14.
FASCISM IN THE WOMB?
THIS NEXT
RESPONSE IS FROM A CHAT DIALOGUE IN #ATHEISM WHICH WENT FROM FASCISM TO GYNECOLOGY
:o)
All the chat < and > showing
nicks has been removed and this is presented as a dialogue. Someone wrote this
in an email to TJ. Asked if it was from what he said in #atheism, since it sounded
so familiar, he said yes. The person who wrote this in #atheism does not want
his name associated with it. No problem. We leave it intact, minus the author’s
name, because the answer to it has very interesting information
in it.
Fascism dictates
by race and sex, what is "weak-willed, "what is "right." Darwin's
"survival of the fittest" is also distinguished here, take for example
sperm, only the strongest sperm can get fertilization, just because they display
strong characteristics does not mean they will survive. Power, how can this be
misinterpreted? The weak sperm always dies in due course. In the jungle if an
animal embodies a weak trait, how long do you think that would last in a world
as complex as this? Not very long, in fact the chances are very high they would
be preyed upon by a superior species of some sort and be dealt with accordingly.
Man has thought himself to be a more dominant animal, that is as conflicting to
that of the jungle species, he has migrated and taken the land, and has even at
times took from himself. American culture is over-shadowed by these facts. When
the Europeans took the land of the Indians, this wasn't right. This wasn't might.
It was the green eyed goblin referred to as jealousy, these peoples' jealousy
wasn't the same trait personified by Satanic philosophy and culture. Satanists
do know that envy can be a great characteristic, in fact, it is a great trait,
when it is properly instructed, if I want something from another man I will not
just "steal the rug from underneath" I will find a way to get what I
want on my own. Stratification is a biological fact, fascism, like Christianity
takes (or attempts to) from this, they strive for victory, but they have done
so using all the wrong conduct.
Note
of fact (TJ paraphrasing same dialogue responses with < > removed, see
sources below):
Your statements
on sperm are wrong. Not only does it not matter which sperm gets there first,
but there are two types of sperm in two distinct types of males. It is, in the
end, the electrical field of the OVA that chooses which sperm to let in - IF ANY!!
There has been of late a problem with the electrical field around ova not allowing
any sperm of some particular male in (the husband, usually). For more info
on this, see Israeli "Zona Blaster" studies. They used a laser to break
through the electrical field. Still, it is not known why healthy ova would not
allow healthy sperm in for fertilization, thus rendering couples childless. (Not
known why?)
About sperm and
the elimination of naive ideas: It starts with chimps and gorillas, how they sexually
act and how their organs are. Chimps are always horny, have sex a lot, have large
testicles and tiny penises. Gorillas are the exact opposite with small "tight"
testicles and large penises. It turns out that there are more than one kind of
sperm: 1. egg seeking, very passive sperm that just seek the egg out; 2. blocking
sperm that form chains and block another person's sperm; 3. attacking sperm that
murder other sperm from someone else. Those with large penises and small testicles
have MOSTLY egg seeking sperm. Those with small penises and large testicles have
mostly the warrior/defender type sperm. This is in chimps/gorillas AND IN HUMAN
TYPES. The types are not on a curve or gradation. There are two DISTINCT types
in human beings. Also, that men who are away from sex for awhile, build up blocking
sperm and if they don't masturbate or in some other way get rid of this so that
fresh egg-seeking sperm can come into play, they are NOT the ones who leave descendents!
Women who orgasm BEFORE the male does (vaginal orgasm) hold in the sperm for as
long as 3 days (called "flow back") but women who don't, do not retain
the sperm. THAT there exist blocking and attack sperm is biological PROOF that
we have inbuilt in us mechanisms made and tailored BY EVOLUTION for POLYGAMY -
NOT for monogamy! ABSOLUTELY!
In
some "restriction enzyme DNA" studies, GORILLAS come out closer to humans
than chimps! The data is hard to come by so they still regard gorillas as 2nd
closest to humans, chimps closest. Interesting. The studies are very hard, time
consuming and not often done - so then: WE DONT KNOW! The TYPES of sperm the two
distinct groups make are MEASURABLE - these are NOT gradations! Small testicle
and big penis men produce MORE egg seeking sperm and LESS blocking and attack
sperm. Big testicle and small penis men produce more of the warrior and defender
sperm than egg seeking sperm. That is: the sperm itself of these small penis men
is more evolved to WAGE WAR ON OTHER SPERM! This is the sperm itself. In a sense,
human males are the slaves of this sperm (which has a life of its own) and they
are dragged around by the sperm (thinking with the dick?). Sure, this is a purely
evolutionary thing in terms of survival in the strict Darwinian sense - but it
also has BIG social consequences!!! Those are not dealt with in strict science,
by the way. It takes us to SYNTHESIZE it!
When
men are away from women for awhile, no matter what type they are, they tend to
build up MORE blocking sperm. Ergo: Men that are chaste are at a big disadvantage
in terms of evolution as they'd be mating with their wives with blocking sperm.
SOURCES FOR A LOT OF THIS:
keep in mind, the bibliographies of these will reveal many MANY other sources.
Eros
and Evolution: a natural philosophy of sex, by Richard L. MichodHuman
Sperm Competition: copulation, masturbation and infidelity, by R. Robin Baker
and Mark A. BellisWith Pleasure: thoughts on the nature of human sexuality,
by Paul R. Abramson and Steven D. Pinkerton What's Love Got to Do With it:
the evolution of human mating, by Meredith F. Small Scientific American, January
1996 issue, reviews these four books and what's in them. Interesting!Keep in mind,
it involves human sexuality which people go insane over, the studies are up in
the air. I find it interesting because it tends to BACK UP WHOLLY the synthetic
view I came up with of men, TYPES of men. AND WOMEN. Remember my infamous "the
ova is saying no" comment? Sure, I had HARD SCI to back that up alright.
WHY is the ova saying no? TO WHICH MEN is the ova saying no? That wasn't in the
study they did - or if it was, we never will get to hear about it.
Keep
in mind, there is far MORE cooperation in nature for real, than there is strife.
Don't fall into the stupidity of "human paradigms" based on human culture
since the dawn of agriculture. We didn't get to BE Homo Sapiens by wiping each
other out, but by cooperating. Behold the human baby for a clue to how much cooperation
human beings need just to survive. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean "Social"
Darwinism AT ALL. Suggest reading up on evolutionary biology before making statements
about it. Niles Eldredge: "Reinventing Darwin" is a good starter because
he exposes and explains the pseudo-science of "social" Darwinism. Social
Darwinism is a false application of evolutionary theory to "make it fit"
what you think you see in only very modern society. Eldredge IS an evolutionary
biologists. Dawkins is not any kind of biologists and the ONLY "selfish
genes" are oncogenes. Heh, we are not walking tumors!
