Poison for the Heart - and Women

[Kevin Solway]

I'm sure it is quite natural, since nearly all boys are reared primarily by women. But it doesn't necessarily lead a man to being a misogynist. Sometimes, having been reared by women means that a man can have a better understanding of women.

But when you find out that your precious dreams of pregnancy, suckling and child-rearing are in vain after all: what a burning disappointment. How I raged against my mother when I realised that she had cheated me out of my feminine heritage! No womb! How could this be?

Most boys would realize that they're not going to grow up to be mothers by about age two, and will be fully over it and accepting of their fate at that time.

Haha, stupid, undeveloped chicks. Man you chicks really do suck big time.

To be consistent with that attitude you should really have a go at things like goldfish and garden plants, and always be reminding yourself and others how inferior those things are.

But really, I don't see that kind of attitude happening here on the forum. So it's a red herring. There is genuine compassion for the state of women - which is a state that has been largely caused by men.

[Laird]

Laird: Haha, stupid, undeveloped chicks. Man you chicks really do suck big time.

Kevin: To be consistent with that attitude you should really have a go at things like goldfish and garden plants, and always be reminding yourself and others how inferior those things are.

Goldfish and garden plants don't delude themselves and other people into believing that they are more developed than they really are. Women just can't help themselves, uppity creatures that they are. They need to constantly be put in their place.

But really, I don't see that kind of attitude happening here on the forum.

No one says it so bluntly nor in such colloquial language but for all intents and purposes the tagline for this forum is actually "Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity (but not Femininity because chicks suck), Wisdom, Perfection". And the real point is that for someone who does take the attitude that I presented, your (plural, including David and Dan) writings on women provide comfort and encouragement. Just look at the site that David references on his homepage - "I Hate Women". That site quotes the entirety of David's "Exposition". Oh, and David: the title of the site - "ironical"? Give me a break - the guy's on a crusade against women. It's as direct and straightforward an honest title as I can imagine. I'm also sorry to see that the typo that was present when he introduced your work has been (poorly) corrected - it used to read: "Woman: An Exposition for the Advancing Mind". How appropriate, I thought to myself - acknowledging that senility is a requirement for appreciating your work. In fairness I should add that I still haven't read your exposition and my low opinion of it is based upon a small amount of skimming and my familiarity with your (QRS's) general approach and writings on this forum.

There is genuine compassion for the state of women - which is a state that has been largely caused by men.

Uh - yeah, because it's compassionate to at every opportunity falsely portray women as comprehensively inferior and hopelessly so to the point that only genetic engineering can save them. Comments like that do wonders for a person's self-esteem. Yes indeed, how very compassionate of you. You might want to look at the word "patronising" and try to understand how it's a much better fit for your attitude.

[RectusFemoris]

I'm seeing just wasted potential here.

You wrote that book in 1987. It's been 20 years that you've been englightened - or at least, sufficiently enlightened to believe you can enlighten the masses. Twenty long years, and this book isn't published yet. You don't even have a Wikipedia page with your name, neither does your book. Twenty years is an extremely long period of time, during which any dedicated man could have amassed enough cash to actually get the money to hire men and equipment to print it.

Perhaps working is against your principles. However, you're trying to destroy the wall of ignorance that humanity is buidling, and you have a book to do it with, and you're doing nothing about it? You're not trying to get a foothold even out of the main-stream media? The best you've achieved is getting the attention of Something Awful. Getting the attention of dorks and jocks certainly wasn't your goal.

The end justify the means, said Niccolo Machiavelli. You want to change the world but you are unable to do it because of your own closed-mindedness. If you must strike at the roots of humanity's blindness to save humanity, then rationally your person, versus the number of people you might save from blindness with the sacrifice of your principles, is insignificant in front of the number of people you might convert to the Truth and the research of Genius.

You're ranting and raving here, but it seems that you still have a long path to thread on the way to the perfectly immovable, perfectly rational genius. Pretty words mean nothing if there's nobody to hear them. And if you don't go seek people to hear them, you're not being a solution to humanity's blindness. You're useless as a solution.

[Jamesh]

I agree with RectusFemoris

The QRS long ago succumbed to their delusions of granduer, and took on the role of gurus.
In many ways they are akin to being Paris Hiltons, rather than say Richard Dawkins's.

They are pretty ineffectual. Although a lack of will to influence others is certainly something that occurs with "enlightenment", as they are promoting enlightenment they need to be called what they are. The Grandious Unemployed.

[Dan Rowden]

Excuse me? Who says I have to do anything?

[Kevin Solway]

Twenty years is an extremely long period of time, during which any dedicated man could have amassed enough cash to actually get the money to hire men and equipment to print it.

It's been freely available on the web for twenty years, so it hasn't been my highest priority to get it printed - especially since I don't particularly want to get a job to pay for the printing.

. . . you have a book to do it with, and you're doing nothing about it? You're not trying to get a foothold even out of the main-stream media?

Our ideas wouldn't last five seconds in the mainstream media. We would be instantly banned - especially because of our views on women, but also because of our views on Christianity, Islam, work, and any other number of things.

We used to have some high-profile media personalities as members of our "Atheist Society" until the ABC management heard of it, and pressured their employees to pull out of it.

But we have dabbled a bit in the media. Dan and I had a few small spots in commercial radio, and later on we did a whole series on community radio. Then there are the podcasts! But they're not breaking any world records as yet.

The best you've achieved is getting the attention of Something Awful. Getting the attention of dorks and jocks certainly wasn't your goal.

Whose attention in the mainstream media do you think we might attract? Oprah Winfrey? There is no-one in the mainstream media who is interested in truth, so far as I can tell. If there were anyone interested in truth, they would instantaneously be out of a job.

the number of people you might save from blindness with the sacrifice of your principles, is insignificant in front of the number of people you might convert to the Truth and the research of Genius.

Compromise is out of the question. Compromise is the death of truth, and without truth I have nothing to offer.

Pretty words mean nothing if there's nobody to hear them. And if you don't go seek people to hear them.

I wouldn't mind doing another tour of America - but this time giving public talks and seminars, etc. Do you want to contribute?

[Dan Rowden]

Twenty years is an extremely long period of time, during which any dedicated man could have amassed enough cash to actually get the money to hire men and equipment to print it.

It's been freely available on the web for twenty years, so it hasn't been my highest priority to get it printed - especially since I don't particularly want to get a job to pay for the printing.

I totally sympathise with the last part, but as I've said before it needs a better, stand alone profile. For one thing, I know of almost no other place on the web that links to it. If it has its own domain that might change. I know that in itself incurs certain costs. Maybe it is time for us to start accepting donations via a Paypal link for these endeavours?

. . . you have a book to do it with, and you're doing nothing about it? You're not trying to get a foothold even out of the main-stream media?

Our ideas wouldn't last five seconds in the mainstream media. We would be instantly banned - especially because of our views on women, but also because of our views on Christianity, Islam, work, and any other number of things.

I'm not so sure about Christianity - seems pretty fashionable at the moment to bag it; Islam too for that matter. But issues like women and work would present a serious problem. One only has to see the sort of reaction those subjects get even here to see what would ensue.

We used to have some high-profile media personalities as members of our "Atheist Society" until the ABC management heard of it, and pressured their employees to pull out of it.

Well, we sort of pushed Philip Adams so that's not completely true.

But we have dabbled a bit in the media. Dan and I had a few small spots in commercial radio, and later on we did a whole series on community radio.

I've been speaking on talk radio for the best part of 20 years. There are limitations on what can be achieved through a medium like that. Getting yourself blacklisted by hosts doesn't achieve much in the longer term. But it's certainly not entirely worthless.

Then there are the podcasts! But they're not breaking any world records as yet.

It's a work in progress. We just got listed on a significant atheist blogsite by a guy who hasn't even been a guest yet! (but who I hope will be) - http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/ Every bit helps. Our "fame", so to speak, may even occur posthumously. Maybe one of us should kill ourselves and see how that works out? I'm not volunteering, though.

[Shahrazad]

We just got listed on a significant atheist blogsite by a guy who hasn't even been a guest yet! (but who I hope will be) - http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/

All right, Dan! That is cool. It took me a while to find where your link was, but I did.

Our "fame", so to speak, may even occur posthumously. Maybe one of us should kill ourselves and see how that works out?

Death happens pretty soon normally; no need to rush it even more.

-

[Dan Rowden]

We just got listed on a significant atheist blogsite by a guy who hasn't even been a guest yet! (but who I hope will be) - http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/

All right, Dan! That is cool. It took me a while to find where your link was, but I did.

There's a lot of links there, certainly, but anyone who subscribes to their RSS feed should get notification of the changes - I think.

Our "fame", so to speak, may even occur posthumously. Maybe one of us should kill ourselves and see how that works out?

Death happens pretty soon normally; no need to rush it even more.

Fair enough point. Maybe we should test the theory first on someone of lessor importance, like, Jimbo?

Kidding. Seriously.

[Shahrazad]

Maybe we should test the theory first on someone of lessor importance, like, Jimbo?

It wouldn't work wth somebody who is not enlightened.

[daybrown]

Maybe we should test the theory first on someone of lessor importance, like, Jimbo?

It wouldn't work wth somebody who is not enlightened.

In "The Maitreyasamiti Texts in Tocharian A" Buddha, on the issue of misogyny, points out that he was born of a woman and raised by women. Didnt seem to harm his enlightenment.

[Rhett]

I would just like to add that good targeting of the book is not only important to getting the best result for the dollars and effort expended, but also minimises the creation of anti-wisdom. The more the book is exposed to the mainstream the more academics and commonfolk etc will work no nullify it's message. This anti-wisdom spreads and can make the difference between a youth in the human realms having an interest in wisdom, or glazing over it.

Be fully cognizant that to whatever extent Poison affects populations, there will be more than equal in numbers counterforce. If needed, whole university departments would be created to destroy people's appreciation of it. And if that wasn't enough, government ministries, to give the academics views more force. It would be seen as a scourge.

[daybrown]

I would just like to add that good targeting of the book is not only important to getting the best result for the dollars and effort expended, but also minimises the creation of anti-wisdom. The more the book is exposed to the mainstream the more academics and commonfolk etc will work no nullify it's message. This anti-wisdom spreads and can make the difference between a youth in the human realms having an interest in wisdom, or glazing over it.

Be fully cognizant that to whatever extent Poison affects populations, there will be more than equal in numbers counterforce. If needed, whole university departments would be created to destroy people's appreciation of it. And if that wasn't enough, government ministries, to give the academics views more force. It would be seen as a scourge.

Books are increasingly obsolete, especially in controversial subjects, which do better when subjected to the criticism of forums like this.

[Boyan]

I would just like to add that good targeting of the book is not only important to getting the best result for the dollars and effort expended, but also minimises the creation of anti-wisdom. The more the book is exposed to the mainstream the more academics and commonfolk etc will work no nullify it's message. This anti-wisdom spreads and can make the difference between a youth in the human realms having an interest in wisdom, or glazing over it.

Be fully cognizant that to whatever extent Poison affects populations, there will be more than equal in numbers counterforce. If needed, whole university departments would be created to destroy people's appreciation of it. And if that wasn't enough, government ministries, to give the academics views more force. It would be seen as a scourge.

Actually that might benefit the book. Negative publicity is better than no publicity, as they say. People might just get interested in what the academics are so raging about, if that would be the case.