Tuesday, December 07, 2004

The New Man....

His view of Michael Moore's 9/11.

It goes a little like this, "Bad pictures....they makin' me cry. For the nicety of me!"


"Sure, there really are lots of uneaven and conflicting views, but he does a good job of pointing out the fact that there is a large population of people in Iraq who do not want us there and never did."

(I shall translate.)

Michael Moore does a good job. He is pointing out facts. There a lot of people in Iraq who do not want us there.

"They are fighting as patriots who don't want to see their babies blown to shreds in their cribs at night."

They are patriots.

American soldiers are blowing up their babies. Wouldn't you also become a patriot and try to blow up American soldiers, just like they do? If you are an Iraqi reading this, have you joined the movement of patriots and tried to blow up American soldiers today? Best to join up now, lest you be blown up tomorrow.

"He also does a good job of showing the human cost of war... "

To reiterate, Michael Moore does a good job, not a bad job, a good job.

"Men sobbing as they pick up mutilated parts of their wives who got killed in their sleep, women screaming in agony with their legs blown off as they went to the market, children in shock as they watch the burned bodies of their siblings being piled into a truck."

American soldiers are killing women and children, then piling the bodies high right in front of the siblings.

"These are people who have commited no crime and who did not ask to be a part of the war, but the war greeted them in the streets and in their houses."

It's the innocent villagers vs. the Big Meanie Americans.

(If you want to see this pattern, just watch Stolen Honor. It's the same thing that propagandists did then.)

"Surgical precision technology... oops, that was a marketplace. Highly trained soldiers who only take out "insurgent targets..." One soldier said this, "When you go into battle, you shoot anything that moves. You are listening to your favorite CD to get all pumped and ready for action, then you gou out with guns blazing. Sometimes you waste a few kids and women, but you would do the same thing if you were here."

American soldiers are running rampant. They kill women and children because well.....it is like their favorite thing to do.

(Propagandists work through associative conditioning, infralogical conditioning, etc., using basic psychological patterns to "Say it with pictures." images, etc.)

"So yes, you should be ware of fancy editing tricks and disjointed opinions flung in your face with a specific agenda, but you should see it to get another perspective. If you still think that this war is only being waged on terrorists, you are sadly mistaken."

American soldiers are waging war on women and children. You should see it because Michael Moore does a good job, such a good job in offering another perspective.


mynym said...

Sticking this here for now. I had forgotten about something. Hehe....but the good thing is, I can keep my word. I can keep all my lil' words here. Plus, I can use whatever words I want too, always a plus.

Maybe you guys need to decide what your blog is for. I'm reading it off and on now, some things pop up through Google.

As to some things said, American resolve never would have made it through the fire bombing of Japanese cities with the New Man out and about in WWII. For look, just look at all those civilians killed, hundreds of thousands being burned alive. For had America not won the war enough, could America not just leave them be instead of burning them to death?

Yet Japan did not surrender. So then there were the atomic bombs which incinerated entire cities, skin falls off of people from the fall out, etc.

Then something starts to happen in historical documents, personal journals and the like of the Japanese. They say things like, "Maybe our god the Emperor was not telling us the truth about this war. This enemy is just too powerful to fight." But they all thought that Americans were barbarians and would come in and rape the women, etc., if allowed to take over. Yet, it turns out that after they surrendered in what they considered a national humiliation the Americans generally were not the Big Meanies. They set up a new system of law and justice, etc.

But for various reasons the New Man pretty much always believes that Americans are Big Meanies. I will not deconstruct some things said by the New Man, but it would be easy to do. Maybe I'll do that on my own blog sometimes because this one is not meant to be big on politics and philosophy, in theory.



It won't let me delete this last one for now. Maybe later.

mynym said...

"It's become a recurring problem for you. I guess your wind surfing board isn't the only thing buffetted about by the winds of fancy."

No, it's just plain old forgetfulness. The problem is solved, anyway, I just forgot the way I solved it.


I will keep up with your blog sometimes.

Ian - band member said...

Hey, you have your own absolute freedom of speech. I think we both value this freedom, but both recognize that this freedom should be used in appropriate places. Like it would be wierd if your pastor were to exercise his freedom of speech by shouting obscenities from the pulpit.

So go ahead and say whatever you want here, that's your right. We don't care anyway. If you want, you could regester "thelookmachineismentallyretarded.com" and satirize each one of our posts. I think I would enjoy that!

Anonymous said...


(Off topic...sorry.)I went out to eat the other night with some friends, one of which is a teacher. As I had taken some medication, it should come as no surprise that I was not thinking clearly and I made a statement that most of the guys on my end of the table disagreed with. Now I do not claim to be nearly as well read as you appear to me to be. So I thought I would run my statement by you to see if you have any sources I could cite, preferably online; that is, if the position that I took was actually defensible.

I said, "If I am not mistaken, there was a problem with homosexuality in the Nazi regime."

In view of your posts when I first started reading, perhaps you can understand why I thought first to approach you. Anyhow, any aid that you may offer would be appreciated.


Jason - Band Member said...

An "oops I forgot here" and an "oops I forgot there," mix in an "oops I didn't mean to say it was all good" and all of a sudden ones' words are about as steadfast as a grease-dipped eel.

I think they have herbal supplements for such memory problems. Twice now you have claimed "you forgot" something you wrote in the previous week. Probably too much Halo 2 again.

Just curious, what were you searching for on google when you stumbled across our blog?

Ian - band member said...

Probably swinging beds. Or maybe disposable socks. Or maybe it was shooting a film and saving the arctic. Maybe it was shooting a film abous saving swinging disposable socks in the arctic.

Collin - Band Member said...

Thanks for helping me figure out what I said and putting it on your blog. That is great. Now you and your mom won't be confused.

mynym said...

"An 'oops I forgot here' and an 'oops I forgot there,'...."

All it means is that one admits they were wrong and moves on. If you are waiting about for a perfect person to tell you the truth about this issue or that, you will be waiting for the Second Coming.

You demand perfection, even as your words are as excrement with some "....whatever meaning emerges...." nonsense, lack of sense.

The point of not breaking your word is because words mean something. I forgot, I deleted the posts and so my words are not laying all about, broken.

"...mix in an 'oops I didn't mean to say it was all good'...."

Wrong, look at it in the context. It's all good if the assumption of meaningless words is granted.

"...and all of a sudden ones' words are about as steadfast as a grease-dipped eel."

You do demand perfection. For the Herd, which seems to have no notion of Good and Evil because it simply attempts to lack judgment and calls that humility, this bleating demand for perfection is nonense. It's unfortunate, because for all that writing perfection was almost had. There seems to be nothing you can say based on principle and broad philosophy, only, "You said you would not write, but then you did."

I forgot, it is deleted. But yes, I was indeed wrong there.

Yep, based on that, it seems that you've been so successful in deconstructing my philosophy and positions that I'm not quite sure what to say. So maybe I'll get a grease dipped eel to say something.

mynym said...

"Thanks for helping me figure out what I said and putting it on your blog."

You are welcome.

Most of what I did was simply repeat its message and apply basic logic to it. IF American soldiers are going around killing women and children while those who fight them are nationalist patriots THEN you have just written a terrorist recruiting message. For it is only logical that Iraqis join up to protect against these indiscriminate murderers.

I am quite familiar with the methods and modes of Nazi propaganda. Michael Moore is not a new pattern.

The craven mind that hides between the lines of its writing needs to be drawn out. That is the mind of the artist who paints a picture with no lines, Good and Evil all blur together in this mind. Words need to be put in the lisping Leftist mouth, since they are the unspoken words that never should have been spoken.

"Now you and your mom won't be confused."

She was not confused because she does not lack wisdom, as you and Michael Moore do.

He does not do a "good job....a good job." He does a bad job, the job of a moral degenerate. It is possible to make a valid anti-war documentary based on careful research and truth. Just as it is possible for you to write in a carefully thought through manner. Insead, you post something on the level of propaganda which seems only to prove how sensitive you are, as the New Man.

So I deconstructed the propaganda. That is all.

mynym said...

"If I am not mistaken, there was a problem with homosexuality in the Nazi regime."

Yeah, not exactly dinner table conversation, that's a pretty complicated issue.

I'll note some things myself and just cut and paste some history here for you so you can make your own judgments. First, Roehm was the leader of the gays who "regarded themselves as different, meaning better." The Nazis were all moral degenerates together, their "private lives" did not matter. They mattered only in so far as they impacted public opinion, etc. So there was blackmail and the like based on that, like Jim Mcgreavy.

However, Roehm was killed and the gay Nazi contingent along with him on the Night of the Long Knives. This was not because Hitler suddenly started caring about a man's morals and character but because he saw Roehm as too powerful. Also, Himmler was against homosexuality for the sake of Nazi biopolicies and the like. It's still a contradiction to this day. On the one hand the evolutionists are saying survival of the fittest and on the other hand gays are saying born that way, "meaning special, different, better." There is a disagreement between philosophic naturalists there just waiting for some pressure.

You see that while on the one hand psychiatrists' write propaganda for gays, the other holds the scapel that previously performed lobotomies. "Born this way. Born this way!" When the going gets "tight" in a nation and effete luxury in decadence can no longer be affored, then the hand the holds the scapel may well come out.

It is a bitter irony that gays do not see it. But they really just do not see what they are defining themselves as, no free will, no self control and so they dehumanize themselves.

But back to the Nazis...I'll cite some history dealing with it, just keep in mind the conflict between Himmler and Roehm, a struggle for power in which homosexuality played a part. So there is nuance there. I do not have time for every single nuance at the moment, just cut and paste. I'll do it on another comment.


mynym said...

I cannot get this book, out of print. Some of these citations were from online but the links are gone now. I'll just put it here.

Samuel Igra wrote a whole book about the issue, you may be able to find it online. A fundamentalist picked up the same pattern and wrote the Pink Swastika, which used to be online. I did some research of my own in peer reviewed journals. It is true the pattern is there.

“The explanation of this outbreak of sadistic cruelty may be that sexual perversion, and, in particular, homosexuality, are very prevalent in Germany. It seems to me that mass sexual perversion may offer an explanation of this otherwise inexplicable outbreak”...I am convinced that this explanation is the correct one. For, as a matter of fact, the widespread existence of sexual perversion in Germany...at the time the Hitler movement rose to power...is notorious. And authorities on criminal sociology are agreed that there is a causal connection between mass sexual perversion and the kind of mass atrocities committed by the Germans."
(Igra, Samuel, Germany’s National Vice
London: Quality Press Ltd., 1945. :7)

I.e., imagine a whole army of people like the guards at Abu Gharib.

The trend, noted by sociologists:
".....homosexual practices are increasing among men and growing towards a major vice. The most arresting report from Europe comes from Germany....."
(American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 37, No. 6, May, 1932
The Family
Ernest R. Groves :948)

You can see it in the methods and modes of the propaganda. It is the same among modern gay activists.

But to the history, something seems to happen, given decadence, given the decadence of the Weimar Republic which is not so disimilar to that of the American Republic. Look up the proto-Nazi Weimar Republic and read its history.

"The people who are most subject to the wiles of Nazi propaganda are those who have neither securely established their own manhood....nor have been able to combine the instincts of sexuality and love in their attitude towards....women. This is the psychological position of the homosexual.'"
(Journal of Modern History, Vol. 47, No. 2, Jun., 1975
Psychohistorical Perspectives on Modern German History
Peter Loewenberg, :238)

"[Roehm] projected a social order in which
homosexuality would be regarded as a human
behavior pattern of high repute...he flaunted his
homosexuality in public and insisted that his
cronies do the same. What was needed,
Roehm believed, was a proud and arrogant
lot who could brawl, carouse, smash
windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it.
Straights, in his eyes, were not as adept in
such behavior as practicing homosexuals."
(Snyder, Dr. Louis L. Encyclopedia of
the Third Reich. New York, Paragon House,
1989. :55)

“The principle function of this army-like organization
was beating up anyone who opposed the Nazis, and Hitler
believed this was a job best undertaken by homosexuals.”
( Fuchs, Thomas
The Hitler Fact Book New York, Fountain Books, 1990. :48f)

A summary from a peer reviewed journal of sociology
"Similar conclusions may be reached from a study of the widespread practice of homosexuality in the National Socialist S.A. militia and its predecessor Frontbann in the 1920s and early 1930s. As early as 1925 the journalist Carl von Ossietzky (1971, p. 65), in an article entitled 'The National Pederasts,' had written: '. . . The fact is that in most of these para-military organisations which allegedly serve renewal and
discipline and which present themselves as muscular and manly there is another cult apart from that of ultra-patriotism. We have become increasingly accustomed to the figure of the 'nationalist leader' who occupies his spare time by seducing young boys.' Konrad Heidan (1945, p. 235) went further and described homosexuality as being pervasive and indeed institutionalized within the S.A. movement and its predecessors: 'The perversion was widespread in the secret murderer's army of the post-war period and its devotees denied that it was a perversion. They were proud, regarded themselves as 'different from the others,' meaning better.'''
(American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, No. 5, Mar.,
1982 "Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries" Christie
Davies :1057 of 1032-1063)

"By 1926...the charges and countercharges hurled by the Nazi Chieftains at one another became so embarrassing that Hitler set up a party court to settle them and prevent his comrades from washing their dirty linen in public."
(Shirer, William. The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich. New York, Fawcett Crest, 1960. :174)

The Nazis "quarreled and feuded as only men of
unnatural sexual inclinations, with their peculiar jealousies, can.” (Ibid. :172)

"Why was it then, since we were completely non-party,
that our purely scientific Institute was the first victim which fell to the new regime? "Fell" is, perhaps, an understatement for it was totally destroyed; the books from the big library, my irreplaceable documents, all the pictures and files
everything, in fact, that was not nailed down or a permanent fixture was dragged outside and burned. What explanation is there for the fact that the trades union buildings of the socialists, the communist clubs and the synagogues were only destroyed at a much later date and never so thoroughly as our pacific Institute? Whence this hatred, and, what was even more strange, this haste and thoroughness?

The answer to this is simple and straightforward
enough—we knew too much.

It would be against medical principles to provide a list of the Nazi leaders and their perversions. One thing, however, is certain—not ten percent of those men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal...."
(LUDWIG L. LENZ, The Memoirs of a
Sexologist (New York: 1954) pp. 429 ff)

There is more and it is pretty intersting too. He's not saying that they were all "gays." There is more than one way to be sexually abnormal. It's more like saying that they were all moral degenerates. Himmler may have fought with Roehm, yet his view of sexuality was to use women as breeders for the race. It's not so different, once something is just an object and all spiritual significance is removed.

As I recall, that was the first time they began burning books. Then, they made a habit of it. I think this pattern will repeat one day. I.e., a bunch of moral degenerates with something to hide will begin to "burn" the internet because it keeps their records. It's probably only a matter of two, three generations. Despite the mutterings about morality now, the American Republic is decadent, all the symbols of its decline adorn it.

So on that cheery note, later!

Hehe....I for one, still laugh and live. Perhaps Republics decline, and that is just what they do. There is something strange about the America, though. As if it may not follow the course of naturalism, the natural pattern of things. I leave you to think on it.

mynym said...

Dang it, mispelled scalpel.

mynym said...

"....so thoroughly as our pacific Institute?"

Waaa, waa...the psychologists just do not get it. It is their own decadence that breeds moral degeneracy which is anti-intelligence.

It's like the rise of Rightists and Leftists in the Netherlands, nihilistic moral degeneracy that has the worst of all worlds. Religion, virtue, etc., the prescription and veneration of conservatism are exchanged for a lie.

Conservative morality out, Leftists in:
"[W]hen moral barriers collapsed under the impact of Nazi preaching...the same anti-Semitic movement that led to the slaughter of the Jews gave scope and license to an obscene revolt against God and the moral law. An open and implacable war was declared on the Christian tradition...[which unleashed] a frenzied and unavowed hatred of Christ and the Ten Commandments."
(Poliakov, Leon. Harvest of Hate: The Nazi
Program for the Destruction of the Jews of
Europe. New York, Walden Press, 1979. :300)

I'm going to be late now.


mynym said...

I'm back.

Carl, you should be able to run some of my citations through Google and find something online. It's just that there are serious scholars and the not so serious. You be the judge. It's pretty easy to tell.

If someone disagrees with me on the pattern of history I'm citing here, then come on here and make your case. There is more to it. I'll debate it, as you like.

Ian, I probably should not have even gone back and read your blog. Sorry about commenting there, I get lost in thought and begin writing without thinking of little things like where I said I would write or not write.

As to the Look Machine being retarded, of course it is. It is "childish." That is, quintessentially retarded. It's arrested development, trying to be as children, seeing things like a child, more images and feelings, less refining and defining of thought.
Since adults are adults the attempt to be as children results in the ontological state of being childish instead, as in a never, never land.

Only one person seems to actually see this for what it is, and admit it. And it is the very definition of being retarded.

Jason - Band Member said...

Childlike, not Childish.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Mynym,

I will cut and paste and print. My wife is on "bed-rest" just now, so my life is starting to get hectic. But I will review the information, and I thank you for the time and energy you put into it. (Sorry to hijack a comment thread.)


mynym said...

Childish, not childlike, the words were chosen accurately and the act played out in them.

All I have done is reflect the Herd's thoughts and feelings back to it. "I can imagine that an ugly woman who looks in the mirror is convinced that it is her mirror image, and not she, that is ugly. Thus society sees the mirror image of its meanness and is stupid enough to believe that I am the mean fellow."
--Karl Kraus
(Half-truths and One and a Half Truths, translated by Harry Zohn :30)

I read that last night. And yes, that is it. The plays on words, the playing among the words would be better in the original German. On opinions, "Many share my views with me. But I don’t share them with them." (Ib.)

"It so often happened to me that someone who shared my opinion kept the larger share for himself that I am now forewarned and offer people only ideas." (Ib.)

mynym said...

I should rename this blog to, "What you will never learn from an American university professor."

But you can learn some secret truths in the university library sometimes. How about this secret on the same politicized issue that modern American academics lie about incessantly, some anthropologists discussing true patterns where they think that no one will see. "Another subtopic of interest to anthropologists is the homosexual mentorship (Herdt, G.H. 1981. Guardians of the Flutes. New York: Mcgraw-Hill)(Herdt, G.H. ed. 1982 Rituals of Manhood. Berekeley: Univ. Calif. Press) (Herdt, G.H. 1984. Ritualized Homosexual Behavior in the Male Cults Of Melanesia. 1862-1983: Ref 178. :1-82) Mentorships are a much more common form of homosexual behavior than previously considered. These relationships usually form between a preadolescent and either an older adolescent or an adult. Adams (Adams, B.D. 1985. Age, Structure, and Sexuality. Journal of Homosexuality. 11:19-33) has summarized the ethnographic data for male mentorships.
Ethically this is a particularly touchy issue. There is an enormous prejudice against similar kinds of patnerships in the United States (indeed they are typically illegal), and the older partner is usually defined as mentally ill or as a sexual criminal."
(Annual Review of Anthropology,
Vol. 16, 1987, The Cross-Cultural
Study of Human Sexuality,
D. L. Davis, R. G. Whitten :69-98)

A long time ago a man from San Francisco e-mailed me about his son coming to be mentored, etc., because he saw some knowledge or wisdom and did not know what to do. His son was eighteen. Actually, there is not much to be done. Let the dead bury their dead. But you can't tell him that, so tell him this or that but his son will most likely live a rather short life. Then perhaps his father will cut out his son's morally degenerate "partner" from inheritance rights or not allow him to come to the hospital. They will snivel about this.

So perhaps some journalist will report the story in which the father and the family, the Big Meanies, cut the "partner" out wherever they could and however they could, discriminating against them. For it is not as if it was the mentor's fault. So the journalist will say that gay marriage law is necessary so that bigots cannot discriminate like that against loooove, love!Some stories are never to be told. Oh well...

"The Press created National Socialism." --Karl Kraus

Carl, as to Nazism, just be aware that you are disturbing something that is of the occult, the hidden. This pattern is the one that gets you censored and the like. So on another cheery note, later.

Jason - Band Member said...

Nope, you are wrong.

Childlike, not Childish.

Mature enough to support a family. Mature enough to have discipline. Mature enough to live on my own, pay my own bills. Mature enough to train and teach. Mature enough to lead. Mature enough to sacrifice of myself.

But Childlike enough to still have wonder at God's works, to appreciate the many blessings, to see the wonder and hope and beauty that God's world is filled with.

Childlike, not Childish.

mynym said...

I will grant that you are less childish than some of the Herd. I leave the reader to judge if that is saying much.

You all like sheep have gone astray and the Herd keeps bleating about how all are astray, all. They seem to bleat, "Why are you not astray, just as weee are, weee! You should be astray. I am offended that you are not, the pride and arrogance of not being astray just as weee are!"

Maybe I'll write a parable of some wee little lambs later. Their lil' faltering steps. Will they leave the Herd? Can they make it?

mynym said...

"Mature enough to lead."


Jason - Band Member said...

Define astray. I follow my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

If that is astray, then who are you following?

Anonymous said...

Are you sure that is who you are following

Jason - Band Member said...


mynym said...

"I follow my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Is the meaning of this pattern of words supposed to be emergent, just as your other words had a spirit that could emerge for one person one way and another, another? Can one person see the meaning of those words differently than another person? Are there many sides to see this statement from, are all sides seen from in it? Since you have more questions than answers, does Jesus lack for answers or did you just become His follower?

For as I recall, it is all so...questionable.

mynym said...

"....to see the wonder and hope and beauty that God's world is filled with."

One does not have to be childish nor childlike to have a sense of wonder.

The scientist, the wise men, they have a sense of wonder about the Mind of God based on knowledge.

But if a person with intelligence is just lazy and tries to pretend that they are just having a sense of childlike wonder in being a mental retard, then they will lose it. Perhaps they think that they need a time machine to go back to when they were children, a "look machine."

Perhaps instead, they need to become like the wise men. The sense that adults come to need is insight, not sight. The Creator is creating other worlds, while this place inevitably has less and less to see with sight, to wonder at, to sight see. This is a Book of Dying, not a Book of Life. The solution to the Book of Dying, is death, so one must be born again. To see the light at the end of the tunnel again....

Jason - Band Member said...

What happened to Amelia Ehrhart?

Where is the Ark of the Covenant now?

Who lived in my house when it was built, and what did they talk about at dinner?

Who bought the stuff Jesus built when he was a carpenter?

Where exactly is Osama Bin Laden now?

What happened to the Colony at Roanoke?

Who killed Chandra Levy? jonBenet Ramsey?

Where are all the hundreds of children who are missing at any given moment?

What is the idenity of the Zodiac Killer? Of Jack the Ripper?

What did the newspapers report in Roswell?

What was the huge explosion reported in Siberia?

When will the Eagles win a Super Bowl?

Where is Atlantis?

What is the leviathan? What is Rahab? When did they exist, and where?

Why did the Megaladon Shark go extinct?

Answer these definitively. .. or in these areas do you have more questions here?

You just have to pay attention. . . but if you're at all curious, you have more questions that answers too. Question starts with the root word "quest," having one is the beginning of a quest for the truth.

Jason - Band Member said...

"I follow my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

No emergent meaning here. . . It's not lyric, or poetry, that's a declaration.

There is a profound difference.

Anonymous said...

To Jason Band member:


What makes you sure?

"No emergent meaning here. . . It's not lyric, or poetry, that's a declaration."

As to your declaration, anyone can declare anything they like, that doesn't make it so. The more answers you give the more questions I have.


mynym said...

"....if you're at all curious, you have more questions that answers too."

Good point, yet my and other's questions do not fit into a context, a pattern, of being questionable.

Attempting to divorce art from truth is a corruption. It is like divorcing truth from a joke, all you get is the Italian fascist, "I don't give a damn." who is crass and crude. This is little different from the Nazis who "Scoff and sling mud..." at spiritual traditions, in favor of occult/hidden spirituality which they put a good political/public fact on for a while. But it is, in fact, a different pattern. One will often find that these two ally together against Natural Law, conservative veneration and prescription of JudeoChristianity and Judaism.

If more conservatives begin to write here you may begin to have a tough time. But let's face it, you had a whole Herd to stamphede against one on your blog and still seemed to have a tough time. That was just lil' old me with my clumsy writing and poor lil' broken words.

mynym said...

Words can have rhythm and rhyme, lyric and poetry, a layer of meaning here and there while still being true in all layers. Their essence, the spirit they are written in, can be true through and through.

They can also be false, through and through.

Why is this going off topic? Can no one defend the New Man's writing, his word, not even the New Man himself? All I did was reflect it and reflect upon it.

"I won’t duck and run, cause
I’m not built that way
When everything is gone there is
Nothing there to fear
This world cannot bring me down
No cause I’m already here, oh no!
I am already here,
Down on my knees
I am already here, oh no, I am
Already here
I must have told you a thousand times,
I am not running away
I won’t duck and run
I won’t duck and run
I won’t duck and run"
--Three Doors Down, Duck and Run

The New Man ducks and runs...

mynym said...

This is an odd situation. Admittedly, it comes about by some broken words. Those situations usually are odd. But at least the words were deleted and put back together some here.

Anyhow, some answers....

Ian writes,
"Parents, pastors, family members, and respected friends who read his writing on our blog seriously tried to get us to turn him in to legal authorities for serious threats etc."

You must know a lot of people who share your pattern of thought. I.e., Nazis, with some form of occult spirituality. Duh, dopey, dopes....for it is not like Nazis proclaimed themselves Victims while they censored and tried to put in jail those who tried to condemn them.

Pattern matching, fun, fun....

Let's see, the Herd views one who exposes the occult as a "rodent to be exterminated."

They all seemed to herd together, quite closely! In fact, mea culpa for sometimes letting it have an impact and so I eventually say, "Sheesh, alright, I'll leave these poor lil' Victims of it all." My mind is still not strong enough, in some ways. So now you can promote whatever Evil comes into your lil' heads, I suppose. It will be an annoyance having a Krausian satirist point out some things in his own little pamphlets though. Well, I will not write yet another dissertation on Nazism and comparing patterns.

But...it is distinctly odd, yes even queer, for someone saying "We ought to have him put in jail or censored." to not realize that they are fitting a Nazi pattern, an occult demoniac pattern.

What were my "serious threats," to you personally, my lil' Victims? Was it trying to get you to lift up your eyes from the personal, to bigger spiritual patterns, thought patterns, mentalities/spiritualities, etc.?

How did that threaten you personally? Is asking your to support your propagandistic trash also making you a Victim?

How does it all make you a Victim who can retaliate against the "vermin" in various ways? Hmmm? For I am truly curious about how some minds work, you see. I have been, ever since I came accross you. Perhaps this ultimately got the better of me, in the end, with fascination breeding forgetfullness.

All these people you speak of who read things, let them come write for their Selves. I am curious about how their minds work too. Did you not wonder that they did not write anything down there? If it was that serious and their convictions so strong as to make a convict of me? Would it not all be easily supportable? I do wonder, why would they not write, then? Or would they just do things secretly, making a convict sans any open conviction?

These are probably those who cannot even fight a war of any type, craven cowards, the New Men. Their mentality is of the occult/hidden. Their convictions are not open. Yes, Jesus said to the Centurion, "Your's is the weakest faith. Now, go leave the army!" or "No greater intolerance has any many than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

No, instead, the soldier is the man after God's own heart. The Centurion has the greatest faith and no greater love has any man than that he lay down his life.

The greatest heart, the greatest faith, the greatest love are all of the soldier.

Try to get those mental midgets to write, if their convictions are so strong. Do they have the courage of them? Or do they just make convicts, without conviction, as they are of the occult?

mynym said...

a.) Anti-Christs

As I recall, I said something about the typical pattern of an Anti-Christ.

b.) Rapists

Someone cited the spirit of the frat boy type artist, Incubus. It's not my fault the Incubus is a rapist.

c.) Homosexuals

I just noted that some fellows are so nice and gay.

d.) Effeminate


e.) Nazis

Pretty much....it would probably be better to say proto-Nazis.

f.) Mental Retards


g.) Descending towards insanity

That's what happens when you remove meaning from words because it is mean, to mean.

h.) Blasphemous

A mind which seeks to lack judgment said it. So you just invert the claim.

I remember thinking, "That is a first." I had never been called blasphemous before. It's not exactly a normal judgment. So that started me thinking about exactly what the claim is, intelligent design vs. malevolent design. It is important to explain Evil, perhaps with some sort of chaos theory. The pattern, of that which tries to lack a pattern/image....

It is quite fascinating, in some ways.

To deal with all those claims one would have to go back and look at what context/pattern they were made in and if they really made any person a Victim. And I'm probably not going to do that.

mynym said...

And...the last one, now, keep in mind that this is all whatever makes the Herd "look like" Victims. It does not really matter if something is true, just if it "looks like" it makes for Victims.

It is rather like terrorism, the "looks like" Victims pattern. Just remember, you cannot "out-victim" one of these Victims. They are the Victims! So let them be, let the dead bury their dead.

"But when someone starts calling down the Law and the Prophets on our heads, accusing us of being demoniacs...."

You go around seeing visions and what not. Now, there is most likely no explanation for this as a consistent pattern as some brain lesion or something of the brain. It is either your mind or something else. It's a pretty big issue to even get to the point of maniac, vs. demoniac or benevolent intelligence vs. malevolent intelligences. Yet, for Christians, with the way Christ went around talking to and dealing with demons all the time, you cannot really escape the fact that you either believe He was the one who was insane or there are trans-physical beings called demons. Those who seem to like to keep their existence hidden, of the occult/hidden.

If you see an angel of light or what have you one, would expect Psalms to be written, or "seeing the light" that is the best trasmitter of information in the universe as Paul did, half the new testament to be written. They are messengers, with messages. They do not just go around aimlessly, la dee da, singing lil' Christmas carols.

In contrast, if someone has seen the Light, what one would not expect to be written are proto-Nazi slogans, etc., of demoniacs. That just cannot come by seeing the same sort of Light.

"....AND telling us he hopes his children put bullets in the head of our children if they are fascists like us. . ."

If anyone children eventually manifest that same ancient spirit, then I hope that someone puts a bullet in their head. But that ancient spirit will still be calling itself a Victim and threatening to kill itself and others along with it, even as the would-be bullet was fired.

So you are a Victim, of something that has not happened and ought never to happen if you are raising your children up out of the occult?

mynym said...

Main Entry: in·cu·bus
Pronunciation: 'i[ng]-ky&-b&s, 'in-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural in·cu·bi
/-"bI, -"bE/; also -bus·es
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin incubare
1 : an evil spirit that lies on persons in their sleep; especially : one that has sexual intercourse with women while they are sleeping -- compare SUCCUBUS
3 : one that oppresses or burdens like a nightmare

Many of the things you mention are just basic facts. But you still do not attempt to deal with what is true, "Is it true." It is true that the spirit of Incubus is like the band of frat boys who get girls drunk and rape them in their sleep. Maybe they have Incubus playing in the background when they do.

But here is your sort of bias, it seems that you can only judge, judgment. Judgment IS knowledge, this is this and that is that. A basic sentience, distinctions, awareness....

So here is what you did, compiled a list of what you feel are the most extreme judgments, to judge. It's not whether the Incubus is a rapist. It is the mere fact that I said so, judged so. It is true, yet you do not care so much for truth.

Here is how journalists do this, shifting from the issue of truth to "Who are you to judge."

"....this does not even take into account the aspects of the abortion debate on which the American public is squarely on the side of pro lifers. Most notably, on the issue of partial-birth abortion—that gruesome procedure wherein delivery is induced, the baby’s skull is punctured and his brains are sucked out—polls reveal that a vast major ity of Americans support the pro-life position. For instance, an Octo ber 2003 Gallup/CNN/UM Today poll showed that a full 68 percent of the public wanted to outlaw partial-birth abortion while only 25 per cent were in favor of keeping it legal. Given that Americans opposed the procedure by a ratio of almost 3 to 1, it stands to reason that the media would portray partial-birth abortion as “controversial” and a ban on the procedure as being representative of the public mood. Right?

Wrong. The major media have reversed the picture: The ban on partial-birth abortion, not partial-birth abortion itself, has become controversial."
(Weapons of Mass Distortion: The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media
By Brent Bozell :82-83)

You see, it is not the fact that babies have their brains sucked out that is "controversial" but that someone would try to ban/judge it so. Or even define it as "partial birth abortion." That is exactly what it is, of course. It is accurate to say so. But for those who are always percieving, never concieving and always decieving the issue of what is true, is lost.

As you may well know. Why has no one tried to defend the New Man's writing on the war? Why are you going backwards?

To finish the story on abortion, the Old Press and the way that stories get told.
"....one-sided coverage favored the pro-abortion minority. After the Senate passed the ban, on October 21, Newsweek ran a story headlined “A Firefight Over Abortion.” The story quoted four abortion advocates but only one representative of the pro-life position, even though a bipartisan majority had voted for the ban (the Senate vote was a decisive 64—34). Newsweek also defined the Senate’s ban from the perspec tive of the pro-abortion minority calling it “a major public-relations setback for abortion rights.” The media were even more aggressive after President Bush signed the bill into law on November 5. Most newsreaders insisted on speaking of “the procedure opponents call ‘partial-birth abortion,’” but NBC anchor Tom Brokaw refused even to utter the phrase “partial-birth abortion,” referring instead to “the controversial procedure, late-term abortion” and to “that kind of abor tion.” Over on CNBC, anchor Campbell Brown offered this “teaser” going into a commercial break: “The emotional fight over abortion:
The president signs a controversial ban into law, but will it stand, and what does it mean for a woman’s right to choose?” In a second teaser Brown said, “And still ahead, President Bush gives abortion opponents the law they’ve wanted for years, but will it stand? We’ll find out where a controversial ban goes from here.” After reporter David Gregory’s story, which focused on the lack of female officeholders on the stage during the bill signing, Brown was back to discuss the legalities of it all. She said to a guest, “Let me begin by asking what I think is the bottom-line question here: Are we heading now down the slippery slope where abortion may at some point be outlawed?”

Well over 90% of journalists are pro-abortion. Some might quibble over defining/judging them as such. But when you make arguments like, "Well, some poor babies would be better off dead." for abortion, then you are pro-abortion.

I know, some people have a problem with the clear use of words, though.

Anonymous said...

All here seems to claim Christianity, so we should all know the greatest commandment. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” We should then also know the second greatest commandment, right? “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”Both are very heavy mandates.
You can argue that maybe I’m blind, maybe I’m reading it all out of context, maybe I haven’t read enough of the other threads, you could say I’m just plain wrong, or maybe, yes maybe Jesus wasn’t serious when he talked about loving your neighbor as yourself. Because I see very little, if any love between neighbors here. Love most certainly rejoices in truth. Yet it would appear some would use this guise of truth to spread something other than love. So, if defined by these writings, truth would look more like bickering, name calling, or providing a way to prove another’s fault, and then rubbing their face in it.

“As to the Look Machine being retarded, of course it is. It is "childish." That is, quintessentially retarded.”
“so he hid, like a vermin. Knowing full well if he peeked his head out, it would get squashed under foot.”
“Look Machine bows down before its own excrement.”

So Remember now, love is, not only, truthful, but also kind, always supportive, loyal, hopeful, and trusting. Is Jesus’second greatest commandment being followed here? If one were to look, could he/she find examples of neighborly love in these writings? hmmmmmm...


mynym said...

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

What if someone wants to kill their Self? Shall they love others, as they love themselves? There are sadists and others, Hitler was the same. He tried to get himself killed or said, "I will kill these people and myself if you...." do such and such, often. Well, was he doing to others as he'd be done to?

Then there are the terrorists who are playing all over this narcissistic loooove of your own love that some Christians have, this moral vanity of Christians who feel they love, with no regard for the Law. They'll give them something to prove their sensitivity, their love, more Victims. Even if the Leftist's love really was the love of the good Samaritan, and it is not, when the person walks over to help, they are blown up. It is one thing to give your enemy your coat. It is another to let him kill your family because of the moral vanity typical to Leftist pacifists. They did not come to this position through years of study, that is certain.

How can you tell that this "love" of Leftists is false, though? You can see that the New Man writes a propaganda piece on his blog which seems to be all vanity about how sensitive he is to some images of war. The Hollywood elites and other artists do the same.

Yet note,
"Iraq was a funny place before the war. Human shields were arriving to defend the innocent Iraqi people from attack, although most left when Saddam wanted them to be in front of military installations instead of schools and hospitals. The question is: Why aren't the human shields arriving to escort the people of southern Sudan back to their villages? Can someone tell me why people who are willing to become human shields do not consider the people of southern Sudan worthy of shielding from genocide, rape, and torture by Janjaweed (Arab militias)? The number killed is far greater here than collateral damage in Iraq. Why are there no demonstrations from peace groups? Is there not a war against these people in southern Sudan?"

Where are all the Leftist critics of the U.N. and its consistent moral degeneracy? Where are the propagandists with their images of things? Are they too busy joining the Leftist mobocracy that hates Bush and the American soldier, but calls it love?

Enough with misunderstood summaries of the law that prissy effete Christians, who seem to feel that they are good, so good, abuse. The summary is the greatest portion of it, the greatest commandments and things that the law is founded on. They are not the total of it all and Jesus did not claim they were. That's why you will not be able to answer the questions I posed supra about suicide and love of Self.

The summary is not how Good and Evil are defined to the last jot and tittle. I eventually came to do the opposite of the Nazis and put the "Jewish influence" in Christian philosophy, where it should have been all along. I looked to it, because I invert what inverts blur.

If they blur the categories, I am for clarity. Clarity in words is indeed divisive, it discriminates, just as the Code said. It can even cause hatred, so that people hate what is Evil and cling to what is Good. He shows them for that they are. It is not as if Paul or other apostles took Him out. They were generally saying, "Look how good it is that He broke Himself apart!" Christians, above all others, should not just keep on breaking Him, support others who break Him, and call that love. You cannot have mercy sans justice. Justice is based on intolerance, judgment. You will not even know what mercy is, without Law. You cannot know its depth, sans the Code. You cannot get any sense of how the Code was broken for you, without binding it on your heart in the first place.

You cannot speak love into truth. That is perversion. So enough with that, too. You'll have to pick one "outrageous" judgment of mine and refer me to where you are getting it from. Make your judgment against it and then I can see if it is a false judgment or not.

I note again, Jason and others typically go on a big tangent trying to establish a Big Meanie and his Victims rather than looking at each current judgment and here, the current writing of the New Man.

Yes, I judge and I have a long history of it. What news that always is! The funny thing is, you judge too. And when you judge, you are saying that I am being evil. I say the words of the Herd are as excrement because they emptied them of meaning, willy nilly. I may break my word but when I do, it is sin.

Anyway, now back to this propaganda piece of the New Man, if you will. Is it utterly indefensible as written, after all? Or was it all about how much he loves his neighbors, all those patriot Iraqis who choose to fight against Americans.

mynym said...

"If one were to look, could he/she find examples of neighborly love in these writings?"

Where can one be found in what you just wrote?

What does it look like, to you?

mynym said...

I am still thinking on this some. I wonder, sometimes, if people have actually read the Bible or if they will settle for a form of simplistic sloganeering.

If love meant that your words would not contain harsh judgments then how did Paul write, "...the due penalty for perversion." after a long list of hefty judgments How did Jesus talk about broods of vipers, etc.?

How did others write of apostates, directing their attacks against the person, essentially saying, "Watch out for that guy, he is a mental retard."

And so on, right in the Bible itself. There are very harsh judgments there in the words, many of them. Whereas love is defined as a manifestation of truth, some of it is almost physical, not conceptual. Kindness, etc...mainly between Christians but sometimes also towards enemies.

You keep trying to exchange the truth for love. It's the Law that defines true love.

It is what it is. Perhaps it has more to do with the Herd's projection of a "sick attitude" towards women than one might think, the attempts at exchanging the truth for "love" instead of letting the truth define true Love.

mynym said...

I am still thinking about this some.

It is odd, for someone to take a distortion out of the Bible about love as if that is all that is there and then not live up to it anyway. Love keeps no records of wrongs....yet here is an alphabetized list.


Recently, I discussed things with an abortionist who was trying to use "love" to act as a solvent to Good and Evil, right and wrong. I can quote him.

I just say that so you know where I am coming from. This is not new to me, this consistent abuse of "love" by the New Man.

I note again that as yet, despite going back to records of supposed wrongs that also are not debated, there is no defense for writing of the New Man.

His words lay broken, all around, with a shattered faith.

mynym said...

"If one were to look, could he/she find examples of neighborly love in these writings?"

How about you write down an example of neighborly love and then I can see what you think it is.

Read carefully, it looks like some gospel writers imply to their reader, "You think that my letters to you are mean. And how can that be if I was so nice in person? But it is simple, if you were not being spiritual retards then my letters would not appear mean."