14. FASCISM IN THE WOMB? A DIALOGUE WITH REFERENCES.
THIS NEXT RESPONSE IS FROM A CHAT DIALOGUE IN #ATHEISM WHICH WENT
FROM FASCISM TO GYNECOLOGY :o)
All the chat < and > showing nicks has been removed and this
is presented as a dialogue. Someone wrote this in an email to TJ. Asked if it
was from what he said in #atheism, since it sounded so familiar, he said yes.
The person who wrote this in #atheism does not want his name associated with
it. No problem. We leave it intact, minus the authorís name, because the answer
to it has very interesting information in it.
Fascism dictates by race and sex, what is "weak-willed, "what
is "right." Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is also distinguished here, take
for example sperm, only the strongest sperm can get fertilization, just because
they display strong characteristics does not mean they will survive. Power,
how can this be misinterpreted? The weak sperm always dies in due course. In
the jungle if an animal embodies a weak trait, how long do you think that would
last in a world as complex as this? Not very long, in fact the chances are very
high they would be preyed upon by a superior species of some sort and be dealt
with accordingly. Man has thought himself to be a more dominant animal, that
is as conflicting to that of the jungle species, he has migrated and taken the
land, and has even at times took from himself. American culture is over-shadowed
by these facts. When the Europeans took the land of the Indians, this wasn't
right. This wasn't might. It was the green eyed goblin referred to as jealousy,
these peoples' jealousy wasn't the same trait personified by Satanic philosophy
and culture. Satanists do know that envy can be a great characteristic, in fact,
it is a great trait, when it is properly instructed, if I want something from
another man I will not just "steal the rug from underneath" I will find a way
to get what I want on my own. Stratification is a biological fact, fascism,
like Christianity takes (or attempts to) from this, they strive for victory,
but they have done so using all the wrong conduct.
Note of fact (TJ paraphrasing same dialogue responses with
< > removed, see sources below):
Your statements on sperm are wrong. Not only does it not matter
which sperm gets there first, but there are two types of sperm in two distinct
types of males. It is, in the end, the electrical field of the OVA that chooses
which sperm to let in - IF ANY!! There has been of late a problem with the electrical
field around ova not allowing any sperm of some particular male in (the
husband, usually). For more info on this, see Israeli "Zona Blaster" studies.
They used a laser to break through the electrical field. Still, it is not known
why healthy ova would not allow healthy sperm in for fertilization, thus rendering
couples childless. (Not known why?)
About sperm and the elimination of naive ideas: It starts with
chimps and gorillas, how they sexually act and how their organs are. Chimps
are always horny, have sex a lot, have large testicles and tiny penises. Gorillas
are the exact opposite with small "tight" testicles and large penises. It turns
out that there are more than one kind of sperm: 1. egg seeking, very passive
sperm that just seek the egg out; 2. blocking sperm that form chains and block
another person's sperm; 3. attacking sperm that murder other sperm from someone
else. Those with large penises and small testicles have MOSTLY egg seeking sperm.
Those with small penises and large testicles have mostly the warrior/defender
type sperm. This is in chimps/gorillas AND IN HUMAN TYPES. The types are not
on a curve or gradation. There are two DISTINCT types in human beings. Also,
that men who are away from sex for awhile, build up blocking sperm and if they
don't masturbate or in some other way get rid of this so that fresh egg-seeking
sperm can come into play, they are NOT the ones who leave descendents! Women
who orgasm BEFORE the male does (vaginal orgasm) hold in the sperm for as long
as 3 days (called "flow back") but women who don't, do not retain the sperm.
THAT there exist blocking and attack sperm is biological PROOF that we have
inbuilt in us mechanisms made and tailored BY EVOLUTION for POLYGAMY - NOT for
In some "restriction enzyme DNA" studies, GORILLAS come out closer
to humans than chimps! The data is hard to come by so they still regard gorillas
as 2nd closest to humans, chimps closest. Interesting. The studies
are very hard, time consuming and not often done - so then: WE DONT KNOW! The
TYPES of sperm the two distinct groups make are MEASURABLE - these are NOT gradations!
Small testicle and big penis men produce MORE egg seeking sperm and LESS blocking
and attack sperm. Big testicle and small penis men produce more of the warrior
and defender sperm than egg seeking sperm. That is: the sperm itself of these
small penis men is more evolved to WAGE WAR ON OTHER SPERM! This is the sperm
itself. In a sense, human males are the slaves of this sperm (which has a life
of its own) and they are dragged around by the sperm (thinking with the dick?).
Sure, this is a purely evolutionary thing in terms of survival in the strict
Darwinian sense - but it also has BIG social consequences!!! Those are not dealt
with in strict science, by the way. It takes us to SYNTHESIZE it!
When men are away from women for awhile, no matter what type they
are, they tend to build up MORE blocking sperm. Ergo: Men that are chaste are
at a big disadvantage in terms of evolution as they'd be mating with their wives
with blocking sperm.
SOURCES FOR A LOT OF THIS: keep in mind, the bibliographies
of these will reveal many MANY other sources.
Eros and Evolution: a natural philosophy of sex,
by Richard L. MichodHuman Sperm Competition: copulation, masturbation and
infidelity, by R. Robin Baker and Mark A. BellisWith Pleasure: thoughts
on the nature of human sexuality, by Paul R. Abramson and Steven D. Pinkerton
What's Love Got to Do With it: the evolution of human mating, by Meredith
F. Small Scientific American, January 1996 issue, reviews these four books and
what's in them. Interesting!Keep in mind, it involves human sexuality which
people go insane over, the studies are up in the air. I find it interesting
because it tends to BACK UP WHOLLY the synthetic view I came up with of men,
TYPES of men. AND WOMEN. Remember my infamous "the ova is saying no" comment?
Sure, I had HARD SCI to back that up alright. WHY is the ova saying no? TO WHICH
MEN is the ova saying no? That wasn't in the study they did - or if it was,
we never will get to hear about it.
Keep in mind, there is far MORE cooperation in nature for real,
than there is strife. Don't fall into the stupidity of "human paradigms" based
on human culture since the dawn of agriculture. We didn't get to BE Homo Sapiens
by wiping each other out, but by cooperating. Behold the human baby for a clue
to how much cooperation human beings need just to survive. Survival of the fittest
doesn't mean "Social" Darwinism AT ALL. Suggest reading up on evolutionary biology
before making statements about it. Niles Eldredge: "Reinventing Darwin" is a
good starter because he exposes and explains the pseudo-science of "social"
Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a false application of evolutionary theory to
"make it fit" what you think you see in only very modern society. Eldredge IS
an evolutionary biologists. Dawkins is not any kind of biologists and the ONLY
"selfish genes" are oncogenes. Heh, we are not walking tumors!
Copyright 1995-2003 Tani Jantsang
Visit: Satanic Reds