disposable society

Zaynab Shahar

1. How long have you been polyamorous or been practicing polyamory?

I’ve been practicing polyamory for about five years now.

2. What does your relationship dynamic look like?

I identify as being solo poly. I don’t have a primary or secondary partner. I don’t place partners on a hierarchy. Instead, I focus more on having intentional, healthy, consensual, safe relationships with each partner in the time we spend together. Currently, I solo and single. My friend K.C Slack once tweeted that she sees her partners as constellations that are all important to her galaxy, or something to that effect. I remember reading it and thinking “that’s a damn dreamy way to think about it,” and since I’m a huge astronomy and astrology nerd that resonates with me on so many levels.

3-5. What aspect of polyamory do you excel at? What aspect of polyamory do you struggle with? How do you address and/or overcome those struggles?

I don’t know if the language of excel/struggle really encompasses how I understand myself, potentially because I read them as a wee too binary for my taste. I would say I strive to be a person who regularly utilizes active listening and compassionate response all in the context of providing emotional labor to my partners. I tend to focus more on providing emotional labor to my partners and really struggle with letting people in to do the same for me. I have trust issues based on having emotionally abusive relationships early on as a queer teenager, so I’m reluctant to just be vulnerable and share my problems with my partners for fear that it’s going to come back to bite me in the ass in the form of gaslighting.

Subsequently, I have a hard time allowing people to reciprocate partner care when it comes to living with chronic pain, and that’s something I routinely struggle with. For example one of the things I’ve realized in coming into polyamory and living with chronic pain at the same time is that people struggle with straddling the line between providing care and being ableist (even if they don’t intend to be). I started to realize this after my first non-monogamous relationship in undergrad ended my first year of grad school and my chronic pain struggles progressively got worse. As we were working on reconciling our breakup into a friendship she would spend time at my house when I didn’t have the spoons to leave the house. She was very intent on “helping me” but her version of help never included asking me what my accessibility needs were. She would just declare that she was going to do something for me, do it, and if I objected she would get offended without ever considering that she was trampling over my autonomy. Fast forward to the present, I walk with a cane and a visible limp. I have a hard time communicating to multiple partners what my accessibility needs are, and hell even keeping track of where accessibility/ableism conversations are at with all of my partners because I believe it’s an ongoing process. So I’m trying to learn how to be better at receiving; whether it’s care, compassion, listening, or love, and not just shut myself off to my polycule because it’s easier than trying to tell people what I want in fear of being hurt or disappointed at the outcome. At the same time, I’m learning how to straddle the line between receiving care and not having my autonomy trampled on. Like I remember the day after going on a friend date with another poly person, she texted me to ask how I was doing. I texted back to say that minus dealing with the typical amount of morning pain I was doing okay. She began asking me all these questions about me and chronic pain and I flatly texted her back “ya know I don’t find my issues with chronic pain all that fascinating of a topic of conversation.” Thankfully she understood that I wasn’t trying to be rude, but that sometimes when you live with a certain amount of pain of a daily basis talking about it ad nauseam requires you to focus on it more than you potentially care to. It wasn’t that I didn’t want to receive her concern, but I also don’t want to make my chronic pain the topic of post-date conversation. There are so much more fascinating things to be texting about at 10am in the morning, lol.

6. In terms of risk-aware/safer sex, what do you and your partners do to protect one another?

I practice safer sex practices with all of my partners, necessary contraceptives and all. Additionally where they are some partners who I engage in fluid bonding oral sex with there are others partners that I won’t. It really depends on our sexual dynamic, since all of my partners have overlap between engaging me in a non-monogamous sense and also in a BDSM/kink sense as well. So penetrative and/or fluid bonding sex doesn’t always come into play when it comes to the different sexual engagements I have with my partners.

7. What is the worst mistake you’ve ever made in your polyamorous history and how did you rebound from that?

I think the worst mistake I made in my polyamorous history was joining the Polyamory group on facebook that has like 20,000+ members. I literally witnessed a conversation where people were attempting to defend (tw: sexual violence) –> having sex with your partner while they’re asleep, which in my mind is an aspect of rape culture. The conversation just got wildly triggering and out of control as the subcomment threads kept pouring in. And I remember not only leaving the group but being deeply reluctant to join any poly digital spaces that didn’t have explicit anti-oppression and/or social justice commitments attached to them because watching people actively defend rape culture was just entirely too much for my psyche. But at the same time it was triggering for my it reaffirmed why anti-oppression poly praxis is necessary.

Quite frankly there are too many people floating out there in the polyverse thinking “oh just because I’m poly and oppressed by monogamous oriented society and I don’t have to do any critical introspection.” Meanwhile, at the same time so many folx within poly culture uphold oppressive ideologies that have dangerous implications to them they wonder why folx with marginalized identities avoid poly spaces like the plague. Like I don’t want to dispose of people who need radical re-education vis a vie oppression because disposability is a form of carceral logic. Our society already disposes of people who commit crimes without any consideration as to the societal conditions that make crime possible and in some cases necessary for survival, let alone our impulses to criminalize certain behaviors under the guise that it will make us safer when it hasn’t thus far. We dispose of people who are sick, neuroatypical, disabled, elderly in various ways because within the context of capitalism if you can’t be productive you’re rendered worthless. So if we relate this to poly culture, disposing of people from poly culture because they hold fucked up oppressive opinions might be good in the short term, but does nothing in the long term to actually bring about structure, systemic, and/or cultural change within our communities. If you ban someone from a Poly facebook group for upholding rape culture, that doesn’t mean the next edition of the Ethical Slut is going to have more extensive commentary on why it’s important to apply anti-oppression frameworks to the construction of our relationships and communities. One doesn’t translate into the other. Nor do those people really learn why what they said was wrong or fucked up to begin with, they just know they got banned. Additionally, the people in the group might be at varying stages of critical consciousness and maybe the only thing they take away from that is what not to say, which is only a small part of the picture. As these critical changes from margin to center are happening, we have to be careful not to replicate existing oppressive logics in order to regulate the safety of our communities. Now, with that being said, some people just can’t be saved. Like if you’re intent on being a rapist or defending rapists, with some Donald Trump style indignation or something, there’s no wiggle room in that time and place and that needs to be recognized and named. But just disposing of people because they don’t say the right thing all the time or they don’t pick up on certain things fast enough doesn’t work for me, cause unlearning (and really learning in general) is a lifelong process that can’t be shortcutted or treated as some sort of social currency to gain access to spaces.

Women in Hip Hop: Empowerment

           I define women empowerment as women taking control of their: minds, voices, bodies and sexuality. While they are empowering themselves they are also empowering others to do the same. Women empowerment started in the 1800’s with Women’s suffrage; women were fighting for their right to vote with leaders such as: Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. This movement had very little to deal with black women. While a nation of women were fighting for their right to vote, they are still leaving out a race of women who could make a change as well. Sojourner Truth at the time was the voice for black women all around the world with her speech: “Ain’t I a Woman?” Truth was stated in her speech like white women, black women have rights and voices as well. Then there is World War II, where majority of the men in the United States were away fighting the war. Women had to “man up” and provide for their families, while their husbands were away. Working women of this time looked up to the poster: Rosie the Riveter. She exhibited a man’s strength but still had a feminine side. Then there were the 1990’s or the phrase: “I’m a woman of the 90’s.” Meaning that women are no longer going to live up to society’s misogynistic opinions. Women in the 90’s, started taking control of their voices, the way they were presented in the media and their sexualities. Female rappers such as: Lil’ Kim, Foxy Brown, Eve, Da Brat, Missy Elliott, Queen Latifah, and MC Lyte, made it okay for women to have voices and sexual creatures in a male dominated industry. Women in hip hop serve as a symbol of empowerment and self-definition rather than misogyny.

           For years’ women of color in the media and/or hip hop have been depicted to be; weak, voiceless, disposal, and sexual objects. Society has made it seem that a black women’s voice does not matter. As Audre Lorde once said, “If I didn’t define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people’s fantasies for me and eaten alive.” An empowered woman is empowered because she knows the definition of herself. She can explain who she is to society, she is secure and knows her self- worth and empowered woman knows that her voice will be heard. A weak woman does not know the definition of herself, she does not know her worth nor does she know that she has a voice. A weak woman will spend her whole life trying to create a version of herself that is not authentic, so she can be accepted by society. Therefore, she will be eaten alive because she has spent her whole life not knowing her true definition.

           In the late 80’s and earlier 90’s a pattern of female rappers, started a trend of taking control of their voices and letting men know that black women will be respected. Queen Latifah’s: U.N.I.T.Y. made it clear that black women are more than derogatory names and that they have voices that need to be heard. Mc Lyte’s: I Am Woman, stated that just because she is a woman does not mean I cannot make her mark in the male dominated industry of rap. Yo-Yo: You Can’t Play with my Yo-Yo, simply stated that women are more than sexual objects and they need to be treated with respect. These rappers not only changed that hip hop is a male dominated sported, but they also gave women that were once voiceless that could not express their problems a voice. These women helped paved the way for other female rappers that would later help further empower women of color and change the rules of hip hop. An excerpt from the book It’s All in the Name: Hip-Hop, Sexuality, and Black Women’s Identity. Talks about how the evolution of black women in hip-hop and black female artist did empower black women around the world. The author argues that today young black girls do not have that, all they hear today are female artist telling them to use their sex to get a head in life. This argument could not be more wrong. Female artist such as Trina, Nicki Minaj, Dej Loaf are not rapping about using their sex to become more successful. They are simply doing the same thing men have been doing for year and that is put black women in category where they can be only seen as sexual objects.

           Reversing the male fantasy is something that not only female rappers have accomplished but also a few R&B singers have been able to do as well. Beyoncé released a song called, Blow. Blow is often the slang term used when a man has received or wants fellatio, but Beyoncé took the term to refer it to her receiving cunnilingus. Also hinting that she is in the dominant position while her partner is being the submissive one. Lil’ Kim does the same in her song: Not Tonight, she raps about her many sexual escapades. Although throughout the song she raps about how her partners have pleased her sexually, there is only one thing she truly wants from them and that is oral sex. Kim also states that she only using them until she gets what she wants, but in a sense she is coming for their manhood as well. By stating the he’s a punk if he does not do this for her. Lil’ Kim is taking charge of her sexuality by rapping about what she wants, similar to male rappers. Foxy Brown has also reversed the male fantasy, in Jay- Z’s song Ain’t No N***a. Brown raps, “Remember the days you was dead broke. But now you style and I raised you. Basically made you into a don.” Brown is stating that she was there when no one else was there for him. Now that her man has money he wants to front and forget about her, she is also saying that she raised him into the man that he is today. Brown’s method is similar to what men do when a woman is done with them. He will remind her of all the things that he has done for her to make her better or elevate her life style and that’s what Foxy Brown did.

           Fashion for women in hip-hop has always been a thing to look forward too. Many critics argue that female rappers who don’t have on as many clothes are and will be objectified. That these female rappers are whores and setting a bad example for the young girls that watch their music videos. When in actuality these rappers are setting the example that you do not have to always conform to the wants and demands of society. Female rappers are also stating that women, no matter what size they are should feel comfortable in their skin and confident enough to wear she wants.

           Melyssa Ford who is one of the highest paid video vixens, believes that what she is doing is empowering women to take control. Balaji states, “Although video vixens have been typecast as the sexualized other, some have acquired a degree of fame outside of music videos and have taken ownership in self-definition.” Most video vixens are only looked at by society as disposal sexual objects and that they have no respect for themselves. A lot of vixens seek fame outside of being in music videos. Some women take on a career of being a video vixen, and a lot of them go in with the mindset that they are going to make millions, so they depend on that as their only income. Others do not only depend on a vixen career, they also want to build and make it bigger. Women who already know what they want, have a game plan: be a video vixen long enough to get their names floating in the right places, then they begin to rub elbows with the right people, then they begin to get bigger video gigs and get a lead role in the next big rappers video. Most video vixens know their self-worth and know their limits. To them it is like a business deal, to see what video producer can give them the best offer the quickest.

           Black women have struggled with self-definition, which is mainly because of how they are presented in society. When a woman does know her self-definition, she will always let her voice be heard. The term “I” is always in their vocabulary, to not only express how they are feeling, but to remind society that they have high self-esteem and self-perception. Ford states in an interview, “I would turn down videos that were too misogynistic or when I just don’t like the artists.” Here Ford is showing us her self-definition, by sharing that every music video she was offered she did not accept. Ford knows her boundaries and who she is as a person.

           Many critics believe that Keran Steffans and Melyssa Ford express synonymous values and views, when it comes to a music video modeling career. It may appear that way, but when Steffens’s Confessions of a Video Vixen was released, which is a tell all novel about her escapades with celebrity men. Generalized black women into a category that they too often compromise their values to be identified by their sexual prowess. The downfall for Steffans career is that she started getting her career and personality intertwined. At the peak of her career she turned to drugs.

           Although all these points are valid, it fails to mention that Ford grew up in a two parent household and attended York University where she was majoring in Forensic Psychology. This argument also overlooked the fact that Ford stated, “Doing videos was only a part-time interest for me.” Ford had no real desire to presume a music video modeling career unlike Steffans who let the industry consume her. Another valid point the argument above fails to realize is that Steffans was a stripper turned video vixen and at the peak of her career became addicted to drugs. Where Ford was working as a bartender when she was discovered and her vixen career took off. The big difference between Steffans and Ford that was failed to be mentioned is that Ford does not let her job consume how she is in real. She explains that she was never the fun girl on set and that when the camera is on she is in character.

           In conclusion, women in hip hop serve as symbols of empowerment and self-definition rather than misogyny. Women like: Sojourner Truth, Melyssa Ford, Lil’ Kim, Foxy Brown, Beyoncé, Queen Latifah, Mc Lyte, and Yo-Yo and many more are an empowerment to women of color. They not only challenge the views of society, but they have let it be known that black women have voices and take control of their bodies and sexualities. They have also helped women realize that they are more than disposal, voiceless, and sexual objects. Black women can be sexy without being considered whores that women of color are educated and have voices just like any other race of women. Black women in hip hop are an empowerment that society needs to pay closer attention to.

2

Interesting. Interesting quotes from Ryan considering one of the stars (oddly not named in this) is in a closet that was firmly dead bolted by Murphy himself.

“Because it seemed like gay people were disposable in our society.”

Almost lends itself to a perfect marketing campaign that directly ties. Everyone wins. Fox/Murphy heroes with a genius marketing plan. Darren gets his truth.

Too optimistic? Probably. But this really resonated with me this AM.

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying, that is, if one’s motive is men’s welfare.

Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.

—  Ayn Rand
Masculinity, Feminism, and War: Something I Have to Say.

“Gender makes the world go round”, a quote by Cynthia Enloe exemplifies the new trend of involving gender and feminist theory and discourse in topics from which they are usually separate, in an effort to achieve academic originality as well as forming an outlook on world issues through rose tinted glasses. This new trend of feminist critique in International relations and political sociology has nearly no interlocutor. Liberalism had realism and capitalism had Marxism and so on. Feminist and gender-based critique has little, however, and whatever rival there is, is usually brushed aside and branded nonsensical. The book in which the previously mentioned quote is based in, Bananas, Beaches, and Bases is one such work, a cornerstone in the fields of gender and women’s studies, a ludicrous education in this writer’s humble opinion. The assertion of feminist critique on the vital role of gender in international relations or any large-scale political and sociological infrastructure torpedoes the idea or notion that the world is, as well should be, a meritocracy, albeit not based on merit, but based on the ability to be working part in the world’s cycle-like machinations. While I think the premise of the role of feminist theory and critique in International Relations is a hopeful stretch at best, I will attempt to showcase the reasons why legally feminist critique in cases of a male-serving world and the masculine nature of war are unfounded. 

An overwhelmingly wide gender gap that exists is the gap between male and female military personnel, as well as the difference in male and female military deaths. According to the most recent American War and Military Operations Casualties statistics, military deaths in most, if not all, operations are over 95% male (2015). Female military personnel make up around 20% of all personnel. Military deaths in general, throughout history and in any region of the world, have been overwhelmingly male. This points towards the expendability of men in society and the readiness at which society disposes of its men, while women, while arguably less privileged, are protected and are seen as less expendable. Hillary Clinton, a known and staunch feminist, once said, “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.” This is a perfect example of feminists colonising a male issue and making it solely about women. Hillary, in this quote, fails to see that while women lose their fathers, husbands and brothers, these fathers, husbands, and brothers lose their lives. Also relating to bias when it comes to the military is feminism’s long recorded silence when it comes to the military draft. The military draft is “A system for selecting young men for compulsory military service, administered in the United States by the Selective Service System. At present the United States relies on a volunteer military and does not have a draft, though young men are required by law to register with the Selective Service.” The draft can be seen as a reason for every household in England losing at least a son in World War I. It is also the reason that the vote was not automatically given to women in the early years of democracy. The vote was seen as an exchange of services between state and citizen, in which a citizen had the right to choose the government that might one day send them to die (Selective Draft Law Cases 245 U.S. 366, 1918). This is one of the instances were feminists insist on receiving rights without having to be burdened by responsibilities. In the UAE, compulsory military service has been raised to a full year, enforced with a jail sentence or hefty fine, while women’s service continues to be voluntary, if not discouraged outright. First wave feminists rejected the draft for women outright and by the time second wave feminism came about, this issue was forgotten altogether, even though the Vietnam war was raging on at nearly the same time, which also had a draft lottery choose its combatants.
Laura Bush laments Afghani women’s inability to leave the home, work, or laugh. She says nothing of the male children forced out for labour in an unfamiliar terrain in order to provide for, at times, their entire family, risking death an mutilation by all who call Afghanistan “their territory.

The literary focus pointing out and insisting upon the “maleness” of war-like undertakings in, notably and nearly all feminist-written, works such as Sovereign Masculinity and ‘Gender’ Is Not Enough: The Need For a Feminist Consciousness, treats masculinity as something resembling a congenital disease, while also adhering to the notion that gender roles are societally acquired, an outright contradiction. Masculinity, in such works, is something to be remedied, and once it is, so will the current culture of war, and not a state of being to which a group societally and sometimes legally pressured to participate in wars and military life evolved. The negative connotations of making maleness war personified are a risk, alienating half the population and all societies’ “protectors”. No one likes war, in particular those forced to undertake it. Society sends its men and ignores them as they return broken, evidenced by army veteran suicides and lack of promised government services.
Feminist critiques correct the misconception, in ‘Gender’ Is Not Enough: The Need For a Feminist Consciousness, that its main and only concern is women (2004). Its inclusion of men may be more severe than if they excluded men altogether. Wartime atrocities are attributed to maleness and masculinity, and not the horrors of war, not only blaming both innate and society-constructed group of traits, but also ignoring the prevalence of male victims and the possibility of female perpetration, an example of which is Lynndie England’s
involvement and the apparent enthusiastic participation in the torture in Abu Ghraib during the Iraq war, her gender being the only reason for her relatively light sentence after claiming she was pressured into the actions. Lynndie England expressed no remorse, further cementing her guilt and cruelty (2012). This is consistent with the notion that militarism may not be masculine or gender-based but due to societal pressure, and that war culture and militarism are forced on men because of society’s contempt for its men and the readiness at which it makes its men cannon fodder while vilifying their innate nature.

This also pertains to the much-discussed phenomenon of wartime rape, where women are the main and often only concern, the typical for this type of critique, indifferent to the plight of men. The phenomenon of wartime rape is a horrific one, prevalent for centuries, if not millennia, recorded in history books, as a consequence of war. As one would imagine, history is uninterested in male victims of such atrocities, which may be the originating point of the trump-card-like “Women and children” mantra, which sways the masses to or from a cause, as well as the source of the trope of the marauding male soldier. This is a case of a group of vilified human beings being cornered into the perfect psyche for lashing out on those whom over they have authority. It is thusly an extrapolation to infer that should women be pushed towards militarism as hard as men have been for millennia, it would not be strange to see “forced husbands” and “comfort men” in female soldier barracks.

I do not presume to dictate to anyone what they should label themselves, what they should believe, or what they should advocate for, but only suggest a deeper look at the cold hard facts of the issue and not a subjective look into what masculinity, war, and society is considered to be by some academic or another. One of the main criticisms of Liberal Feminism is its inability to back up its claims of inequality with unbiased or sound statistics, and just expects the academic world, as well as society, to kowtow to its victim and outrage culture. The ability to involve lines in entertainment such as “Maleness is a kind of birth defect” (2014), unchecked, is a small indication of the west’s anti-maleness. While this nonchalance towards the misfortune of males is prevalent all over the world, even in the most “patriarchal” of places, the West, a society which has cemented its equality for decades, and eventually tipping the scale into reversed gender inequality, has little to no excuse for such conduct, bar from a guilted society looking to compensate for its perceived previous misgivings by elevating those who claim victimhood and “sticking it” to those who are branded as the villains of history. Donald Trump was branded a racist when he called Mexicans rapists, and rightly so, and yet a movement smears half the world’s population as the source of war culture, violence, and misery is not only accepted societally, but as academia? While I agree with Cynthia Enloe’s brushing aside of the idea of females as a group painted by a wide brush, be it as angels, sisters, or victims, I must point out the hypocrisy which arises at her treatment of her male counterparts. Why feminism, and by extension, the world, has such contempt for men is the reason that, while there is much discussion around how to change the status quo, the status quo rarely ever changes. In order to solve a problem, one must know it first, and the problem is certainly not men, masculinity, or the “male culture”. And feminism, or rather its outlook, certainly is not the answer.

anonymous asked:

Wait satanism as in a cult or r u chill????? Pls tell me u don't sacrifice small animals.

Y’all dont actually know what satanism is do you XD. Here’s a basic explanation of it because i’d rather not get more asks about how Mod Dulla sacrifices babies. (Skip to end for TDLR) - Mod Dulla

Keep reading

Full list of Satanic Sins and my additions/edits

The Nine Fifteen Satanic Sins

by Anton Szandor LaVey ©1987
With additions/edits by Alexander Antonin ©2012 and ©2015 (in italics)

1. Stupidity—The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal Sin of Satanism. It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.

2. Pretentiousness—Empty posturing can be most irritating and isn’t applying the cardinal rules of Lesser Magic. On equal footing with stupidity for what keeps the money in circulation these days. Everyone’s made to feel like a big shot, whether they can come up with the goods or not.

3. Solipsism Projection—Can be very dangerous for Satanists. Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are. It is the mistake of expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy and respect that you naturally give them. They won’t. Instead, Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of “Do unto others as they do unto you.” It’s work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far from that point.

4. Self-deceit—It’s in the “Nine Satanic Statements” but deserves to be repeated here. Another cardinal sin. We must not pay homage to any of the sacred cows presented to us, including the roles we are expected to play ourselves. The only time self-deceit should be entered into is when it’s fun, and with awareness. But then, it’s not self-deceit!

5. Herd Conformity—That’s obvious from a Satanic stance. It’s all right to conform to a person’s wishes, if it ultimately benefits you. But only fools follow along with the herd, letting an impersonal entity dictate to you. The key is to choose a master wisely instead of being enslaved by the whims of the many.

6. Lack of Perspective—Again, this one can lead to a lot of pain for a Satanist. You must never lose sight of who and what you are, and what a threat you can be, by your very existence. We are making history right now, every day. Always keep the wider historical and social picture in mind. That is an important key to both Lesser and Greater Magic. See the patterns and fit things together as you want the pieces to fall into place. Do not be swayed by herd constraints—know that you are working on another level entirely from the rest of the world.

7. Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies—Be aware that this is one of the keys to brainwashing people into accepting something new and different, when in reality it’s something that was once widely accepted but is now presented in a new package. We are expected to rave about the genius of the creator and forget the original. This makes for a disposable society.

8. Counterproductive Pride—That first word is important. Pride is great up to the point you begin to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The rule of Satanism is: if it works for you, great. When it stops working for you, when you’ve painted yourself into a corner and the only way out is to say, I’m sorry, I made a mistake, I wish we could compromise somehow, then do it.

9. Lack of Aesthetics—This is the physical application of the Balance Factor. Aesthetics is important in Lesser Magic and should be cultivated. It is obvious that no one can collect any money off classical standards of beauty and form most of the time so they are discouraged in a consumer society, but an eye for beauty, for balance, is an essential Satanic tool and must be applied for greatest magical effectiveness. It’s not what’s supposed to be pleasing—it’s what is. Aesthetics is a personal thing, reflective of one’s own nature, but there are universally pleasing and harmonious configurations that should not be denied.

10. SolipsismThe real world DOES exist. Granted, a large portion of the perceived world is invented by your brain, but that’s based on data from the real world. Anyone who thinks they’re the only person in the world, and that they create 100% of reality, is a delusional fool.

11. Ignorance of ignorance - It can be very dangerous to not be mindful of the ignorance of other people, especially children. This is related to “solipsism” and “projection,” but is different because not only might you be projecting your own abilities and knowledge onto someone who is differently abled and not as knowledgeable as you, but refusal to acknowledge your ignorance of someone’s ignorance can easily become stupidity. And trying to raise children while constantly expecting them to be as able and knowledgeable as you are is not only stupidity, but is often cruelty.

12. Neuotypical-centrism - Never assume that someone can do something you can just because “everyone” can. The brain is a self-programming computer prone to programming errors and hardware defects, neither of which can be fixed at this point in time. The mind is a function of the meat, and if something is wrong with the meat, something will be wrong with the mind. Mental disabilities are far more difficult to work around than physical ones. Have patience and compassion with people different from you, but also don’t treat them like idiot children, either.

13. Over-Lording/Cult-Leading - This is what I’m calling the opposite of herd conformity; it’s when you bring people in with your charisma and - either intentionally or not - start manipulating them into becoming your own little herd of sheep, with you as their shepherd.

14. Pointless Judgmentalism - Hating someone simply because they have a different belief or preference than you, on something inconsequential, is pointless and wasteful judgmentalism. What difference does it make what someone chooses to eat or not to eat?(1) What difference does it make if someone believes in God or not, as long as they aren’t forcing their beliefs on you or acting like a complete jackass to you about it? Why do you care that someone likes to take a cock up the arse, as long as they aren’t forcing you to watch or participate in something inappropriate? As the Wiccans say, “An ye harm none, do what ye will.”

15. Modeltheism - When you hold on so tightly to your beliefs, or to your model of the way the world works or should work, that you take on a mentality that all must convert to your way of thinking or else be killed or treated like the scum of the earth, that’s modeltheism. Anyone can fall victim to this parasitic notion, from hard-core Christians to atheists to Satanists, and can be applied to political stances or even taste preferences (LOTS of modeltheists in the music fandom). And because modeltheism tends to make its hosts close-minded, arrogant, and often times make them fall victim to the sin of stupidity, it is a sin to be very wary of indeed.

1 = Yes, I go off on certain kinds of people a lot, such as vegans, but my beef is not with vegans in general, rather with the 14th sin, Modeltheism. My ire in such cases is always directed at modeltheistic vegans/others.

When you actually start to study sociology and the deeper implications of political ideologies on society, it only becomes all the more preposterous to argue that the political right-wing has ever represented anything akin to “freedom for the individual” or “liberation from tyranny”. The right-wing overwhelmingly subscribes to a structural-functionalist view of society, even when they aren’t explicitly sociologists. They argue that the various institutions and classes in society each fulfill a particular function for the maintenance of the larger whole – this includes the dispossessed doing “the dirty work” and the powerful “providing stability”, a sort of class-collaborationist idea that people should shut up and internalize their place. Men and women each fulfill particular roles, poverty serves a purpose of keeping many other institutions in business, and pyramids create order as long as everyone fulfills their destined role in society.

And it’s not just traditionalists who argue from this perspective – of course right-wing “libertarians” jump on this train too, despite all their claims of supporting the underdog. Inequality of power is absolutely fine as long as there’s an implicit social contract of order and an external facade of “individual liberty”. Consider right-libertarian Milton Friedman’s interview where he spoke about all the ways in which production “came together” across the world to generate a tiny pencil he was holding – no mention of the imbalances of power across that line, no mention of social conflicts or historical context that laid the material foundations therein; just pure, unadulterated structural-functionalism, a “harmonious collaboration” of many different cultures and classes that resulted in a useful tool he could write bourgeois propaganda with.

And that last bit is important, for at that point we jump into conflict theory, the branch most oppositional to structural-functionalism. Very much shaped by Karl Marx, this branch focuses on those various classes and institutions, and it takes on the radical position that they are at conflict with each other (as the name suggests) due to an inherent power imbalance; the dominant classes utilize every means at their disposal to structure society in their interests and to dispossess the subordinated classes. The dominant classes control the means of economic and social reproduction, while the subordinated classes “do the dirty work” of laboring within those utilities. THIS is the sociological school that represents genuine “freedom for the individual” and “liberation from tyranny” – after all, it actually acknowledges that tyranny exists and oppresses the underdogs, whereas SF theory attempts to smooth out those tensions and advocates an insidiously crypto-fascist class-collaborationism. Once you start arguing that poverty exists for a reason and that it OUGHT TO EXIST for that reason, or start arguing that order only prevails because ruling classes exercise command at the top (whether that be a head of state or a capitalist at the top), you drift into dangerous territory.

“Traditionalists”, right-wing libertarians, and fascists all base their political ideas on that structural-functionalist view of society – everyone needs to know their place, inequality of power is good, and “order” takes precedent over justice. If you refuse to acknowledge power imbalance in the inequality of resource access, then you are not “for the underdog” in any conceivable way; you stand up for an unjust system that wears different masks depending on the consciousness of the oppressed – under normal circumstances you’d like the neoliberal status quo, but if the dispossessed get “uppity”, you’re more than happy to utilize state repression to push them back into their functionalist “role”. This is why you see overlap between “small government” right-libertarian “minarchists” and full-blown fascists in a lot of circles – it’s at this intersection that they recognize the systemic role of capitalism, the state, and class society as a whole. Class conscious conflict theory is the best counter to all of this.

This is why we study sociology.

the 9 satanic sins

1) Stupidity – The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal Sin of Satanism. It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.

2) Pretentiousness – Empty posturing can be most irritating and isn’t applying the cardinal rules of Lesser Magic. On equal footing with stupidity for what keeps the money in circulation these days. Everyone’s made to feel like a big shot, whether they can come up with the goods or not.

3) Solipsism – Solipsism can be very dangerous for Satanists. Projecting your reactions, responses, and sensibilities onto someone else who is probably far less attuned that you are. It is the mistake of expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy, and respect that you naturally give them. They won’t. Instead Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of “Do unto others as they do
onto you.” It’s work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian viewpoint) we are from that point.

4) Self-Deciet – It’s in the Nine Satanic Statement but deserves to be repeated here. Another cardinal sin. We must not pay homage to any of the sacred cows presented to us, including the roles we are expected to play ourselves. The only time self-deceit should be entered is when it is fun, and with awareness. But then, it’s not self-deciet!

5) Herd Conformity – That’s obvious from a Satanic stance. It’s all right to conform to a person’s wishes, if it ultimately benefits you. But only fools follow along with the herd, letting an impersonal entity dictate to you. The key is to choose a master wisely instead of being enslaved by the whims of many.

6) Lack of Perspective – Again, this one can lead to a lot of pain for a Satanist. You must never lose sight of who and what you are, and what a threat you can be, by your very existence. We are making history right now, everyday. Always keep the wider historical and social picture in mind. That is an important key to both Lesser and Greater Magic. See the patterns and fit the things together as you want the pieces to fall into place. So not be swayed herd constraints–know that you are working on another level entirely from the rest of the world.

7) Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies – Be aware that this one of the keys to brainwashing people into accepting something as “new” and “different”, when in reality it’s something that was once widely accepted but is now presented in a new package. We are expected to rave about the genius of the “creator” and forget the original. This makes for a disposable society.

8) Counterproductive Pride – The first word is important. Pride is great up to the point you begin to throw out the baby with the bath water. The rule of Satanism is if it works for you, great. When it stops working for you, when you’ve painted yourself into a corner and the only way out is to say, “I’m sorry, I made a mistake, I wish we could compromise somehow,” then do it

9) Lack of Aesthetics – This is the physical application of the Balance Factor. It is important in Lesser Magic and should be cultivated. It is obvious that no one can collect any money off it most of the tome so it is discouraged in a consumer society, but is an essential Satanic tool and must be applied for magical effectiveness. It’s not what’s supposed to be pleasing–it’s what is. Aesthetics is a highly personal thing, reflective of one’s own nature, but there are universally pleasing and harmonious configurations that should not be denied.

8

“We In Vancity” - Part 1/6
Last year around this time I was in Vancouver with some friends and
I purchased a black and white disposable camera for fun.
When I got home I had announced that I was going to do this project and I never got around to it…
Until now! So here it is!
Well some of them. There will be more to follow.

To reiterate, this project is my working attempt to suspend my frame of reference and to write from different perspectives and mindsets.
The pieces are short because I wanted to keep it as simple and open for interpretation as possible.

Please enjoy :)

y-are-u  asked:

why are you a anti-feminist?

Thanks for the question.  I remember you asked why I’m a MRA awhile back and I didn’t get around to answering, but I did respond to someone else who asked essentially the same thing.  There are many extensive ideas to unpack and I’ve discussed many of them before, so I’ll be linking to posts I’ve written or reblogged in the past.

Anyway, antifeminism.  Firstly we must establish what I mean when I say that I oppose feminism, as many people conflate the ideology, the movement, and the dictionary definition.  Feminism, in my opinion, is first and foremost an ideology.  The ideology in turn inspires the activism which forms the movement and is finally described by the dictionary as a definition.  When you unpack the ideology, you unpack the catalyst of the first domino that sets the chain reaction in motion.

Yes, feminism’s stated goal is to push for equality for women.  However, the reason that it even exists in that form is because the ideology starts with a view of how the world and gender relations within it function.  Patriarchy™ and patriarchal dominance are ideas that are fundamental to the feminist ideology and posit that we lived within a society where men controlled every aspect of power in order to subjugate women into a caretaker role.  

In actuality this monogamous family model was a strict role for both men and women and was not set up for men’s benefit. If anything it was set up for the family and children’s benefit, which included making sure the wife was safe.

Women are an evolutionary bottleneck.  A single man can spread his seed to many women, but a single woman cannot do so the same way.  This means that each individual woman is more valuable and worthy of protection and each individual man is largely disposable.  This is what contributed to the expectation on men to be providers.  It was their lot in life to toil in mines, construction sites, railroads, etc and acceptable for those jobs to have huge risks because the man simply needed to deal with it.  His disposability is why society allowed him to take the responsibility of the family provider, but then also granted him the social status of head of household.

Wives had certain expectations of their husbands that society backed her up on.  Husbands could be charged with a crime if they didn’t provide proper clothes for their wives and of course food and shelter in many societies.  Abandonment laws have been in place since the days of Hammurabi.

Another example of society’s concern for male lives is the survival rates of men on the Titanic.  The men were simply expected to stay behind if a woman or child needed a spot on the lifeboat.  Men of all classes had lower survival rates than any class of woman or child.  Even third-class women and female crew had higher survival rates than first-class men.

I expanded on this in a post responding to the statement that “Patriarchy hurts men too”

Even without overt political power, women did have societal power that many feminists want to gloss over or ignore.  The ability to petition kings or rulers on behalf of their expectations of their husbands, for example.  They wouldn’t have even bothered writing the letter if women in that society were just subjects of their husbands.

I’m not saying that I want to go back to this system, but my point is that it wasn’t a one sided Patriarchy™ where men got everything they wanted and women were oppressed and ignored by society or considered property.  It was unequal for both parties in different ways and men had harsh lives just as women did.  Their life expectancy was lower than that of women because of the expectation on them to be the one who goes out and earns the money for the family or protect them from harm.

So this skewed view of history that feminists have affects what they see as “equality” and “inequality”.  From the very beginning, the women’s movements have pushed for unequal advantages in every aspect of their advocacy. 

This ideology also inspires them to push for biased and wildly inaccurate statistics on rape and domestic violence.  When caught out, feminists then backtrack and blame the fact that men’s problems are being swept under the table on Patriarchy™. In actuality the feminist movement’s advocacy is behind the lack of support for men.

As an advocate for men’s rights, I cannot talk about men’s issues without dismantling the feminist lies and skewed feminist philosophy that has exacerbated the problem.

Some feminists will blame this on radical feminsts.  They say that their moderate feminism is built on a philosophy of equality.  Not only do they often buy into the same theories of patriarchal dominance, but the fact of the matter is that moderate feminists do not exist in the public sphere of gender-based advocacy.

That is why I stand in opposition to feminist ideology and the movement it inspires.  I could go on for much longer about all the heinous acts committed in the name of feminism like bomb threats (and actual bombings), disruption of conferences and speaking events for men’s issues, and many more things, but this is all just results of the toxic ideological bias at the core of feminist philosophy.

I’m sure I’ve lost the majority of people by this point, but if you’ve read all the way through then I thank you very much for paying attention to what I’ve had to say, whether you agree or not.

2

Get to know me : inspirational people

↳ [3/?] Emma Thompson

Well, I see people starting life over and over again. And you want to say: just go deeper into the one you’ve got. Because you can skim very easily. It’s set up for that because we’re such a disposable society. And I think that relationships are regarded as more disposable than they were, and that’s short-sighted of us.

kevluvs  asked:

Sometimes people can be disappointing, especially when they break their word and seem to not care about how their actions affect others. How do you not get turned cynical when people you meet constantly act inconsiderate. This is not to be needy or anything like that but one would think that there should be a certain courtesy in our disposable society. What do you think??

Outwardly, our actions do affect other bodies. If someone slaps you, your body will register pain. But how you take that experience into your mind varies from person to person. How you are affected by actions internally has more to do with your mind than it does with the other person. 

If someone is discourteous to you and it hurts your feelings, that’s your challenge to face. This doesn’t mean that person should just do whatever they want and it’s on you to just deal with it. It just means that people will always be a mix of courteous, discourteous, kind, mean, happy, unhappy, and so on. Instead of policing everyone with a general doctrine of courtesy, which is a lovely idea and yet failed by every major world religion, you can address the root of your discomfort which is within. 

It’s like this well-known proverb once voiced by Ramana Maharshi: “Wanting to reform the world without discovering one’s true self is like trying to cover the world with leather to avoid the pain of walking on stones and thorns. It is much simpler to wear shoes.”

Wearing shoes in this instance means continually aspiring for inner clarity and therefore peace. How to do this? Here are some tips:

1. Stop and see. When someone is being discourteous, what do you think that indicates? Are they a happy person? Are they rooted, clear, insightful, and worth learning from? We often forget that the condemnable behavior of others comes from a place of deep confusion and suffering within. If you are not willing or able to see this, it is because you have yet to remove your own confusion. It’s easy to see the splinter in your neighbor’s eye while missing the log in your own. 

2. Be humble. Humility doesn’t mean bowing down to others. It means lowering your head to no one and allowing no one to lower their head to you. Humility is the recognition that no one being is inherently more or less important than another. Period. Be that human, insect, or fungus. 

3. Cease judgment and conclusions. You’re getting cynical because you’re generalizing the concept of the persons you have encountered with the concept of People as a whole. Then you draw half-baked conclusions. Humanity is not wonderful and all good and brilliant. Nor is it evil, worthless, or basic. Our bodies are all just bags of molecules.

You’re feeling disappointed because you were hoping for something else. But for peace to be possible here and now, all hope and fear, all judgments and conclusions, must be suspended. In order to come to know ourselves, each other, and reality as they are, we must be ready to abandon our habitual conceptions at a moment’s notice. 

If you ask me, modern day society is a very uncreative and somewhat mean game. We don’t need to be competing with each other, getting the newest iPhone, or working in an office for the majority of our lives. Our species has enough technology and learning to take care of everyone. So why don’t we? We’re bogged down by the inertia of the past. Cultural conditioning, language-bound perceptual confusion, and enduring issues from previous generations are part of the pre-existing framework with which we are forced to deal. 

Playing the coulda woulda shoulda game with modern society is just an exercise in frustration. It is only the future in which a harmonious society will be possible and nothing happens in the future for which we do not sow the seeds in the present. 

Attend to your own contributions, your own awakening. At the same time, strive to understand and give compassion to those people to whom life brings you. Daily meditation is essential. 

Namaste :)