate a damn thing.  That’s why we’re in this mess to begin with.

OK that’s enough bollixing around.  Let’s get down to some explaining.  What sort of society are we in?  Sometimes I have said we are in “The Moral Society” but that’s a just a load of shit.  People just pretend to be in a moral society, and it’s fun  for me to attack that pretense

Really we’re in:

Sorry folks!  I’ll have to leave it there for now.  There was more, but it got serious pretty fast so I thought I would cut it short.  Stay tuned for next time though!