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!

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

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