Organic Spies Find Lies

Answering the burqa problem.

Western governments have failed to respond to the problem of patriarchy, both from within and from without, for obvious reasons; 90% of the power elite is male (with most of the females involved in secondary roles) and therefore its interests lie in the continuation of male supremacy.

There have been minor exceptions, such as the French ban on niqabs and burqas. Liberals have tried to turn this into a human rights issue, that we should have the right to wear whatever we want. First of all, this is an extremely disingenuous position for liberals to take, since they support a capitalist system which most definitely does not give people the right to wear whatever they want; if they were serious about such a position, they would be advocating a ban on corporate-imposed clothing and uniforms as well.

Secondly, for someone who really believes that the niqabs and burqas are mandated by the Quran, which is the word of Allah, the wearing of the niqabs and burqas cannot be said to be “voluntary” in any meaningful sense (although nothing in the Quran mandates such clothing, but that never stops religious fanatics). So the idea that “voluntary” niqab or burqa wearing should be allowed is nonsense on its face, since there can be no such thing. And again, this is a disingenous position for statists to take, since they take pleasure in banning a wide variety of voluntary actions.

Patriarchy is the real issue under question. Women are told that they must wear these cloth tombstones because men are such beasts that they will rape women who show their face in public. This is merely a fanatical version of gallantry, where men take it upon themselves to “protect” women from non-existing dangers, repressing women’s freedom in the process. In this case, women are figuratively killed (to the world) so men can have all the space to themselves without feeling sexual attraction (because they follow a faggot ideology).

Some people dismiss these concerns as “cute.” I am not sure how being outraged against extremist patriarchal hate speech is “cute.” The patriarchy needs to be exterminated. You may argue with my methods, and that’s fine. You may argue that it is not the State’s role to ban such clothing, and I agree with you completely. However, I still think it is better for the State to ban them than for the State to not ban them, in the same way that I’d rather the State ban murder than not ban murder (sadly, they don’t, at least not consistently). I am not saying gradualism is great, because it’s absolutely not. I am merely making a theoretical statement. In practice, I want the State to be destroyed.

The continuation of the patriarchy is founded on the failure of civil rights movements in reforming society. Instead of demanding equal rights, the marginalized demanded opportunities to obtain the same power that the privileged possessed. This has led to the spreading of power lust and power competition across all social strata.

Our heteronormative system has completely and absolutely failed. Homosexuality, which is the superior mode of sexual relations, has been dragged through the dirt of heteronormativity, and now the goal of homosexual marriage is widely accepted as “progressive,” despite its utterly regressive and depraved nature; marriage only exists because our heteronormative society demands monogamy, and monogamy is unsustainable. This is one of the paradoxes which exposes our system as regressive nonsense.

Because they are self-hating faggots, Christians vehemently argue that homosexuality is unnatural. To this, atheists rightly respond that homosexuality exists in hundreds of species of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians and insects. But we can go further than this. Consider that, before they begin sexual activity, children will generally have masturbated hundreds of times. Therefore, they become very familiar with their own genitals, while remaining unfamiliar with those of the opposite sex. In fact, most men will always be more familiar with penises than with vulvas, and most women will always be more familiar with vulvas than with penises. We can therefore claim, as a generality, that homosexuality is more natural than heterosexuality.

So it is nonsense to say that homosexuals should be made to conform to the power structure, adopt the trappings of heterosexuals such as marriage and monogamy, and integrate within heteronormative institutions. It is heterosexuals who should be made to integrate within homosexual patterns. It is the heterosexual concepts which are regressive. This is the fatal error of the liberals, who still firmly try to integrate homosexuals within the bankrupt heteronormative framework.

Why am I talking about this specific issue? Because all answers, without exception, given by statists to patriarchal issues are predicated upon the belief that women must be made to integrate at all costs within the oppressive institutions already in place, which must be minimally modified to admit women and give them the opportunity to pursue the power they control. It really doesn’t matter what form of bigotry we’re talking about, their answer always follows the same framework, and they inevitably call this regressive, primitive philosophy “progressive.”

The only valid alternative is to wipe out all forms of oppression and segregation based on invalid distinctions: not merely to ban niqabs and burqas, but to ban all segregated forms of clothing. Heteronormative institutions could not survive the destruction of gender. The ultimate goal should not be to make women be more like men, or to make men be more like women, but to erase all concept of man and woman, just as the solution to power lust is not to make power more available but rather to eliminate or disperse all power.

This is not an extreme solution, as it is well known that gender is a social construct. If society has made it, then society can unmake it. Segregated clothing such as dresses, high heels, suits and ties are clearly part of the construction of gender, therefore their removal should participate in the unmaking of gender. In doing so, we would participate in the extermination of patriarchy.

And there is not really any need to anger the liberals and arouse their “human rights” arguments: by banning the manufacture and importation of these articles, but not their wearing, individuals need not be oppressed for their fashion choices. These patriarchal articles would simply be gradually weeded out of society as they wore out. This would have the unfortunate consequence that they would become scarce and their price would shoot out, meaning that only rich people could afford them for a while, but this is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that we live in a class society where only the rich get what they want, not a consequence of my proposed policy.

Hugo Chavez: Capitalism ended life on Mars

Disinformation reports that Hugo Chavez believes that capitalism may have wiped out all life on Mars. What?

“I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet,” Chavez said in speech to mark World Water Day.

The Whitest Kids U’ Know – Pledge of Allegiance

People who feel love value material possessions less.

An interesting study on the correlation between feeling loved by others and valuing material possessions. Seems like the more insecure you are, the more you are comforted by your possessions.

The idea that materialism is linked to comfort isn’t new, but researchers from the University of New Hampshire and Yale University wanted to understand more concretely how people gauge the monetary value of their belongings in relation to how loved and secure they feel.

So researchers asked 185 study participants, average age 35, to complete a couple of exercises. First, they asked half the group to recall a time when they felt supported and cared for; the other half were asked to think about a fun experience, such as eating at a really great restaurant. Then, both groups were asked to put a money value on the blankets currently on their beds. The group who recalled a good dining experience valued their blankets at $173.30 on average, but the group who had thought about an experience of being loved valued their bedspreads at a paltry $33.38.

“People value possessions, in part, because they afford a sense of protection, insurance, and comfort,” lead researcher Edward Lemay, assistant professor of psychology at University of New Hampshire, said in a statement. “But what we found was that if people already have a feeling of being loved and accepted by others, which also can provide a sense of protection, insurance and comfort, those possessions decrease in value.”

Gay marriage is regressive.

The purpose of marriage is two-fold: the first is to impose the existence of sexual property (that one’s sexual activities are the property of one’s spouse), and the second is to create a second-class citizenry (as people who are married have more human rights than people who are not). The latter is the role fundamentalists attribute to marriage against homosexuals, whom they consider inferior.

It is therefore absurd for people to claim that “gay marriage,” an oxymoron if there is one, is part of any progressive ideology. Marriage has been a tool of oppression of homosexuals. Begging for homosexuals to be subject to this tool that has oppressed them for centuries is insane, not progressive. So why is it not seen as insane?

Liberals claim that they want homosexuals to have equal rights as citizens of their country. But the right they seek is the right to oppress; they simply wish to take for themselves this right to oppress and to reform the second-class citizenry so they are no longer part of it. This is similar to the drive for homosexuals to be accepted as murderers (that is to say, soldiers, which means the same thing). The fact that heterosexuals have the right to become murderers does not mean homosexuals should be allowed to pursue the same right.

By all means, marriage and soldiery must be abolished. They are ethical and social abominations. Demanding that everyone be allowed to participate in them is merely to lend support and legitimacy to the abomination. Isn’t it unfair to not permit homosexuals to participate in the oppressive system that heterosexuals already have access to? No. The unfairness already exists in the fact that the system itself exists.

This is the fundamental difference between liberals and Anarchists. Liberals don’t really believe in fairness or equality as we understand it: they believe in “equality of opportunity,” which is a code-word for “equal rights to oppress.” Now that the right to oppress is spreading more and more, the third-world has become the main reservoir of people to oppress and exploit, instead of people in every country being oppressed by their own power elite. Neo-liberalism (and before that, colonialism) has been exporting misery around the world for decades.

Liberals are not against the State, or corporations, or schools, or marriage, or religion, or any other oppressive institution. Rather, they want everyone to have the “chance” of being subject to them, and of oppressing others with them. This is what they call equality.

Anarchists, on the other hand, are against all hierarchies. Our goal is not to prop up or reform tools of oppression, but to eliminate them. Our goal is to build a society free from control and inequality, not filled with the opportunity to control others and perpetuate inequality. The only proper Anarchist response to such movements as “gay marriage” is to either create alternatives to which homosexuals could participate (which would be hard, given the fact that marriage is a legal construct), or abolish marriage completely.

One may argue that this puts an extra burden on the oppressed, that demanding that the oppressed participate in the destruction of the institutions that oppress them is more of a hardship than demanding admission to those institutions. And yet, given the hardships and long struggles that civil rights movements went through (and are still going through) just to share the power of their oppressors (which, ironically enough, ultimately failed, since the power elite is still 90% male and 95% white anyway), this claim seems hard to back.

But also, marriage is still used around the world to oppress homosexuals and to make women the property of men. And here we get to the consequences of liberals supporting evil hierarchies, which is that those hierarchies are free to keep oppressing the weak elsewhere. As I discussed in the entry I linked, civil rights movements are inherently bourgeois because they seek to make the bourgeois lifestyle (including the ability to have control over others) available to more and more people, and really have nothing to do with equality at all.

To them, it is more important for a gay person in North America to be able to get married than it is for women or homosexuals in most of the world to be independent and free. As for any other statist ideology, there is always the implicit racist idea that one white life is worth any number of brown or black lives, and if we can exploit their misery for our comfort and well-being, then all the better, as long as they also have a chance to assimilate and become like us through “immigration” (yes, this is actually why liberals love “immigration”).

The ideal liberal society is a society where everyone is “free” to compete for privilege. Instead of the more or less fixed elitism of the conservative, the liberal favors a fluid, dynamic elitism, where the coercive apparatus used to oppress you may be manned by any person regardless of gender, skin color, or status. Nothing makes a liberal happier than seeing black people or women in political offices. To an Anarchist, oppression is oppression, and murder is murder, regardless of whether the hand holding the gun is dainty, hairy, black, or white.