I Have to Admit That I Seriously Hate Human Beings

I don’t hate what they are. I hate what they’ve turned into. We basically have some version of Clown Rock, take your pick.

To put it mildly, the problem is people are idiots. They’re stupid. And by that I don’t mean anything having to do with IQ. Average and low IQ people can be very kind and wise. What I mean by idiots is that they lack wisdom, and you don’t need a high IQ to be wise. So the problem with people nowadays is not that they’re idiots. I can handle idiots just fine. The problem is that they are dangerous idiots, and that’s not ok. The lack of wisdom among the masses nowadays is what makes them dangerous.

The only sane thing to be nowadays is a misanthrope. If you’re not, you’re one of them, and that’s cowardly and pathetic.

Part of me wants out but I think instead of buying it with my hand, I’d rather resign.

That is, I am no longer a human. I am not a part of this dangerous nonsense called humanity. I’m something else. I’m an ex-human. I’m not part of them. I left the Church of Human a long time ago, so please don’t judge me for that.

And everyone who hates me for whatever reason, fine. Obviously you hate me because I don’t go along with your “how to be a human” bullshit. That’s fine. You can hate me all you want. In fact, I consider an honor to be hated by most people. I’d be much more upset if they liked me because then I’d be one of them.

I make up my own rules and laws, and I decide for myself what’s right and what’s wrong. As I’m an ex-human, I’m under no obligation to live according to the rules of idiotic, frightening humans. I do it my own way. My way. And I don’t look back, ever. Not even once.

I do like some of you, though. But most of you that I like, just like me, are ex-humans too, whether you know it or not. Humanity is such a bunch of menacing fools nowadays, at least here in the West, that being an ex-human strikes me as the only intelligent thing to be. Go ahead and resign. Fuck em all. Resign from this joke of a Clown Species. Take leave of this Clown Rock.

Come along.

Come join me.

Come here.

You?

Yes, you.

Stand closer.

Don’t be afraid.

It’s only the night.

Here.

Take my hand.

It’s warm, isn’t it?

I told you it would be.

Now.

Come with me.

Let us go, you and I, into the night.

Into the night and right out of the world.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

4 thoughts on “I Have to Admit That I Seriously Hate Human Beings”

  1. I understand the sentiment. I’ve noticed a contingent of white people on the far left and the far right who are channeling their white nationalist sentiment onto this Russian genocide and are making every excuse for Putin as he makes Israel’s war crimes in Palestine look like verbal assault by comparison.

      1. A supposedly Far Left White that sells himself as a White nationalist fulfills the definition in part of Nazism. White nationalism is the elementary recipe for being a Nazi. That is what it takes to become one, and you don’t need anything more to be a full-fledged one.

        A formerly conservative guy suddenly selling himself a White nationalist, well, that’s regrettable, but in the natural course of things, he will still be a more extremist kind of conservative that buttresses his argumentation with biological arguments, what all English Victorian Conservatives of note did.

        But a Leftist turning a White nationalist is when the infantile disorder being a member of the Extreme Left turns into a terminal one. Of course, among the varieties of White Nationalism I include Jewish nationalism, no matter if it is detected in a Jew or a self-fancying Jew than Jewish born again Christian.

        USSR patriotism was never based on Russian nationalism except for the love of the Russian language. Narodny was always an insult in Soviet parlance.

        US patriotism, like it or not, is on the other hand and will always be based on White Anglo-Saxon nationalism, and whoever coming from the Far Left all of sudden discovers a passionate love for America is a Nazi, no matter whether he does it as a Jewish neocon, an Anglo neocon or an Anglo anti-Semite. Ukraine clearly proves that you can be the three things without problem.

  2. I have quite another way to state it: humanity is not a biological reality, let alone a cultural or spiritual one, it is a social construct, and that social construct has now proven wholly inadequate. Race – imperfect, faulty, and often mendacious though it be, does have more often than not reliable statistical predictive value when you plan a journey through Haiti or Colombia for instance. Being informed that people in a certain spot are humans or not rather than Sasquatches is of no information.

    Of course within that inadequate construct, for instance, paganism (that is to say any religion that doesn’t relate to Abraham as a key figure) individuals are absolutely unequal though trying to hierarchize them into superior and lesser are already overestimating by far the kinship. Hierarchization presupposes an ordered set in Boolean mathematics, which ordered set humanity doesn’t form. It is a pure name, not an universal, though universals do exist otherwise.

    I especially hate two languages that have contributed most to the concept of humanity as being not only adequate mathematically but positively and adorably as such: English and French.

    In English all words mean more or less the same thing or are at least quite easily amenable to mean the same thing if that is what you want to do with them. Lewis Carroll stated it very well.

    French is even worse. every single word of academically correct French is a lie. If your sentence or clause doesn’t make it a lie, it is jarringly incorrect, or at least it sounds incorrect, peasant, argot, creole. The truer your French, the more it is subject to ridicule and disgust. It is immediately qualified as nauseating (nauséabond) and unacceptable for both medical and syntactic reasons.

    Even in phonetics that is remarkable. Correct French sounds, especially vowels, are as unnatural as the phonation organ can make them. Each of them demands unnecessary energy and effort to make it recognizable and acceptable. They have no close equivalents in any other known language. There exist easy approximations of these sounds that you can use, but if you do, you will most loutish or pedantic.

    For instance the French u is an awfully difficult and forceful combination of mouth positions that contradict each other (it is as rounded as closed o, as extremely fronted as long i or ee, and as closed-lipped as ou or oo, plus other nuances).

    On the other hand the Swedish u is more easily described as a central closed-lipped vowel. The u‘s in both language are quite close to each other at first. But the French u, the difference is that the French u is perfectly unfit to be used by a diva pitching her voice high. I ends up sounding like two microphones neutralizing each other into a kind of sound inaudible beyond one meter. The with the result that French opera songstresses are told to sing ee instead, very incorrect though it is.

    In the French u the sound of the vocal chords can’t connect to the air outside, a thing only the Klingon language strives to do at times to sound inhuman. Swedish u on the contrary is perfectly cantabile and especially agreeable through its mysterious inward echo that also resonates outwards.

    French short è is strictly incantabile when followed by a consonant (as in bec) with the result that a French songstress must try to keep the consonant silent, even though this is not common usage in the language. On the other hand, it does explain why so many final consonants in French are unpronounced.

    What is most remarkable is that the French phonetic system has no symmetry, most contrary to a very general law of linguistics. For instance deep long o is frequent but deep long e doesn’t exist. Short final open è without following consonant is frequent, but short open o without a consonant doesn’t exist.

    In English all vowels tend to be the same: the “uh” or schwa sound. No one is sure whether “year” rhymes with “pear,” “peer,” “pair,” “peahr,” or “per.” The distinction between these words depends more on the social class dialect than on any rule. For instance, there is absolutely no sure rhyme for the word “sure.”

    The same can be said about shades of meaning. In English there ain’t any shades of meaning most generally except whatever shade of meaning that the pen of a particular author, his public, and publisher have chosen for the word. Generally the privilege of having control over the shade of meaning of a word is very sternly refused to the commoners outside the received literary gentry. This holds true no matter it is classical or pop : the latter word means produced by corporate decision only for the greatest statistical number with no single popular voice having any voice).

    Words mean all the same thing except that they suffer from time to time from various cancellations forcing their replacement by an equivalent euphemism – this has been the history of English since Alfred. In that condition the word humanity means nothing or anything, especially since it is not an etymologically natural part of the language but a Latinism.

    For your information, when Jefferson spoke about the pursuit of happiness, he didn’t mean happiness as most of us probably do. Instead he tried to translate the Latin fortuna, meaning fortuitous, which is what happens according to fate, especially regarding financial fortunes. You were supposed to be the sole person responsible for your fortuna, otherwise you renounced to the an essential qualification of a free man.

    The proof of this analysis is that he hesitated a lot between choosing between the phrases “pursuit of happiness” and “pursuit of felicity.” In other words Jefferson was speaking in economic Darwinian terms far more vulgarly closer to a “bagger” than you can imagine. This is especially if you consider that he was considered by others and himself as Voltaire’s late successor and continuator in the New World.

    In his eyes, the only way to be someone was to inherit a mansion together with at least 100 personnel in your service. This is what he meant by “we the people” in which the spirit of the nation resided. All so-called “enlightenment” philosophers had no great individuality themselves and strove not to have any part from the quantitative degree of their success.

    Happiness in the more emotional romantic sense arose as a concept after the defeat of Napoleon and the triumph of Byron meant “bliss” or if you found that too simple, “felicity”. What “Enlightenment” philosophy called “reason” which was supposed to make the The only difference between man and beast was financial cunning, which Voltaire made very clear through throughout thousands of pages of his writing. Jefferson was but the continuation of the Voltaire’s prose.

    “Humanity” meant the community of those who were akin to “humanities” in the literary classical sense of the word. These were people who were authorized access to be part of “humanities” by their guardians and by the opinion this group controlled. All great Enlightenment philosophers made it very clear that personal interest for them was not enough to be part of “humanities.” Instead, if you were a mere laborer, having personal interest was considered social felony.

    Another important piece of information – in 1984, George Orwell’s initial intention was the portraying of a future dystopia due to some form of Anglo Left politics having turned as sour as in USSR, otherwise he would have boisterously deserted the socialist cause like Solzhenitsyn, which he never did at any point of his life.

    In Orwell’s earlier social-realistic novels, he felt that such novels should differ from reality only by their place and personal names so as not to offend individuals uselessly. This was an important point of the doctrine of social realism at that time.

    This manner of writing allowed him to pass under the scissors of many censors both in his publishing house and at government level. His adherence to this model was so severe that many stories suffered from a loss of up to of 50% in quality. See Burmese Days for example. He wrote 1914 using the most striking and beautiful of these scissored out pages in a rather distant and very improbable, fantastic context. This context was that of a second kind of USSR overtaking the West.

    Actually the culture of the Anglo world at that time was more conservative and Baden-Powellish than ever in all aspects, even among the socialists, due to the very regressive influence of the conservative US and the rejection of all revolutionary ideas by Stalinist Russia itself. In reality all scenes of 1984 had been experienced and witnessed by the author himself in his younger age as a civil servant of the British Empire in the Indian Subcontinent as well as in the British Isles proper.

    All of 1984’s scenes were a description of the late Victorian and Early Edwardian British society. Just let that sink in for a moment! This can be verified by George Orwell’s own abundant correspondence. The Early Edwardian world was as austere and rationed for nearly all people except an oligarchy even smaller than the “inner party” of his novel. This was a worse oligarchy than those of many poorer countries in Europe or in the tropics.

    The influence of the British Empire in the Indian Subcontinent, let that be never forgotten nor forgiven, was quite like that of the Stalinist Empire’s in Russia at its worst moments. However, the British Empire differed from Stalinist USSR in one way. This way was that Stalin loved to send opponents to death as a relaxing daily activity, but he never rejoiced in a famine decimating a whole urban or rural proletariat like in Ukraine.

    He wanted the famine to be defeated in a military fashion even if the number of fallen fighters fallen was as bad as in WWII.

    Stalin’s middle-term aim was the to create a level of general consumption that overtook that of the US. Stalin, even though he often did it by temporary necessity, even though he had no remorse as long as others more numerous would pick the fruits of such sacrifices, never resolved to any ideal of governing his people by constant penury and by a standard of living too close to animal survival to allow a thought of revolution.

    His main principle was that about 10% of natural-born scoundrels had to be culled, and that a great abundance of industrial goods, preferably produced collectively, would be the best guarantee of a long-lasting empire. It must be not forgotten that the only alternative available for Russia at that time was to regress to either capitalistic comprador bourgeoisie or aristocracy as a ruling class. If either alternative had been chosen, Russia’s destiny would have been at best like that of South America.

    This is because there was no place in the Western World for Russia to become a New Germany or a Big Sweden. If either alternative arose, America would have intervened directly to prevent any such evolution. In addition, it would be doomed to be a colony of Germany and Austria. These two countries’ attitude towards Russia, even before the popular evolution of Nazi doctrine, was the culling of more than 60% of Russians and the best were to be most useful as the equivalent plantation slaves in the New World. This is because in the White World at the time, Slavs were not considered to be Whites.

    The British Empire, in contrast to the German view of Russia, planned nothing other than perpetual scarcity as the ideal mode of government for India and for most of the planet including the British Isles. Actually, was a mode of government which many Indian kingdoms had already mastered perfectly well by the adroit use of divisive multiculturalism. For there is no such thing as humanity in Hinduism. Instead, there are only mafias. In that religion, many animals are entitled to more respect than most humans.

    George Orwell was horrified by both Hinduism and Hindustani Islam. The latter bothered him because the most totalitarian form of Islam was not of in the Arab World but instead in Northern India as evidenced by the Sahih Bukhari hadiths.

    He was utterly disgusted by the fascination the Anglo Protestant elites had for the most “romantic” and alienating forms of Hindu culture. Among other things he loathed the Anglo fascination with yoga and vegetarianism. He especially disliked it when the self-guilt of the British colonizers was applied back home onto the English working class. The colonizers did this back home by making workers feel guilty for trying to escape their misery which their class brethren also suffered in India.

    Orwell foresaw in was was to become “New Age” philosophy the greatest danger that could terminate for good the grand adventure of Western social progress through an extremely seductive and perverted system of philosophy. At the time, his philosophy was structured and designed by the Theosophical Society for the mental management of everybody in the Empire.

    Orwell’s misgivings proved to turn out damn right. In particular the “doublethink” philosophy which he describes doesn’t caricature any form of totalitarian Marxism however perverted, as it has nothing to do with soviet diamat. Instead, “doublethink” is not a caricature of anything. Instead it neatly sums up the Advaita (“twoness-free”, “doubly-rightness”) Philosophy in India. This way of thinking says that everything is dual, including in particular your own existence as a separate being from the economic system you are part of.

    This duality of existence has no right to exist at all. Instead, one is to achieve the state of consciousness that enables one to view the surrounding misery without revolting. This tolerance of squalor is produced by pondering paradoxes such love being the same as hatred, and freedom being the same as slavery. The result is a society governed by the Darwinian and Hobbesian imperative of a war of all against all.

    Orwell saw this way of thinking as a big mental obstacle that could topple socialism in its progress. He first tried to addressed the issue directly in his articles. But he was censored there with the force of a Medieval Inquisition’s force. This censorship took the form of the worst sort of racism practiced against the most victimized workers by the very companies who were employing them.

    Wokeness was already in full swing in space and time.

    Indian culture, a like Catholicism but much fiercer, says in substance that as a simple believer you are not authorized to interpret sacred texts and prayers – that is left to the hereditary priests alone. Instead you are supposed to repeat them and enjoy their rhythm and cadence. In the same way, even the book not allowed even to “read” Nature itself as it is the finest book written by the Creator Gods. You are not entitled to “read” it yourself. That must be left hereditary elites seen as scientists. “Science” here does not mean using empiricism yourself. Instead you are supposed to listen to the conclusions of authorized “scientific” authorities.

    Orwell in 1984 as well as in other novels, never liked Irishmen much and tended to make them his villains in his stories as he did with O’Brien in 1984. That was an important reproach made to him. Actually in his articles and correspondence he didn’t so much oppose Ireland’s independence per se. Instead, he opposed the idea that an independent Ireland, apart from a few literary dreamers, would be ruled by arrant hypocrites doing their best to reign over a country that would stay impoverished and create little or nothing of value.

    For example, nearly all legends taught in the Irish language in school condemned all technology as evil. They also said that if the Irish discarded technology, it would be strong again. However, this inevitable result of Irish independence was not foreseen by the Gaelic-touting intelligentsia.

    He saw Irish culture as analogous to some sort of African slave-selling culture, and he felt that it had been so so since time immemorial. What he saw in Ireland was that that nobody dreamt to be a great Irish bard or author. Instead, they all, down to the most meager famished peasant, yearned to succeed as an actor on Broadway or Hollywood.

    However, most of the literal Irish slaves created during British rule had been bought by and had their destiny defined by Yankees. Even the local arch enemies and slave captors of the Irish, the Ulsterites, were other Celts of close kin. The result then was that during the last couple of centuries of its existence, Irish had been reduced to a language for slaves intended to maintain them in as much ignorance as possible of the outer world. The result here was that if ordinary Irish working in any government structure were to be suspected of dark obscurantist designs.

Leave a Reply to Slava Ukraini Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)