Steubenville.

Rape is heinous enough; having the gall to publicly defend rape is purely sociopathic and deserves nothing but hatred.

What is sanity?

This is not a full-length entry, but I had nothing further to say on the subject, so I am publishing it a a shortie. Enjoy.

***

I talk a lot about a “sane society.” What does that mean? A sane society is a society which is run on reasonable principles and where reality is pursued. an insane society is a society run on unreasonable principles, and where reality is considered unimportant or altogether rejected. The latter is the case in our societies, as they are based on unreasonable principles while supposed to be baed on sound principles (e.g. consent v democracy).

Sanity, in the political, ethical and moral sense, as I define it, is the state of being oneself, of thinking one’s own thoughts, and of striving towards one’s own goals. Sanity means that the individual is psychologically healthy, i.e. of sound mind and judgment.

To not be sane is to not be oneself, to think what an exterior determinism makes one think, and to strive towards the goals set by some exterior determinism (more than freedom, then: the insane can still be free, but not able to realize it or fulfill that freedom). To not be sane is to overwhelm one’s self with things which are not of one’s self.

When we say that a serial killer is insane, or that a dictatorship is insane, or that war is insane, we are merely giving extreme examples of human beings twisted beyond recognition, and structures which twist human beings beyond recognition.

By this definition, therefore, a newborn baby is utterly sane. If he is raised by sane people, he should remain so. That much seems obvious. What makes one not sane, and what makes a society not sane?

It would be easy to blame parenting and early education. Of course they are part of the problem, but the state of mind of parents and teachers are only a reflection of their own upbringing. We must look to the structural features that model people’s behaviour. Only a radical approach can answer the question with any level of truth.

But I WANT to have masters!

I know I said I wouldn’t post anything until next year, but this was too good not to. I received this comment on my “Why I reject “Christian Anarchism”…” entry. While I spammed it for being amazingly stupid, I thought you would get a kick out of it.

Ⓐnonymous commented on Why I reject “Christian Anarchism”…

This is a problem that I actually have with traditional anarchy – it’s seemingly intolerant to the fact that people may WANT to have masters. The ruler in a religious context is completely voluntary unlike statism, where there is a gun to your head. If these associations are completely voluntary then I don’t see any issue at all. And therefore I find no issue with religion, anarcho-capitalism, or any type of non-statist voluntary association. I guess I am a lot more tolerant than traditional anarchists :)

Talk of the devil of voluntaryism… and it rears its ugly, misshapen head again. This is a great illustration of my point about voluntaryism being these little arguments that have infiltrated our culture and made it impotent against evil. If a master is voluntary, then it’s okay to be an anarchist and have masters! With such level of subjectivism, everything means nothing and nothing means everything. We might as well just go back to being babbling infants.

Merry Christmas!

As per usual, this blog is closed for the Christmas season. See you all next year! Hope you all have a good time!

By the way, for all the antinatalists on this blog who have an account on Google+, I’ve opened an antinatalist community on there. Come post!

Clarissa, of Clarissa’s Blog, says, stop complaining about the exploitation of women! Sit down and shut up!

So Clarissa, of Clarissa’s Blog, addressed my entry on funfems by saying that I shouldn’t call them funfems. And the discussion ended by her saying:

“[she said-]“- Exploitation of women in this statement still refers to the PIV, I presume? Which is still sexual intercourse?”
[I said-] No… exploitation of women means the exploitation of women. Treating women as second class citizens, treating women as objects, treating women as a means by which men’s constructed needs can be satisfied. Which includes, but is not by far limited to, PIV.”

[she said-] – So removing the empty meaningless verbiage, you do equate sexual practices crowds of women dare to enjoy with their exploitation? That is precisely a condescending woman-hating attitude of yours I’m bringing to your attention. It is not your place to tell other people, people whose experiences you cannot conceivably share what constitutes their exploitation. On the subject of exploitation of a group to which you do not belong, you cannot possibly have anything legitimate to say. Your only acceptable role is to sit quietly and listen. Anything else is grossly offensive to that group of people. Got it?

This sociopathic funfem sure taught me a lesson. When I see something wrong happen to someone whose group I do not identify with, I should sit down and shut up. Because the best thing to do when one sees evil is to sit down and shut up. I have nothing legitimate to say about natalism because I am happy with my life. I have nothing legitimate to say about child trafficking or child abuse because I am not a child. I have nothing legitimate to say about racism because I am white. I have nothing legitimate to say about rape or sexism because I am a man. So instead of denouncing all these things, I should just shut the fuck up.

And then they wonder why I hate people with a passion. Her goal is to intimidate anyone who disagrees with funfem and make me feel guilty for speaking up against the evils she supports. This is sick, evil and twisted. Suicide really is wasted on the sensitive.

I will never stop being a radfem ally unless radfem women tell me to stop. No one else has any business telling me to stop. The fact that I am a man does not mean I will sit idly and collaborate with the exploitation and marginalization of women, and fuck you to anyone who thinks I should.

Now let me be clear, I agree that I should be held to suspicion for being a man talking about radfem topics, and I think I am making sufficient due diligence in researching these topics before I write about them. I am reading radfem books and radfem blogs, and I’m always learning. I am open to rebuttals on my entries. Clarissa, of Clarissa’s Blog, on the other hand, does not want to refute anything I said: she wants to shut me up.

Finally, a couple other comments by Clarissa, of Clarissa’s Blog, during this exchange:

It’s sad that nobody wants you and you have no idea about what sex is all about.

*I* have the right to express my opinion on my blog about your attempts to analyze a political movement you know nothing about.

Apparently I don’t know anything about sex or feminism, and no one wants me (does that include my wife or…?). I must be one dumb bimbo dick. Or maybe all my opinions are by default invalid because I am a dumb bimbo dick? Gee, I dunno. Political movements are hard. *giggle*

Pro-life atheists? A question for you.

If you are a pro-life atheist, I’d like you to help me out for my upcoming series on abortion. I am having a very hard time contacting pro-life atheists, and I’d like your answers to one question:

How do you justify in a secular manner the pro-life proposition that “life/beingness/personhood/etc begins at conception”?

I welcome any answers from you in the comments. I am not interested in debating who’s right or the details of what you believe: just an answer to this question would be fine. Thank you.

Check Your Premises: a success…

Looking back on the three and a half years I’ve been writing this blog, I have to say I’m very satisfied of where I am now. I have a wide range of entries on political theory and very stable concepts on which to build. I’ve made some entries that became popular (most notably my posting of the Pyramid of Capitalism images, for some bizarre reason) and got a lot of discussion. My readership is bigger than I even hoped for (I do wish there wasn’t so many capitalists, but to be fair I did start as a capitalist and disappointed a lot of readers when I converted).

I don’t really have any plans for change, I’m happy with everything. What do you guys think?

The Anarchist Advice Column, II

Dr. Tremblay, I’m a new member of the ALF and we’re preparing for our first attack against the evil scientific-industrial complex and its exploitation of innocent creatures. My main problem is, I don’t know what to wear! Black is so passé and I don’t want to look ridiculous to the rest of my commando. Do you have any tips?

Undecided in Utah

Thank you for your question, Undecided. I can’t really tailor my approach unless you give me more details, but I can give you some general tips that are applicable to a wide variety of situations.

First of all, remember that green is the new black. Forest green would be especially appropriate in this case, both as a colour and as a message. Also keep in mind that, thanks to the Zapatista resurgence, bandannas are cool again for radicals. They are practical and stylish, permitting wide freedom of movement while concealing your identity. However, I do feel the need to point out that legwarmers will never, ever be cool again.

Hope this helps.

Please help me! Ever since he became an anarchist, my son hasn’t talked to me at all. I call him but he never answers. I don’t know if he’s under the grips of some kind of mind-bending cult of freethinking or something but it’s really worrying me.

Questioning in Quebec

Mom, how many times have I told you to stop emailing me?

– Dr. Tremblay