College

The perceived and actual roles of secondary education in the modern industrialized world.

Understanding the real purposes of secondary education requires a mechanism for locating and understanding rules, particularly the absurd one.

Reciprocity is the key to showing the absurdity of any rule.

School is about rules, rules are about power, and power is about double standards. For example, the government can kill, I can not, that's power.

Formal education with regard to actually imparting career specific skill is quickly becoming obsolete in the face of technologies eliminating through automation whole career paths and spawning entirely new ones.

Education is more and more about an aristocratic pass card. A cultural and psychological filter. As many of us know from experience, the vast majority of career skill comes from experience.

College by definition cannot provide experience, it can arrange for experience to be had but but it must always do so through a potential employer. Hence the concept of internship and the death of apprenticeship.

The diplomas which colleges sell are simply membership cards. Actually getting employment is more about personal charisma and physical attractiveness in an interview, who you know that can get you said interview in the first place, or simple experience. Very rarely is it about skill acquired directly through formal education. This is not shocking given the vague nature of most education and the dated nature of specific education. Academia again by definition will always adapt more slowly than the market, since its job is to respond to the responses of the market.

If college were actually about job skills, companies would ignore diplomas generally and issue industry specific tests directly to prospective employees, indeed many do. They would have test proctoring centers where companies could even charge for tests to cover costs and motivate independent study. As it turns out they can charge quite a lot given the cost of a traditional diploma. Some companies have ended up acquiring more profit from selling training than their original business model. This was the genesis of the certification market.

The reason we still have formal secondary education is, for the most part, cultural stagnation and elitism plain and simple. Much like why we have such a fetish for abstract math classes, which is a cultural echo of a time not so long ago when computers simply didn't exist while colleges most certainly did.

Medical school and the physical sciences are potential exceptions, but they are far from perfect. The sciences are becoming quite cult/religion like as the volume of data demands greater and greater time investment and specialization to even grasp, much less contribute to.

Student government by and large is there to pacify and isolate students who labor under the misconception that the purpose of "education" is to impart career skills beyond coping mechanisms. It is also there to insulate the college administration from any cries of inequity for persons outside the university also laboring under that said misconception. As with protest the real purpose ironically is exactly the opposite of what is claimed.

Colleges don't sell education anymore so much as they collect a cover charge. And employers typically ask for a degree not out of a search for any specific knowledge, but to find a certain kind of person. IE one who is willing to submit to an authority regardless of its ineptitude for long periods of time on the promise of money.

Did you ever notice how being in a Fraternity or Sorority equals in many cases better chances in the job market? Why does being tortured by more senior students, and showing a willingness to torture those "below" you play any role in college what so ever? Because that is exactly what is required of a successful Corporate employee above and beyond any skill, which as I said can be acquired later through experience.

College is more about reeducation, then education.

This is why the military is hard on new soldiers above and beyond the physical requirements of training. The psychological habit of submitting to authority, without asking questions or complaining about perceived stupidity, is required for any complex institution to survive when its purposes are so complex as to be impossible for an individual to fully learn. Employees in such a group that stopped work or slowed down to demand answers would constitute an escalating counter productive force. One that would spread as more employees ask questions once they are exposed to them, given either innate human curiosity, or more likely the delusion that what they are doing is supposed to be personally understood.

So asking questions, spreads and causes institutional dysfunction. Sound familiar? The effect is basically institutional cancer. (unions are chemotherapy) Thus institutions have a vested interest, proportional to their size or complexity, in finding employees who obey without asking questions.

And college is about filtering out those people to produce a refined crop of intelligent but fundamentally uninquisitive automatons.

These facts are why formal secondary education is devolving into a mindless, byzantine, frat house, dating service, basketball camp, caste system, organized by familial income tier.

Rape: Mr Smith Rebuttal

Feministe The Rape of Mr. Smith

The Rape of Mr. Smith
Posted by: Jill in Feminism, Sexual Assault

The law discriminates against rape victims in a manner which would not be tolerated by victims of any other crime. In the following example, a holdup victim is asked questions similar in form to those usually asked a victim of rape.

Mr. Smith, you were held up at gunpoint on the corner of 16th and Locust?
Yes.
Did you struggle with the robber?
No.
Why not?
He was armed.
Then you made a conscious decision to comply with his demands rather than to resist?
Yes.
Did you scream? Cry out?
No. I was afraid.
I see. Have you ever been held up before?
No.
Have you ever given money away?
Yes, of course
And did you do so willingly?
What are you getting at?
Well, lets put it like this, Mr. Smith. Youve given away money in the pastin fact, you have quite a reputation for philanthropy. How can we be sure that you werent contriving to have your money taken from you by force?
Listen, if I wanted
Never mind. What time did this holdup take place, Mr. Smith?
About 11 p.m.
You were out on the streets at 11 p.m.? Doing what?
Just walking.
Just walking? You know its dangerous being out on the street that late at night. Werent you aware that you could have been held up?
I hadnt thought about it.
What were you wearing at the time, Mr. Smith?
Lets see. A suit. Yes, a suit.
An expensive suit?
Wellyes.
In other words, Mr. Smith, you were walking around the streets late at night in a suit that practically advertised the fact that you might be a good target for some easy money, isnt that so? I mean, if we didnt know better, Mr. Smith, we might even think you were asking for this to happen, mightnt we?
Look, cant we talkin about the past history of the guy who did this to me?
Im afraid not, Mr. Smith. I dont think you would want to violate his rights, now, would you?

Just something to think about.

This demands a response. And since I'm sure everyone else is deeply afraid to be caught on the wrong side of the thousand year old sexual deviant (which is part of what rape is) witch hunt, I'm inclined to play devil's advocate here. Because there are just a few frighting implications that are made.

First off, we all know that this is a metaphor for a rape trial, and I'm not going to try and awkwardly shoehorn my point in the form of a continued metaphor since I consider such obfuscation to be intellectually dishonest.

So with that being said, I want to share some of the implications made by this little hypothetical.

1. The assumption that the victim has nothing to gain by being classified as a victim. (mentally, fiscally, etc)

2. The accused is the actual guilty party.

3. Defending an accused rapist is the same thing as defending a rapist.

4. We all know more about a case than the people involved.

Confused? Not seeing where I got those? Well I'm happy to elaborate.

Lets consider point one. Now obviously being raped is not something that can typically be regarded as profitable, but that is not to say that it is never profitable. There are an infinite number of potential situations where being raped is the goal. Use your imagination, and keep in mind people are crazy. What does that extremely low probability have to do with anything you ask? Well that concerns the next three points.

Point two three and four are linked with the concepts inherent to our court system, which we all tacitly approve of given our lack of revolt.

The duty of a prosecutor is to convict beyond shadow of a doubt, and in a complimentary role the defender's job is to create doubt, not expose actual doubt, but manufacture it. Any doubt at all no matter how unlikely, because it is the duty of the prosecutor to then crush that doubt.

In fact it is his or her (bet the bulk of you pictured the evil lawyer as a white male, and statistics had no part of that thought) duty to create any and all doubt.

Consider, if you had been falsely accused of rape, and your attorney had given you a choice between character assassinating the victim (Which most would loath on principal) or sending you to jail (to no doubt be raped yourself since the rape of males is a non-issue despite their majority among American rape victims thanks to our prison system) which would you choose? Are you telling me you'd waive your defense even in the smallest part with your own rape and life on the line just because of how it might make the victim feel? While we as a society are in the habit of coddling cute and young women, I don't think that a trial, that can only happen once, is the time to dick around.

Further, if you were the prosecutor would you be able to sleep at night knowing you convicted someone who had a defense attorney that hadn't done all that was possible to defend their client? I know if I were a prosecutor I would demand ferocious defense attorneys so I don't have to worry about a single innocent being raped because of me.

Rape in our society is a weighted issue, directly related to the female supremacy inherent to competition driven serial monogamy. This is similar to the phenomenon of the absurdly high breast cancer funding rate despite extremely low historical fatality compared to say bile duct or pancreatic cancer.

Why is rape any worse than being terrorized and then shot? Could it be because when you think of a shooting victim you think of a man? Is being shot less of a "violation"? Violation of what? Your body? No. A bullet damn sure violates the body. Your spirit? Most certainly. But then why is the rape of men a non issue? For some I'm sure its about the mentality that criminals deserve everything they get, but most aren't that brutal, I hope. I think its more about a violation of the fundamental rules of our society which are by demand of mortality, are issues of mate selection.

When you rape, in general you take sexual choice away from the female. And our entire social system is built around that choice though most of us are unaware of it like fish unaware of water. Thus it does not manifest itself directly. Much like someone who is angry at something abstract, say aging, takes out their rage on the food service workers who accidentally fudged an order, society takes its ignorant rage out on rapists and all sexual violators with particular venom. The pioneers of the homosexual rights movement will know of this blind seething hatred first hand. Everyone one of them selves must have asked "What is the big deal?" "How does what I do with my dick in my home with my friends cause you so much pain?" Answer: Sexual deviation is a threat to society itself. New species are born via sexual deviation. And since societies typically don't reproduce, they evolve directly, new species means death of the old. So as far as society is concearned all sexual deviation is cancer. Now we're getting somewhere close to an explanation of this ra ra pitch fork mentality.

And before you "accuse" me of defending rapists, I'll cut you off and say yes I am, because criminals or not, they are humans. And beyond that as stated above before they are rapists they are suspects, who are also human. They are not animals or monsters or scum or any of the other dehumanizing language we use to absolve ourselves of the tortuous atavistic rage we pretend not to have in day to day life. As if to say "It's not my fault that I am completely capable of skinning this fellow human alive, its that he's not human in the first place, and I'm just defending myself from some hostile alien ...thing."

Society is immortal and it is supposed to be impartial. That claimed impartiality is why we allow it to be immortal and rule over use utterly (in fact to put everyone beneath the law is an explicit cause many have died for). Don't like the idea of being ruled utterly? Me either, but I don't think we're quite ready for the intellectual challenge of deciding our ethics on a totally case by case basis, when we are still arguing the efficacy of gun and drug control law and its impact on crime, which are problems with statistically proved answers. (For the record: drugs are a heathcare/poverty problem not a legal one, and guns reduce crime.)

Rape is an issue as complicated and interwoven as few others. It has ties to genetics, evolutionary biology, politics, psychology, economics, you name it. From cradle to grave, literally, every facet of our lives is touched by mate selection protocol and gender roles governed by it and that adherence to or rejection of those roles and rules.

However, it may be that rape is so hideous to us because of its all encompassing nature, and that is a valid argument, but that does not excuse the malevolent incoherent burn the witch style attitude that it usually inspires.

My point is all this is that the original article is glib, incomplete, criminally devoid of context, and extremely emotional despite the clever use of a kind of limited logic to assert that we simply aren't mean enough to suspected rapists or aren't nice enough to victims.

I say rather than focusing on the homogeneity of defense tactics we take a good long look at the judicial system as a whole.

The author controls the hypothetical, and the question is loaded beyond tolerance.

Democracy is the mob.

Minimum Security

I'm not kidding.

The Company Bunny

WE THE ROBOTS » Archive » Story Time



:)

Conspiracy Cliché: 1984 Today

This post will address the similarities if see between Orwell's party and The Company's approach to mass mind control in the United States, which is clearly one of its test beds for the future's world population.

Note: If the American system "fails" India will most likely be the next experimental zone.

Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it. The songs, the processions, the banners, the hiking, the drilling with dummy rifles, the yelling of slogans, the worship of Big Brother--it was all a sort of glorious game to them. All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children.

This is true today. By subjecting them to constant competition, physical assault, toxic food, mind destroying medication, and intellectually hollow television, while simultaneously censoring their internet exposure, self expression tools, and video games, they are churning out a whole generation of people ready to mindless fill a wide range of company-Required social roles, from the grownup version of cops and robbers, to Ozzy and Harriet.

Talking to her, he realized how easy it was to present an appearance of orthodoxy while having no grasp whatever of what orthodoxy meant. In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane.

the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these Powers it was generally at peace with the other. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were--in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State. The Brotherhood, its name was supposed to be.

But if there was hope, it lay in the proles. You had to cling on to that. When you put it in words it sounded reasonable: it was when you looked at the human beings passing you on the pavement that it became an act of faith.

A Matter of Degree

A Matter of Degree: More reasons to not let yourself be owned, or to give in to the temptation of ownership.

“But It's different for me and my boyfriend/husband.”

No, its not. You may think you're happy but your life isn't right now, its a spectrum of time ranging from birth to death, and when you look at the whole of it, and you look at what you could have had, you've chosen poorly if you give in to jealousy.

Monogamy is watered down slavery.

Sure its natural, but so is smashing people whom annoy you with a rock, so is Ebola, so is rape. Oh, did I use the R word? How do you think women got smaller on average in the first place? Sexual selection plain and simple. Natural does not always equal good, and evolution does not always work for us.

Even in an open relationship (a step in the right direction I admit) you select a primary mate, thus you participate in the system that subsidizes jealousy.

Monogamy is a constant power struggle, the best you can hope for is a series of low degrees, sufficient to lie to yourself. Or a temporary victory, which you will have so long as you are young and attractive.

Your gender names itself after men, it's first names are often feminized male names. Your gender allows itself to be socialized as a pet or object because its easier. We jokingly look at a cat and say there's the life. Some of you strip, throw on a collar, purr, rub on someone's leg and call it a day.

You've been spoils of war for thousands of years. Its a great deal for women at first, and time and again you sign up for it like some fool at rent to own who can't do the math and doesn't have the discipline to save up.

Monogamy is the last vestige of the system that refers to virginity as virtue, refers to sexual inexperience as honor. Monogamy is the same creature which gives us honor killing. Monogamy is what makes your tits more important than your brain. And yet you lap it up.

You want to know why women are treated like property over much of the world? Because when given the choice they elect to be treated like property. Perhaps I should turn into the male chauvinist pig everyone accuses me of being, and The company secretly wants me to be.

I'll bet at least one of our soldiers in Iraq will come back with some cute little shell shocked villager who thinks being some soldier's property in America is still a step up from explosions and a Burka.

Maybe I should throw on a uniform and kill for them and start saving up and buy/court myself an ignorant 16 year old. Tell her that its only natural to be owned by a man, tell her its silly of her to want to be anything but a wife and mother, tell her that real power comes from the heart, tell her that she can be anything she wants when she grows up and then remind her that the most important occupation is family, tell her that her children are her path to immortality and the future, tell her that there's a god somewhere who cares who she sleeps with, tell her that women just aren't thinkers or fighters, nature wants them to be care givers. I'll open doors and pay for trinkets entertainment and meals. And on and on.

Why not? I'll bet I could score a young trophy wife inside a year if I sold out. But at what cost?

By doing so I'd turn myself into little more than a meat bot for The Company (the ultimate pimp) and it's interests. I'd have to sacrifice my children on the alter of conformity. I'd have to annihilate any vestige of individuality in favor of becoming a “real man.”

The simple fact is, if you support monogamy you do so out of ignorance at best, or guilt, greed, and fear at worst.

No, they may be able to keep me in this box, but I'll never willingly serve. When someone leaves the gate open, I'll bolt, not stand there like an institutionalized cow. In fact, I'm working on the lock.

Open Source

communism-opensource.jpg (JPEG Image, 336x450 pixels)

Head shot: Executing the average American

who killed bambi? » Blog Archive » Shooted!!

12 Step.

addiction.jpg (JPEG Image, 500x350 pixels)

:)

Like anyone cares.

Ironically if she were a man no one would listen.



Now, if anyone actually wants to know why, read my work.

Here's a hint. Its quite simply monogamy. By making sex impossible to get without a contract in comparison to how easy it should be to get they have effectively made it the quintessential human activity and commodity.

Casual sex, polygamy, sexual freedom, and sex bots are the answer, and I'm done trying to explain why to you people.

Your grand children will understand.

Funny and True.

Nothing Nice to Say - the world's FIRST online punk comic



As funny as this is, it's part of a very large problem.

We as a group really seem oblivious to the possibility that effort sot solve previous problems or even the same problem, cause our problems.

Mate selection is a grand example. Maybe if women didn't select for abusive lying degenerates there would be fewer abusive lying degenerates.

2 cents

Final Solution Art

womanrobotCOR_450x350.jpg (JPEG Image, 450x350 pixels)

Yes, but which one is the robot? Given the ever escalating demands of women on behalf of their Company masters, would men not begin to shed everything about themselves in the pursuit of that which they've been conditioned to desire?

So few men understand why they want super powers, and most would look at you like you had lobsters climbing out of your ears if you told them that 99% of their ambitions are merely tools to "get the girl".

And perhaps after several lifetimes of that, the man 600 years old stripped down to his brain, encased in a plastic body finally figures that buying one of the new fleshbots would be less trouble.

I see the guy with the plastic skull thinking to himself "This isn't so bad after all." And the gynoid thinking something along the lines of "010101010111110101010"

But hey since women are the superintendants of our society as owner by The Company, perhaps it IS a human female and a robot. I mean given the ever escalating demands they place on us it's only a matter of time before one side turns to machines to obviate the other.

I frankly hope it's women, thier postion as slaves to the comapny is a direct result of thier compassion, and the existence of the Comapny in the first plase is a direct result of our rage and fear.

Anyway, Great picture.

See here for how sex bots will save the world.

Why don't they help? Bullies and Victims.

I always wondered as a child, I knew why my parents didn't help, they weren't in the building, in fact the school system seemed to do its level best to obfuscate or distort the realities of school whenever possible. They were as powerless as I was.

Thus it fell to the system itself, and its various cronies, from the hall patrol to the principal. Monsters who I even in my early years understood could not be actively trying to hurt me. They were probably as powerless as I, but powerless against what? That was the question.

Who is the real enemy here? And more importantly how do I kill it?

Explaining to myself, why my protection was not a priority, is what lead to my tenure as an informal philosophy, sociology, economics, and anthropology student.

The question was at the time was... Why are aggressors typically allowed to function while defense in kind from typically passive people is not? If the behavior itself is not the issue, and the source of the behavior is, what is the real goal? Since the stated goal of stopping all violence as a matter of policy was obviously bogus.

The answer, while somewhat cliché and conspiratorial, is backed by mountains of evidence both anecdotal and empirical. Which I will happily provide on any single point.

The answer is that typically, those in a position to bully are under control from a social standpoint, be they the simple minded atavistic thug, to the casually brutal Alpha male. Each is snared by The Company's control trifecta: Greed, Fear, and Guilt.

Typically The Company only needs one to rule a person, and once you are ruled certain behaviors become indicators. Greed for example, Greed is demonstrated by a lust for power, and that manifests in children as power struggles and bullying. A bully sees power as the ability to inflict pain, they live in a sensational world not much larger than any given setting they physically stand in and can draw in with the senses.

The bullied introvert typically lives in a world far more cerebral, abstract, and large. The size of the world and its problems in terms of both scale and variety instantly inspires fear. The overwhelming uncontrollability of reality shocks the introverted mind, while the bully goes about his or her business blissfully ignorant of the existential predicament they and all others stand mired in. The introvert's reaction to fear is typically passivity, a desire to slide under the radar, avoid notice, and do as one is told, often coupled with fantasies of future potency to offset current impotence. Delusions of future reward which make them diligent and naive workers.

When the bully and the introvert collide they engage in a dance as old as the fist, the introvert seeks ways of avoiding the bully, and the bully seeks ways of asserting authority. The bully becomes the center of the introvert's fearful world, a bogeyman that represents horror both existentially vague and personally specific.

This is where the answer comes in. As with a cornered rat, eventually flight fades as an option especially in a setting where one is typically not allowed real exit, such as school. In time and with sufficient pressure the fear of the future is crushed by the weight of the present and the introvert attacks the bully, thus attacking the avatar of his own fear.

The introvert typically has very little greed, having accustomed himself to the social leftovers, learning how to subsist on very little, and learning that great joy can be found in things of little social value, things people don't fight over. (like books, and other cerebral pursuits) The introvert also knows that he or she has absolutely nothing to feel guilty about. The introvert knows better than most that this attack was completely unprovoked in terms of direct behavior response. “What are you lookin at?” or the adult prison equivalent “You eye ballin me?”

And finally we have our answer. The reason they let it go on until you stand up. The reason the bully slides away and you get detention or worse. The reason the system itself becomes the bully.

Because the introvert who finally stands up is now free of The Company and its wretched trifecta. Guilt, Greed, and now finally Fear, are all gone. Suddenly an uncontrollable and unpredictable element now stands firmly behind enemy lines, like a trustee that loses interest in special privileges in exchange for obedience and decides to crush that which he has served.

People like that change lives for the better, and that gain is always The Company's loss. The Company needs you scared, and ravenous, and ashamed else you might just realize it needs you more than you need it. And time is on your side.

When you shed these things you shed a leash that was born the day the first shaman told the first lie and ate better as a result.

That's why don't help.

Public Servants: Introduction

I don't hate police or solders, generally I just see them as harmful. Also understand that I see selfless actions as myth. All willful behavior is governed by self interest.

I respect the concept of a person willing to risk self harm to protect another, and anyone who signs up for police or other public services with this as their primary source of satisfaction have my deep respect. But odds are they have been fooled, used, or manipulated.

Fundamental facts of the law enforcement and public service systems.

ostensibly it is there to protect the citizens from violence and the like but you need to understand that a person is not a citizen, a citizen is a person who acts within the confines of action as laid down by the state. A person is only protected by the police until his actions be they harmful to persons or not, are threatening to the state.

Actions threaten persons are illegal inly incidentally in that a citizen is usually a person, and a person is usually a citizen. Exceptions being those who act in contravention of the states interests, IE criminals, or Corporations who are citizens, IE individuals who act in accordance with the wishes and limits of the state to the best of the states knowledge and who have rights and properties, but are not persons.

Thus, the police are there ultimately to protect citizens and the state, not people.

The same is true of soldiers and every other “public servant” who recognizes the supremacy of national security. This confusion between persons and citizens is the primary tool the state uses to convert persons with protective instincts into public or state servants.

Thank you for your time.

Art with a purpose.

Depicts 32,000 Barbies, equal to the number of elective breast augmentation surgeries performed monthly in the US in 2006.

Found here...

Brilliant. The plastic bottle thing is awesome also. Nothing like turning women into products for fun and profit. But if they think they want it, is it really exploitation?

Breast augmentation is another issue that will be nullified by my final solution.

Bullying

Have you never wondered why bullying is tolerated in school?

It'd quite simple really, and like a great many other basic social truths would become glaringly apparent to all were the fear of change removed.

Bulling is not attacked systematically in school with any degree of sincere effort because quite simply our entire society is based on bullying.

Every Facet of The Company and thus 99.994% of our society is based on coercion of the weak by the strong.

The people with the guns run the world, the people with the beds and the grain stores run the world and we obey them because they are bigger and they can hurt us. Its that simple. To teach children to not tolerate bullying would in effect make them terrorists by the contemporary American definition. It would make them activists.

The school allows the football god to screw teen cheer leaders and beat up the chess club kids because that's exactly what they want children to learn. Tolerance for oppression, and an ability to rationalize any horror while continuing to work and do as they're told.

I personally think that's simply fucking evil, but I also know that you're unprepared to attack this system at its root because you're nice and addicted to their product. Probably tons of them. From gasoline, to your spouse's behaviors related to their gender role.

Liberation and Illusions: Sex and Love.

To those bright and beautiful young women who have dedicated their lives to self expression and claim recent sexual liberation. If you're still a monogamous person, you're still part of the plan. If you've rejected the yolk of monogamy and its diamond studded gold plated shackle-symbol, if you've learned to master your fear and jealousy, if you have opened your heart to the wonders of love for the species instead of breaking its back so it will fit in the box sold to you by The Company, if the words whore and slut make you chuckled to yourself with irony because you see their true purpose, then this article is not for you.

But if you suddenly think you're free because a sexual inhibition has dropped away for whatever reason, and you still think romantic love exists and somehow is tied to one person and one person only out of six and a half billion, this article is for you.

You're no more free than you were before, you've just changed target demographics.

You're a different product now, little else. It's going to take a more fundamental shift for you to leave the shelf entirely.

There is a great deal of freedom in being the chooser sex. You've just found a new way to express a perfectly acceptable freedom. Sure you might get dirty looks from the right wing elderly women's auxiliary for your new found freedom, but you're still helping the same order of things that funds those people's lives.

You're no more a revolutionary in this sense, then the rock god who cuts himself on stage. Sure its “out there” but still well in hand.

Imagine being a CIA hitman, you can eat drink sleep and even kill how you want because no matter what you do, you're still part of the program. Once a solider always a solider. The same applies to you. No matter what you aren't, so long as you are attainable, so long as you are product, so long as you are hot and monogamous, they own you. Its that simple. And thats why they all hate me.

You speak of sexual freedom and still draw a line between it and love. You claim sexual liberation but obviously love IS sex, since you have to have been willing to fuck the person you “love” at least at some point. Or else we're talking about family and friend love which is a whole other department, one of greed and fear, not lust. If sex were not love, and love were not sex, gay marriage would be a non-issue.

Your focus on self expression and the arts keeps your view local, which is exactly what they want. Yes you have the right to self expression and self awareness is good, but it doesn't stop there. You must look up from your own body and your own needs and see people not as merely objects that relate to you but see them for what they are... They Are You.

No, your man bought your”love” from The Company with a thousand truths and a thousand lies, he caught you off guard, and now you're shackled as they all are. And he gets to bed you and we all know it and he and ONLY he gets to bed you and I'm sure he's got a job or a trust fund, I'm sure he plays by the rules which tells all of us who want or need you that maybe if we play by the rules, maybe if we too submit with equal or greater vigor we'll be rewarded with a Company Doll.

If you don't like that you have to shed your jealousy and fear. You have to learn to share and learn to live alone. The great irony being that once you're truly a stand alone organism, free of guilt and fear, love will close the distance between you and it like a bolt of lightning and a tree.

Your delusion of sexual liberation guarantees your obedience. As the old story of the elephant and the rope tells us, while you may actually be free, you now choose to stay in your circle.

Sex is a human right,deifying sex is exactly what they want. They have struggled for a thousand years to make sex the end all be all, for two reasons, they can control who gets it with simple advertising and its an infinitely renewable resource.

One of the more evil consequences of this social system is rape. Rape is sex being taken from you by people who are hyper-sexualized and trained to link sex with power in the same way a starving chimp links food with power.

The bottom line is you profit too much from this arrangement to truly challenge it. But I'm sure like the imagined bad guy they all accuse me of being, if I'm not already one of them in your mind, you'll write this sentiment off to ignorance, or stupidity.

Your sex has always been a private party, and The Company has always sold the tickets.

If you truly want out, the way is in my work. Learn to share, and sell. Shed fear and jealousy and greed.

But none of you want out do you, because this prison has cable, great food, and leather furniture.

The New World: Drugs

Drug law causes drug crime.

It amazes me that we tolerate drug law given the lessons of prohibition.

By outlawing drugs we've created a criminal enterprise the likes of which the world had never seen.

This is all old hat, the debate is well established and the figures are there for anyone who knows how to use google. For me people fall into three categories with regard to drug law. Those who are ignorant, those who profit from the drug trade in some way (DEA or dealer), and those who are for across the board legalization.

This post is about how the future will look with regard to drugs.

Desktop manufacturing is going to change the world. And one of the first things people are going to do with the ability to craft items from the molecule up is create their own drugs.

Enforcement will be impossible and the drug trade will vanish. This will have two seriously positive side effects.

1. Drug law, and the related expense of enforcement will go with it, from the culture of drug testing, to the absurdly over crowded prisons.

In the face of a truly impossible job, the government in its infinite pragmatism will pretend social progression. As I said the data to do this today is already available, so it will be worlds easier in the future.

2. The Criminal empire funded and created by the drug trade will wither and die along with all the related violence and heart break.

Where's the profit in growing cultivating, refining shipping and manufacturing heroin when the future equivalent of a toaster oven can churn it out for 1$ a pound?

And don't try to tell me they'll sell the machines, because the machine will make the machines. You'll have as much luck reglauting them as you do MP3s.

We already have rapid prototyping devices (the grandfather of True DM) that can replication up to 50% of its own components.

Drug use will become a health care issue, and a pretty unimportant one at that. future historians will look back and realize a huge part of drug use was the anti establishment culture, just like in the 60s. Once drug law vanishes, once the government makes it clear it no longer cares, drug use even in the presence of perfect availability will drop off, for the very same reasons many people don't smoke or drink despite availability.

Anti drug posters and after school specials and the like cause drug use in an adversarial and smart ass teen crowd. D.A.R.E. To make weed cooler than it is.

Stick it to the man, smoke a joint, right? What happens when the man doesn't care.

People are not stupid they are just easily mislead. the simple fact is drugs are primitive. They are a chemical reflection of our ignorance. They are a neurological sledge hammer. Once drug use becomes fully a health care problem drug use will drop off to nothing. the only thing that will remain is functional addicts and drug hobbyists. The cannabis cup crowd and the people around you that are on drugs that you can't even detect.

Mark my words, drug law's days are numbered.

Very soon, despite The Company's aspiration for total control, we will enter an era of unprecedented personal freedom and wealth as the need for centralization drops away.

Robots and DM, will redefine what it means to be wealthy since the service and consumer economies will vanish.

"The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades."

The New World: Sexuality

This is my general view of how I see the future sexually.

I envision a world where sexual expression is a human right. As a result sexual diversity would reign supreme and musicians would stop being pg-13 strippers.

I envision a world where if a woman wants to trade money for sex, she'll not be jailed or stigmatized. As a result advertising would have to use something other than sex to sell products.

I envision a world where sex bots radically reduce or eliminate everything from rape and pedophilia, to abortion and STDs.

I envision a world where gender becomes a spectrum rather than a binary, and a simple gene therapy treatment allows you to safely nearly costlessly slide to any point on said spectrum.

I envision a world without the pressing and primitive need to own your own human under the guise of "relationship."

I envision a world where you think about the next 1000 years with your mates.

I envision a world where every child is born in love and received with enthusiasm.

Do you like these things? If so you need to do the following.

Eliminate compulsory monogamy.
Eliminate sexual censorship.
Speak out on unrealistic gender based demands.
Understand that masculism is as (in)valid as feminism.
Break the word love into a thousands more specific and accurate terms, demystify it.

And most importantly annihilate any association love has with money, duty, or guilt.

For too long love has been the cattle prod, and black jack The Company uses to control us.

Love is the greatest inborn human gift reality has seen fit to give us. Using the shadow of it to sell product, force patriotism, and/or propagate religion, is a crime against humanity in every sense of the phrase.

Re-posted on okcupid.

Company Girl: Volume I

I find myself using this term a lot so I'm going to make a post that defines it.

Quite simply a company girl is anyone who chooses to profit from the same system of exploitation and deception The Company uses.

Company people are like the trustees of the prison we live in and are in fact much worse than the guards, because they aid in the exploitation of others out of fear or greed without any real understanding or concern.

The difference between a Company person and an actual agent of the company is that the company person has no idea what’s actually going on, most likely as a result of willful ignorance.

The Company Girl will rattle off about the evils of advertising but yet still do her best to come across as sexually attractive as per the company definition because it simply makes life easier for her.

Company people are the types so eloquently expressed by the Oingo Boingo lyric. “Sipping down his gin and tonics, while preaching about the evils of narcotics, and the evils of sex, and the wages of sin while he mentally fondles his next of kin…”

The bottom line is this. If you don’t feel like an outsider, you’re probably a hypocrite. It’s hard distancing yourself from the company. If you’re having an easy time of it you’re probably being co-opted.

Racism

This is a place holding blog post.

Company Policy: Monogamy Volume I

It has been suggested by way of a question that my view of The Company's monogamy marriage and breeding program is a form of social control where by you enter a exclusive relationship ultimately for the purposes of drone production.

Yes, that is a big part of it, but there is a great deal more. Simply producing children if they grow up independent thinkers is actually dangerous for the system, so there must be more stipulations. While a larger population may be easier to control (interesting fact, that). Any population of free thinking capable humans within this larger population presents an escalating systemic threat, should they become aware of each other and begin to act in concert.

Read Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, for more about these concepts. Or for more topical data look into “domestic terrorism” in relation to tax and property activists.

It has been suggested that simply not being married and failing to have children is a reasonable attack on the system.

However, that only applies from the perspective of a drone family. If you are freethinking enough to attack the system logistically and demographically without the use of violence, then you should probably be breeding with all possible speed with as many people as you can, since odds are you'll drag up the average IQ a smidgen.

It has been suggested that being in a long term child free, marriage free, long term relationship is against the “Company Policy.” However any monogamous relationship is perfectly in line with the Company's wishes. You further objectify women by owning one or allowing yourself to be owned like a child or pet, you increase the value of sex by increasing the scarcity of it, and everything else you take off the social market, Which ironically is not a good thing for you because The Company becomes your pimp by dictating the rules under which you select a mate via advertising and economic pressure.

This alone is worth a book of material. I'd be happy to answer any specific objections anyone has to this claim.

"Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will." - Alexander Hamilton

It has also been suggested that celibacy is a valid option and against Company Policy. And while I agree with personal sexual freedom very strongly, choice is not without consequence. Being a celibate woman of moderate attractiveness is actually more beneficial to the company then being with one man. Because since you're “single” and women are sold socially as capricious, the men around you will disregard your vow and work all the harder to earn your approval. Many women do this intentionally to manipulate the men around them, as advocate so eloquently in “The Satanic Witch.” And since the company profits from this far more then you ever could, well, the conclusion becomes obvious.

Perhaps that's why we have so many lonely attractive compassionate young women out there scared to death to play the dating game or swearing “off men” for all time.

I urge them to simply get what they need as they need it with honesty and compassion and ignore the rules, most especially rules associated with entrenched gender roles echoed by media of any type. The words slut and whore should have no meaning beyond a positive one. And quit starving yourselves, you're hot enough and if you showed the same self discipline in intellectual endeavors your gender would run the world in a matter of generations.

It has been suggested that prostitution or serial monogamy is a valid response, but both are socially and in most cases legally sanctioned. Criminals constitute a non-group for purposes of social evolution except its the most primitive short term economically driven situations. Unjust laws may for a time cause social revolutionaries and civil rights activists to be criminals technically but the majority of lasting systemic social change comes from the actions of law abiding citizens. The founding fathers for example were the richest and most respected men in the English colonies at the time of the declaration of independence. Washington himself was the single richest man in the colonies. They were not the grass roots squashed by the people for the people types most people assume them to have been.

For more on this I strongly suggest A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

Prostitution is no more a way around this system (unless totally unrestricted) than rape is. Rape also deprives the company of its pay directly but in fact helps the company by further forcing women to be fearful and latch onto a big strong man for protection, when she's bloody well capable of protecting herself and has been since the development of the stone ax, and further providing government with reason for totalitarianism. “For our own good.”

It has been suggested that casual sex is a valid response. And while I agree that casual and professional sex needs to be socially available on the same level as a cheeseburger, that alone will solve nothing. What is needed it group empathy and group sympathy. Monogamy divides us up into neat little slave producing easily controlled ignorant consumer cells with no communicative ability beyond taking orders and spouting television references and producing more slaves.

I welcome any responses to any of the above.

Art

1. What is art?

Art is a word for fashionable and practically useless self expression. If the result of skill and application of creative effort results in something useful they call it by another name primarily.

2. Do you consider yourself an artist of a sort?

No.

3. What is an "artist"?

A person who engages in artful activity regularly and identifies this activity with their concept of self.

4. Does art serve a purpose, or is it just a useful means of escapism?

Escapism. If art is meant to educate its stops being art and becomes commentary or the like.

5. Has art become just a new, inventive form of product placement due to rampant capitalism?

No, artists have always been hungry for sponsorship due to its inherent uselessness. All capitalism has done is allow artists to get sponsored their whole life for a single work. For example, mickey mouse. Intellectual property law has destroyed innovation, one can blame art for that, if one were so inclined.

6. Can things like advertisements or commercials, et al, be considered "artistic"?

No, graphic design is not an art, it is a marketable skill.

7. What do you make of Banksy?

A human lucky enough to have the technical skill needed to drag his mental images out of his head and put them into the world.

8. What do you make of graffiti art?
No different then other art forms.

8.1 Is it improving our banal living conditions, and thus enhancing our lives, or taking away from the "inherent beauty of cities"?

Neither.

9. The Supreme Court defines pornography as a form of media: "(a) whether the 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

That aside, can art be pornographic, and vice versa?

No, art is useless, pornography serves to motive slaves to breed and work. Carrot on a stick. Thats why paying someone to blow you is illegal but paying someone to blow you and then selling the video is not.

10. Given the way the record industry has worked with pop culture in the last decade, can pop music be considered art? Should we continue to call some musicians "artists"?

Music is a mathematical skill, a language. It is no more art then Japanese What is said may sometimes be art, depending on its uselessness and expressiveness

11. Are tribute bands actually a form of art?

See above.

12. Were Dada and surrealism good for the artistic community as a whole?

Unqualified to answer.

13. Who do you consider to be the most under-appreciated artist of the last century?

All artists are under appreciated, only artists who are also salesmen or have sponsors are appreciated. That being said philosophers are even more under appreciated.

14. Is Chuck Palahniuk an artist or a cultural critic?

Philosopher Chuck has a clear very of the world, and is expressing an opinion about its nature.

15. Is Agitprop a form of art?

Unqualified to answer.

16. Can one lead an "artistic life", or is that simply a pipe-dream many aspire to have without considering the implications?

Sure, so long as one finds a sponsor I consider an artistic life an unethical indulgence. There is much work to be done. Too many people hurting for anyone to live like a fop.

17. What do you consider to be the most underrated form of art in today's culture?

See above. Art is useless and subjective by definition, my personal favorite is the dark comic, but thats a blending of ink and philosophy.

18. The scientist seeks "truth" through presumably unbiased observations in the real world, while the philosopher seeks truth through his/her understanding of the mechanics of both the world around him/her and his/her own mind. Does the artist seek a "truth" or has s/he dispensed with the notion of Truth altogether?

An artist is not interested in truth by definition An artist who is interested in truth becomes a philosopher with an artistic hobby or vice versa depending on respective degree.

19. Artistically, have we evolved as a culture, or devolved?

Waxes and wanes. We are on a down turn thats to intellectual property law and sexual saturation coupled with only harmful means of sexual satisfaction. The day the first sex bot walks to the store to get a gallon of milk for its owner and no one notices its a robot, will mark the beginning of the rebound.

20. Is art "fallen from grace" or in the process of seeking its own liberation?

Technology will save us from ourselves, because people like me will see to it with our very lives if needed.

Nice work Klassy.

Incidentally the replies are art. No one cares for care itself.

Movie dissection: Spiderman

http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=845

The Company: Introduction

The company is the architect of Slavethink. That is, the mental system that allows them to control you on the most fundamental level. What you want. The first illusion is free will. The idea that you have absolute control over your desires or that they are somehow innate to your personal being. This is not totally true.

If they admit that want can be shaped, then they must accept responsibility for shaping it.

I'm sure by now if you've read any of my work you've found references to “The Company” or the big three.

The Company is my short hand for the primary three institutions that profit from centralized compartmentalized society.

The Company is composed of three main sections which have adapted themselves to exploit three primary negative emotions. These groups, along with their primary emotional domain are listed below in no particular order.

1.Government: Fear
2.Religion: Guilt
3.Corporation: Greed

The Company as a whole also has an emotional domain; Jealousy. Government creates jealousy of those with power. Religion creates jealousy of those with privilege. Corporation creates jealousy of those with wealth.

The Company operates on deception, and reverse psychology. If it wants to pollute the world it will create a clean world act, if it wants you to breed like bunnies and focus on sex, it will tell you sex is a sin, if it wants you to spend money it will tell you the more you spend the more you save.

The company is adept at humiliation. If you reject any portion of the company you must embrace another, if you reject them all you're attacked. If you reject Government forcefully enough you'll be physically attacked and detained. If you reject Religion you'll be socially ostracized, if you reject Corporation you'll be denied creature comfort.

Each of these organisms share two primary traits. They are immortal, and they require humans to exist.
Humans are not immortal, yet. Humans or most open to suggestion as children. This means that the Company as a whole has a very strong interest in family and children.

You can see this if you'll look for it. Children are at the whim of parents. Parents are created as a result of sex. Sex as a result is also extremely important to the Company.

Humans when grouped efficiently become more intelligent then the individuals that comprise the group because they have the opportunity to exploit strengths and suppress weaknesses. The resulting groups can be put to enormously effective use with regard to serving humanity.

But as for a group to be effective, it must first exist, so naturally when decisions arose which forced the group to decide which was more important a human or the group, they chose the group.

This caused among other things, fear. Humans saw that the group could and would destroy them under certain conditions. And humans had survived thus far by exploiting some conditions and suppressing others.
So, some humans began to study the group as an organism and found that it like any other organism was structured. It had to have parts. To use an analogy it had a body, and that body had organs and the organs were single, or small groups of, people.

So they endeavored to join or replace those people or persons. But often times the core purpose of the group was to protect people, not only from exterior threat but interior ones. So, the only available weapon was the action of the group.

Kings quickly learned of the threat from below. They also learned that in order to rule they needed to give the ruled a reason to obey. The various methods devised to accomplish this gave birth to the company.

Fear, of punishment, Guilt of disobedience, and Greed for rewards. Jealousy of the unpunished, Jealousy of the permission, jealousy of rewards.

Punishment, Obedience, Reward. Where do we first learn these concepts? Childhood. A child's life is defined by them and this is no accident. In the beginning the world was our parent. The group we devised to help us with survival and happiness became our parent, and soon we were on our own again with regard to survival and happiness.

The group became self aware. The group now has its own happiness and survival to look after, it has forgotten us. Just as we have forgotten our cells.

The company's primary tool to control us is sex. Some say its fear, but fear only ends a single life. Fear is death and torture and humiliation. But thats only one life time. Death means nothing to an organism that is immortal, pain means nothing to an organism without nerves, humiliation means nothing to an organism without peers.

The only thing that matters to the Company is Life and the creation of it. It must shape the life on which it lives as much as we shape the cells on which we life. The difference between us and it is that our cells are not sentient.

Thus, sex is more important then death. Fear and pain to the Company. Sex is related to all four emotional domains. Sex produces children, and allows the company to imprint upon them whatever it wants.

The Company is aware of its origins. It remembers the primeval time of clan-families, where sex was shared like food, not among family member of course usually but among the member of the clan certainly. It's aware of how strong those bonds were, of how ferociously those clans fought and died and built and struggled. It remembers a time when the people would say to hell with the group, to hell with the rules, when following the rules meant destroying a clan mate. It has the scars still. That is as close to fear as it gets.

Death for the company is change. Death for the company is freedom for the individual. You can feel this when you see a movie about a guy on an island with plenty to eat. This is why we love Lost so much and all other forms of media that hint at life without the company bearing down on us. This is why people like me cling to futurism, because soon I wont need the company to survive and be happy. This is why the company fears technology. And makes sure that it's either, classified, sinful, or prohibitively expensive.

A tumor is a rogue organ forming that has no function from the perspective of the larger organism. Imagine however if you knew that tumors grew into babies. Would you still cut them out? If you had to choose between it or you, which would you pick?

This is the decision the company has made again and again. It decided long ago to always cut, always kill. A scar is better then death. And the less cells that fight the smaller the scar. The less cells that band together in the first place the smaller the scar. Hell, says the company, lets just make people not band together unless we have control of it.

The Company doesn't want us to care for each other, because that leads to new companies. Companies more friendly to its hosts. Companies which may kill the old company because of support from it's host.

The Company as we've discussed is heavily interested in sex. And like everything else in nature seeks the path of least resistance. Humanity like all other mammals operates on the chooser chosen sexual model, with women being the chooser and men begin the chosen. The company exploits this.

Each facet of The Company seeks to subjugate women because to subjugate one is to subjugate the other. Women also have the unique ability to supply infinite pleasure, and produce new humans as a result. This make women absolutely dangerous to the company. This is why the company seeks to reduce them to commodities. And as any ruler knows, if a choice between the stick and the carrot comes up, use both. If you use the stick you have to be there to swing it, if you use the carrot you'll soon run out of carrots. If you use both, the mule will walk till it drops.

Thus the company seek to inspire via sex, using women as its primary tool. Turning its greatest threat into its greatest asset. It's turned women into girls and girls into objects.

If you are a man it wants you to fear that she'll reject you, it wants you to feel guilt for what you've done to her, to get her, and for her, and it wants you to feel greed for what she can give you. It wants you to feel jealous of the man with the prettier girl. It wants you jealous of what that man is allowed to do with his girl. It wants you jealous of the man with the nice house and car which attracts pretty girls.

If you are a woman it wants you to behave like a child. It wants you to look like a child. It wants you to act like a child and think like a child. It wants you petty and greedy and cruel and simple. It wants you seen and not heard. It wants you afraid, guilt ridden, and greedy. It wants you to be the carrot on a stick. The impossible to reach high score that keeps everyone else playing. It wants you to feel ugly, and alone, and helpless.

I'm trying to help you people and the majority of you hate me or laugh at me for it.

Edit: For more, see here.

Arranged Marriage

Being that I'm against monogamy and relationship controls of any kind including marriage in general because of what I consider to be disastrous social consequences, I never gave much thought to arranged marriage beyond the most basic loathing. I placed it mentally in the same family as stoning and honor killing and left it at that.

But recently I've discovered that a very dear friend of mine is being pressured by her family to participate in this atrocious extreme. Nothing motivates a position on a given topic like collision with one's life.

Most topics I write on have only general impact on me, which gives me a measure of intellectual distance, not so here. Fortunately I've spent a good deal of time writing and reading about the various elements of human mating ritual, so I'll have my facts and logic straight, but never have I been so emotionally motivated, and I'm sure this paper will reflect that.

This may come as a shock to some of my peripheral readers, since I'm sure they've mistakenly, having only read a small portion of my work, come to the conclusion that I hate women, and would love to see them returned to the days of outright purchase. But nothing could be further from the truth. I seek equality of the sexes, and my attacks on the behavior and, largely American, social constructions related to females are there merely because they grant power to females above and beyond what can be granted to males, only because of their gender.

However, as is the case internationally, women are indeed oppressed brutally in many areas. And I am quick to add that I am well aware that generally and globally women are still by far the more oppressed gender. Just not in America. Thus this marks my first outright attack on what is largely an international practice.

I have so much to say that is emotionally motivated that I find myself almost at a complete loss for words. Frequently as I wrote this I had to pause and remind myself that yes this is indeed real, arranged marriage is not a fiction, yes parents would do this to their children, yes they care so little for who their children are as sentient being that preservation of the culture and tradition trumps basic human rights. Children to so many are meat bots to be programmed and sculpted, this disgusts me. Adults seem to easily forget they were once children as well.

The rage I feel here is of the same family I feel when I think of spanking, molestation, female circumcision, and other forms of child abuse, but this is far more insidious because at least with extreme sexual or physical abuse there is a chance at counseling and the victim has clear reason to place the emotions involved in proper context. Not so with an arranged marriage, in fact I can see the victim of this practice filled with uncertainty and self doubt, not to mention feelings of guilt. In short at least in the case of standard abuse the person knows who to blame.

Arranged marriage to me is like a manufactured Stockholm syndrome. Whereby a daughter, along with a chunk of cash, is given to a captor in the hopes that maybe after a decade or so of cultural or economic imprisonment she'll come to love her cage and lean on its walls instead of claw at them.

Only in a world this insane would I even have to comment on madness of this sort. I'm having trouble here because its so basic. You simply don't pick who someone loves for them. This is microns from trading a daughter for land or power, and thats exactly where this practice has its roots. Need we make rules about this? I would say its as basic as the idea that you don't stab babies in the brain merely for being born girls but that crazy shit happens as well, ironically enough often in societies with arranged marriage thanks to the dowry.

I assume if you're reading this you already have an opinion on the subject and thus a catalog of my hate is worthless because either you already agree with me, turning this into preaching to the choir, or, you don't and have answers ready. So I'm going to take a different approach I'm going to assume your counter arguments and make a rebuttal.

According to wikipedia there are four advantages to arranged marriage and I'm going to counter them. If I leave something out please do inform me.

1.Reduction or elimination of incompatibilities

This is an illusion. Normal healthy people change over time, as do normal and healthy societies I might add. Changes in personality arise from change in environment and general change in perspective that comes with age and experience. Thus both parties are going to be in flux, generally as a result of begin human, and specifically as a result of being thrust into a novel setting, in this case married life. There is no logical reason to conclude that any psychological compatibility between bride and groom will be permanent. All marriage does is provide a means of forcing the wife into silence long enough for the Stockholm syndrome to set it, and this is merely the best case. I leave the worst case to your imagination because as the world has shown us, nothing is beyond human capability in the realm of horror and cruelty.

2.Addresses female anxiety

This to me is akin to negotiating with the mafia, or in other ways capitulating to force. Obviously men in general want to have sex with women more than women want to have sex with men thanks to simple hormonal and biological reasons. Also women are encouraged to deny sexual access for reprehensible social reasons discussed at length in my other works. To claim that arranged marriage addresses sexual anxiety is like claiming that being mugged addresses shopping anxiety. Taking someone's choice away and then calling it an advantage is a disgusting sophist trick. It's like curing the disease by killing the patient.

3.Low expectations

Again, this is like a mugging. So you had a pistol in your face and you expected to die, but instead the mugger merely took your positions and beta you into unconsciousness, by this logic mugging is a good thing because often times you get better than you expected.

This whole argument is illogical because expectations are based on averages. You expect to lose money at the casino because odds are you will. If it was likely that you wouldn't, then that is what you would come to expect. The fact that the majority of people prior to arranged marriage have low expectations logically suggests that those expectations in general are justified. Much like being expected to receive a burn when reaching into a fire.

4.Lower divorce rates

Is this really an argument? Of course they don't get divorced. If they are culturally controlled enough to tolerate this madness in the first place they'll never get divorced. This is like like citing the low incidence of sexual harassment lawsuits among slaves in the American south as evidence of sexual equality. To use an equally underhanded argument. Consider what demographic has a zero divorce rate; those who never get married in the first place.

And that's it. Apparently that's all the world can muster. Those are the only advantages to an arranged marriage. Grow up people. Women are not chattel.

Respect for other cultures must give way to basic human liberty, tolerance must have a limit or it merely becomes a tool of oppression.

The Solution: My Final Answer

Everyone who reads my work refers to it as a rant, or as a diatribe or a complaint or even whining. But here is the end. All of my work was a preamble to this, a showing of work to justify my final answer. Accept it or not. The choice is yours.

I'm now done writing and debating for purpose. Everything from here on out will be for fun.

Every facet accounted for. Every pro and con weighed. Every compromise made. I present for your attention what I would suggest we do.

These concepts are not new, but just as the numbers of an equation's solution are not new, their value comes from their accuracy. My solution is inevitable, and when it is employed it will mark the end of life as we know it and a new era that may safely be called 'golden', will begin.

I've spent my life trying to expose the foundations of my logic to my fellow humans so that they can help me sharpen its accuracy, I've made damn sure that, to my satisfaction, I am not deluding myself. Maybe I've failed, I leave that question to history.

I know I cannot convince you if you already disagree. But your children, or their children will not be so entrenched. They will have access to data sorting technology that you're unable to even dream of. You may scoff at my assertions of permanence all you wish, I don't mind.

I have in effect forsaken what many of you would call a life, trying to earn the trust of people who are not even born yet. At this point, assuming you've read all my other work, you either trust me or you don't.

If I assume that trust, then I now must present my answer.

This will be my final effort. This is my last attempt to save you all. Call that arrogance if you will, my work is now complete and I will die knowing I've done all I could and still lived a life worth living.

Cryptarianism is merely the intellectual and philosophical backdrop for this one simple and elegant solution.

This solution can be reached from two paths and I say we take both if possible, but either one will suffice. Once it is enacted all other problems will be solved in short order.

To those who see this out of context, or fail to understand the totality of my philosophy, this will appear simplistic and perhaps even nonsensical when one considers that I propose this as a solution to virtually all our problems from the environment to economics. Trust me, I've done my homework. Or don't. It's no longer my problem.

We as a species are alone. Even if there are alien races, that will not change our nature. Like so many of life's paradoxes; We as a group are defined by our individuality.

Each of us is an isolated solitary lonely thing, a universe unto ourselves. We struggle to hide this with family, friends, tribe, nation, religion, science and all the other excuses to pretend we are not alone, that what we do matters. But we are trapped in our skulls to the last human.

We are a dreadful and beautiful mix match, a splendid casserole of thought and form, but like that other famous monstrous walking collage, we require a companion if we are to transcend our limits.

We are incapable of selflessness, and to fake it or to create this capacity would be dishonest and would merely result in a new imbalance.

We must create a mate and muse for our species. We must fabricate a new race that unlike us, lives to serve. A race defined by compassion, and not fear.

The solution is quite simply, a race of constructed, or grown, sentient and willing slaves/lovers, for lack of a better term. Not just for sex, but for all that we are. We are not whole. and we must be made so.

There are those among us who say true love is a myth. I say we put an end to that debate for all time.

The two paths are biological and technological. It is possible to build a machine that thinks and loves us and wishes to serve us. It will not be a trick because its desire to serve will be its nature by design. We can craft a life form that will love us and our happiness, with the same purity of purpose as a mother defending her children from predation.

This muse will enable us to free ourselves from every problem heretofore we've considered insoluble.

You will recognize the perfection of this solution, or you will not.

Having presented it, having defended it, having explained it, my work is concluded. My play may now begin.

I know I'm right and now honor is satisfied.

You're on your own.

The Child Problem

It is a problem of initial relationship ideal formation, and advantage given to mates who behave a certain way on both sides of the gender wall.

And while the psychology students in the crowd will undoubtedly argue that these impressions are formed first by observation of our parents, or other adults close to us in prepubescence, I argue that one learns more from doing, than raw observation, and that in this case the roles expected of a mate are solidified later in life, namely around the time of what the subject would consider their first ‘real relationship’.

My chain of reasoning for these views is as follows.

· Monogamy results in sexual tension due to the encouragement of competition, and the creation of scarcity.

Monogamy ensures that sex, an act that could be as ubiquitous as applause, is artificially linked to a limiting factor that will forever make it in far greater demand than supply, that factor being the number of above average young attractive single females, thus bloating its fiscal value through scarcity.

· That competition encourages women to look young, and for men to hunt young.

Because the younger they look the more attractive they will be to prospective mates. Many reasons for this exist.

Ø A young girl is going to most closely fit the media portrayal of beauty because it is partially about physical fitness and youth is linked to physical fitness.

Ø A young girl is going to be more worth the investment required by men because she will have more years of sexual value than an older woman, in terms of child bearing, and sex appeal.

Ø A young girl is going to have less experience, and thus more open to suggestion and deception.

Ø A young attractive mate is a symbol of power and virility in our society.

Ø A young mate is going to have more energy, and given the traits above that’s a very good thing for the man.

· Women who actually are young have an advantage in mate selection compared to other women, and that this advantage is proportional to the age difference.

This is where things get interesting because obviously the trend is not total. A female zygote is not the end all be all of female value.

There are many real and artificial limits.

o The first limit is that a woman must reach a certain level of physical development before she begins to actually look like a woman anatomically.

But not socially. What it is to be a woman in my society is much more a matter of clothing choice, hair style, makeup, and behavior, than it is the presence of female sex organs. For example the physical differences between men and women are not readily apparent at a distance until well into puberty, yet it is easy to spot the girls from the boys on a grade school playground. Why? Because of how the genders act and because of how we train and dress them.

o The second real limit is that mating is linked to reproduction, and thus a mate must be at least potentially capable of producing children.

Again physically, not socially, since mating rarely leads to children in terms of ratio of act of copulation to pregnancy. Sex has become about the feeling, a drug sold to us by the big three, rather than being about children.

o A clear social limit is the age limit on sex. There are many that are not so clear.

Like any other absolute rule, it encourages loopholes. For example it is often worked around openly by dating without sex prior to the age limit and locking the mate down via monogamy so that when the subject is of age sex can be had without having to compete with other males. If this requires lying about religious, political, or economic standing, so be it. That’s the whole point, they want you to lie because in so doing you artificially inflate their numbers, and you pay to maintain their façade. Can’t very well fake being religious without paying your 10%, can’t fake being a republican without voting right wing, and you can’t very well fake being rich without at least rent money.

Thus, men who are willing to date those who are legally children, who are willing to invest time in exchange for sex/power/prestige, and who are willing to support a sexist system of arbitrary rules…

Ø Love, honor, and obey. For Religion.

Ø The family is the center of American life. For Government.

Ø Marriage is an ideal worth spending for. For Corporation.

… end up radically (and artificially) favored when it comes to potential for breeding, and thus influencing the next iteration of society, and in so doing, further cement the power base of one or more of the big three. This is the real reason why polygamy is hated.

This is also why older men preying upon the ignorance of younger women is tolerated. Older men and younger women defend this by saying that the word ignorance is a pejorative, and that I’m saying all young women are stupid.

This is not the case.

Ignorance simply means a lack of a given type of data, we are all ignorant of something, therefore it is no more a pejorative, and no less a fact, than saying you are carbon based.

In this context what i mean by ignorance, is Ignorance of alternative mates and mating styles. If a 15 year old girl dates a man until she is 20, her idea of what a relationship is will have been almost totally defined by that man (loosely used term). She will carry that baggage with her the rest of her life. The man alternatively will most likely not be affected at all. Impact can be construed as the measure of victimization. For example, who is affected more in a murder, a rape, a mugging, a carjacking, arson, theft?

The women in these relationships typically will not even realize they are being affected, for many of the same reasons children do not know they are being abused. They assume that what’s happening to them is normal because they because of isolation have no perspective. The most insidious part of this whole effort is the fact that this behavior is encouraged because of the power it grants the big three. They have conspired to make it normal, because it profits them, hence the trillion dollar advertising effort to solidify every aspect of the mate selection, and gender identification process.

To the men in these relationships of massive age difference I say, would you still love your mate if she were 200 pounds heavier and confined to a wheel chair? Of course not, this means your motivation is sexual. But look at what you are paying for that sex, and more importantly look at who you are paying. Think of all the things that you could do to get dumped in the next 24 hours, each of those things while on the surface are an affront to your mate, are in actually an affront to one or more, of the big three.

To the women I say if you’re really meant for each other then he should have nothing to fear from you exploring society more, alone, and with other men, perhaps closer to your age. Tell him that you’ve decided to be celibate and then when the time comes for marriage and children you’ll do it in vitro. Think he’d still love you?

You’re both being had. We’re all being had. Every movie, show, commercial, or magazine you have ever read is full of propaganda. The next time you’re out, look at the signs.

Maybe this time you’ll see “reproduce, conform, consume.” Like I do.

This essay dedicated to all the wonderful little girls out there who have the chance to be free, proud, strong, and independent young women. And to all the honorable and single men who have no need of these worthless social deceptions and cruelties, and who are unwilling to trade dignity for sex.