There is much, despite our misanthropic dispositions, that we consider precious, that we hold dear, and do not easily give (and never surrender): consciousness, kindness, trust, ideas, thoughts, true emotion (insomuch as not the terrible primal flaunting about emotions manipulated by all members of society; namely, anger, sadness, and happiness, but those complex emotions, awe, humility, fascination, interest, contentment, comfort, distress [not stress, we consider the two different], sharing, loss [as in true loss, not the one-dimensional social convention invented by insurance companies and called “Loss” when someone or something dies], joy, relief, help, care, protection, and love (the greatest of them all). Some may say that these are simply ideals, and to that we respond, “Of course they are!” What else would they be? Ideal does not necessarily imply naiveté, nor does it imply ignorance, or inexperience, quite the contrary. Ideals can be the foundation of humanity. Someone who does not recognize that scoff at ideals because they do not comprehend it. In society, idealism is the work of the ‘stupid youth’ who have not yet learnt to be jaded. We disagree. Wasn’t it ideas that built anything and all things Man now loves to wraps himself in like some sort of magic force field of dignity? Man’s “precious” society was built upon ideals! (Oh, do not mistake us, we do not agree with Man’s pompous parade of supposed superiority, not in the least. Nor do we wish to offer one of the most precious gifts we can bestow upon his minions and demons, that of help, because we know it will be squandered. No, it is ideas that shrugged such qualities from our shoulders. We are not burdened with the rescue of Man, no one is. This is a deception instigated by Man’s greatest betrayal, Society (Yes, betrayal. Man betrays his own efficacy by believing in such obvious traps. But it was also Man who established its “existence.” Perhaps his intentions were good, but that is irrelevant).
Man does love his games, doesn’t he? Then blames Woman for what she has become? And woman, ah, but she does love her pursuit of Man’s game, this desire to be included, as if this would somehow grant her the equality she so desperately believes she deserves. What comedy is this? Woman has been conditioned for eons that she is the “weaker sex,” only comparable to Man, only whole when married to Man, only worthy when coupled to Man, and only then allowed to exist in Man’s world, as if it were a club to which only men belong. Woman has been lied to. Man has been conditioned for eons that his penis is the source of his birthright to domination, superiority, intelligence and brilliance; to siredom, to ejaculation, to sex, to orgasm, to motivation, to aspiration and ambition, to adventure, and to freedom. These (supposedly) are qualities not found in Woman (her mind, because of her ovaries and that she bleeds, is too hysterical) and qualities women can never possess or even deserve to possess. How could she? She is castrated. Her penis is too small! Moreover, Man, in all his superior intelligence, swallowed this, just as easily as Woman. Woman, her strengths not found in the muscle (for her body lacks the sufficient amount of testosterone), succumbed to Man’s blows (and so his will). She submitted, because she could not match his brute strength. So, women have been conditioned to believe that the only way she can redeem herself is to pursue Man’s game, his logic, his intelligence, his abilities. But she is confused, because she demands this equality, this inclusion in the game, then she changes the rules. She demands that she be treated as a woman in a man’s world all the while convincing herself that she is as good as Man and so deserves her rightful place in his club, but she cannot, by nature, perform any of his duties. She wants to be the same as Man, and blames Man that she falls short because he set the bar too high. She hates being the subject of Man’s ridicule, this humiliation causes her to hate Man; and to enact her revenge, she protests so that Man must change his rules, she castrates her sons to belittle his father, she destroys her true nature in her pursuit to enter puberty so that her penis can finally grow. This is how we see the feminist, the secret feminist (those women who talk much about their hatred of men), and the feminist movement; feminism itself. Woman fails to realize that she stands on her own as Woman, and she doesn’t need Man’s permission to be alive as Woman. She doesn’t realize that equality is not granted, permitted, written into law, protested, allowed, or bestowed as privilege. Equality (lest you think we may contradict, equality does not mean sameness) is inherent in Humanity. Why fight for what you already have? Why attempt to deny what is already there? Man and Woman are both lost, because they wear the roles of Man and Woman, they are conditioned animals in a zoo. They have no concept of Man and Woman as beings, only as roles. The social roles are not even human! No social being knows this. Therefore, between Man and Woman there can never be relationship (for relationship involves the complex emotions and ideals spoken of in preceding paragraphs). Social Man and Social Woman both fail at relationship, and when there is Social Man but Human Woman or Human Man and Social Woman, this too will fail. It is inevitable. These two roles were bred to be incompatible; they were bred for conflict and separation. This is why marriage ends in divorce. Only Human Man and Human Woman can exist together without war, absent of conditioning. Social Woman will always feel humiliated, ridiculed, and inferior to Man, and Social Man will always try to dominate, control, and manipulate Woman (because he cannot comprehend her, he can only manipulate her to avoid her apparent display of emotion. Woman can only attempt to cloak herself in his “superior intelligence” to avoid his wrath). Human Woman with Social Man will frustrate him because she cannot be manipulated, cajoled, or dominated. She can only be talked to and conversed with, never talked at or yelled at. This does nothing but anger her because she sees him as the stupid social role he is. This terrifies him because he cannot be what he believes it means to be a man. So, she emasculates him, and this only infuriates him more. Social Woman cannot manipulate Human Man because he is hip to her wiles, which are obvious and not well thought. It is easy for him to strip her of her defenses (that which she has been conditioned to believe are ways for her to attract and ensnare a mate, but upon which she attaches her entire identity and sense of self) because her trained ways are so obviously conditional and not the results of efforts of thinking, deliberation, and choice. Social Woman does not become angry with Human Man, she abandons him because she has no idea how to be a Woman, and she thinks Human Man has no idea how to treat a woman. Illusions all. Deluded both, Social Man and Social Woman. Neither Social Man nor Social Woman will let go of their false selves in order to relate, they fear that more than anything, even death. Vulnerability is an excellent safety valve in conditioning. Plant fear of insecurity or vulnerability in the brain and the social identity will do anything else but expose itself to either. It is everywhere in society. Take nakedness. To unclothe the body is called “Indecent Exposure.” To surround the body with the outside rather than a roof and walls is called, connotatively, “Exposed to the elements.” Humiliation, embarrassment, and ridicule (all socially conditioned to be dreadful and horrible to endure, as social being would rather commit suicide or at the least attempt it than endure them) are all known as “being exposed.” To be seen in a private moment is called “Exposed.” Do you see how woven into the fabric of social reality Exposed is? Exposed has all sorts of “bad” connotations associated with it. This is how a social construct can be built and maintained, how it can evolve; and it is archaic, buried with layers and time. Atomized. Social Man and Social Woman are no match for Human Man and Human Woman. So, they hate them, or fear them, or ostracize them, or use them, or abuse them, because their presence, their existence, be the Ultimate Exposer. Human Man and Human Woman expose Social Man and Social Woman (and their society) as the inept and frightened beasts that they are. They render them naked, and Social Man and Social Woman cannot bear the self-induced humiliation. Self-induced? Human Man and Human Woman are not the perpetrators, Social Man and Social Woman are. They are both perpetrator and victim, their humiliation is not true because their society is not real, but a delusion. They are only conditioned. They are not thoughtful human beings, they are conditioned personas. They have nothing to fear, they only believe they do. They have not been harmed by Human Man and Human Woman, only by their belief. They are in a double mental bind, because it is belief that brings them their harm and continues the cycle (a false one, but they must run on a cycle else they would cease to exist, for all existence cycles, it is the way of the universe, it seems). However, if Human Man does not want Human Woman, or Human Woman does not want Human Man, either can live, exist, and survive independent of the other. For their relationship is not based on need or necessity, but on want and choice (and not desire). For Human Man obviously does not need Human Woman (or even Social Woman, or Woman at all), and Human Woman does not need Man. Social Man and Social Woman have necessary mergers and then need the presence of the other in order to carry out their conditioned role in society efficiently (and these roles can be multi-layered; for instance, Social Man/Woman, Husband/Wife, Father/Mother, Son/Daughter, Girlfriend/Boyfriend, etc.). Social Man needs woman to be a Man, for he is trained to behave that Man dominates and controls, else he is not a Man (and thus makes him detestable, like a woman: a faggot, a sissy, less than a man). Social Woman needs Man to ensnare and serve her needs as she has been conditioned to behave as a woman. Human Man and Human Woman choose a mate, Social Man and Social Woman are attracted to each other, as if their coming together were some kind of accidental chemistry and beyond their control, then this attraction is sanctified in the social institution marriage, the union where magically “the state” and “their god” grant them a partnership and so happiness. This is an obvious fabrication. Human Man and Human Woman in their lack of need of one another and in celebration of their mutual choice, the union is inherent, symbolized, if you will, by their relation to one another. No, social institution, no amplified symbol need apply, no dramatization required.