Moderation: The Lost Art

Updated: 16.1.23.

Why Moderation Is So Important

No, this isn't about how I moderate the empty comments sections on this blog. It's about the moderation nobody seems to give a shit about anymore. (And judging from the huge popularity of this blog, that won't change any time soon.)

Moderation is one of the most important approaches to life, applicable both to individuals and societies, i.e. equally on a micro and macro level. It can be a sign of intelligence, especially a peculiar type of it that few seem to possess or even have any interest in developing: common sense. It also falls under pragmatism, i.e. moderation often goes counter to idealism, especially unhinged idealism - which is the foundation of all political extremism. If schools taught a subject called Moderation, we'd all be a lot better off. (Right after they introduce Common Sense and Logic. Hammer those tiny kiddie brains with some sense, early on, instead of making them learn so much (comparatively) useless shit.) Of course, that's assuming that extremists aren't hired to teach this subject to the kiddies...

I've always insisted on moderation, in almost all things. In theory at least. Applying it in practice is always more difficult, of course. Ask any junkie, nymphomaniac, fat slob, adrenaline junkie, kleptomaniac or alcoholic how easy it is to be moderate. Temptations toward extreme behaviour are a permanent fixture. Nature has wired us to be immoderate - yet it "expects" moderation from us to increase survival chances. It's like a curse that way, like nature's sadistic little trick. (One of many.) Like an animal impulse. The difference is that we are not animals (or at least not entirely, and not all of us), and are allegedly above them, hence should be able to control our impulses, which critters can't.

Talk to any doctor and there is a good chance they use the words "in moderation". Use too little of a medicine, and it won't have an effect. Use too much, and you could experience side-effects. Use the right amount and it should work.

A primitive tribe. If they catch too little, they starve. If they keep catching too much, they risk depleting their environment, risk upsetting the balance, hence starving in the long run. Moderation keeps them alive, both in the long and short run.

A dumb Hollywood actor. If he wildly overacts he becomes a meme, like Nicholas Cage. If he underacts, he bores everyone. Strike the right balance and you'll avoid being spoofed and won't bore your audiences as much.

If a society produces too few children, it will eventually perish. If it makes too many, this will result in poverty, starvation - which inevitably leads to social upheaval and political instability - hence the quality of life will suffer greatly. Zero children isn't the answer, neither is an average of 5.

Americans. Very many can be classified as either fitness fanatics who burden their bodies with too much exercise and suffering, or fat slobs who shop around Walle-Mart in huge pig-carts. Moderation is key. The point isn't to run a marathon every day, nor is it to completely let yourself go like a lazy, dumb c**t.

Extremes, it's all about avoiding them. Extremes are like chocolate, they grab your attention and try to lure you to your eventual doom. The less intelligent you are and the more of a pushover you are, the likelier you are to be trapped by one extreme or the other. Which is why extremes ensnare far more idiots than non-idiots, why they trap a lot of young people, and also why so many mentally unstable people are caught up in extremes.

Extremes can be very enticing, especially to young people who know the least about the importance of moderation. Teens and 20somethings are basically inexperienced, gullible, knowitall fools, similarly to how little children are idiots, and we should all be able to agree that idiots possess far less self-control than non-idiots. They also tend to not plan as much, tend to not asses situations properly. Youngins jump to conclusions; they are like impulsive hormonal animals. An idiot (or a young person: same thing) is more likely to not grasp concepts such as "less is more" because to a young idiot more is always merrier: "Yo, that drug was awesome! I gotta take some more, dude, like right now!" The younger you are, the closer you are to an animal, as a general rule. The dumber you are the closer you are to an animal: an even more concrete rule. An undeniable fact, actually.

Alcoholics and drug-addicts are very obvious examples of feeble-minded idiots who lack self-control, who care little about moderation, who rush into extreme behaviour without any sense of guilt, wise caution or planning. Just by trying out drugs, even milder ones, you are basically signaling to your surroundings that you are willing to take a big (yet needless) risk of getting sucked into an addiction, and for no apparent purpose - unless instant gratification or brainless curiosity can be classified as valid purposes for doing anything of a high-risk nature. Not to mention other motives, even more idiotic, such as peer pressure or trying to wile away boredom. Morons go into drug-use hence inevitably become even more moronic; hardly what we could call constructive behaviour. Addictions by definition imply living in the extreme, in the "fast lane", and are practiced almost exclusively by cretins and/or the gullible and/or the optimistic and/or the arrogant and/or the suicidal. (High optimism and arrogance are anyway usually mere outgrowths of low intelligence.) Short-term fun overrides any cautionary concerns. To idiots at least.

Even with sex neither extreme is particularly good. A frigid librarian type woman avoids sex for many years, so her vagina doesn't get any exercise. When she finally has sex, she hates it, because the vadge is completely untrained. It's out of shape! It may have even become untrainable, if she let it rot for too long, such as decades. (I'm not making this up; genitals need exercise just as the rest of the body does.) On the other hand, women who have dozens of sexual partners annually - i.e. filthy dumb skanks - take on risks bigger than their tiny (young) brains could possibly know:

a) danger of VDs,

b) danger of being rejected by their family and friends (unless they too act like whores and pimps),

c) danger of acquiring a reputation that will disallow you to find a quality male to pair up with once you decide that you'd had enough screwing around, once you're 34 and no longer considered cute,

d) danger of being killed or hurt by a psychopath (when it comes to random female buggery, "the more the merrier" is replaced by "the more the likelier you are to come across a psycho-killer or a violent pervert"),

e) danger of having a mental-case fall in love you, become a stalker, and creating hell for you while you try to screw around with other guys.

Glorification of prostitutes in popular culture, nearly always by left-wingers (who else), is a complete joke. There is nothing glorious, intelligent, cute, adorable, admirable, pity-worthy or romantic about prostitutes: they are mentally ill, very dysfunctional women, by-and-large. Nor are all of them forced into that "business" as many gullibtards seem to believe. For many lazy skanks prostitution is a convenient way to earn lots of money quickly.

Women that screw around are lazy idiots even more than they are insecure nymphomaniacs. Most of them are largely unaware of all these dangers, or blissfully choose to ignore them. This is why slutty whores are regarded with great suspicion as opposed to men that screw around, because guys of that sort take on far less risks. Besides, guys act in accordance with their primary instincts (to impregnate as many women as they can, to spread their own seed). The primary instinct for a woman is unlike that of a man: it is to settle with one partner, not to screw around, because she will have kids to take care for. This is what neo-feminists and virtue-signaling liberal cucks don't seem to understand, i.e. it explains why they bitch about sluts being treated differently from "studs".

"How come when a man screws around he is a hero, but when a woman does it she's the worst?!"

We hear this nonsense very often. Only a clueless moron (or a young person - same thing) can pose this very dumb question i.e. make this complaint. Trust feminists and cucks to be so stupid as to not recognize even the most plainly obvious gender differences...

Here's a much sillier example, but even an idiot should be able to understand it.

If you love cats but don't have any you might be miserable. So get 2-3. Get 50 and you'll be miserable. A different kind of miserable. (The cats will be miserable too. They aren't very social and prefer not to be huddled like cattle.) Go for the moderate option and you should be OK.

Speaking of animals, there are two extremist attitudes. There are psychopaths who have no empathy for animals, and gladly kill or even torture them for fun. Their counterparts are the Disney-bubble idiots who become vegetarian, or even vegan, just to "save animal lives". The first extreme has a totally unacceptable, inhumane attitude toward animals, treating them as toys and objects (for which they deserve to be sterilized and/or executed - the psychos, I mean), whereas the other extreme glorifies animals way too much, idealizes them to the point of completely ignoring the most obvious realities of this harsh universe. The moderate approach makes the most sense: love animals and treat them kindly whenever you can, but also feel free to sustain yourself on their flesh, because we didn't invent the rules - we merely live by them. Nature punishes naivety and excessive softness. Which is why Europeans might be eventually facing extinction, due to their Disney-bubble compassion, their naivety about a host of issues, including immigrants. Nobody that soft can survive in the long run; nature punishes such naivety with extreme force.

If you're into jogging, run a kilometer. That should be about right, if you're in good health. 10 meters won't get you any results, whereas 10 km a day will damage you far more than help you. 100 km a day, and you could be dead within days or weeks. Stay in bed without getting up, for weeks or months, and your health will deteriorate rapidly.

Extremes. It's all about avoiding them, finding the ideal way which is very rarely one extreme or the other.

Music. Listen to it at a very low volume and it's shit. Listen to it at maximum volume and you'll go deaf pretty quick. So you go for a medium volume, for something reasonable that is neither boring nor ear-threatening - yet very enjoyable. (Unless you play Bon Jovi, but in that case you deserve to be bored or deaf.)

Speaking of music, don't be a wise-ass, pointing out in the comments section that I enjoy "extreme" music yet "hypocritically" preach moderation. That would be so dumb. (Fat chance! There are no comments at all in most of the posts.)

Moderation. So underestimated, so very ignored, even unknown as an option by some people: usually by lunatics, fanatics, and idiots. Unfortunately, these demographics nearly always make up the majority of any given population. So yes, the world is in trouble. (It always was.)

The least obvious example though (to extremists at least), but perhaps the most important, at least globally speaking, is politics.

Both the Far Left and the Far Right are extremist approaches to governing, structuring society, and economy. There is no moderation whatsoever in either; no common sense and no room for compromise. They are the antithesis to moderation. Hence neither work. Or they might work a little bit in the short-run, usually due to lucky circumstances, but in the long-run they always lead to disastrous results, without exception.

One extreme appeals to hateful, violent idiots, while the other appeals to hateful, violent idiots who like to virtue-signal; so the difference is minimal, virtue-signaling being literally the only "major" difference between the Far Left and Far Right. In other words, the Far Left veils its ideology in good intentions, masking its real nature, whereas the Far Right is more obvious and honest about its evil intentions. (This is why the Far Left is overall more dangerous because it only seems to threaten a small minority: the stinking rich, when in fact it is an enemy of everybody except the tiny psychopath elite that ends up ruling society.)

Of course, the problem is that most commies and Nazis don't consider themselves Far Anything. In other words, a loon doesn't know he's a loon. Or he might know but simply doesn't give a damn.

Germany.

A great example of a nation whose people appear to be naturally drawn towards extremes, unable to embrace moderation.

Less than 100 years ago (i.e. not very long ago) the entire nation was in the midst of racist, genocidal, homicidal, anti-social, barbaric fervour. Anyone who tells you that "most German citizens didn't support Hitler" is either a liar or a moron. (I believe most supported him in 1943, let alone in the 30s.) Less than 50 years after Nazi Germany was defeated, the country had miraculously and unexpectedly swung itself into the other extreme: cultural Marxism. A reversal that took only a few decades! The great, unfathomable irony is that a hard-working nation of "intelligent" people would so eagerly rush towards socialism (National Socialism and then Marx's Socialism) never fails to fascinate me: it acts almost as proof that humanity is doomed. Hard work and socialism are diametrically opposed concepts (except for forced labour in gulags), which is why I am fascinated that Germans would keep embracing it over and over. Won't they ever learn?

Though this does have a lot to do with mentality, not so much intelligence: Germans, much like the Japanese ("coincidentally" enough their biggest WW2 allies), have "termite mound mentality". Germans tend to be followers of trends, i.e. herd-orientated; far less individualistic than for example the British and especially the French, who are less likely to fanatically and naively trust authority, regardless of how awful or not-so-awful it may be. the French pride themselves on their individualism, and that is more a positive than a negative thing. Germans and the Japanese, on the other hand, are less likely to resist going with the flow, regardless whether the flow is good or bad.

Just as Germans were immersed in racist fervour only a little more than 70 years ago, now they are drenched in anti-racist fervour!

Yet, fervour is fervour, it's never acceptable. Germans now preach "tolerance" - yet their most left-wing politicians (Greens) behave like arrogant white supremacists while visiting nations that don't tolerate LGBT philosophy! (Example: the 2022 Qatar World Cup.) Which goes to show that whether you bully a nation by invading it or by admonishing it for not being "tolerant" (i.e. liberal), you are bullying it, either way. Germany has not changed significantly: they are still inflexible on political and social issues, treating all anti-LGBT nations/societies as immoral and backward.

Where is the tolerance?

It's only theoretical, with left-wing "democracies" such as the one in Germany (and Sweden, Norway, Britain...)

Germans simply don't understand moderation, they defecate on it. Despite their high intelligence and unquestionable competence on an individual level, in large groups they behave not much better than cattle. Why this is so is probably a cultural thing, and anthropologists may find explanations for it. But that's not what I want to discuss here.

Speaking of cattle.

Take a ship, for example, in a storm, with only cattle on board. As one big wave hits them from the left, they will rush toward the right side, risking to capsize the boat. When a wave attacks from the right (I love the cheesy symbolism... left, right...), they rush to the left, again risking capsizing the ship with their combined weight. If cattle had any sense, they would distribute themselves wisely, so as to avoid turning the ship over, increasing the odds of their survival in hostile conditions. Instead, they only make things even worse.

But Germans don't seem to have enough sense to realize that they behave like mindless herds who obediently follow the "leader" and never/rarely questions state propaganda. By behaving this way they invariably push the ship (their country) to ruin, one way or another, one type of ruin or another. (And because they are so key to European stability, their own ruin always rubs off on their neighbours and further even.) They don't seem to be inquisitive, critical or skeptical enough to question authority. Unlike the French: they may take this rebellious attitude a bit far on occasion, but it's better to have too much skepticism than none at all - at least when it comes to authority. (So yeah, not all middle-ground solutions are right smack in the middle. Some veer toward one side, but very rarely are they located at the very extreme end. If the French were totally unhinged contrarians their country would have been in ruins, might not even exist now.)

True, Germans are hardly the only ones, they are just the most extreme example. The entire West has succumbed to this pre-Orwellian self-destructive, self-loathing, white-guilt pandemic, but Germans pursue it with more fanaticism and discipline than almost any other country, which is why they excel at the practical application of cultural Marxism more than anyone else - except perhaps Scandinavians, their brethren. They are just as bad, just as clueless, just as "enlightened" i.e. arrogant. But Scandinavians are anyway Germanic as well, plus the fact that their political power and influence is quite small compared to the Teutonic behemoth. What Germany does is key, not what Norway does. Norway could rot away and it would not affect the world... Too small.

Even Americans (or to be more precise you-know-who in cahoots with American communists), who started this whole bullshit in the first place, aren't quite as bad as Germans. There is a large segment of the U.S. population (predominantly white males) who strongly oppose cultural-marxist brainwashing. Some of them may not be actually aware that what they oppose is called "cultural Marxism", because the term is never used in the left-wing-controlled media, but they are sane enough to identify their enemy, and they oppose this insanity. The proof is in the presidential elections. A Trump scenario would be simply impossible in Germany, not just due to the coalition-like multi-party political system which is rather different from America's, but because the vast majority of Germans have been completely brainwashed to obey the Establishment, to believe in Disney-like neo-Marxist lies about "all-inclusive" societies.

After all, didn't Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome start embracing sexual perversion as an overture to their own demise?

It appears to be that the longer a government stays in power, the more it is trusted - in countries with Germanic mentality. Anglo-Saxon mentality is mostly the opposite: the longer someone is in power the less they are trusted. This is a far healthier attitude because power corrupts, and extended domination in positions of power only increases that power hence the corruption. Nobody should be in power for too long: common sense and basic tenets of democracy dictate this. This is why we have limits. (Well, Germans don't... Angela Merkel had been in power almost as long as Putin. In a real democracy - as opposed to a "left-wing democracy" - with all facts laid out on the table for voters to know, Merkel would have never won so many elections. Not even close. She kept winning because the German population wasn't presented with facts; their media is as corrupt and one-sided as for example Hollywood.)

Germany is currently already a class E dictatorship, the mildest type but still a dictatorship. Not a democracy anymore. Definitely not. Germans have had, for quite some time now, what I refer to as a "left-wing democracy" which is self-explanatory - especially to people aware of Germany's current political climate and the state of their polluted, politically-coloured anti-culture. Angela Merkel is (or rather, was) right-of-center, on paper at least, but her party made the shift toward the Left years ago, simply in order to survive in a political landscape that was (and still is) rapidly shifting towards a full-blown category C or even category B left-wing tyranny. (Category A? Not impossible either. Hitler's era is proof of that.) Merkel, a much softer and far less obvious version of Hitler (hence in a sense more lethal in the long-term), has been in power for 4 consecutive terms, which is always a strong warning sign that "something is smelly in the state of Denmark". The fact that Germans don't even have a term limit makes one seriously question their common sense. The fact that German highways are notorious for having no speed limits also indicates a certain fanatical unwillingness toward moderation and common sense. The only country in Europe with no speed limits for certain highways, for about 70% of them. Something is indeed rotten in the state of Denmark, or at least their southern neighbours.

Speaking of the clever Danish, rotting Sweden has been a left-wing democracy for over half a century, or more. (They used to be pro-Nazi during and before WW2, so there are strong parallels to Germany's right-to-left extremist cattle-on-boat Teutonic/Tectonic shift.) The results of this harakiri decision are already obvious: I am fairly convinced that should things not change there in the foreseeable future, there will be no Swedish people in Sweden in 100 years. At least not many of them, and certainly they won't have ownership of their own country. This destiny could easily befall many western nations, so arrogantly confident in their current "state of progress", so fanatically unwilling to at least partially question multiculturalism, its many drawbacks. Europe is devolving (to someone who is right-wing), not evolving (which is what left-wingers naively believe).

Nature always punishes severe stupidity, it punishes lack of common sense which is often an outgrowth of lack of moderation. It punishes stupidity severely. This is only logical, and fair. (Well, it would be more fair if Free Will truly existed.) Behave stupidly and nature will usually make you suffer for it. This is how the universe works. Sweden, Germany, Spain and other minority-worshiping Disney-bubble nations who'd lost touch with reality will eventually learn this lesson, the very hard way. It might even be the last lesson they learn.

An example of how Cultural Marxism swung a social issue from one extreme to the other.

The terrorist propaganda organization LGBTP. (Not terrorist in the sense of planting bombs (at least not yet), but in the sense of blowing up young brains, leaving nothing but empty heads behind.) Only a little more than 50 years ago, some European countries had more-or-less "anti-gay" laws in place. 100 years ago, not to mention 200 years ago, homosexuals were treated pretty badly, which nobody should support. But now, many years later, during the "Enlightened Era", we have a complete reversal to the other extreme - and just as dumb, but even more damaging: gays have become the privileged elite, a minority that is deified, romanticized, and continually portrayed as intelligent and as victims - in all situations. Speak out against that dubious garbage which we refer to as gay rights (i.e. not against gays themselves) and you lose your job! (Very very very pre-Orwellian. Note that I use the prefix "pre", because in a fully Orwellian society it's forced exile or death camps for the offender.)

Even in Serbia, a socially very conservative country where gays are openly considered perverts by many, all male yellow-press "journalists" are gay. Literally all of them. Gay TV hosts are also on the rise, whereas they used to be non-existent. This kind of gay lobby dominance - in any sphere of Serbian society - would have been completely unimaginable, just 30 years ago. So can you imagine what it will be like if Serbia gets even more "enlightened"...

Deification of minorities is the cornerstone of Cultural Marxism; a very unhealthy, idiotic, suicidal stance. The majority should look after itself, first-and-foremost, because that is logical, rational and goes hand-in-hand with the will to survive: which means putting yourself/family/society - in that order - first. Not immigrants or sexual minorities: why the hell would they be your priority?

People who want to take care of others before themselves are either liars or have a "God complex", which means they secretly feel superior to those they pretend to help. Which is very ironic because they claim to be against racial or class supremacy.

This doesn't mean that minorities should be persecuted, far from it; it simply means there should be a natural pecking order. A very logical order. We had this order in Europe just a few decades ago, and things weren't bad, were they? Besides, isn't democracy based on the principles of the rule of the majority? Isn't a tyranny by definition rule of the minority? Or does anyone with common sense actually support five people making all the decisions in a village with a 1000 population? Ideally, yes, but only if by some miracle the village has five extraordinarily intelligent and morally pure individuals at their disposal, willing and able to guide the village. But this is of course very rarely the case.

So while deification of minorities is the basis of cultural Marxism, persecution of minorities is the cornerstone of ultra-nationalism. The Far Left way is unacceptably masochistic hence boundlessly stupid, whereas the Far Right way is unacceptably immoral (as well as stupid).

Both of these extremist ideologies are completely unacceptable, at least to a person with common sense, i.e. a moderate.

This is why the term "moderate liberal" had essentially disappeared from the U.S. political dictionary years ago, because Democrats had morphed into a socialist/Marxist entity in recent decades. They have no moderates in their ranks anymore. Whatsoever. Which by default means that the political diversity within their ranks has become virtually non-existent. Internal squabbles among Democrats are hence no longer ideological, but based on other reasons such as power and envy. Ironic and hypocritical, because Democrats always babble on about the "need for diversity". They hate diversity, they fight against it constantly and with rabid zealotry.

Democrats are class A liars and hypocrites. They have devolved to the point where they can't be trusted on anything. Literally nothing. And it is for this reason - mainly - that many right-wingers opposed the pandemic restrictions, because they had completely lost trust in the Left Establishment. These restrictions were/are necessary, but when proven liars promote them then your natural instinct is to rebel and not believe. (I personally did not oppose the restrictions, because I am able to distinguish between lies, semi-truths and truth.)

Far Left and Far Right. Two political extremes with completely different agendas, but with the identical end-result: destruction of society, including long-term damage, some of which may be irreversible. Only a complete and utter moron (or psychopath/sociopath/lunatic) can support either. Supporting ultra-nationalism means that you're essentially a primitive sadist, while supporting minority worship means you're a self-loathing masochist. Both these species are mentally ill, dumb.

"Neither a sadist nor a masochist be", is a line they omitted to include in the Bible. The holy book gives us all sorts of irrelevant nonsense, yet omits some of the most important tenets.

Ideally, on some fictional planet called Moderato we would be moderates primarily.

So there you go, another Vjetropev lecture full of wisdom and unassailable logic. A lecture that will be read by 50 people, at the most, hence won't change anything. Besides, most of those 50 people are likely to dislike what they read, because in the current world nearly everybody belongs to either of the two political extremes... The more dumbed-down and spoiled the western man becomes, the more likely he is to be drawn toward these extremes. Because: extremism = idiocy = childishness. This is a result of westerners speedily rushing towards rock-bottom, a not-so-distant future era when the vast majority will be so stupid that luring them into one type of extremism or the other will be as easy as stealing candy from a Marxist baby. (Coz Marxist babies anyway wanna share? Right? Wrong...)

But hey, at least you can heed the cat advice, right?

The Strange God-Believer Relationship

The Bizarre Logic in How Believers Relate to God

First off, this post isn't intended to annoy believers. (Though odds are it will.) I'm not one of those atheists/agnostics/non-believers/heathens/whatevers who take the intellectual high ground over believers, then devise ways to piss them off from their lofty, "superior" heights. I used to be that way when I was much younger.

There is nothing superior about not believing, anyway. I envy (true) believers, for their ability to be irrational, and I'm not saying this sarcastically. I envy most fantasists. Whoever can suspend logic to the extent that they can believe in an omnipotent creator - and actually believe that he is represented truthfully by a non-profit/idealistic religious organization - might be blessed with more contentment than those who can't: very broadly, generally speaking, obviously. Even the most miserable believers might be even more miserable without this crutch.

Besides, atheism isn't all sugar and science-candy: it can lead impressionable, confused, unstable, dim, young, arrogant minds towards nihilism, communism, feminism and other idiotic, hip, quasi-intellectual, nonsensical isms. Some people turn away from religion only to find "truth" in laughable alien invasion theories. These UFOlogist nitwits then actually start feeling superior to believers - when in fact alien worship is almost as cretinous as any other.

Speaking of truth, nihilists, for example, may be (much) more right about certain things than Bible-thumpers and Quran-devotees, but what do they gain from it? Truth? What can they do with this truth?

Wipe their asses with it, that's what. Besides, probably nobody is even remotely close to "the truth", and non-believers are in all likelihood only slightly less distant from "the truth" than religious people.

Atheism is vastly overrated within "intellectual" circles: all it means is negation of all the bullshit that stems from religions. It isn't an explanatory ideology in and of itself. Just because you were able to connect two dots, i.e. you realized that something so obviously stupid is stupid, doesn't make you a brainiac, let alone an intellectual. All it means is that you're - maybe - somewhat more insightful than most religious people, more rational; it doesn't mean you've invented the wheel, which is how some pompous atheists behave, especially young people: the moment they join the atheist camp they start behaving as if they'd solved all the riddles of the universe! Youth is hilarious that way.

The reason I'm so cautious about describing atheists as more rational or intelligent than believers is due to what I'd already discussed in my Marxism: Guide for Gullible Westerners post: that the majority of atheists seem to be communists i.e. they'd merely switched religions, deciding to replace the conventional religion they were handed to at birth with a more politically-correct, modern, slightly less metaphysical one: this decision actually makes you worse than the typical Bible fan, because some Bible fans at least recognize and freely admit that they believe in magical worlds, whereas communists never do. (Except for ex-communists, those that came to their senses and landed back on planet Earth.) Commies perceive themselves as rational and scientific, which is ironically the polar opposite of where they stand intellectually. Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the source of all knowledge and righteousness... Atheists are a bit like that monkey who can suddenly think: they immediately convince themselves that they're "the shit".

Atheistic arrogance, self-importance, stupidity, sense of superiority - and delusion - all rolled into one. Hemingway was a Marxist, so thanks, Ernie, for providing me with an ideal example of what I'm talking about. A stereotypical narcissistic virtue-signaling sociopath with no moral compass - BFFs with mass-murdering Fidel Castro - dishing out "wisdom".
Of course, Ernie didn't know that communists are believers too... (Sort of the way lunatics aren't aware of their own insanity.) In these posh left-wing circles fanatical Christian belief is considered idiotic, while fanatical belief in a totally flawed, almost metaphysical, political ideology is considered intellectual and lofty. Hilarious.

The fact that probably 99% of the world's population are either believers, alien worshipers or communists - i.e. religious - is no coincidence. It tells us something crucial about human nature. It tells us that we are genetically programmed to hope, to indulge in waves of unchecked, almost limitless optimism. Hope exists everywhere and in everyone who has despair, and there is plenty of despair all around us.

As long as there is despair there will be hope, and as long as there is hope there will be irrational beliefs. In plentiful supplies.

Hope is the cousin of a coping mechanism that protects us somewhat from the harshness of reality: denial is the one thing literally all humans practice, even I. But as so many useful things, it is a two-edged sword: it allows us to cope better with life, but it also leads us astray (especially the very dumb/naive segments of populations), for example into extremist hence self-destructive ideologies. Commie cretins are convinced that they are "above" the "religious plebs", when in fact the two demographics are in many ways carbon copies of each other, with their shared disease (extreme denial) merely manifesting itself somewhat differently, into different religious beliefs i.e. differing types of delusions.

Nevertheless, the topic I discuss here is not communists and why they are completely retarded. (I'd already done that on numerous occasions.) I am analyzing the relationship, or to be precise the perceived relationship, that believers have with this imaginary, non-existent uber-pope that they are convinced (?) completely dominates their lives - but perhaps even more importantly their afterlives. 

Believers accept the existence of this imaginary friend/boss/overlord/master/adviser/mentor/cosmic-guru, and then some of them create a rather fascinating illusion of actually having a personal relationship with this elusive being. (So shy that it never even bothers to physically show itself to its flock, because it "wants to test their faith" or some such far-fetched, self-serving, completely absurd rationalization.)

By actually creating a personal relationship with a non-entity, these believers essentially become voluntary schizophrenics. It's a conscious decision to accept "a voice", or at least a "vague presence", of an imaginary being. It's a sort of small (or large) step towards madness. That's partly why the most fervent believers are often termed as "religious nuts". Because many of these zealotards are literally nuts, or borderline insane.

Born-again Christians are one such demographic. Jehovah's Witnesses are another. (I'm not sure if most of them "speak to God" but they're definitely nuts enough to do so if they so choose.) Not to mention Islamic suicide-bombers who probably have at least 56 ridiculous if-only-I-could-be-a-fly-on-the-wall type of "conversations with Allah" during the last 48 hours of their pointless, useless, retarded lives...

And let's not omit rabid SJWs. They are the absolute same, probably even worse.

When a child has an imaginary friend, some parents might start worrying about his mental health. But when that same kid grows up to have a "personal relationship with God", no believer questions his sanity. A bit of a double standard there... Why not just assume that the kid's imaginary friend is God? An angel, at least? Does God not like children? Why wouldn't he speak directly to kids as well as adults? Are kids not human? After all, he looks a lot like Santa Claus, at least the Christian one does...

Yes, some hardcore believers actually claim to speak to God, regularly even, daily. He is their imaginary friend. Not through a priest via a typically dull sermon or chant, but directly. A monologue perceived by the believer to be a dialogue: quite a fascinating phenomenon. Self-hypnosis to some extent?

There is no question that only people with a mental dis-balance, or at least a potential for moderate or serious mental illness, can reach that level of self-deception - or drop to it, depending on how you choose to view this.

But regardless of whether a believer falls in the "softcore" or hardcore category, there are things that truly baffle me even more than schizo monologues. For example, all this incessant talk of "love for God".

How can a slave possibly love its master?

Let's get this straight. The believer never picked his master, i.e. God, and his happiness and existence fully depend on this (arrogant) all-powerful being, hence this must be the most clear-cut example of a master-slave relationship of all time.

The being that gives you floods, earthquakes, and/or starvation (and plenty of other nastiness you're all familiar with) is the same being that you are supposed to love: how does that even work? On a masochistic level this would make perfect sense.

"Oh my Lord, you torture me so, as you should, and am I ever glad to have thee piss on me and most of my efforts by giving me pointless obstacles that constantly test me despite my obvious slavish devotion. Oh Lord, thou arst so wonderful in your generous offerings of almost unbridled sadism due to your continual paranoia that I, your meek slave, am not quite as obedient and as full of love toward thee as you wish me to be. You basically don't trust me when I grovel, because clearly you are incapable of reading minds, which means you are not really omnipotent - which in turn means that you will now punish me yet again, this time for insulting thee, my Lord, for daring to question your superpowers. Please make the punishment at least as harsh as the last time. Make every bit of pain and torture count, for I so desire, oh merciful Lord."

This I'd understand, a masochist enjoying this sado-masochistic relationship between God and its faithful amoeba. It may be insane, but at least it's logical.

Yet the majority of people, believers and heathens alike, aren't masochists. So how could you possibly love a being that created such a devious, brutal, degenerate world? How can you even like this creature? How can you even be indifferent to it? It actually makes more sense for the polar opposite: to hate this supreme being, to curse it numerous times for all his random misdeeds.

The world is degenerate, literally; there's no denying that. A world in which survival - by definition - entails trapping, killing and pulverizing other living creatures, even imprisoning and killing members of your own species. Being alive entails physical suffering, deception, paranoia, hatred, confusion, anguish, terror, anxiety, and boredom: hellish rules of existence which only a sadistic monster could set in place.

If we were to connect Hell and Heaven with an imaginary line that represents the whole gamut of levels of quality, our world would be far closer to the Hell end of this happiness/misery spectrum. (Of course, this largely depends on the individual, the species, the era... Not everyone experiences equal amounts of life's innate hellishness. For example, nearly all of our medieval cousins suffered incomparably more than we did or are. They were almost literally all Hell's prisoners.)

So it can't be love. Not to non-masochists anyway. To idiots? Perhaps. Because you'd have to be a complete cretin to genuinely "love" the one who dumped your "soul" (or whatever you wanna call it) into a world as vile as this one - and then proceeded to torture you, to blackmail you into a set of rules that you must obey unless you want even more punishment and suffering. The Bible, the Quran and other similar "mammoth religious manifestos" are nothing but texts that serve as blackmail, a set of rules created to control the flock, to make them behave a certain way.

Lovely, isn't it? The Bible just fills you up with endless love, what with all its threats and coercion.

So if it isn't love, what is it then? What truly defines the god-believer relationship?

It's fear. Pure and simple. Sometimes you pretend to love or like those whom you fear. Nobody sane wants to annoy their jailers, nobody sane wants to needlessly annoy their badly-tempered school teacher who might have the power to fail them. Nobody wants to further aggravate someone who has (total) power of you.

Fear, mixed with a very generous dose of unavoidable sycophancy. Because brown-nosing is a frequent guest in the House of Fear.

Take a person who'd just lost his home in an earthquake:

"Oh Lord, please help us! My house is gone, all my belongings forever pummeled, I am now poor and homeless! We know you are merciful and wise and above all great... Please do something, give us a sign!"

I believe having your house crushed is a clear enough sign, or? As Slayer so blatantly put it, "God hates us all". (A great gimmick to have atheists buy your albums.) If there were a God, he'd certainly have to be a sadistic psychopath who hates us, or who at best is indifferent to our struggles.

This desperate little man is basically begging God. As in almost any master-slave relationship. Begging is a major part of it. A master whips his slave brutally, yet the slave responds with the utmost respect, begging and humouring the master - rather than cursing him viciously as one might logically (?) expect.

(There is little logic in tempting your fate even further by showing disrespect to a sadist so much more powerful than you are, hence the slave's reaction is logical, at least in the pragmatic sense, if not in the idealistic sense. But who has the courage to be idealistic when faced with an all-powerful menace?)

Basically, the man who'd just lost his house is kissing God's ass, pretending he doesn't know who the culprit is, then meekly and without any shame asking for better treatment - from the same divine being who clearly displayed the opposite of love and mercy toward him by crushing his house just hours ago!

Begging for betterment, like a meek, undignified worm. Because that's what slaves do. They have no other choice.

Essentially, that's what the entire God-believer relationship boils down to: ass-kissing. A plankton knows it cannot tame the ocean so it appeals to its mercy. The believer praises the Lord, regardless of whether this meek human just struck a goldmine in Alaska or lost an arm in an accident through no fault of his own. He admits and accepts that God is completely in charge so he'd decided not to anger this deity further by moaning about his master's awful, unfair actions. Essentially, that's all the believer can do.

Unless of course the believer is assuming that all bad things are the devil's work - despite that old contradiction/paradox of the all-knowing, all-powerful God not preventing Satan from having his sadistic fun by simply destroying the Horned One. (I.e. how can God be both good/merciful and all-powerful yet allow for evil not only to exist - but to prevail and dominate? Believers detest this age-old question: it makes them angry like few other logical inquiries.)

I am, of course, talking about this... A staple from the Atheist Bible.

But even believers who pin all the blame squarely on Satan must on some level also be begging obsequiously whenever addressing God meekly. Do you constantly beg someone you love? Do you even really need to beg a person you love? If God loved his slaves then they wouldn't even have the need to beg: God would be nice of his own volition.

So at best the God-believer relationship is based on one-sided love. Is begging really proof of a "loving" relationship? Or is it proof rather that the "slave" i.e. the driven-by-fear believer is merely seeking to appease God with what he considers to be the best way to soften God: ass-kissing?

Seems like it.

Maybe some people reject religion primarily because they are repulsed by having to behave like a meek slave? Maybe they actually want to believe and can believe but can't bring themselves to be put into such a humiliating, subservient position. People with some measure of dignity. Some deists might perhaps fit the bill.

There are certain people willing to believe in a supreme being, but only provided there is no pressure on them to slavishly worship this deity, having to humiliate themselves over and over by begging and cowering. Self-described "spiritual" people, for example, who were/are a fast-growing demographic since the 20th century, reject the classic master-slave relationship of conventional religion for a variety of reasons, one of them being that they reject the notion of a supreme being that tortures/tests humans constantly and/or a rejection that God is even interested in humans, just as they reject the absurd notion that there has to be a middle-man between God and his subjects/creations i.e. the Church.

These "spiritualists", or whatever you want to call them, don't "speak to god"; instead, they blather on about "feeling a divine presence" all around them. (Perhaps they are Star Wars fans.) These are the sort of hippies (for example) who claim that going camping is a "spiritual experience" to them, and that being surrounded by raw nature and beautiful landscapes makes them "feel God".

(Personally, when I find myself in nature, I just enjoy the silence and the animals, and especially the fact that there are very few or no humanoids around. It doesn't make me any more or less heathenish. It doesn't have any bearing on my religious (non-)beliefs. In fact, when outside of civilization I get even more confused, if anything; I don't get any "answers", I just get even more questions. But that's just me...) Spiritualists feel a vague connection to God that doesn't require direct dialogue i.e. a monologue.

What spiritualists seem to ignore though is how utterly different their camping experience would be if they suddenly found themselves in the middle of nowhere, far from civilization, with no food, water, shelter, mobile phone or vehicle. In that scenario I guarantee you that 99% of them would not experience a "blissful closeness with God" but sheer terror, dejection, panic, extreme anxiety and depression. Because that is reality. It's easy to glorify nature from the cozy comfort of having civilization's advanced survival-kit along with you: like a car and a backpack, not to mention a mobile phone for emergencies. It's one thing to have civilization to fall back on should the smallest problem arise, and a completely different matter to go back to how our ancestors lived hundreds and thousands of years ago: (almost) completely self-reliant and often with nobody and nothing to fall back on. Those poor bastards didn't have the benefit of a secured existence to be able to pontificate on the beauty of nature. No emergency helicopters for them. Some of them must have noticed the aesthetic qualities of nature, but I presume they were a tiny minority: the vast majority was too busy surviving on a daily basis to have the time and energy to focus on "higher" issues. When you're starving, and a lot of them were perpetually hungry, the last thing you give a shit about is how cute an animal is or how beautiful the landscape appears... That's why I consider most spiritualists to be Disney-bubble naivelings. These are the types that usually lean to the Left.

Speaking of the spiritualist/church-goer divide, it isn't really so much belief in a mega-creator that is laughable and naive, as it is to actually pick a religion then obey its idiotic laws/rules/theories and their leaders sheepishly. At least spiritualists have the sense to reject organized religion. Why the hell would an all-powerful deity even require an institution to act as "translator"/mediator between himself and his puny creations? There is no logical, theological purpose behind the necessity of organized religion, none whatsoever. There is only the very obvious practical/Machiavellian purpose which I need not elaborate on... a purpose that purely serves the middle-man i.e. the priesthood, not the imaginary God who (allegedly) wants to have a relationship with his puny subjects rather than the self-proclaimed "God's servants" that insist on representing his flock.

But how did humans even get to the crazy idea, in the first place, that an all-powerful being would even want to have direct contact with them? Even if we assume that it's true that God exists, and that he created humans, and that he has some measure of interest in their lives, why would he want to concern himself with each and every one of us?

This (seemingly) illogical compulsion, to believe that God would actually bother with each and every case individually, stems from the very subjective nature of each person's existence. It's "I think therefore I am", not "we think therefore we are": a crucial distinction. Humanity isn't some large collective brain, as in some sci-fi novels, that thinks and acts as one, like a swarm. Each person is their own universe, which is a really important fact to consider in not just this, but many other topics. Being this way, each of us alone basically in their own separate worlds, it is completely natural that each of us experiences the world as centering around each of us, individually, rather than feeling that our existence is insignificant, that we are just one unit in an ocean of humans and other creatures. I speak about this also in my Infinity Misconception post, where this idea is crucial to that topic...

As a result of each human life going through an entirely subjective experience, people are far more easily lead to the notion that they are relevant enough that God would actually spend his time talking to them and worrying about their puny little problems and hopes. There is a metal album called Give a Monkey A Brain and He Will Think He Is the Center of the Universe. That pretty much sums it up.

Sure, we can choose to laugh at the monkey (i.e. ourselves, or at least certain believers) for being so naive, but we can hardly blame any individual for placing greater value on themselves than is even remotely realistic.

Besides, who knows? Maybe the fact that I live in my own universe means that my universe is the only true universe? But that's too philosophical a question, and it isn't directly related to this subject, so I won't go into that... It's a fairly paranoid concept but not one that one can ever shake off with total success - if we even want to shake it off.

Generally speaking, not many humans are particularly proud, or especially dignified. Hence why a master-slave relationship with a deity or even a dictator doesn't seem to bother many humans.

For example, I had always considered it beneath me to worship a politician, a leader. I can respect a leader, and can agree with him on most issues, but idolatry just isn't in my nature. It's not that I am anti-authority, i.e. some kind of a narcissistic quasi-rebel; it's more of a pride thing, plus the fact that I am grounded enough in reality to recognize that those bastards are just puny little humans who got very lucky. (If reigning an entire country can even be considered luck: to me personally it isn't. My only power fantasy is to rule the entire world as a supreme all-powerful indestructible being, i.e. I am far more megalomaniacal than "just" needing to rule one country as a mere human, be it even a superpower, but devoid of the essential "magical" tools necessary to completely rule.)

However, most people are like not this. Most people even cope reasonably well with having their boss at work order them around like a semi-slave, treating them less than properly, so why would such a meek, cowardly, undignified person struggle with obeying an infinitely more powerful being than their boss at the office?

One gender stands out in this though...

Statistics/studies show that women - the more "submissive sex" - go to church (far) more often, become religious zealots more often, and are more likely to "talk to God" than men. Women, being less confident hence less proud than men (mostly a result of lower testosterone levels), are more likely to enter willingly and even happily into this sado-masochistic master-slave relationship with their imaginary friend/creator. Women are also generally more prone to mental illness, as studies show, hence more likely to go schizo with this. I discuss some of this in more detail in my Female Masochism post...

For some stupid reason, and quite ironically, believers created God in their own image, not the other way round. How else do we explain God's constant need of being flattered? Hence why people flatter this imaginary friend/master whenever they beg him for something. Flattery, and especially receptiveness to it, is a very human trait; I can't imagine that an immortal all-powerful creator of an entire universe would give three shits about such trifles. Such a being would have to be way too intellectually superior to allow itself to fall into this cheesy trap. As if a deity would have an ego so frail that it could be so easily manipulated by a puny little human and his barrage of useless compliments!

People naively project their own motives and logic on God by imagining that God would create humans in his own image - just because we humans are likely to create creatures in our own image. (For example human-like androids.) But where is it written that a supreme being would create something even remotely similar to itself? Hence why God is portrayed as Santa Claus, in Christianity. Believers need to give their gods a little more credit than that...

Just as God would (most probably) have zero interest in flattery, this supreme being also wouldn't be very interested in listening to the separate voices of millions of Toms, Dicks and Harrys as they incessantly harass him with their constant need for attention, asking for mercy and help. Begging for them.

The nerve believers have to actually address god directly, expecting this grandiose cosmos-ruling thing to find time for them and their comparatively insignificant problems. Humans project a lot, because most of them are too dumb or primitive to realize that not every sentient being is going to behave or reason like a human, hence why they'd invented a supreme being that's so naive that it actually falls prey to cheap-skate tactics such as flattery, which is often just a cheap-ass attempt at manipulation. A god that falls for flattery - and even rewards it - would be a rather laughable supreme being hence wouldn't actually be particularly supreme to begin with. It would be supreme in its powers to physically mold the universe as it wishes, but in terms of personality and self-awareness wouldn't such a needy, flattery-dependent being be rather pathetic and underdeveloped? Kind of like an overgrown teenager bigger and more powerful than all his peers yet mentally just another dumb adolescent.

Going back to love, a person can love a partner or can like a friend, because those types of relationships are equal, or more-or-less equal, whereas a master-slave relationship between the sycophantic believer and his imaginary deity is completely lopsided, absurdly so.

Besides, loving something or someone you'd never even met before? We only have that as of recently, on Facebook and various dating sites, but at least the Facebook "believer" has photos of his femme fatale to latch on to - i.e. something tangible, hence his optimism is much more justified.

One can use love to manipulate a man, or a woman; within a real relationship, between two people. But in order to manipulate the masses, a tyrant (who is like a cheap imitation of a deity) always uses fear instead. If a population is particularly dumb, they can be brainwashed into actually loving the leader (or thereabouts), at least a part of the ultra-daft populace can. But even a powerful, charismatic tyrant is just a human hence relatable to his slavish subjects as a person made of flesh who pisses and shits like everyone else. (Except Gretchen Mol; I am convinced she never does these filthy things.) God, if he existed, would be a million rungs above a human tyrant though - and would not even be human. No puny little human can emotionally relate to an invisible non-human non-entity though. If the quality of your entire afterlife existence depends on the whims and rules of a vague divine presence, then the immediate reactions are likely to be awe, fear and respect, certainly not love.

What about animals?

Organized religion is so narrow-minded in its "human-centric" approach that it never seriously occurred to any of these pompous priests and their self-centered flock that animals might too deserve to speak to God directly. Nevermind the fact that nearly all religions don't even acknowledge the possibility that critters may have souls. Since the three major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) completely ignore the "spiritual needs" of animals (don't laugh), then the implications are crystal clear: God is an elitist snob who places "reason" and intelligence above all other considerations. Animals must by definition be considered "too stupid" by God to deserve the special attention reserved for the bipedal morons.

Humans get preferential treatment just because they can talk and think? Several problems with this:

1. Using this logic, dead infants don't have access to the afterlife because they're just as mindless as animals, in fact even more so, considering that chimps and dolphins, for example, are on the level of a 5 year-old human.

 

2. Many animal species do use language, and some are intelligent enough to display limited reasoning skills.

3. Do very mentally-challenged people not get God's attention? They don't get the after-life? Which begs a further question: since they are of extremely low intelligence are they at an advantage vis-a-vis their chances of reaching Heaven rather than Hell? After all, the complete lack of Free Will eliminates any guilt. Of course, we could say the same of animals.

4. The implication is that the more intelligent a human, the more God likes him. Which would beg the question: how is it the dumb person's fault that he/she was born stupid? And if that stupidity leads a person do wicked/immoral things, then it's really God's fault. Of course, this opens a whole other can of worms: Free Will i.e. accountability, which I won't go into.

5. Animals were created for the sole purpose of being butchered by humans and for their amusement i.e. as pets or to be sport-hunted. Only an extremely psychopathic supreme being would create trillions upon trillions of critters who experience pain and suffering - just in order to serve as mere toys to be used by human as they please. Even Nazi Germany had more compassion...

Certainly there is no other reason, aside from intelligence, for God to deny ants and otters access to Heaven, while focusing only on humans.

Of course, animals don't ask to speak to God. They are innocent "robots" going about their business, completely subject to their God-given instincts, 100% slaves to what they were assigned, to what they are. If anything, animals not having any needs to fill a "spiritual void" in a sense makes them superior to humans. Just one of numerous ironies. Animals never experience anxiety, fear of the future, experience boredom only if locked up, and don't have the capacity for self-pity. Just some of the big advantages they have over humans.

Maybe that's where the explanation lies though: God considers humans inferior to animals hence why they are his favourites?

What about Islamic worship?

If anything, it drives my point home even more. Falling on your knees five times a day - while muezzins holler repetitive ass-kissing slogans over loud-speakers - elicits many reactions and opinions from the objective observer (none of them positive), but the most striking thing here is the utter, unabashed slavishness and devotion of the believer. Kneeling in front of your imaginary deity is tantamount to suicidal devotion i.e...

"I shall kill for you - and have myself killed if need be for your love, Allah".

Love? Not really. The Moslem and his deity have an even more clearly defined relationship than the Christian one. Theirs is even more master-slave and even more openly based on barter:

"I kneel like a subservient, meek sheep to you, my Master, and I do everything else you order me to do, and in return you shall give me 777 virgins when I enter your holy Kingdom, which - from what you claim - seems to be practically a buffet of willing whores".

Despite all this empty talk of love, what Allah and his meek slave really have is an agreement, a contract. A kind of pact. A deal. Their relationship isn't based on love by any means, not even remotely, because Islamic laws and rules are so stringent. (Love cannot flourish within an Orwellian system.) You can't possibly love a being that essentially ties your hands behind your back, handing you a lengthy list of things you cannot do (most of which you'd love to do). It's not in human nature to return such military stringency with love and affection. It's neither logical nor natural.

The believer is the customer, the imaginary being is the merchant. The believer is coerced into buying the product - eternal bliss - because the deity has a monopoly on the afterlife. So the luckless customer spends his entire life begging i.e. making sure he remains obsequious enough to keep his end of the bargain. Fear of eternal Hell/punishment - effectively blackmail - keeps the believer subdued and pathetic, undignified, obedient. It's as simple as that. Allah literally refers to his followers as "righteous slaves" in the Quran!

This submission to the Church hence to its imams/cardinals/bishops/god's-generals is precisely why religion has been the "reigning style of choice" for hundreds of tyrants, throughout thousands of years. Organized religion: an efficient means of controlling a dumb, primitive population - and keeping them dumb and primitive through extreme brainwashing which involves numerous rules of what not to do, because by forbidding so many enticing activities you are automatically instilling fear into your meek subjects, putting them on the defensive, making them fear you. Fear brings with it respect rather than plans of rebellion, at least when it comes to an invincible potential enemy.

But this stuff is nothing new, hence not what I want to discuss here...

Except to mention briefly how cultural Marxism is used these days instead of religion to achieve the same goal: subservience to tyrannical authority. There is no deity involved in political correctness, but the underlining principles are identical: fear and unquestioning submission. There is a tangible fear among masses of successfully brainwashed westerners to openly/publicly voice their true opinions, their opposition to: unchecked Third World immigration, to generous welfare spending for these illegal immigrants, to degenerate/manipulative/dishonest organizations such as LGBTQP and Antifa, to blatantly aggressive/racist anti-white attitudes in popular culture, and to many other key issues - as opposed to merely sneakily speaking out against PC-ness behind the "safety" of their computers. We speak out on the internet because we feel much more protected there, precisely because we are put on the defensive by the maniacal, zealous, Fascist-like Antifa/SJW/Anti-Racism sociopath crusaders. This is why the internet's status as a the last bastion of freedom of speech is being undermined, why internet freedoms are under such relentless attack from freedom-hating uni-opinion/unigender leftists.

The Islamic God-believer relationship is based on pure fear, the sheer terror of not getting those 777 (blonde) virgins i.e. to miss out on an eternity of f**king whores - and ending up being tortured for an eternity instead. An "all or nothing" kind of choice. A choice between pure bliss and pure horror. Guess which option the fearful herd will rush towards...

These virgins have to be whores, by definition, since their duty is only to please horny Arabs. Heaven as one large, eternal bordello? Well, I've heard of dumber things... almost. I have no clue though which specific rewards female believers are promised, since Islam almost solely focuses on rewards for the men... (Unsurprisingly, since horny, hypocritical men wrote the Quran.) Perhaps all women go to Gehenna? Who knows. I've never read the Quran, but I do know it hates women.

All joking aside, Islamic women are promised heavenly rewards too. However, they don't get 777 male studs/stallions (which would be only fair). Why not though? Presumably because Islam assumes that women hate sex or are indifferent to it? If so, then those 777 virgins must be getting tortured (or at least very bored) by the horny men constantly ravaging them. Women who enter Islamic Heaven have to remain loyal to their husbands/mates - while tolerating/allowing their former/current partners to f**k all those 777 virginal whores! (I know: virginal whore sounds like an oxymoron. More on that later...)

A win-win situation for the men, a miserable situation for the women. Or does the notion of 777 studs lined up to shtoop just one woman conjure too much similarity to a common gang-bang?

Besides, work out the math: if each man gets 777 virgins (or 72... same thing) then this begs the question: where do all these virgins come from? Either the same virgins have to please millions of horny dead Arab men, or different sets of 777 virgins are assigned to each horny dead Arab. Crazy!

If it's the former, then these must be the most hard-working prostitutes in the entire multiverse! They must have vaginas made out of stainless elastic plastic.

If it's the latter, then that begs another question: how come there are a lot more women in Heaven than men? If each man gets so many virgins all just for himself, then men make up a tiny portion of Heaven's entire population! This numerical female supremacy in Heaven, in turn, implies that women are the better Moslems than men! Pretty weird and ironic for a religion that is so openly hostile toward women.

Or are we to believe that Allah manufactures all these virgins especially for the purpose of pleasing men in Heaven? If so, can they truly be considered human?

In fact, (some?) imams claim that Heaven's virgins are not of Earth i.e. they are literally created by Allah for the sole purpose of being sexual objects for Moslem men! This in turn means that Allah must consider his flock to be cold-hearted sex-starved maniacs.

What a glorious belief system! So idealistic, humane, and profoundly spiritual...

"This religion seems to be all about the old in-out! I like it!"

Millions of virgins being mass-produced by Allah brings with it other uneasy issues. If they are "not of Earth" then they were never born hence cannot be human by definition. So are dead Moslem men screwing androids in Heaven? If these heavenly virginal sex-workers are neither human nor android then what the hell (or heaven) are they?! I want some answers!

There's more (weird stuff) I need to address...

If each man is promised 777 virgins, then surely they cease being virgins as soon as he deflowers them... So does he keep having sex with them even after they're no longer virgins, or does Allah provide fresh new supplies of proper virgins as soon as the man is done deflowering the previous batch? If so, what does Allah do with the ex-virgins? Does he throw them on a distant "virgin pile" - or does he miraculously reset their vaginas to be "pure" again? If so, would that mean that Allah is cheating by using his magic? Do the dead male believers not mind deflowering the same virgins/ex-virgins over and over? Don't they feel cheated? Don't they get a little bored? Eternity is a long time...

"Hey, Allah, my homey... I know you gave me 777 of these sexy blood-letting sluts, and I am thankful for them, really I am, but I distinctly recall already having had broken this one's hymen. I recognize her. Am I crazy or do you keep sending me the same virgins over and over?"

Yes... "my homey". I wrote that intentionally. Because where is it written that the believer has to maintain his slavish obsequiousness to Allah (or the Christian God) in Heaven? We don't really have much info from scriptures about how/if the God-believer relationship changes after the believer's demise and ensuing resurrection. Dead humans resurrecting then suddenly becoming immortal surely must change their status, at least somewhat? They are no longer puny little suffering mortals. They are now equal to God/Allah, at least in terms of mortality hence infinity.

But back to the android virgins...

If the horny male complains to Allah that he is tired of deflowering the same virgins/ex-virgins over and over, does Allah merely brush off the complaint saying he's "got better things to do than worry about your virgins", or does he prevent this issue from even arising by getting these virgins plastic surgery (or completely new faces) in order to deceive the believer?

To deceive them for their own good, of course... Far be it for me to imply that Allah is a deceiver, cheater and a liar.

Or does Allah/God kill or at least punish severely any impudent human? In other words, are believers safe from suffering and punishment in Heaven or can they actually suffer the consequences of - for example - arrogance, greed or whatever other vice is punishable in Heaven?

Or are we to believe that sin is impossible in Heaven? This would imply that dead people change as soon as they enter Heaven: they become more chaste, perhaps even perfect. How do they become perfect? Does this involve a lobotomy, or just a threatening welcome-to-Heaven speech from Allah? In that case no punishment is either needed nor possible.

Yet what if there was punishment in Heaven? After all, didn't Lucifer and a few other angel rebels get banished from Christian Heaven? Sure, they were never human to begin with, but still...

Back to the android virgins, once again...

Does Allah reset their vaginas in a special heavenly clinic? This clinic would have to be enormous; I picture thousands and thousands of rows of ex-virgins, like on an enormous conveyor-belt, with their legs spread apart, having special angels reactivate their virginity through some magic trick. They then get sent back to their "jailers"... I mean the "righteous" horny men who can't get enough of bloodied vaginas - because having sex with a virgin is clearly the height of manhood. Or does Allah at least have the decency to send these long-suffering sex-slaves to a spa beforehand, to let them recoup a bit before being sent back to their sexual master and rapist? Either these tireless "rewind-vagina" prostitutes are ultra-nymphomaniacs, in which case they too experience pure bliss, or they suffer the suffering of the damned - in Heaven! That would be so ironic, not to mention unfair...

In fact, Islamic scholars claim that unmarried Islamic women are promised to have their pick of husband in Heaven. But even this presents logic problems: what if her chosen man doesn't want her? I mean, why should he? He's got 777 virgins! And even if he does accept her, where's the guarantee he will ever sexually engage with her - considering how busy he must be shtooping 777 virgins. So this poor woman, who never married hence might be a virgin herself, might wait an eternity to finally get laid.

I kid you not, but the only concrete "reward" that Islam promises women is that they are guaranteed "great beauty", meaning that Islam considers women a bunch of zombies only concerned with their appearance - just as it seems to consider men to be ever-horny sex-maniacs fixated primarily on screwing (young) virgins... 

Speaking of which, I have to assume that these 777 virgins aren't 85 year-old women... In fact, considering the very "liberal" intercourse laws that reign in Islamic countries, many (or maybe even most) women lose their virginity very early, as early as 11 or 12. So are we to understand that Islamic Heaven is full of grown-ass men (who died in their 60s and 70s) molesting 12 year-old girls??? This is more akin to President Biden going for a visit to Epstein's pedo-island than it is some heavenly, righteous place of goodness and high morals... 

Nor do I even understand how come so many young girls end up in Heaven... Do Arab countries have such exorbitant death-rates among adolescents? Unless of course, as I mentioned, all these (very young) virgins are created by Allah for the sole purpose of serving as sex-slaves to the "righteous slaves". Which imams claim they are. But then again, what the hell do imams know...

Either way, what a "Heaven", huh...?

A gift from Pinhead?

This brings me to another (very) troubling question. If some Moslem cultures allow for very early sex (and marriage) with women (i.e. girls), then the typical Moslem man does not necessarily picture an 18 year-old woman as a typical ideal virgin but a 12 year-old girl. If so, does this mean that Allah's sex-androids are all created in the image of little girls? Again, Epstein's secret perverted island seems to be closer to Islamic Heaven than anyone could have possibly ever guessed!

And anyway, just to side-track briefly, if afterlife is so similar to earthly existence (sex, marriage, lust...) then why do we even have the earthly-existence stage in the first place?! Why not just skip it?

This is the biggest question religions have failed to answer: why even have the brief earthly life stage when you can send all souls straight to Heaven (and/or Hell)? Why put everyone through all that misery? To test them? Test them for what? And why? Why not just give them a written test, like a school exam, instead? So much quicker and less torturous...

In fact, hardly anyone - if anyone at all - had ever posed these crucial questions. If Heaven and Hell are eternal then this brief thing we call "life" is entirely meaningless hence easily skippable. And if Heaven and Hell are types of existence too, then they can be considered as life as well, hence life can't be limited to just the Earthly segment. Hence what's so damn special about life on Earth!

The Quran is basically a big fat male fantasy. It is as chauvinist as chauvinism can possibly get. (And yet, western feminists rarely get offended by it... but that's a whole other story... This is discussed elsewhere on the blog.)

What all this boils down to is that Islamic women get a far rougher deal than their male counterparts. Islamic women should form their own "heavenly union", placing pressure on Allah to give them better conditions i.e. more glorious rewards in the afterlife. Islamic women are expected to be even more obsequious to Allah by having far less freedom than men - and yet they receive less rewards than the men. This is extremely absurd and unfair. In fact, this only stops a little short of openly declaring women to be far inferior to men. And not just inferior, but far less important.

So much for Allah loving all his "righteous slaves" equally...

But I discuss (the follies of) equality elsewhere.

 

The hell paradox: 

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-hell-paradox.html

About moderation: 

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2021/03/moderation-lost-art.html

About infinity: 

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-crucial-misconception-about-infinity_30.html

Equality & Racism:

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/09/equality-racism-honest-analysis.html

Female masochism: 

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2021/01/female-masochism.html

Reincarnation: 

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/11/why-reincarnation-makes-zero-sense.html