I decided to read Kaczynski’s writings a couple years ago after another writer referenced them and my curiosity was sufficiently piqued. It was because he first became known to me as the "Unabomber" that I had dismissed his "manifesto" when it was first disclosed years ago as the rantings and ravings of a madman. After all of the lies and deceit of the bioterror attack on our nation and the world that was launched in 2020 as a coordinated global government war against their people my mind was finally pried open enough to take in the rantings and ravings of the madman I first knew as the Unabomber.
I found passages like the one you highlighted, many others that might as well have been speaking to our times. That showed he was trying to alert the world around him about the evil he saw masquerading as "science" and "progress." And was largely spot-on. He was highly intelligent, perceptive, his mind able to string together patterns and complex analysis, along with a level of discernment about the trappings of the modern world that had more people been exposed to his "manifesto" with open minds and curiosity perhaps some of the evil that we see our world devolving into could've been averted, rejected.
But very few had reached a point of disillusionment with the world we exist in, being constructed around us that we were open or curious enough to indulge the ideas he shared. And pre-internet they certainly weren't very accessible.
Lacking an audience or platform he turned to a very dark path trying to get his message out that he thought was important enough to share with the world. Unfortunately for him, and us, his potential audience, by choosing the path of darkness his ideas were relegated to the status of rantings and ravings of a madman's manifesto for decades after his primal, murderous screams to be heard. It took a frontal assault on mankind that awakened a great many about the things he first tried to warn us about nearly a half century ago.
Attempts to violently shake people awake to the monstrous agenda of those in power today actually served the purposes of the monsters. Which should reinforce to us the understanding of human psychology as one that respects the wisdom that people will awaken when they are ready to receive information that disrupts preconceived ideas of how they are being led and governed. As long as they/we are comfortable we have little incentive to look beyond our comfort zone. We might see something that upsets our tranquility and ease. Better to keep our heads down and enjoy our simple lives, "in the Matrix," where eating a juicy steak and drinking fine wine gives us enjoyment than to eat the gruel and suffer immense hardship always fighting off the relentless machines that exist destroy all who have escaped the Matrix, as Cypher eventually succumbed. Better the comfortable illusion to the uncomfortable reality.
As much as I tried to shake people awake in 2020, sometimes with a very nasty disposition in public encounters, or as a fire hydrant of information that blasted potential listeners who may have been curious but couldn't handle the deluge I unleashed on them, those techniques were unsuccessful. Because depressingly few people wanted to be shaken from their comfort zones. And had I been more disciplined in my communications with those who were curious I'd have chosen to plant seeds of doubt with the goal of piquing curiosity for potential listeners instead of being an open fire hydrant.
That's our challenge. How to pique curiosity for those who's minds have seen enough to be curious about reality but not scare them back into the illusion. Dragging them out of it will usually make them kick and scream and fight to get back into the illusion of the Matrix. And make us appear to be the madmen who author manifestos. Triggering fear of more Unabomber primal screams. Instead of piquing curiosities for those who may choose to pick up the incredibly brilliant "manifesto" he wrote with an open mind and learn what he was trying to share before he gave up on peaceful persuasion and enlightenment.
Our greatest challenge is to offer an alternative vision of the world that isn't so frightening that potential allies run back into the arms of their tormentors, preferring the false comfort and ease to the hardships we seem to offer. Is one of the reasons I enjoy reading your Stack, Christopher, as you offer ideas about an alternative vision that attempts to manage the frightening nature of a radically different world of human organization and coexistence. Thank you, I'm glad I found your work.
This is a truly excellent and informative comment. THANK YOU.
I have not read much of his writings, so it is good to have my instincts confirmed by someone reliable who has taken the time to read them.
It kind of makes me wonder—DID he do what they say he did? Or was he set up in order to discredit his prescient message? I am open to either possibility.
I do ponder if They didn't use Kaczynski in some sort of a "revelation of the method" psyop. They do play fast and loose with "implied consent," and use such plot elements to suggest that We consent to Their shenanigans. They say it's to keep Their karma clean, but anything hidden that is not offered above board in all ways is unEthical. And unEthical behavior choices affect the karma.
Interesting. I'm not highly surprised. We might ponder how much of what went down was as We were told, and how much was put in in a wagging the dog fashion.
"Attempts to violently shake people awake to the monstrous agenda of those in power today actually served the purposes of the monsters."
The colocation of Kaczynski's remarkably lucid and indeed enlightened critique of the modern world with his focused acts of extreme violence may be thought of also as a deliberate operation by intelligence/the deep state to black wash all genuine criticism of the modern world and the trajectory it is on in order to discourage people, or so that people would be repelled by insurgency or rebellion of any kind, even philosophical.
"Better the comfortable illusion to the uncomfortable reality."
Freedom need not be entirely so, but it necessarily must in many ways and to greater extents be more uncomfortable than our present state of enslavement. Even if in reality it might only be the perception of such. The state can and does mobilize vast resources in order to present a delusion of comfort, and the majority of the populace will be none the wiser or, like Cypher (The Matrix), always choose this.
It is unfortunate that, could and would such a choice ever be offered, which is unlikely, the choice will be between certain and familiar comforts with enslavement, or uncertainty, inconvenience, certain hardship with freedom, even were it just the indefinite prospect of, the faint hope of attaining true freedom. Therefore the challenge for us is also to create by boot-strapping an opportunity to choose, because it will almost certainly not be offered.
My words: resistance to all of this is required. No more status quo and no more laying down in front of the wokie train. The nuns taught me pronouns in grade school and their teachings are sacrosanct. Cross or defy a nun and it's lights out...yours. At least it was 65 years ago.
WRT the regulatory system, it actually works exactly as intended. It was never meant to protect "consumers" or the earth or any other entity from corporate harm, but was started at the behest of the railroad companies and their owners so the government would make it look like they were being regulated as a way to keep themselves from competing each other into the ground, and also to address the pushback they were getting about safety etc. from employees and passengers with minimal regulations. (What regulation actually does is legalize the harm, not stop it. Corporations have any number of ways to get around any new regulatory limits placed on their activities.)
Excellent illumination of the truth. Power systems (governments) are corrupt, corruptible, and corrupting. Getting rid of them does not fix all the problems. But it does end the ability of some to rule over others, and for businesses to use that system to their own advantage. Better to have everyone subjected to market forces.
Agreed. The regulatory system came into being as part of the Progressive movement in the late 19th/early 20th century. That was, I think, the beginning of the "nanny state" idea, that the government should somehow take care of people. And there's some reason there, due to the severe imbalance of economic and political power that makes most of us seem to be, and sometimes feel like, victims. But the nanny state only reinforces that the ordinary folks are powerless and should rely on government protection. Whereas if we thought of ourselves differently, we might find we are not so powerless. Plus, we really do need a system that has more economic equality and isn't set up to advantage those with wealth already over those with no wealth.
I have heard a controversial take that I would like your opinion on. The rise of the nanny state (the rise in government spending) does track well with the rise of political power for women. Sopme choose to believe that the relationship is not only correlative, but causative. Now, that may be the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but it is an interesting thing to contemplate. Women are (generally) more nurturing by nature; men are (generally) more tough-love by nature. Could this have had an influence on the shift in direction of governments?
I have my doubts that it is anything other than part of the same evolution of politics toward more control over us by those who fancy themselves the rulers. Women's political power has risen throughout the 20th century, in terms of voting and being elected to office, but I don't see that women's tendency to be more nurturing has had anything to do with the rise of the nanny state. For one thing, despite more women being elected, they have gotten there mostly, in line with 3rd wave feminism, by acting like men.
I also don't think the idea of social programs has its origin in lawmakers of either sex truly wanting to help people. I think it's more insidious than that, part of the effort to infantilize people, make them ever more dependent so more easily controlled, wrapped in an ideological cloak of caring.
The veneer of care for people, like the veneer of feminism being empowering for women and the veneer of care for the earth supposedly driving the agenda of climate change (to name a few), are elements of the long game leading toward ultimate control that is coming to fruition in our moment. (At least, the predator class that has been unfolding it for at least a couple of centuries thinks it's coming to fruition. I don't, but it remains to be seen.)
A more apt title of Jane Anne Morris's book probably might have been "Wolf in Sheep Dog's Clothing" or "Wolf in Shepherd's Clothing" aside from the Biblical analogy. The predator disguised as something protective.
Yes, that would be better. I think what she was after was a direct reversal of the usual phrase, and the notion that this wolf is as powerless as any sheep to protect the other sheep.
I don't believe the regulatory agencies are actually protecting us in most cases. It is really a control mechanism which creates much harm but good things are done a long the way too.
Pronouns... no big deal... i call all digs > him he.... my son, very much male has been called lady over 25 times at restaurants when sitting with me because of his very long hair... no offense was taken ... get over it... a pronoun won't kill ya! If someone gets it wrong, you can politely correct them, but if you are and act offended you have mental issues! Pronouns mean very.little. its the heart connection that matters.
agree. the problem is there are laws, yes actual laws, not just administrative codes & regs requiring the use of pronouns, how to be used correctly, who is to lie in using them and who is to be lied to regarding use & harsh punishment, extreme even for getting it wrong. tell you when & how & where to breathe next? CO2 remember.
We can't demand kindness and civility. There are some who will refuse simply because it is required of them.
I told my family this: If you are the kind of person who wants to make a friend or loved one feel bad by refusing to address them how they prefer, that is your right.
Nobody here is that kind of person. We don't want to make people we care about feel bad. We tend to treat everyone with basic courtesy. It's still not right to "demand" as it builds resentment.
ps: real sugar may be the devil, but I choose it over fake shit because at least my body knows what to do with it, everything else tastes weird anyway
"It's still not right to "demand" as it builds resentment."
—100 percent right!!
I am not too bothered by what is going on in other people's heads. And I am perfectly fine generally just being civil, and that includes using preferred pronouns.
But DO NOT demand it of me. Do not make it mandatory. Do not threaten me or my job. Do not mandate any speech. That is when I cease being civil.
We would all be so much better off without so-called "governments" "protective agencies" which always become corrupted by money interests and have more or less a monopoly on the business of telling us what is or is not healthy. So much better if there were private rating companies who took no "bribes" from those they rate and simply informed with facts so we could make our own decisions. We would be a stronger more self reliant people and those who developed such discernment (and there would be a lot more motivation to do so in my opinion. Just as there was a lot more genuine charity in the days before gov "welfare" programs) would be the healthier and thus more prosperous and influential ones in society. I became friends with Ted's brother David, a somewhat left leaning but caring and creative individual, who had the heartbreaking task of informing on his beloved older brother, who until messed with by MKUltra style mind techniques was a very intelligent but vulnerable person.
"I agree, in general, with the “simple act of kindness” aspect of this argument."
I don't agree that it is "kind" to use pronouns that defy reality. I don't believe it is kind to enable anyone to believe that they are the opposite sex when they are not.
Forcing others to affirm your delusion is narcissism 101. It's up to everyone else to make that person feel whatever it is they need to feel that isn't real.
"I have a friend who is old-school trans. She transitioned many years before the leftist social contagion increased the number of trans people from the genuine 0.003 percent of the population who suffer from true dysphoria to the crazy-high numbers of people claiming to be “trans” today. I call her “she” because that is what she wants."
While I get that there are people with gender confusion of the "old school" variety, I still do not believe that it is in this person's best interest, nor in the best interests of those around him her or whatever they need to believe about themselves that is not real.
No matter what they do to themselves, the viewer can still perceive their birth sex. You are subsequently being FORCED to perceive what you actually do not perceive.
And it's a waste of time, energy, and money because -- again -- the REALITY is that the viewer is looking at this person and saying to themselves, I have to act like this persons is something they aren't.
It's the idea that there are "true trans" that put us on the slippery slope we're in now: destroyed families, estranged offspring, gratuitous surgeries, and social chaos.
Accepting reality is the solution that is best for society as a whole.
I get your point L. but we all have certain pretenses about ourselves. We may have a nickname we prefer over the one our parents gave us, we may have certain harmless delusions about ourselves, maybe that we wear outrageous outfits, think that we are actually an alien spirit from Arcturus, or ascribe to a religion that has beliefs, practices, rituals or unusual dietary practices that seem strange or even harmful to some. There are those who will judge and point out to you that wearing leather or eating meat makes you a cruel or bad person. I prefer not to be offended by people who are a bit cooky, a little bizzarre and to treat all with a certain amount of respect just for being human and living in this insane world. I don't stare, make a point of letting them know that I think they are being ridiculous, or make derogatory comments in their hearing. There are men who really believe they have a female spirit and some do even (in my opinion) do a beautiful job of appearing to be a woman. I do not want to offend or hurt the feelings of such a person if they are not trying to aggressively push this on others. On the other hand I would never say it is okay for a genetic male to compete against women in sports, be employed in jobs or the military in positions for which they are not physically qualified, or hire them for a job that requires high intelligence and knowledge that they do not actually possess or hire or appoint someone just because of some quality that has nothing to do with merit and the position in question.
I am certain that there are women with male spirits. I am one of them. It does not make me male, however. Before it was fashionable, I would tell people that I'm a gay man in a woman's body. I still have a woman's body; I am female with various attributes that make me an individual. It would never have occurred to me to demand people 'treat me like a gay man in a woman's body.' What does it mean to 'treat' someone like something they aren't -- or even to treat people like something they are?
There are ways to avoid offending people that are valid. There are ways in which we must offend people or otherwise be tyrannized into hell.
That said, I avoided 'offending' a female friend over the holiday, who sleeps on a mattress on the floor next to her 13-year-old son's mattress on the floor. I did not say, "Didn't you say last week that it's time he had his own room?" What I truly wanted to say was, "You are too parasitically attached to your son, because you have been surviving on child support payments, so he's your bread and butter, and you're afraid of losing that to the point of symbolically sleeping with him as if he were still one year old."
I avoided "offending" X because she was drunk, loud, obnoxious, and knew exactly why that man over there told her to go away.
What other people decide to eat or not to eat has very little bearing on society and my personal freedom. But men in my locker room --- which I have experienced -- is tyranny. I shouldn't be forced to share space with natal males, especially one masquerading as a female, standing there watching women undress. If a man wants to act like he's a female, he should still use the men's room. It is not my obligation to make him feel safe.
I live in NYC. I don't stare at weirdness either. Choosing not to stare is different from being FORCED TO SEE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE.
There is a strident difference between NOT SAYING SOMETHING -- and CHOOSING NOT TO SAY IT, and being FORCED TO SAY SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TRUE.
So, in some ways, I agree with you, and in most ways, I do not. Having a "female spirit" does not give one license to force people to affirm a falsehood.
Thank you for your thoughful reply. I do not ever assume that I am always right about anything. Too often I have found that something I was so sure of was foolish and incorrect or more often just more complicated than I thought it was. I think that saying or acting on what you truly and sincerely feel is the right thing in the moment is what you should always do. You will either learn something valuable from the experience or make a difference that matters. In my view there is something beyond our logic, which is only as good as correct data input can make it, the old programmers GIGO comes to mind (garbage in, garbage out and we are fed a lot of garbage as we grow up) and imagination can sometimes substitute for true intuition and the whisperings of the Spirit of Truth. Though I think there is a Higher Source of wisdom that can guide us into doing the best thing in the moment if we learn to listen to It, that "still small voice within" that truly knows. I am not sure at all that there are female or male spirits, my opinion is that there are both masculine and feminine aspects to each, although I feel there are preferred roles, and it is nice to have the physical avatar that suits that personal preference. I think that we, I, have had experiences in both, and it is best to not fight against having the experience in the sex of the body you inhabit, there was a reason you inhabit it, something to learn.
Thank you both for carrying on this civil discussion.
As I said to others in this thread, I don't care much what is going on in other people's heads, so long as they are not attempting to force anything on me. I want to be civil, so I generally use preferred pronouns to keep the peace. Be what you want, do what you want—just don't force me to say, do, or pay for anything. AND STAY AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN—COMPLETELY.
The problem arises not with some random trans person, but with what the left has done with all of this…
This kind of civil discussion is one of the things I love about this site. Not taking offense, but simply sharing one's viewpoint and having it respected even when of a differing viewpoint. It expands one's consciousness and good practice for learning all we can from this life experience.
Though we do not yet officially have our distributed nation, I tend to think of you as the first member of what it will one day be. You were the first to embrace it. So I like to share things with you, even ahead of time, to get your thoughts.
One of them is that I believe we must somehow emphasize civility. I become increasingly convinced that so much conflict can be avoided simply by wording things carefully. I am not sure about the details yet, but something is telling me that civility needs to be one of our touchstones…
As usual I am in complete agreement, and thanks for the much appreciated acknowledgment my friend. The truly noble person is so confident, secure and unafraid through self honesty and sincere intentions, than he is not defensive of his views or what he thinks of as himself, (using "himself" in the generalized sense, not to exclude any other "pronouns ;-) as "Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists, therein lies the peace of God" in the words of the text from "A Course in Miracles. Understanding, he realizes that many do not yet know who or what they really are, and are thus prone to be defensive, mistaking what they see as an attack on their misperception as an attack on themselves rather than a helpful desire to be free them from it, or seek clarification and greater understanding. Giving them a chance to really take a look at what they are saying and explain how it is valid. This is friendly exchange of viewpoints is made more clear by the person with a good grasp of civility and tact.
"focusing on “leftists” as opposed to referencing the ideology of the left"
Same as the older, love the sinner, hate the sin. Hard to do because the first step in the journey to redemption is recognizing one's own sin. Rightly seen, our own sin calls into question our ability to help anyone else deal with their sin. As Jesus taught, "First remove the log from your own eye, then you can help another remove the speck in his."
I like this take jesse. You are right, before we try to lecture or correct others we had best turn our attention to the one person each of us is truly authorized to correct and improve.
Regulatory agencies might work better if they were controlled and funded by the users/purchasers of the goods or services being regulated, but I'm not sure if that could be made to work. There's a danger this would also result in over-regulation, but biased towards the consumer. The regulations could simply be a method of inspection and labelling, which means that individual consumers themselves would choose the trade-off between price and quality/safety.
Didn't Good Housekeeping serve a purpose like this for ages?
In the absence of regulatory agencies, I believe the market would come up with solutions. Consumers would want to be able to trust products. Manufacturers would want to be able to say that their product was tested, reliable, etc. Agencies would arise to fill that role. They might get $$ from manufacturers ("test our product and, if it passes, please give it your seal of approval"). Or maybe from consumers who subscribe. Or both. Or something else.
I do not believe in market perfection, but I also don't believe in the oft-cited (by statists) concept of "market failure."
There's no such thing as a transsexual. Its simply pretend, nothing else. If they can get a person to believe that their physical being is somehow "wrong" because of their psychological problems, then there in no end to the insanity they hope to accomplish.
Ubetcha, this whole gender bender movement is a result of both a Woke Leftist (Communist/Satanic/Freemasonic) agenda being shoved down our throats (brainwashing), and also mind-control on the world population.
The actual physical manifestation is a result of aforesaid and a combination of aborted fetal cells of both sexes, and both monkey and human foreskins in the QUACKCINES.
there are some profoundly educated who would agree with you. individuals expressing themselves as they are had made some progress. there is an agenda against that. so extremes are pushed. the masses like conformity, easy identification, labels and that must be respected and we work from the knowledge we hold without imposing but in protection FOR those being mindfucked & experimented on & bodies destroyed
Yes they do, it takes a wise person to notice the wisdom in another, but seems foolishness to the foolish. Thanks for the validation, whatever there is it was hard earned, as I sure is most likely the case for you 2....and speaking of two i c U 2
granted. even in foolishness is wisdom, in lies there is also truth. yes, hard earned but as you said so very worth it. i wasn't promised a rose garden yet I find roses everywhere; along with their thorns. 😁
Yes, I guess we see what we give our attention too, because it is what we are as well. Both the roses and their thorns can be seen as a blessing and so can we.
I don't care much what is going on in other people's heads, so long as they are not attempting to force anything on me. For me, this is more of a political problem. Be what you want, do what you want—just don't force me to say, do, or pay for anything. AND STAY AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN—COMPLETELY.
I'm sorry. I live in reality. I only write fiction. I refuse to call someone what their mental illness tells them they are.
If I see a woman, I use her name or say, she did it, her name is, etc. The same for a man, He did it, I saw him do it. I will never call a man her or she. And nobody in government can force me to do it.
On the day that the government forces me to deny my intelligence and my reality, they cease being a government. But then again, they have never given a shit about the citizenry. If they were, they wouldn't start shit with other countries that would get their citizens killed.
I will copy in my reply to Ubetcha, as it is just as pertinent:
I don't care much what is going on in other people's heads, so long as they are not attempting to force anything on me. For me, this is more of a political problem. Be what you want, do what you want—just don't force me to say, do, or pay for anything. AND STAY AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN—COMPLETELY.
Joseph, you are spot on but please note, whatever legitimacy 'government' may have had before Convid (which is none), has completely vanished. There is no government. We're on our own.
that is old school. you see a man or a woman and you treat them that way. we treat them as they present. we dont ask & they dont broadcast.
they go into the bathroom they are dressed for & act accordingly.
if you don't know you don't know & frankly, dont care.
in my lifetime i have met 2 people that i seriously couldnt tell, i asked their name which could have been either & used that.
i found it disturbing that in the 90's in the elementary schools there were no doors on the bathroom stalls.
why no basic privacy?
men have worn skirts (kilts) & dresses (robes) forever & i really don't care what people wear but what they are doing to parental rights & children's minds & bodies is equivalent, worse even than what they attribute to Mengele. they have been experimenting, researching, documented, on us for
well over a hundred years and we are sicker today than 100 yrs ago.
the agenda is to register, get every object (yes, you are an object just like a blade of grass) known, identified, labeled, accounted for & placed on the internet of things, then subclassed into internet of bodies & various other databases for management as a commodity, a factor, asset or liability.
pick your battle at least. the war is for the hearts & minds of the people.
Yes, that is why I came to a point where I said no the SSN despite the problems that would cause me, I object to being an inventoried commodity, a "human resource" in a commercial enterprise run by those who love money more than living things. Part of being unlimited and believing that all things are possible means that someone can decide to be another sex and with the proper miracle mindedness I don't see why they couldn't pull it off, or else I limit my aspiring to things that people say are impossible and belief that I can achieve such things if I meet the requirements the Universe demands. Like the Red Qeen said to Alice, "I am able to believe six impossible things every morning before breakfast" or lines along that effect. Maybe there is insufficient faith to make it happen in our short lives, maybe it will take another lifetime. It may take patience and trying a lot of different things. I would hope to receive support from those who agree that such things can happen if I made up my mind to succeed, but don't think that is a necessity, and it is something that will require patience, determination and persistence when it goes against consensus reality. I don't believe in making others uncomfortable with it however, or be satisfied with a cheap pretence, and would not be bothered or offended by those who don't believe or buy it. I have some passive feminine aspects to my character, but I prefer being a man and think the majority of my lives have been male, and enjoy the challenges of fulfilling that role to the best of my ability.
your life is an honorable tribute to all that & more.
it is written and shown that every thing contains its opposite. in everything is opposition. black & white both contain all other colors.
feminine & masculine. sun & moon. day & night. yin & yang. light & dark. right/wrong. good/bad.
opposites are the extreme polar ends which in the midst between those ends contains the everything, the myriad of colors in constant motion and unlimited points between as shown on a compass.
Thank you Anne. Nothing is more true than that this world and all its people are an amazing mixture, we see it everywhere, a mixture of contrasting elements. It is what makes this world so interesting and challenging, yet confusing at times. Finding that balance is what counts as I'm sure a wise person like you has discovered. I don't these days think of myself as a "good" or a "bad" person, I know I am a mixture and my major goal is watching carefully to examine what I'm doing and much of what I thought was myself was just an imaginary picture of a "bad" or "good" person. Whichever I was meets the needs of this world as it is, only there are behaviors and the lack of love's awareness that leads to a miserable personal experience which I now mostly avoid, but don't think it makes me intrinsically better than others. Yet perhaps a more honorable person, (make that someone who tries hard to be a more honest person especially with self) but not something truly "Good" in the sense most people think of it because it is self interested and rewarding. Jesus is said to have stated to those who called Him good.."Only God is Good." If I do actual good I must attribute that to the Divine Presence within which has never and will never abandon us, loves me and all of us equally.
"and all its people are an amazing mixture, we see it everywhere, a mixture of contrasting elements. It is what makes this world so interesting and challenging, yet confusing at times.".
and i would add complementing elements.
" Whichever I was meets the needs of this world as it is, only there are behaviors and the lack of love's awareness that leads to a miserable personal experience which I now mostly avoid, but don't think it makes me intrinsically better than others. Yet perhaps a more honorable person, (make that someone who tries hard to be a more honest person especially with self) but not something truly "Good" in the sense most people think of it because it is self interested and rewarding."
YES! especially this!
"(make that someone who tries hard to be a more honest person especially with self)"
this is why I chose the word honorable. Integrity is an arduous path that can only be accomplished with love's grace & real honesty.
Love that last line Anne. "Integrity is an arduous path that can only be accomplished with love's grace and real honesty." It does take work and a lot of sincere willingness, and even wanting to catch yourself in little dishonesties and see the insincere thoughts, and thank the Divine Spirit of Truth for revealing them to you and bringing them to your awareness as is It's helpful duty. But oh how rewarding it is despite the discomfort in the beginning. The way your life changes for the better, more peaceful, more loving experiences with both people and animals, amazing positive "co-incidences," which I recognize now as little miracles that must be received with gratitude. Doing so is like stepping on the manifestation gas pedal. One of the tricks is to get to where you can see the ugly and/or insincere thoughts and actions you take without hating or judging yourself as a "bad" person, that is just another false identity. Doing this is just as Christ Spirit said you must do in regards to others. Your job is not to judge them either, but to love them without thinking you have to take responsibility for fixing them or bailing them out of the problems they have created for themselves. That is just being condescending instead of realizing they have the same power you do to gain an abundance of miracles. All that is required is to really be willing to see without pretense or justification so you continue to love yourself and others and see that both of you deserve a better life more filled with love and life. I don't mean to imply anything about myself other than that I am a work in progress and I don't expect instant perfection from myself any more than from anyone else and admit freely I have not achieved it.
I guess I'm old-fashioned, then. I will not call a man a woman because he's wearing a dress anymore than I'd call a woman a man, because she's wearing pants.
In the place where I work, the biological sex is one of the ways we classify people. We won't put a man in a woman's area, nor will we put a woman in a man's area.
Trans-identifying males go into the men's section, and trans-identifying women go into the women's section.
If a man calls himself a woman, we refer him to mental health just like we do if a woman calls herself a man.
Mental health problems lead to physical violence, and we try to help people, not hurt them.
When I grew up, if a boy wore a dress, he'd be teased and beaten up. But then, men were men, and women were women. There wasn't all this communist confusion.
which is the point. they have ALWAYS walked among us & were seen & known by some. what you see isn’t always what you think is so. clownish is designed & perpetuated to distract you from the heart of the matter.
ok, old fashion which is as i said, old school or in your words old fashioned, traditional.
you use a scottish or gaelic language spelling as subtitle where traditional mens clothing included kilts, which are fashioned after skirts or skorts.
clothing doesnt make a man or woman. many men & women throughout time have worked & worn clothing that suited the work ehich is 1 reason for the kilt. protecting & controlling women doesnt make a man either. in the wild there is nothing more fierce than females protecting the young while men were providing the necessities to support & sustain life.
the societal conditions, codes & cultural ways have been politicized but also colonialized as the european modes & ways were pressed as supreme & all others should assimilate, desire above their own.
men are men, women are women is honorable but what does that really, really mean to you. again the war is for the hearts & minds of us. what we love, cherish, hold dear, value as important. pick your battle, understand it, stand in it or succumb.
Yes, Scottish and Irish men wore Kilts, but they never called themselves women.
Kilts, as we recognize them today, originated in Scotland during the 16th century. These early kilts were known as the Great Kilt (or féileadh mór in Gaelic), which was a large piece of cloth draped over the body and could be adjusted for warmth or ease of movement. It was both a garment and a blanket, commonly worn by Highlanders.
The modern kilt, or small kilt (féileadh beag), evolved in the 18th century, around the 1720s. This version focused only on the lower part of the traditional Great Kilt, making it more practical for daily wear and work. Kilts became an emblem of Scottish identity, especially after the Jacobite risings, despite the ban on wearing them after the 1746 Battle of Culloden. The prohibition, part of the Dress Act of 1746, was repealed in 1782.
Skorts
Skorts—a hybrid of skirts and shorts—were first introduced in the 19th century as part of activewear for women. Early versions of skorts were practical adaptations for activities like cycling, golf, and tennis, allowing for modesty and ease of movement.
The term "skort" gained popularity in the mid-20th century, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, as sportswear brands embraced the concept. Today, skorts are commonly used in sports and casual fashion, blending the feminine look of a skirt with the functionality of shorts.
So, no. Nothing was fashioned after a skort. Kilts came first and started out as large blankets.
Men have always been stronger and larger than women. Men were hunters and gatherers. Women were occasionally gatherers.
My problem isn't with clothes. It's when men think they are women and women think they are men.
Men can't be women. Bruce getting his balls chopped off doesn't make him a woman; it makes him a eunuch.
A woman getting skin from her thigh rolled into a penis doesn't make her a man.
Both have mental illnesses and need help.
If you are a child and think you are the other sex, you have a parent with a mental disorder. If you are over 25 and think you are the other sex, you have a mental disorder.
Stop defending the mentally ill. Get them real help.
Right now, they are schizophrenic, and people are taking advantage of them.
well said. i have scots blood & researched some on the kilts & origination. you know history of clothing better than I. the taking of advantage is on purpose & by design as was done to the scots, irish and truthfully all the peoples of this world. it is those who perpetuate and take advantage of the confusion they deliberately create & feed that i consider the problem & enemy of mental wellness. those sickened & confused can be helped by stopping the bullshitters who are the truely mentally ill. i am concerned for those children relating as animals, which is normal to a degree, but it is being latched onto & made more than it is. sorry but I think most people are fucked up & cant think straight enough to pick their battle so are swinging blindly at everything in their sight which only feeds the enemy & agenda and i have no doubt some are enjoying the show!
My pronouns are, IWill-BeHappyTo: IF. Oh. Wait. That is My name. LOL! If any Other wants Me to be subject, I don't create controversy. I will be happy to be subject IF Any can prove I AM. (In Their jurisdiction, in the system, etc....)
As for pronouns... I just don't use them if someOne is prickly about then, and then avoid that One from thereon. If Any need Me to affirm who They are, I'm not the One to come to.
The Ones behind this LGBT(any of the rest of the alphabet), whose money brought it out (no WAY it's organic; groomed 100%), it is They I work to solve for. My latest:
I decided to read Kaczynski’s writings a couple years ago after another writer referenced them and my curiosity was sufficiently piqued. It was because he first became known to me as the "Unabomber" that I had dismissed his "manifesto" when it was first disclosed years ago as the rantings and ravings of a madman. After all of the lies and deceit of the bioterror attack on our nation and the world that was launched in 2020 as a coordinated global government war against their people my mind was finally pried open enough to take in the rantings and ravings of the madman I first knew as the Unabomber.
I found passages like the one you highlighted, many others that might as well have been speaking to our times. That showed he was trying to alert the world around him about the evil he saw masquerading as "science" and "progress." And was largely spot-on. He was highly intelligent, perceptive, his mind able to string together patterns and complex analysis, along with a level of discernment about the trappings of the modern world that had more people been exposed to his "manifesto" with open minds and curiosity perhaps some of the evil that we see our world devolving into could've been averted, rejected.
But very few had reached a point of disillusionment with the world we exist in, being constructed around us that we were open or curious enough to indulge the ideas he shared. And pre-internet they certainly weren't very accessible.
Lacking an audience or platform he turned to a very dark path trying to get his message out that he thought was important enough to share with the world. Unfortunately for him, and us, his potential audience, by choosing the path of darkness his ideas were relegated to the status of rantings and ravings of a madman's manifesto for decades after his primal, murderous screams to be heard. It took a frontal assault on mankind that awakened a great many about the things he first tried to warn us about nearly a half century ago.
Attempts to violently shake people awake to the monstrous agenda of those in power today actually served the purposes of the monsters. Which should reinforce to us the understanding of human psychology as one that respects the wisdom that people will awaken when they are ready to receive information that disrupts preconceived ideas of how they are being led and governed. As long as they/we are comfortable we have little incentive to look beyond our comfort zone. We might see something that upsets our tranquility and ease. Better to keep our heads down and enjoy our simple lives, "in the Matrix," where eating a juicy steak and drinking fine wine gives us enjoyment than to eat the gruel and suffer immense hardship always fighting off the relentless machines that exist destroy all who have escaped the Matrix, as Cypher eventually succumbed. Better the comfortable illusion to the uncomfortable reality.
As much as I tried to shake people awake in 2020, sometimes with a very nasty disposition in public encounters, or as a fire hydrant of information that blasted potential listeners who may have been curious but couldn't handle the deluge I unleashed on them, those techniques were unsuccessful. Because depressingly few people wanted to be shaken from their comfort zones. And had I been more disciplined in my communications with those who were curious I'd have chosen to plant seeds of doubt with the goal of piquing curiosity for potential listeners instead of being an open fire hydrant.
That's our challenge. How to pique curiosity for those who's minds have seen enough to be curious about reality but not scare them back into the illusion. Dragging them out of it will usually make them kick and scream and fight to get back into the illusion of the Matrix. And make us appear to be the madmen who author manifestos. Triggering fear of more Unabomber primal screams. Instead of piquing curiosities for those who may choose to pick up the incredibly brilliant "manifesto" he wrote with an open mind and learn what he was trying to share before he gave up on peaceful persuasion and enlightenment.
Our greatest challenge is to offer an alternative vision of the world that isn't so frightening that potential allies run back into the arms of their tormentors, preferring the false comfort and ease to the hardships we seem to offer. Is one of the reasons I enjoy reading your Stack, Christopher, as you offer ideas about an alternative vision that attempts to manage the frightening nature of a radically different world of human organization and coexistence. Thank you, I'm glad I found your work.
This is a truly excellent and informative comment. THANK YOU.
I have not read much of his writings, so it is good to have my instincts confirmed by someone reliable who has taken the time to read them.
It kind of makes me wonder—DID he do what they say he did? Or was he set up in order to discredit his prescient message? I am open to either possibility.
It is our duty and obligation as free people to question everything. Especially authority.
Right on!
I do ponder if They didn't use Kaczynski in some sort of a "revelation of the method" psyop. They do play fast and loose with "implied consent," and use such plot elements to suggest that We consent to Their shenanigans. They say it's to keep Their karma clean, but anything hidden that is not offered above board in all ways is unEthical. And unEthical behavior choices affect the karma.
I do not consent to anything unEthical.
Well, he was a MK Ultra test subject. So there's that.
Interesting. I'm not highly surprised. We might ponder how much of what went down was as We were told, and how much was put in in a wagging the dog fashion.
"Attempts to violently shake people awake to the monstrous agenda of those in power today actually served the purposes of the monsters."
The colocation of Kaczynski's remarkably lucid and indeed enlightened critique of the modern world with his focused acts of extreme violence may be thought of also as a deliberate operation by intelligence/the deep state to black wash all genuine criticism of the modern world and the trajectory it is on in order to discourage people, or so that people would be repelled by insurgency or rebellion of any kind, even philosophical.
"Better the comfortable illusion to the uncomfortable reality."
Freedom need not be entirely so, but it necessarily must in many ways and to greater extents be more uncomfortable than our present state of enslavement. Even if in reality it might only be the perception of such. The state can and does mobilize vast resources in order to present a delusion of comfort, and the majority of the populace will be none the wiser or, like Cypher (The Matrix), always choose this.
It is unfortunate that, could and would such a choice ever be offered, which is unlikely, the choice will be between certain and familiar comforts with enslavement, or uncertainty, inconvenience, certain hardship with freedom, even were it just the indefinite prospect of, the faint hope of attaining true freedom. Therefore the challenge for us is also to create by boot-strapping an opportunity to choose, because it will almost certainly not be offered.
My words: resistance to all of this is required. No more status quo and no more laying down in front of the wokie train. The nuns taught me pronouns in grade school and their teachings are sacrosanct. Cross or defy a nun and it's lights out...yours. At least it was 65 years ago.
I hear you. See my reply to Ubetcha and others…
WRT the regulatory system, it actually works exactly as intended. It was never meant to protect "consumers" or the earth or any other entity from corporate harm, but was started at the behest of the railroad companies and their owners so the government would make it look like they were being regulated as a way to keep themselves from competing each other into the ground, and also to address the pushback they were getting about safety etc. from employees and passengers with minimal regulations. (What regulation actually does is legalize the harm, not stop it. Corporations have any number of ways to get around any new regulatory limits placed on their activities.)
Gabriel Kolko's book Railroads and Regulation, 1877-1916 (https://archive.org/details/railroadsregulat0000unse) and Sheep in Wolf's Clothing by Jane Anne Morris (https://ratical.org/corporations/sheepInWolfC.html) both explain in detail what the regulatory system really is and does.
Excellent illumination of the truth. Power systems (governments) are corrupt, corruptible, and corrupting. Getting rid of them does not fix all the problems. But it does end the ability of some to rule over others, and for businesses to use that system to their own advantage. Better to have everyone subjected to market forces.
Agreed. The regulatory system came into being as part of the Progressive movement in the late 19th/early 20th century. That was, I think, the beginning of the "nanny state" idea, that the government should somehow take care of people. And there's some reason there, due to the severe imbalance of economic and political power that makes most of us seem to be, and sometimes feel like, victims. But the nanny state only reinforces that the ordinary folks are powerless and should rely on government protection. Whereas if we thought of ourselves differently, we might find we are not so powerless. Plus, we really do need a system that has more economic equality and isn't set up to advantage those with wealth already over those with no wealth.
I have heard a controversial take that I would like your opinion on. The rise of the nanny state (the rise in government spending) does track well with the rise of political power for women. Sopme choose to believe that the relationship is not only correlative, but causative. Now, that may be the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but it is an interesting thing to contemplate. Women are (generally) more nurturing by nature; men are (generally) more tough-love by nature. Could this have had an influence on the shift in direction of governments?
I have my doubts that it is anything other than part of the same evolution of politics toward more control over us by those who fancy themselves the rulers. Women's political power has risen throughout the 20th century, in terms of voting and being elected to office, but I don't see that women's tendency to be more nurturing has had anything to do with the rise of the nanny state. For one thing, despite more women being elected, they have gotten there mostly, in line with 3rd wave feminism, by acting like men.
I also don't think the idea of social programs has its origin in lawmakers of either sex truly wanting to help people. I think it's more insidious than that, part of the effort to infantilize people, make them ever more dependent so more easily controlled, wrapped in an ideological cloak of caring.
The veneer of care for people, like the veneer of feminism being empowering for women and the veneer of care for the earth supposedly driving the agenda of climate change (to name a few), are elements of the long game leading toward ultimate control that is coming to fruition in our moment. (At least, the predator class that has been unfolding it for at least a couple of centuries thinks it's coming to fruition. I don't, but it remains to be seen.)
As you will note in pieces such as this—I agree!
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/climate-change-white-privilege-pretexts-force
A more apt title of Jane Anne Morris's book probably might have been "Wolf in Sheep Dog's Clothing" or "Wolf in Shepherd's Clothing" aside from the Biblical analogy. The predator disguised as something protective.
Yes, that would be better. I think what she was after was a direct reversal of the usual phrase, and the notion that this wolf is as powerless as any sheep to protect the other sheep.
True.
Excellent Exposure Christopher!
I don't believe the regulatory agencies are actually protecting us in most cases. It is really a control mechanism which creates much harm but good things are done a long the way too.
I am sure that some of them feel like they are doing good work. But market agencies can do it better!
Well put!
Pronouns... no big deal... i call all digs > him he.... my son, very much male has been called lady over 25 times at restaurants when sitting with me because of his very long hair... no offense was taken ... get over it... a pronoun won't kill ya! If someone gets it wrong, you can politely correct them, but if you are and act offended you have mental issues! Pronouns mean very.little. its the heart connection that matters.
agree. the problem is there are laws, yes actual laws, not just administrative codes & regs requiring the use of pronouns, how to be used correctly, who is to lie in using them and who is to be lied to regarding use & harsh punishment, extreme even for getting it wrong. tell you when & how & where to breathe next? CO2 remember.
We can't demand kindness and civility. There are some who will refuse simply because it is required of them.
I told my family this: If you are the kind of person who wants to make a friend or loved one feel bad by refusing to address them how they prefer, that is your right.
Nobody here is that kind of person. We don't want to make people we care about feel bad. We tend to treat everyone with basic courtesy. It's still not right to "demand" as it builds resentment.
ps: real sugar may be the devil, but I choose it over fake shit because at least my body knows what to do with it, everything else tastes weird anyway
"We can't demand kindness and civility."
—100 percent right!
"It's still not right to "demand" as it builds resentment."
—100 percent right!!
I am not too bothered by what is going on in other people's heads. And I am perfectly fine generally just being civil, and that includes using preferred pronouns.
But DO NOT demand it of me. Do not make it mandatory. Do not threaten me or my job. Do not mandate any speech. That is when I cease being civil.
Oh, and STAY AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN. COMPLETELY.
Agreed!
We would all be so much better off without so-called "governments" "protective agencies" which always become corrupted by money interests and have more or less a monopoly on the business of telling us what is or is not healthy. So much better if there were private rating companies who took no "bribes" from those they rate and simply informed with facts so we could make our own decisions. We would be a stronger more self reliant people and those who developed such discernment (and there would be a lot more motivation to do so in my opinion. Just as there was a lot more genuine charity in the days before gov "welfare" programs) would be the healthier and thus more prosperous and influential ones in society. I became friends with Ted's brother David, a somewhat left leaning but caring and creative individual, who had the heartbreaking task of informing on his beloved older brother, who until messed with by MKUltra style mind techniques was a very intelligent but vulnerable person.
Interesting re: David K.
For the rest, good points, and see Betsy's excellent comment for more.
"I agree, in general, with the “simple act of kindness” aspect of this argument."
I don't agree that it is "kind" to use pronouns that defy reality. I don't believe it is kind to enable anyone to believe that they are the opposite sex when they are not.
Forcing others to affirm your delusion is narcissism 101. It's up to everyone else to make that person feel whatever it is they need to feel that isn't real.
"I have a friend who is old-school trans. She transitioned many years before the leftist social contagion increased the number of trans people from the genuine 0.003 percent of the population who suffer from true dysphoria to the crazy-high numbers of people claiming to be “trans” today. I call her “she” because that is what she wants."
While I get that there are people with gender confusion of the "old school" variety, I still do not believe that it is in this person's best interest, nor in the best interests of those around him her or whatever they need to believe about themselves that is not real.
No matter what they do to themselves, the viewer can still perceive their birth sex. You are subsequently being FORCED to perceive what you actually do not perceive.
And it's a waste of time, energy, and money because -- again -- the REALITY is that the viewer is looking at this person and saying to themselves, I have to act like this persons is something they aren't.
It's the idea that there are "true trans" that put us on the slippery slope we're in now: destroyed families, estranged offspring, gratuitous surgeries, and social chaos.
Accepting reality is the solution that is best for society as a whole.
I get your point L. but we all have certain pretenses about ourselves. We may have a nickname we prefer over the one our parents gave us, we may have certain harmless delusions about ourselves, maybe that we wear outrageous outfits, think that we are actually an alien spirit from Arcturus, or ascribe to a religion that has beliefs, practices, rituals or unusual dietary practices that seem strange or even harmful to some. There are those who will judge and point out to you that wearing leather or eating meat makes you a cruel or bad person. I prefer not to be offended by people who are a bit cooky, a little bizzarre and to treat all with a certain amount of respect just for being human and living in this insane world. I don't stare, make a point of letting them know that I think they are being ridiculous, or make derogatory comments in their hearing. There are men who really believe they have a female spirit and some do even (in my opinion) do a beautiful job of appearing to be a woman. I do not want to offend or hurt the feelings of such a person if they are not trying to aggressively push this on others. On the other hand I would never say it is okay for a genetic male to compete against women in sports, be employed in jobs or the military in positions for which they are not physically qualified, or hire them for a job that requires high intelligence and knowledge that they do not actually possess or hire or appoint someone just because of some quality that has nothing to do with merit and the position in question.
I am certain that there are women with male spirits. I am one of them. It does not make me male, however. Before it was fashionable, I would tell people that I'm a gay man in a woman's body. I still have a woman's body; I am female with various attributes that make me an individual. It would never have occurred to me to demand people 'treat me like a gay man in a woman's body.' What does it mean to 'treat' someone like something they aren't -- or even to treat people like something they are?
There are ways to avoid offending people that are valid. There are ways in which we must offend people or otherwise be tyrannized into hell.
That said, I avoided 'offending' a female friend over the holiday, who sleeps on a mattress on the floor next to her 13-year-old son's mattress on the floor. I did not say, "Didn't you say last week that it's time he had his own room?" What I truly wanted to say was, "You are too parasitically attached to your son, because you have been surviving on child support payments, so he's your bread and butter, and you're afraid of losing that to the point of symbolically sleeping with him as if he were still one year old."
I avoided "offending" X because she was drunk, loud, obnoxious, and knew exactly why that man over there told her to go away.
What other people decide to eat or not to eat has very little bearing on society and my personal freedom. But men in my locker room --- which I have experienced -- is tyranny. I shouldn't be forced to share space with natal males, especially one masquerading as a female, standing there watching women undress. If a man wants to act like he's a female, he should still use the men's room. It is not my obligation to make him feel safe.
I live in NYC. I don't stare at weirdness either. Choosing not to stare is different from being FORCED TO SEE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE.
There is a strident difference between NOT SAYING SOMETHING -- and CHOOSING NOT TO SAY IT, and being FORCED TO SAY SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TRUE.
So, in some ways, I agree with you, and in most ways, I do not. Having a "female spirit" does not give one license to force people to affirm a falsehood.
Thank you for your thoughful reply. I do not ever assume that I am always right about anything. Too often I have found that something I was so sure of was foolish and incorrect or more often just more complicated than I thought it was. I think that saying or acting on what you truly and sincerely feel is the right thing in the moment is what you should always do. You will either learn something valuable from the experience or make a difference that matters. In my view there is something beyond our logic, which is only as good as correct data input can make it, the old programmers GIGO comes to mind (garbage in, garbage out and we are fed a lot of garbage as we grow up) and imagination can sometimes substitute for true intuition and the whisperings of the Spirit of Truth. Though I think there is a Higher Source of wisdom that can guide us into doing the best thing in the moment if we learn to listen to It, that "still small voice within" that truly knows. I am not sure at all that there are female or male spirits, my opinion is that there are both masculine and feminine aspects to each, although I feel there are preferred roles, and it is nice to have the physical avatar that suits that personal preference. I think that we, I, have had experiences in both, and it is best to not fight against having the experience in the sex of the body you inhabit, there was a reason you inhabit it, something to learn.
Thank you both for carrying on this civil discussion.
As I said to others in this thread, I don't care much what is going on in other people's heads, so long as they are not attempting to force anything on me. I want to be civil, so I generally use preferred pronouns to keep the peace. Be what you want, do what you want—just don't force me to say, do, or pay for anything. AND STAY AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN—COMPLETELY.
The problem arises not with some random trans person, but with what the left has done with all of this…
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/prepared-to-be-reasonable-on-trans-issue
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/why-the-left-is-so-insane-on-the
This kind of civil discussion is one of the things I love about this site. Not taking offense, but simply sharing one's viewpoint and having it respected even when of a differing viewpoint. It expands one's consciousness and good practice for learning all we can from this life experience.
Just as an aside I am wondering why neither during your gift subscription nor now during my paid subscription I am not allowed to like any post?
Oh, and I could always post or reply to posts in either version. Strange.
That's weird. What happens when you try?
Though we do not yet officially have our distributed nation, I tend to think of you as the first member of what it will one day be. You were the first to embrace it. So I like to share things with you, even ahead of time, to get your thoughts.
One of them is that I believe we must somehow emphasize civility. I become increasingly convinced that so much conflict can be avoided simply by wording things carefully. I am not sure about the details yet, but something is telling me that civility needs to be one of our touchstones…
As usual I am in complete agreement, and thanks for the much appreciated acknowledgment my friend. The truly noble person is so confident, secure and unafraid through self honesty and sincere intentions, than he is not defensive of his views or what he thinks of as himself, (using "himself" in the generalized sense, not to exclude any other "pronouns ;-) as "Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists, therein lies the peace of God" in the words of the text from "A Course in Miracles. Understanding, he realizes that many do not yet know who or what they really are, and are thus prone to be defensive, mistaking what they see as an attack on their misperception as an attack on themselves rather than a helpful desire to be free them from it, or seek clarification and greater understanding. Giving them a chance to really take a look at what they are saying and explain how it is valid. This is friendly exchange of viewpoints is made more clear by the person with a good grasp of civility and tact.
"focusing on “leftists” as opposed to referencing the ideology of the left"
Same as the older, love the sinner, hate the sin. Hard to do because the first step in the journey to redemption is recognizing one's own sin. Rightly seen, our own sin calls into question our ability to help anyone else deal with their sin. As Jesus taught, "First remove the log from your own eye, then you can help another remove the speck in his."
I like this take jesse. You are right, before we try to lecture or correct others we had best turn our attention to the one person each of us is truly authorized to correct and improve.
No! Bad mugger! Bad! Bad!
Regulatory agencies might work better if they were controlled and funded by the users/purchasers of the goods or services being regulated, but I'm not sure if that could be made to work. There's a danger this would also result in over-regulation, but biased towards the consumer. The regulations could simply be a method of inspection and labelling, which means that individual consumers themselves would choose the trade-off between price and quality/safety.
Didn't Good Housekeeping serve a purpose like this for ages?
In the absence of regulatory agencies, I believe the market would come up with solutions. Consumers would want to be able to trust products. Manufacturers would want to be able to say that their product was tested, reliable, etc. Agencies would arise to fill that role. They might get $$ from manufacturers ("test our product and, if it passes, please give it your seal of approval"). Or maybe from consumers who subscribe. Or both. Or something else.
I do not believe in market perfection, but I also don't believe in the oft-cited (by statists) concept of "market failure."
Good Housekeeping yes, also Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) and Consumer Reports magazine.
Yep!
methinks you opened a wonderful can of worms with this one! Thank You!!!
It was not my goal, but methinks you are right!
lol. the best are always happened upon. 😂👏💙
I wonder what will happen if and when AI can't be bothered with the pronouns thing.
Interesting. What are you envisioning?
There's no such thing as a transsexual. Its simply pretend, nothing else. If they can get a person to believe that their physical being is somehow "wrong" because of their psychological problems, then there in no end to the insanity they hope to accomplish.
It insanity personified.
Ubetcha, this whole gender bender movement is a result of both a Woke Leftist (Communist/Satanic/Freemasonic) agenda being shoved down our throats (brainwashing), and also mind-control on the world population.
The actual physical manifestation is a result of aforesaid and a combination of aborted fetal cells of both sexes, and both monkey and human foreskins in the QUACKCINES.
there are some profoundly educated who would agree with you. individuals expressing themselves as they are had made some progress. there is an agenda against that. so extremes are pushed. the masses like conformity, easy identification, labels and that must be respected and we work from the knowledge we hold without imposing but in protection FOR those being mindfucked & experimented on & bodies destroyed
You are a wise lady Anne.
ty Hat. gmta. i see you
Yes they do, it takes a wise person to notice the wisdom in another, but seems foolishness to the foolish. Thanks for the validation, whatever there is it was hard earned, as I sure is most likely the case for you 2....and speaking of two i c U 2
granted. even in foolishness is wisdom, in lies there is also truth. yes, hard earned but as you said so very worth it. i wasn't promised a rose garden yet I find roses everywhere; along with their thorns. 😁
Yes, I guess we see what we give our attention too, because it is what we are as well. Both the roses and their thorns can be seen as a blessing and so can we.
I don't care much what is going on in other people's heads, so long as they are not attempting to force anything on me. For me, this is more of a political problem. Be what you want, do what you want—just don't force me to say, do, or pay for anything. AND STAY AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN—COMPLETELY.
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/prepared-to-be-reasonable-on-trans-issue
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/why-the-left-is-so-insane-on-the
I'm sorry. I live in reality. I only write fiction. I refuse to call someone what their mental illness tells them they are.
If I see a woman, I use her name or say, she did it, her name is, etc. The same for a man, He did it, I saw him do it. I will never call a man her or she. And nobody in government can force me to do it.
On the day that the government forces me to deny my intelligence and my reality, they cease being a government. But then again, they have never given a shit about the citizenry. If they were, they wouldn't start shit with other countries that would get their citizens killed.
I will copy in my reply to Ubetcha, as it is just as pertinent:
I don't care much what is going on in other people's heads, so long as they are not attempting to force anything on me. For me, this is more of a political problem. Be what you want, do what you want—just don't force me to say, do, or pay for anything. AND STAY AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN—COMPLETELY.
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/prepared-to-be-reasonable-on-trans-issue
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/why-the-left-is-so-insane-on-the
Joseph, you are spot on but please note, whatever legitimacy 'government' may have had before Convid (which is none), has completely vanished. There is no government. We're on our own.
that is old school. you see a man or a woman and you treat them that way. we treat them as they present. we dont ask & they dont broadcast.
they go into the bathroom they are dressed for & act accordingly.
if you don't know you don't know & frankly, dont care.
in my lifetime i have met 2 people that i seriously couldnt tell, i asked their name which could have been either & used that.
i found it disturbing that in the 90's in the elementary schools there were no doors on the bathroom stalls.
why no basic privacy?
men have worn skirts (kilts) & dresses (robes) forever & i really don't care what people wear but what they are doing to parental rights & children's minds & bodies is equivalent, worse even than what they attribute to Mengele. they have been experimenting, researching, documented, on us for
well over a hundred years and we are sicker today than 100 yrs ago.
the agenda is to register, get every object (yes, you are an object just like a blade of grass) known, identified, labeled, accounted for & placed on the internet of things, then subclassed into internet of bodies & various other databases for management as a commodity, a factor, asset or liability.
pick your battle at least. the war is for the hearts & minds of the people.
Well and rightly said.
Yes, that is why I came to a point where I said no the SSN despite the problems that would cause me, I object to being an inventoried commodity, a "human resource" in a commercial enterprise run by those who love money more than living things. Part of being unlimited and believing that all things are possible means that someone can decide to be another sex and with the proper miracle mindedness I don't see why they couldn't pull it off, or else I limit my aspiring to things that people say are impossible and belief that I can achieve such things if I meet the requirements the Universe demands. Like the Red Qeen said to Alice, "I am able to believe six impossible things every morning before breakfast" or lines along that effect. Maybe there is insufficient faith to make it happen in our short lives, maybe it will take another lifetime. It may take patience and trying a lot of different things. I would hope to receive support from those who agree that such things can happen if I made up my mind to succeed, but don't think that is a necessity, and it is something that will require patience, determination and persistence when it goes against consensus reality. I don't believe in making others uncomfortable with it however, or be satisfied with a cheap pretence, and would not be bothered or offended by those who don't believe or buy it. I have some passive feminine aspects to my character, but I prefer being a man and think the majority of my lives have been male, and enjoy the challenges of fulfilling that role to the best of my ability.
your life is an honorable tribute to all that & more.
it is written and shown that every thing contains its opposite. in everything is opposition. black & white both contain all other colors.
feminine & masculine. sun & moon. day & night. yin & yang. light & dark. right/wrong. good/bad.
opposites are the extreme polar ends which in the midst between those ends contains the everything, the myriad of colors in constant motion and unlimited points between as shown on a compass.
Thank you Anne. Nothing is more true than that this world and all its people are an amazing mixture, we see it everywhere, a mixture of contrasting elements. It is what makes this world so interesting and challenging, yet confusing at times. Finding that balance is what counts as I'm sure a wise person like you has discovered. I don't these days think of myself as a "good" or a "bad" person, I know I am a mixture and my major goal is watching carefully to examine what I'm doing and much of what I thought was myself was just an imaginary picture of a "bad" or "good" person. Whichever I was meets the needs of this world as it is, only there are behaviors and the lack of love's awareness that leads to a miserable personal experience which I now mostly avoid, but don't think it makes me intrinsically better than others. Yet perhaps a more honorable person, (make that someone who tries hard to be a more honest person especially with self) but not something truly "Good" in the sense most people think of it because it is self interested and rewarding. Jesus is said to have stated to those who called Him good.."Only God is Good." If I do actual good I must attribute that to the Divine Presence within which has never and will never abandon us, loves me and all of us equally.
"and all its people are an amazing mixture, we see it everywhere, a mixture of contrasting elements. It is what makes this world so interesting and challenging, yet confusing at times.".
and i would add complementing elements.
" Whichever I was meets the needs of this world as it is, only there are behaviors and the lack of love's awareness that leads to a miserable personal experience which I now mostly avoid, but don't think it makes me intrinsically better than others. Yet perhaps a more honorable person, (make that someone who tries hard to be a more honest person especially with self) but not something truly "Good" in the sense most people think of it because it is self interested and rewarding."
YES! especially this!
"(make that someone who tries hard to be a more honest person especially with self)"
this is why I chose the word honorable. Integrity is an arduous path that can only be accomplished with love's grace & real honesty.
Love that last line Anne. "Integrity is an arduous path that can only be accomplished with love's grace and real honesty." It does take work and a lot of sincere willingness, and even wanting to catch yourself in little dishonesties and see the insincere thoughts, and thank the Divine Spirit of Truth for revealing them to you and bringing them to your awareness as is It's helpful duty. But oh how rewarding it is despite the discomfort in the beginning. The way your life changes for the better, more peaceful, more loving experiences with both people and animals, amazing positive "co-incidences," which I recognize now as little miracles that must be received with gratitude. Doing so is like stepping on the manifestation gas pedal. One of the tricks is to get to where you can see the ugly and/or insincere thoughts and actions you take without hating or judging yourself as a "bad" person, that is just another false identity. Doing this is just as Christ Spirit said you must do in regards to others. Your job is not to judge them either, but to love them without thinking you have to take responsibility for fixing them or bailing them out of the problems they have created for themselves. That is just being condescending instead of realizing they have the same power you do to gain an abundance of miracles. All that is required is to really be willing to see without pretense or justification so you continue to love yourself and others and see that both of you deserve a better life more filled with love and life. I don't mean to imply anything about myself other than that I am a work in progress and I don't expect instant perfection from myself any more than from anyone else and admit freely I have not achieved it.
I guess I'm old-fashioned, then. I will not call a man a woman because he's wearing a dress anymore than I'd call a woman a man, because she's wearing pants.
In the place where I work, the biological sex is one of the ways we classify people. We won't put a man in a woman's area, nor will we put a woman in a man's area.
Trans-identifying males go into the men's section, and trans-identifying women go into the women's section.
If a man calls himself a woman, we refer him to mental health just like we do if a woman calls herself a man.
Mental health problems lead to physical violence, and we try to help people, not hurt them.
When I grew up, if a boy wore a dress, he'd be teased and beaten up. But then, men were men, and women were women. There wasn't all this communist confusion.
done right & well you wouldn’t know
which is the point. they have ALWAYS walked among us & were seen & known by some. what you see isn’t always what you think is so. clownish is designed & perpetuated to distract you from the heart of the matter.
ok, old fashion which is as i said, old school or in your words old fashioned, traditional.
you use a scottish or gaelic language spelling as subtitle where traditional mens clothing included kilts, which are fashioned after skirts or skorts.
clothing doesnt make a man or woman. many men & women throughout time have worked & worn clothing that suited the work ehich is 1 reason for the kilt. protecting & controlling women doesnt make a man either. in the wild there is nothing more fierce than females protecting the young while men were providing the necessities to support & sustain life.
the societal conditions, codes & cultural ways have been politicized but also colonialized as the european modes & ways were pressed as supreme & all others should assimilate, desire above their own.
men are men, women are women is honorable but what does that really, really mean to you. again the war is for the hearts & minds of us. what we love, cherish, hold dear, value as important. pick your battle, understand it, stand in it or succumb.
Yes, Scottish and Irish men wore Kilts, but they never called themselves women.
Kilts, as we recognize them today, originated in Scotland during the 16th century. These early kilts were known as the Great Kilt (or féileadh mór in Gaelic), which was a large piece of cloth draped over the body and could be adjusted for warmth or ease of movement. It was both a garment and a blanket, commonly worn by Highlanders.
The modern kilt, or small kilt (féileadh beag), evolved in the 18th century, around the 1720s. This version focused only on the lower part of the traditional Great Kilt, making it more practical for daily wear and work. Kilts became an emblem of Scottish identity, especially after the Jacobite risings, despite the ban on wearing them after the 1746 Battle of Culloden. The prohibition, part of the Dress Act of 1746, was repealed in 1782.
Skorts
Skorts—a hybrid of skirts and shorts—were first introduced in the 19th century as part of activewear for women. Early versions of skorts were practical adaptations for activities like cycling, golf, and tennis, allowing for modesty and ease of movement.
The term "skort" gained popularity in the mid-20th century, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, as sportswear brands embraced the concept. Today, skorts are commonly used in sports and casual fashion, blending the feminine look of a skirt with the functionality of shorts.
So, no. Nothing was fashioned after a skort. Kilts came first and started out as large blankets.
Men have always been stronger and larger than women. Men were hunters and gatherers. Women were occasionally gatherers.
My problem isn't with clothes. It's when men think they are women and women think they are men.
Men can't be women. Bruce getting his balls chopped off doesn't make him a woman; it makes him a eunuch.
A woman getting skin from her thigh rolled into a penis doesn't make her a man.
Both have mental illnesses and need help.
If you are a child and think you are the other sex, you have a parent with a mental disorder. If you are over 25 and think you are the other sex, you have a mental disorder.
Stop defending the mentally ill. Get them real help.
Right now, they are schizophrenic, and people are taking advantage of them.
well said. i have scots blood & researched some on the kilts & origination. you know history of clothing better than I. the taking of advantage is on purpose & by design as was done to the scots, irish and truthfully all the peoples of this world. it is those who perpetuate and take advantage of the confusion they deliberately create & feed that i consider the problem & enemy of mental wellness. those sickened & confused can be helped by stopping the bullshitters who are the truely mentally ill. i am concerned for those children relating as animals, which is normal to a degree, but it is being latched onto & made more than it is. sorry but I think most people are fucked up & cant think straight enough to pick their battle so are swinging blindly at everything in their sight which only feeds the enemy & agenda and i have no doubt some are enjoying the show!
If you are interested, please see the links in my comment above. They go a long way to explaining the politics behind a lot of this...
I would read them, except they are behind a paywall.
Try now!
My pronouns are, IWill-BeHappyTo: IF. Oh. Wait. That is My name. LOL! If any Other wants Me to be subject, I don't create controversy. I will be happy to be subject IF Any can prove I AM. (In Their jurisdiction, in the system, etc....)
As for pronouns... I just don't use them if someOne is prickly about then, and then avoid that One from thereon. If Any need Me to affirm who They are, I'm not the One to come to.
The Ones behind this LGBT(any of the rest of the alphabet), whose money brought it out (no WAY it's organic; groomed 100%), it is They I work to solve for. My latest:
80% of Us Merely Move Money (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/80-of-us-merely-move-money