The Nazi are the Progressive liberals, the progressives are the Nazi.

The Nazi are the Progressive liberals, the progressives are the Nazi. Think about it. Who joins the flotillas? Who supports Pakistan over Israel? Who supports Obama, who supports the Muslims over the Jews? The progressives are fueling the forces that move against the Jews, - that move for Jewish demise. Like the Nazi, the progressives are collectivists - they are blind ideology, masses brainwashed and trained to think the same. Their ends always justified their means. They excuse themselves of all sorts of terrible behavior because they have this notion that they their ideology is superior. They support an evil, divisive scoundrel, and no matter how absurd his actions, they are incapable of seeing any fault - - unwilling to criticize. Obama has been the worst President ever, and they all just doubled down: what won't they support from this man? How far into hell will they follow him, and their collective insanity? Progressives are the Nazi.

Scoundrel of the week award: Mike Malloy

Disgusting, Jackass, leftist, bastard of the week award: Mike Malloy - gay, Obama enthralled, hate-speaking, old, ugly, underhanded ass hole. Hey Mike, since you have spoken recently on which candidate was better looking, let's talk about your looks. Have you ever in your life trimmed your eyebrows? Are you 200 years old or just a life long chain smoker and alcoholic? Have a heart attack already you scoundrel. +Mike Malloy

Okay, I must change channels. watching MSNBC people "debate" business strategy and employment philosophy, is like watching fish discuss Algebra. Not one point is on point, and all are based on some unsupported, inaccurate, premise or supposition. Can we have actors stick to acting, CEO's stick to business, and Leftist personalities stick to comedy? Thanks

I know

Hey, I realize I'm very inconvenient for you all and people like Obama. A person so straight forward and honest, who also possesses such formidable intelligence and irrefutable education, is bound to be a thorn in the ass of most anyone who's doing wrong and wishing to manipulate the perceptions of others about it. But, too bad. With me, your smarmy, leftist argument tricks and handbook-semantical gotchas are like baby-coos.

Obama, whatever religion, is a Jew hater, terrorist sympathizer; a scoundrel with the temerity to fain the least pro-Israel support - out the side of his mouth - that he can get away with, while thinking people so stupid, that they'll not perceive the presence and nature of his obvious, actual, support for the Muslim terrorists involved in this current conflict. (as if his allegiance as a whole, is not transparent, where Obama identifies with the whole of Islam over Israel.

Authentic intentions are followed, not promised. Real action is done not recounted; Honest men do, not say.

I don't care how many adoring zombies are bamboozled, nor how many degrees of slick Obama and you like him employ, I know it is bullshit; I know Obama is a liar and disgrace. And, I know you are a fool if you don't see the same.

100% responsible for these tragic deaths to Americans

IMPORTANT, please listen, because MSNBC, moveon.org .. and the like, are not telling the true story - if anything at all. Benghazi, look it up. Obama was warned in advance, then watched for 9 hours while American Ambassador, CIA agents, and seals were slaughtered - picked off one by one. Obama deflected every request by those wanting to help - they were told to stand down. Obama is 100% responsible for these tragic deaths to Americans. And now, Obama continues to 100% lie and deceive the American people. WTF - if you are still planning to vote for this bastard who lets heroes unnecessarily die, you need to pull your head out of your ass, ASAP!

 

 

You DEMOCRATs are the Nazi of the day and Obama is your HITLER.

I'm watching a film of the Third Reich's 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally. I feel like I'm watching Obama speak to a massive crowd of you blind, screaming, adoring, idiots. The similarities are spooky.

They too are celebrating socialism and rallying, irrationally, around a bad man. They too are speaking of all the people being put to work on "roads," and "bridges" and massive-group, workers initiatives. Hitler too is spouting off about every-German-man's equal opportunity and liberty - - while, the common man's glory and opportunity he speaks of, is not grander than glorified labor, performed anonymously within a mass of other happy slaves, "equally and with a fare shot," doing the bidding of elitist, government controllers, enjoying a far different reality. Yes, you must face the fact that you are a traitor, a wrong doer, and an idiot. All of you still supporting this dangerous, dishonest Obama regime, will never live down another Obama vote. I will forever, upon meeting anyone who voted yet the second time for this swine, think them an utter disgrace.

The Beginning of the End of Free Speech.

Obama, and you Democrats, you mother fucking traitors. Perp-walk and arrest the Film maker? Really? Who's next to be dragged to the Gulag for speech the left doesn't approve of? What liberty will you trample on next, Democrats, to appease your, "Chimping-out," soulless, Muslim radicals?

.... and, here you are, you liberals are silent. This isn't about a video. This is about a man handcuffed & dragged out, to produce footage to appease the Muslims. This is the beginning of the end of free speech. You Democrats really are a stupid as you are traitorous.

Taxation, Redistribution, Random Luck and Free Will

I think the Democrat tax and redistribution argument takes for granted some facts of nature.

I hear Democrats talk as if there was some deliberate handing out of jobs, salaries and bank accounts at the beginning, leaving some of us more favored by this distribution process and others unfairly, arbitrarily, dealt worse hands. If this were the case, of course it would only be fair to evenly redistribute the handouts and give everyone an equal portion. *But, obviously, this premiss is not reality.

Nobody is controlling nor can control random luck or spontaneous bad fortune. No government and no policy is going to equalize the random luck factor. So, taking luck out of the debate - as it cannot be changed, what's left?

What's left is a man's evidence, his container for the precipitate sum of his free will exercised throughout his life. There are other ways account for free will, like creating art, collecting friends or popularity.... perhaps gaining some titles or reaching certain office... yet income and wealth is our society's primary means of gauging the effectiveness of our decisions and verifying that freedom and free will mean anything... affect anything.

By redistributing peoples wealth, a symbol that is individual to their actions and good fortune, you remove the power, specialness, and transcendent nature of the individual spirit. And, ironically, you end up removing the one element of equality that every man can own.

It's not that redistributing everybody's money to everyone equally just threatens our freedom to live, it renders freedom irrelevant.

Democrats, Do What's Right.

Dear Obama Please Stop Making Excuses

Grab and Share

Clueless Celebrity of the day Award: Scarlett Johansson

+Scarlett Johansson, You should stick to acting and self nude photography. Is it wise for one so young and naive to try lead and push activism:? And, with you Scarlett, there's the usual disgusting amount of hypocrisy that we see coming from many of your limousine liberal, Hollywood friends. Why do you do propaganda for a party that has so begrudgingly supported Israel? Being an actor, why can't you see the lying that the leaders of your party do?

May I suggest that perhaps the problem isn't that some have had too little opportunity - maybe the problem is that people like you have had too much opportunity and too much luck - too quick-and-easy of a climb to the top? (Manhattan schools, producer mommy, etc. etc.)

So, because you have got so much so easily, you and the other lucky, Celebrity-hypocrites like you, feel guilty. This is understandable. But, what is unacceptable, is that you selfishly try to get rid of the guilt and do damage in the process. Why can't you stomach the guilt, considerate some payment for all the luck you've had, enjoy your fame and shut the fuck up unless you know what you are talking about. You celebrities must stop making the rest of us suffer for your good fortune and misdirected guilt.

I think you should take more time to know who and what you are representing before you jump in and end up selling lies for bad people - like you've just done again at the Democrat Convention.

Obama is Not American

Grab and Share Dear Americans

Step it Up or Die

Think about the best teachers, coaches and bosses you have had. The greatest of mine, have been those that demanded of me more than I thought I could do. Obama doesn't have this quality yet. Perhaps not enough experience, or, perhaps he never was on any sports teams - whatever the case, Obama has not acquired the critical leadership skill of leading people up, and the wisdom to know how important that is.

Our founders had to step it up or die, so our country became strong. Human beings by nature will rise to challenge to great degrees. Whatever his wish is, Obama is managing a decline of America through the process of low expectations. When you raise the welfare minimum wage, people will step up and do what they have to do. When you provide healthcare, food, and everything else, people won't step up. As a great leader, your must lead! Lead upwards that is.

So, we all must put aside our personal feelings about Obama, and be wise enough to know that feelings and policy arguments won't keep this country great. Generosity is not generous it if causes the recipient to be less not more. The generous and essential thing we need, is a leader that believes we are better. So, despite the feelings and hopes, you must vote America in Romney so that this managed decline will stop. Without strength, we all fail.

No, you are thinking of monarchies and dictatorships. It's no wonder because this is what Obama wants. The beauty of Capitalism, unlike other systems, is that one person's success doesn't take "pie" away from anyone else. In fact, it produces more pie. Look at the past 200 years. More progress and pie than throughout all time in the world. Obama is blind and mistaken, that he can't see this OBVIOUS proof; proof that only when a dictator like Obama regulates pie consumption, does a limited amount of pie exist. Liar obama (or stupid Obama) is rationing pie from everybody, while lying and getting people to believe he is fighting for more pie for all.

The One Percent

It not evil to reach the upper class. It is evil to prevent people from doing the same. Obama is all about doing just that. The 1 percent aren't treading on you or I. You unlikely be able to name one way in which they are harming you. The legislation is what's treading. Obama is what's treading. Just look at reality - Obama is giving billions in capital to his 1% friends. He's attacking middle class white people. The one percent bullshit is 100% deception and distraction.

Obama Please Stop

Joe Biden - What a Disgrace

The Sad Truth

grab-n-share

Grab and Share

Unfortunately +Lawrence O'donnell of MSNBC, I can't say the same....

Unfortunately +Lawrence O'donnell of MSNBC, I can't say the same about you.. (as I said in the case of Rachel Maddow last post. No Lawrence, you're not intelligent nor do I believe you are well meaning. You are utterly "intellectually" dishonest, and I think you're a first class jackass. You are a shameless agent of the wrong side's propaganda, and may history forget about your little hate filled, biased, bullshit ranting, just as fast as it never recognized you as a decent, important person in the first place. Shame on you, Liar.

Dear Rachel Maddow of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show

Dear +Rachel Maddow , you seem to be an intelligent person, and certainly the most likable and well meaning of the MSNBC crew. (competition not so tough). So there is something that stands out as incongruous about you; you leave out information relating to left based dishonesty; giving a pass to monumental degrees of hypocrisy existing on the left, you take most every opportunity, to craft 1/2 of the story, cherry picked information, in a way that seemingly wins the point with logic, that curiously deals a win to your side every time. Your delivery is fantastic, in this "I"m just a victim to the facts" sort of way. Yes Rachel, such a slave to the facts and the truth, that your conclusions favor the will and perspective of your progressives, 100% of the time? It's like playing Monopoly against yourself and winning every time - not very impressive. I don't know why you are so passionately participating in this deceit - and as part of the progressive's mass manipulation of contemporary perception., but I do believe you are a person that wants to be honest. I think with you, there's going to come a point where the preconditioning, or whatever it is, wears off and you realize where the truth is and why it's important. Being such a conscientious person, I suspect it will hit you pretty hard. Don't be too hard on yourself - you can undo some of the damage. Any honesty from you might help to blanket the vast, smoldering patches of reality distortion, you put out there during these less enlightened years. Good luck

Second time winner of lying, sack-of-shit, scoundrel off the day

Second time winner of lying, sack-of-shit, scoundrel off the day: U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz from Florida's 20th district, Democratic party. This woman is so profoundly dishonest, I just had to select her again. 100% partisan. Makes shit up, lies, and when confronted with contradicting evidence, simply doubles down more emphatically on initial lies and unfounded, attack cliches. Debbie, you are a disgrace. You are truly, a disgusting fraud to the nth degree. Shame on you.

Fair lately?

Wow did I make my point today.I posted this text image to imgfave this morning and it was Favorited by many members and quickly made it to the home page as one of the day's most popular. Then, it was just as quickly removed. The point? Gay people and Leftists, incessantly exercise, even push to limits, their freedom to speak. Meanwhile, they have no problem censoring speech that they don't want to hear, or trying to railroad out of business, opponents who speak their own mind. That's fucking bullshit. I don't care who the fuck you are, or how minoritized you may be, if you are a hypocrite, politically correct activist who is not playing fair, your actions need to be condemned. Anyone who tries to silence others, is a peace of shit that should be called out and brought down.

The Choice - Your Choice

The choice isn't merely between differing economic strategies. It is a choice regarding which direction the fabric of culture, freedom and reality shall be woven. It is my believe that with a reality where little to no priority is placed upon truth and honesty, and where clever, ambitious leaders like Obama make it all about perceived truth, Political correctness - making morality more so a matter of ideology and a progressive gaming for policy, we will lose voice and freedom.

We have a government who won't name enemies; rather, whispers them in to replace American opportunities. Have you read the list of all the regime's grants, RFPs, scholarships, endowments, awards, etc? If you have, then you've seen that more opportunity is being extended to non-citizen Muslims residing in Muslim majority countries, than are being offered to white, male, American citizens. These progressives are passionate about an agenda that has been a century in the making; they are racist and eager to force about what they believe is social justice; they feel this to their core, and say and do anything to bring about this agenda. at the expense of anything, including the country's security, well-being, future, and freedoms.

The perfect storm is the Obama alternative. The will of social justice and retribution unto the white male and western, Judeo-christian culture as a whole, combined with the organized dubiousness of the Obama lead progressive machine, is the most profound threat American has seen, and if not stopped, will be its undoing.

Who are these Progressive Democrats? I'll tell you Who and Why right here. read

Evidently, at distant other points in America's history, there may have been redeeming aspects to be found in the Democrat party. I look at the party's rhetoric and policies today, and I cannot find one. With every issue that I can think of, those that drive the Democrat party are taking the exact wrong position. Wrong for America. Wrong for the citizen. Wrong unto reason. I've given a lot of thought to understanding what this hive of collective idiocy is. Why it is, because, the statistics of it blow my mind - that a group or movement, can be wrong 100% of the time, on 100% of the issues they are confronted with.

Answer:

The only explanation. The behavior of the hive is way to statistically improbable, to be accidental - or, "grass roots" as they might wish their motives to be perceived. While I insist that the progressive movement is very deliberate, it is clearly not mono-deliberate.

I see three distinct groups making up the Democrats, more importantly, the Obama supporters. The Democrats are guided most of all, by a collection of elitist, mega-rich, members. This group is evil, dangerously evil, self-deluded, and 100% convinced that they are intrinsically entitled, and solely capable, of governing how the common person will live and behave. How he can live and behave. This group is the pool from which the very top political leadership arise. Not the worker-bee progressives. This is your Al Gore. John Kerry. etc. Barack Obama is not in this category. Dishonest and hypocritical to the core, but all fully sold on themselves. Al Gore and John Kerry don't give a rats ass about you. They don't give a damn about some unknown, third world victim of our screwed up immigration policy. If you have known any genuinely compassionate, caring, wonderful human beings - - any bright stars within humanity, then it is abrasively clear, that these Democrat bullshit artists, are not this. These are the most despicable aspect of the party. Their deceitfulness and dishonesty is intentional, voluntary, and truly damnable.

The second slice of the Progressive hive, is very heterogeneous in most ways. These Obama supporters span gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic spheres. Yes, they are in many ways super united. They are politically active, passionate and collaborative. They organize, march, conspire, plan, protest, create foundations and official like organizations - most of which strive to create an academic-like public image while all being falsely non-partisan. The Democrats have figured out one very important thing that has drastically contributed to their success. They figured out that very few of their ideas and agenda-plans succeed, if the public knows exactly what they are. They've learned that if the agenda is to achieve victories and succeed, it must be Trojan horsed in, smoke screened behind an elaborate veil of perceptual manipulation, intellectual dishonesty, semantic trickery, false indignation, and meticulously administered, political correctness. Why? How? The glue that unites this slice; the reason so many diverse people put forth so much effort to slime their agendas through is too simple. Hatred and resentment of the White Western Male. This is a glue that can connect all types of people all over the world. This is why you'll see Democrats defending Muslims who wish to build a victory mosque at ground zero. This is why they can sabotage the national defense (and other white male dominated institutions) with such comfort. This is why they don't care that Obama killed NASA. This is why they appear so obnoxiously unconcerned that the country is close to imploding into bankruptcy. This is why they support evil, greedy, rapists like Al Gore. In the back of the warped and bitter mind of your typical Democrat, is the short sighted mission to support anything that they believe will bring the white male down; and they develop the dangerous and naive expectation that if they bring the American white guys down, the world will be better; and thus ultimately, it is the right thing to do. This is where they are coming from and the construct upon which the Democrat's sense of moral superiority is justified and supported. This is what enables a Democrat to have no doubt that they hold the moral high ground, while in reality, they take the most unreasonable, immoral, wrong positions. Everything to the Democrat is justified by an "ends support the means," type of thinking - down to the very bitter core that drives their behavior.

3rd slice to be continued...

Birther whatever, just Let out the Facts

Dear Liberal friends: look, I realize you have a lot of affection for Obama. Fine by me, good for you, I don't care: I do care greatly if a giant fraud is being committed, right from the top, and out in the open with the help of those many of you who are doing all you can to block discovery of the facts. Nobody is forcing you to agree with any premiss; however, you must allow those that want to know 100% of the truth, to pursue the information. Imagine if it is true, and Obama is not an American citizen; and, further more, out right lied, forged, and falsified on a grand scale: do you really want to have been one who conspired against America in all this? Is it really right for you to shout down, attack, smear, or do anything you can to prevent people from simply reviewing the information - the truth? .. Speaking of information, this is an article about Sheriff Joe's team that found very convincing evidence pointing to a Kenya birthplace. Also, the article displays yet another piece of authorship where Obama listed himself as Kenya born. http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/arpaio-reacts-to-latest-obama-kenya-connection/ Arpaio reacts to latest Obama-Kenya connection Sheriff Joe says literary brochure 'another little element' of investigation

Filed Under: Visual Descriptions of Lefist Lies and Fraud

Just a short, simple point. Please dear liberals, listen:

Please listen. Obama's proposed tax cuts will generate 8 days worth of spending revenue. It's a sham. He knows it. It is 100% political strategy to get elected. Please, listen to me. Character matters. Obama clearly has placed both politics, and ideology above the well being of America and the citizen. Ask yourself: what would thee world be like if everybody just said whatever they thought would get them a win? what if nobody could be trusted? what if everybody was, at all times, attempting to manipulate perceptions to gain a win? Do a tiny amount of research and you'll see it is true. The tax debate, the class warfare - - people, it is bullshit. It is an argument over an amount equal to 8 days of funding. It doesn't even require that you believe that it is horrible policy and won't result in recovery. Just open your eyes and you'll see it is a bunch of bullshit, being put forth to manipulate you, by an ambitious ideologue narcissist, who is completely full of shit.

Yes, more definitions to explain Democrats, hoping that one day, any one of them might recognize any morsal of their own folly.

Democrats: those who cling to the same position, like sheep, and who put the success of their party and agenda above the well-being of the country? Those who are ashamed of their own culture and who are so non-magnanimous, as a rule, they are guided by short term ambitions and a sophomoric obsession with winning every argument; for the sake of winning ; satisfying their selfish ideologies so fervently, they don't even see the vulnerabilities and damage brought upon the country, in the wake of their radical, hive-minded, zealousness?

Obama

We are witness to one of history's most underhanded, one of the Country's most subversive, and one of mankind's most dishonest; proudly serving us the most profound, deliberate ineptitude, Obama is the singular curse of the Century.

Dear Traitor Bill Press

How dare you. Get the fuck out of America if you don't like it; very unlikely that you'd be missed. I hope someone beats you close to death and puts your smug ass on a plane to some Islamic country. Just when I thought I'd seen how bereft of character a leftist can be, here comes you .. haplessly shattering all boundaries of low. And as you say such things about America's flag and song, you have the audacity to support the Fairness doctrine? You enjoy the liberty to shit all over the country, revel in it even, ... and what? you just feel it would be more convenient if we could just kind of silence or mute all the other voices; poor traitor Bill, such distractions they must be for you. Incredible. It really must take a particularly profound lack of character and awareness, for one to happen upon such a height of hypocrisy, unintentionally. Bill, you are a hypocrite, a liar, a traitor, and a coward. You epitomize the four worst qualities a person could possibly posses. Your parents must have been so proud. Disgusted and Wishing for everything bad upon you, Dirk

How can the radical left ideas be iradicated?

Indeed. And this goes on today with the progressive left and their "Political Correctness." .. Just a control upon our opinions and behavior. Political correctness no more than the latest strategy to control people. Don't be a sheep liberals. Don't let the progressive leaders continue to control and manipulate you. To speak for you. Break out of the group-think, hive-mind threatening us all. As is repeated over and over, never ending, throughout history and the future, the leftist evil forces of the universe are attempting to control. The strategy this time around is Political Correctness, "Green," and Climate change. Don't let this evilness go on too long, or it will end in millions dying like it always does when the evil left wins.

My List of some things Ass-backwards

• Government agency employees seem to be some of the least competent.
• Government employees now make more than their free market counterparts.
• Government bureaucrats are more isolated and held less accountable than private business management.
• People accept that they must pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for car repairs while they expect to pay a 10 or 20 dollar co-pay for medical treatment and argue over 5 or 10 dollar copay discrepancy in their pharmaceutical charge.
• A professional athlete is compensated hundreds of millions,  as much as 1000 school teachers.
• Professional basketball player Kobe Bryant gets paid $237,000 per basketball game. Surgeons get paid as low as a few hundred per surgical procedure and often get paid zero when an uninsured (and undocumented) person needs the procedure.
• In most States, the US citizen will incur ridiculously large fines for not having proof of insurance or registration with them when stopped by a traffic officer, meanwhile, a non-citizen who has zero documentation let alone auto-related documents, pays  nothing.
• Universities charge 50 to 100k per year and pay six figure salaries to professors that teach a few hours a week. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical drugs are regulated to death and near impossible to bring to market because of the cost to develop a drug product and get it through all the regulation.
• Many will accuse a person of being a bigot if they are opposed to things like the ground zero Mosque, yet, few of these same people protest and complain about others being prevented from, or even killed for, practicing their non-Muslim religion.

Are women responsible ffor Obama's Power because they want to F^&K Him?

 Around 70% of women are Obama supporters. Many seem to be resolute, defensive, passionate supporters at that.Some might argue that these women, even if unconsciously, support Obama so much, because deep down they desire to be fucked by him. 

The female author of the following essay, starts off  here at this "mass desire for Obama" phenomenon,  and explains how it is actually white men, and their small dicks, who are the root cause behind Obamas success. Read on and discover how it comes down to white men,  their small dicks, and Christianity which has systematically breed out of white men, the ability to please a woman.

 

 

"...FEEL IT thrusting in there or KNOW the guy is a waste. His C@(K is CRIPPLED (sexually challenged?) But what IS the issue of the pinky dicked" 

 

What is the issue that "our quarter" makes of the "pinky dick" when we ascribe this genetic deficiency to "honkie." ??? In fact it's no different from honkies making an "issue" out of say "big nosed kike" or "big lipped nigger" or "slant-eyed gook." It's the same thing but "kikes, niggers and gooks" have had to ENDURE it for a long time in this country. What! Is honkie so much a PETUNIA that he can't take his own kind of sh!t when it's shoved back at him? If it was PC to say it about others in xtoid-talk then it's PC to say it in OUR talk. If it's true, it's true and all the so-called surveys that cheat on who is measured aren't going to FOOL WOMEN who have eyes and c*nts that either can FEEL IT thrusting in there or KNOW the guy is a waste. His C@(K is CRIPPLED (sexually challenged?) But what IS the issue of the pinky dicked xtoid? Challenged?  

 

"...due to a kind of Christian UNnatural selection process"  

 

There are volumes of literature written and available on the Inquisition, including graphic details. The one outstanding point to be seen is that, throughout the tortured testimony ELICITED BY white Christian Priests, one gets to find out that demons, or devils, or incubi have HUGE cocks. Not just long, but thick. Ergo, using Christian standards, short and skinny cocks would be holier, gooder, more like the castrate Jesus, more ascetic, more CLEAN AND WHITE. Figure it out. They EXTERMINATED "witches" or rather the prettiest women, boldest women, most free women and they'd likely exterminate their hung-well paramours (sorcerers, coven leaders) as well. These people BRED OUT hung men, and they sure as hell bred out men that could f*ck (thrust well) since such men were judged evil. White Christians (and some Jewish so-called experts) are the ONLY PEOPLE ON EARTH that have literature arguing that women do not orgasm! Now their literature can be seen arguing on whether or not the vaginal (and multiple) orgasm exists. They are PATHETIC, a laughing stock to ALL OTHER races and they damned well KNOW IT; they'd HAVE to know about this.  

The older male-dominated xian literature can be seen. According to this, women are evil, Satan's tools, they are insatiable for sex and only demons with huge thick cocks CAN satisfy them! OK then, WHO WERE those demons? WHICH OTHER RACE??? At least, in Isobel Gowdie's case, the Priest-torturer knew enough to ask her the name of the MAN she had sex with as he knew it was not devil or demon, but was, in fact, a MAN out there in the woods somewhere. Hence, the Black Smith Cult or El Kabus as the saracens of the day knew of it. "The Ram" - not the animal, but a HUNG MALE, a good thruster. So then according to this mode of xian-thinking, only evil women or witches HAD orgasms at all. SURE the C@(K would feel cold and so would the cum. EVER f*ck IN THE WOODS AT NIGHT IN THE COLD? The wetness from the sex act would feel chilly, simple as that. Amusing to find writers trying to explain this anomaly instead of going out in the cold woods and TRYING IT OUT to see what it's about.

 

 "...female frigidity is a degenerative genetic trait..."

 

The later xian-disease had it that women were not ABLE to cum as they were "too virtuous and free of sin." That was the Victorian explanation for the MALE PROBLEM of being unable and unfit to f*ck a woman. Very few women are actually physically,clinically frigid and the also rare nymphomaniacs don't orgasm at all. The problem is with the MEN as is TOO WELL known among ethnics and especially black men as we can see white men going balistic when and if their women TRY OUT one of these (and seldom switch back as the saying goes). The literature on this by men is so in error and so permeating in White Xian society that even in a book by Conway Zirkle ("Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene," trying to talk "real" biology versus his version of Marxist ideas with no intent to even get into the subject of sex save in passing) he errs when he tries to say that female frigidity is a degenerative genetic trait and then compounds his error with a footnote explaining that "many thin gs including puritanism have been used to blame this condition." He further errs when he tried to contrast this defect to nymphomania. I SEE that Dr. Zirkle never met a NORMAL woman - nor did he ever GIVE a woman an orgasm!! (time out to laugh). This alone makes me suspect the rest of what he has to say as equally WARPED and WRONG. These errors are notably NOT FOUND in literature about sex in other cultures

 

"...OH, but we can hear the white xtoids squirming or wailing. Let's see their pathetic excuses: "size doesn't matter?" "the average C@(K is blah blah?" Average for whom?"

Elain Morgan points out that in anonymous studies on white christian females, trying to find out what makes sex better for them is a lost cause. They'd be content to find a way to make sex with their husbands "less disgusting" (sic). (Descent of Woman, in passing, as she babbles mindlessly referring to the sex lives of what are OBVIOUSLY ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY white xian women, she didn't even have to mention WHO the women were.) The Kama Sutra explains graphically about the size issue and points out that a penis too small for a woman is the WORST combination, a disaster. Chinese women are small (that is, they are SHORT inside) and so are their men. Thickness wouldn't matter since babies come out of the hole. This problem doesn't seem to exist among the Chinese, but we all KNOW it exists among whom? WHITE CHISTIANS for sure. And did they breed for this condition? Yes, they surely did. How long will biological nature allow babies to be born to women that get no pleasure? Well: WHICH RACE is desperate to adopt babies, as if they have a fertility problem so vast that they are losing the ability to have the babies? WHITES. NO ONE ELSE. Most white women don't know what a "snapper" is, their muscles are atrophied from lack of use; and their men rarely know what this even feels like as they rarely can GIVE a woman a vaginal orgasm where the muscles in the women would "SNAP" rapidly (more rapidly than any woman would be able to voluntarily move the muscles this way). The woman orgasms and SPRAYS OUT. That's vaginal. Arab, Black, Hindu, E. Slav, Turko-Tatar men all KNOW what this is. R.E.L. Masters wrote on this "vagino-uterine" orgasm that these non-white women tend to have. It's not that these women can have this. ANY WOMAN pretty much can have this. She's got to have a man who has a C@(K ABLE to give her this. Or, in Christian terms, a man hung like a demon! No, not like a "demon;" just NOT hung like a xtoid: skinny, short, pinky-dick. There is even a SONG out "Don't Want No Short Dicked Man," that is how WELL KNOWN this thing is. OH, but we can hear the white xtoids squirming or wailing. Let's see their pathetic excuses: "size doesn't matter?" "the average C@(K is blah blah?" Average for whom? We all hear their experts squirming and we can read this FECES written by M.D.'s galore. We say: UH HUH.... 

 

"...the obsession over the blow job?..."  

And now what is this other thing that afflicts the white christian culture: the obsession over the blow job? Well, it's the desire for a TOOTHED ORIFICE for real. The C@(K would have to be tiny since these freaks want the C@(K to go ALL THE WAY INTO the woman's mouth (chomp chomp) so that she can CLAMP DOWN at the root of it (and BITE the little pecker off leaving a skinny 1-1/2 inch diameter, ragged, raw stump oozing with blood?) Norman Mailer is the ONLY Western writer that I ever saw that hit this obsession on the nail: the KALI complex, he called it. The women surely can't stand doing it (as they say over and over behind the men's backs - I've taped a few of them without their knowing it and let their husbands hear it later ha ha ha we devils sure are homewreckers...). It came out in the Bobbit trial that she hated his C@(K, not him, as "it" was persistently wasted near her face. Porno industry tends to show huge men but then that's for show. Since most MEN like watching t his, they are watching HUNG OTHER-MEN and getting turned on. And again, this kind of stuff sells BIG in xtoid countries whereas most other people tend to get BORED watching it (like watching a person slowly eating a meal - this would only DO something for starving people!). 

 

It has been long known that HYSTERIA results from the frustration of women: witness bulemia and anorexia rampant in the white-xian group of people, not to mention the REPEAT of the medieval witch stories told by these pathetic bitches.  

"It was long a mystery to me, this "legend" about honky-boys" 

 

It was long a mystery to me, this "legend" about honky-boys. I never had contact with any of them. Most men I'd been with and the men women I knew were with (and we, not being shy, often saw each other naked in the home or in a shower) were AT LEAST 8 inches long, AT LEAST. "BIG" was something like 12 inches. Then we also got to see "TOO big." Rasputin would almost be TOO big, Russia's greatest love machine who did a dance on a table with his pants down saying "I'm a BIG man" - Big is Bolshoi or perhaps "Ya Bolshoya" and the Tsar's men hearing this may have thought he meant Bolshevik (same root to the words) - tho they all got to SEE what their wives were fooling around with. Black women have the experience we have and we have also SEEN black men and Hindus and so forth. NONE of them are small. SOFT they are larger than most hard white men! That's pretty pathetic. Ooops, we mean "challenged."  

 

"ONLY demons can give women orgasms!" 

Why bring this up on alt.Satanism? Need anyone even ask? It's SATANISM, that's why. Just WHAT IS Satanism and Witchcraft IN the white xian world? If you can judge what it is from the MAJORITY of books written on it, then it's this: "women FREELY f*cking BIG COCKED MEN in the woods." OK, some feminists might balk, "but MEN wrote those books." Yes, BUT it was certain kinds of men that obviously feared OTHER men and what those OTHER men DID WITH women and who also feared SEXUALLY FREE WOMEN. It is also what those certain men wrote about women's ORGASMS (ONLY demons can give women orgasms!) There is no such thing as a demon. So WHO were the demons? Well, we KNOW who they were: OTHER MEN with NORMAL COCKS. I.e., "demons" ain't no short dicked men.

 

"BOTH were "normal sized" which is to say about 8-9 inches." 

 

The Robin Hood Cult of the Green Man with "the Johnson" and "Smithy" was a BIG C@(K cult. Priapic phallus, HUGE, all fertility oriented. This is not solar phallic cult here at all. Obviously smaller men not as huge as the Ram Men attended such parties. Even the repressive Islamic world KNOWS of this and doesn't deny it. That they sew their women up, veil them and cut off their clitoruses is SICKNESS personified, but they also castrate huge cocked harem male slaves, therefore this is a statement about SLAVERY, not sex per se. Putting rings in the cocks of such huge men was an ancient practice designed to prevent slaves from having offspring. On an anthropology show (PBS) was shown the oldest Egyptian religion of Amun-Ra and Amum was shown - HUGE C@(K - but the C@(K was in proportion to his body. I.e., a man could put BOTH his hands around it when it's hard and then some would still stick out. NOT huge according to our view: NORMAL size is more our experience. Being perplexed about hearing all this negative C@(K information against "honky" I decided to check it out. Well, I checked out the wrong men mistaking them for honkie. SLAVS, two Polish included though they were not Slavs by race but only by language. BOTH were "normal sized" which is to say about 8-9 inches. THICK too, I noticed that. They were thicker than the average I'd seen and thicker than most black guys. Yet talking across culture to white-xian types of women I kept getting other data. So I decided to INTRODUCE some of them to men I knew. None ever saw a C@(K that big. EH? I notice they STAYED with these men and dumped not just the men of their own kind, but ALL THEIR FRIENDS. They all experienced "an orgasm" too. I'm not making this up. Women DO TALK to women especially across culture like this where they KNOW the information is not going to get back in gossip to their own-race clique, and this was during the 1960's 1970's when people were more open.  

"...fear of losing their women," 

 

 

 It's more than too well known that the "family values" crap and all the rest of the honkie xian crap is ALL ABOUT sex and the control of women, fear of losing their women, etc. 

 

"...Feminists are f*cking UP big time and the Lesbians out there are f*cking UP BIG TIME." 

 

This issue has nothing to do with, and SHOULD BE LEFT OUT OF,the "Women's Rights" struggle. Feminists are f*cking UP big time and the Lesbians out there are f*cking UP BIG TIME. First of all, LOTS of Lesbians have vaginal orgasms by using something other than a penis - so the issue is a moot point. Who you have sex with SHOULD BE a moot point. And the religion of the goddess should also be a moot point as it does nothing but DIVIDE the movement and splinter it and cause conflict. SUSPECT ANYONE who CAUSES CONFLICT AND DERAILS the MAIN REAL ISSUE: RIGHTS.  

"Whenever women GET the right to BE WHO THEY ARE and DO WHAT THEY WISH (within the boundaries of our free society) the men act up." 

 

Rights. Read "War Against Women" by M.French. Read "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven" by Ute-Rankin. I.e: CIVIL RIGHTS. Whenever women GET the right to BE WHO THEY ARE and DO WHAT THEY WISH (within the boundaries of our free society) the men act up. Yeah, NO sh!t SHERLOCK! But WHICH men? The Slavic and Turanian people that today make up the Soviets NEVER had a problem with this. During the Tsar they had equality of sexes there and women filled universities as did men. Their issue was over class (not race or gender per se, though the Tsar's family WAS related to the Anglo dynasties and the Slavs and Turanians were clearly ANOTHER RACE in the majority there). When they got their business together they opted for ATHEISM because belief in spooks was irrational foolery for primitive idiots that did nothing but HOLD PEOPLE BACKWARD. They went from agricultural primitives on the level of New Guinea Savages, predatory steppe nomads, and hunter-gatherer ice-dwellers, to LIVING IN SPACE STATIONS in a short while by doing this.  

"Here is the problem with TOO MANY straight feminists. Some asshole asks you out." 

 

Women's rights. DO women have the right to college education? Yes they do, but DO THEY IN FACT? Rape is at an all time high. MEN are doing the raping. Some of these women rather not even press charges due to the sh!t they get dragged thru. Yet they have a right to get an education or work in a job FREE FROM HARRASSMENT and they should DEMAND this, fight for it FOR REAL (like Lenin did! not in word, but IN DEED). A woman has a right to NOT HAVE TO put on a "Satanic Witch" act if she doesn't FEEL LIKE DOING IT. She has a right to be LEFT ALONE. Such an act, used to get something from a man, would not work with black men or Middle Eastern men at all. It wouldn't work with our men either as they might f*ck the woman and then give her nothing or ask HER to pay THEM for their male services (I've seen this happen). Here is the problem with TOO MANY straight feminists. Some asshole asks you out. You DO NOT want to go out with this loser but part of you (due to patriarchal conditioning) feels "oh, wow, he's a MAN and he's paying ATTENTION to me." So the guy PICKS UP (intuition) this ambivilance and keeps pestering. I notice WHICH women get pestered: WIMPS. OH, they THINK they are strong, they really do! They have their "women's rights" and "feminist" speeches all in order, but the fact is these women are AFRAID and some folks can pick up on that. They don't FEEL empowered for real, despite their rhetoric. These women are DEFENSIVE, not strong. But then, what is to be said of a society where doors have to be locked and burglar alarms are a big sell? EVERYONE lives in fear: obviously. We don't need some Stalin to give us "The Terror." We HAVE IT by virtue of a "free" society that LETS criminals run amok. Look again. Men let criminal men run amok so that they (male protectors) will feel needed - BE needed. See "Male Disease" article. You can't walk to a bus without looking over your shoulder lest you be mugged, or robbed, or raped, or worse.  

"have sex with women to be a 'real woman'."

 

As such, defensive women turn other women off when they try to tell them to "worship a goddess" or "change religion" or "have sex with women to be a 'real woman'." As such, really strong and independent types of women TURN AGAINST the feminists since, in our view, such pestering males (or females as WE see it, experience it) can be DEALT WITH by any means necessary (yes, criminal means just don't get caught!) The women's rights issue is not religious and SHOULD NOT BE religious at all, nor is it about sex preferences straight or gay. It should be FOCUSED on one thing: RIGHTS. BEWARE those who derail it!  

When you go to a restaurant or plan to, you usually FIND OUT what's for dinner first - right? Some of us treat sex the same way and FIND OUT what the person likes to DO in bed. Like with the restaurant, if the food is sh!t, you don't go back. If the guy is sh!t, you dump him, simple as that. SIMPLE! 

 

We all know that the drugs are honky's plan to exterminate the blacks. 

 

Second half featured in next post

 

 

Liberal isn't, or wasn't, a bad word.

Its of late, particularly since the 1960's and most so today, the term "liberal" has been hijacked by the leftist pig progressives. Not you the Democrat voting person per say, but the Democrat zealots and politicians who sell you the lie, and poison the meaning of "liberal." Liberalism has been hijacked by ideals that are anything but open minded; anything but color and gender blind; anything but peaceful. Please, dear democrat voters, don't be hijacked by the progressive scoundrels that hijacked what you, and most of us, wish to be: liberal.

What are the American Progressives? Evil. So, what is evil?

What is Evil?

Here are a few points of discussion on the issue:

Evil is a pathological form of rationalization.
How could a person be so demented?
Klippoths Evil may also be enhanced by brain damage.
Recognizing the conscience and saying "so what?" to it.
What bearing does all this have on the repressing of the conscience?
Are people deliberately evil?
The repression of the conscience is a common way to run away from guilt.
Are evil people blind to their evil?
What about people who do evil deliberately?
There are many ways to disown the conscience.
Is everyone with a disowned conscience evil?
Why is disowning your conscience the essence of evil?

*A brief discussion, in order, of each of these introductions above*

Are some people really like this? Are there really people who move from moral judgements to rationales for their judgements? I believe there are. This theory of mine is drawn from observing people I regard as evil. Of course, there is still the fact that I didn't use telepathy to find out what was really making them so weird. So my interpretations of their behavior might be mistaken. So I will bring other facts to bear. The process I have identified with evil people is related to something you learn about in Psychology 101: rationalization. When you rationalize, you are seeking to justify something you've done or want to do in order to get around your belief that it is wrong. For example, you may "borrow" something from someone on the grounds that you need it more than he does. I think we normally think of rationalizing as trying to convince ourselves that we are somehow exceptions to general moral rules. This seems benign compared to what I'm describing as evil. But evil is related.


*Evil is a pathological form of rationalization.*

Evil people rationalize not only by making themselves exceptions to rules. They delude themselves about what is true and conveniently ignore moral principles when it suits them. For example, an evil person will jump at the chance to condemn other people for moral faults but not apply to herself the same principle she has used to condemn others.


How could a person be so demented? What could account for a person being as demented as I imagine the evil person is? It is difficult to fathom. I'll begin by describing circumstances that might make it easier for a person to become evil. One of the hallmarks of the evil person is the tendency to fabricate reality. This is difficult for people who are grounded in the scientific method. But not everyone is grounded in the scientific method. People often base their beliefs on authority, on intuition, on tradition, etc. All over the world, countless people have their beliefs rooted in religion. Let's say you want to do something bad and have no grounding in the scientific method. How might you find justification for what you want to do? You could shop around for an authority who advocates what you want. You could interpret the words of an authority to support what you want. You could search for something the authority has said, which supports what you want. If the authority hasn't always been consistent, this becomes easier. If you use intuition as a guide to truth, it isn't too hard to trick yourself into having intuitions that favor what you want to do. If you believe in God, you can convince yourself that your intuitions come from God, giving yourself a divine sanction for tailor-made intuitions.

Klippoths Evil may also be enhanced by brain damage. Satanists Tani Jantsang and Philip Marsh have described in various articles a sort of brain damaged person they call by the names klippoth, cruxtoid, and xtoid. In her article "Cruxtoids and Brain Damage," Tani Jantsang lists some characteristics of the cruxtoid. Here are some that may be relevant to behaving in an evil manner. 2. Lack awareness of feelings and emotions as DIRECT PERCEPTIONS of bodily states. Feelings and emotions are NOT associated with bodily organs, but exclusively with external objects, words, faces, etc. which evoke them. Feelings and emotions are mere qualifiers in life for them, not REAL THINGS. (Hence when the feelings rule them (as they rule others) they are UNAWARE of it: unconscious mind.)
If someone is unaware of her emotions, her emotions may lead her to make moral judgements without her being aware that this is going on.

5. The body is never used as a yardstick or gauge for knowing and measuring the world. This frame of reference is MISSING in them. Some external reality or idea is used as a ground reference for constructions of the world and reality. (their knowledge is OUTER, never INNER or CARNAL.)


*Without an inner or carnal reference of knowledge, people are less grounded in reality.*

9. Sense of responsibility to the self and others is impaired. (The Devil made me do it; it's the fault of some imaginary conspiracy of people who are NOT IMPAIRED and make well.)

This makes it easier to selectively use moral principles.

10. Inability to orchestrate one's survival at the command of one's own free will. (Hence they seek the HEAD to guide them: fascism, religion, etc. practical Jesus e.g. Hitler, Stalin.)

This impairs their ability to come to moral judgements in the normal way.

11. Inventive of tales with no foundation except one's own FANCY in regard to the self (fantasy, LIES; their selective amnesia as to the deeds they've really done.)

This is getting at the heart of the evil person. The evil person fabricates lies and believes them.

15. A value system exists and can be utilized in abstract terms, but it is unconnected to REAL LIFE situations. Decisions are minimally influenced by past experience (they never learn) and old knowledge. CAPRICE REIGNS. (Civilized "values" -- wear clothes, cut down trees, act polite and stuffy.)

This makes it easier to selectively use moral principles. Evil people will often use moral principles for condemning other people rather than for guiding their own behavior.

18. Defects in reasoning intelligence is only glaringly apparent in the late stages of reasoning close to the points at which their choices and selections are made, responses that affect one's personal and social survival. (Sounds logical, but is illogical as hell; looks like a house, but it is a house turned upside-down with no foundation).

It's easier to rationalize and to convince yourself of lies when you have a defect in your ability to reason.

20. In reasoning, all options are equal, none are value-highlighted over others. Decision making landscape for them is FLAT.

This makes one less inclined to guide her decisions by her moral values.

27. Memory is capricious: it fails where you would expect learning to have occurred, but it succeeds suddenly on a peripheral subject and often in great detail. (Repeat the same errors.)

Capricious memory makes it easier to selectively apply moral principles.

31. They lack and con not construct appropriate theories of other people's minds, or even their own minds. (They never know the EFFECT they have on other people and how other people SEE THEM)


--------------------------------
*An inability to know how others see them makes it difficult for them to evaluate their own behavior,* thus contributing to their selective use of moral principles.

*Are they deliberately like this?* Are evil people deliberately evil, or are they blind to their evil. In answering this question, it is important to understand something of how the mind works. Contrary to Descartes, the mind is not a single stream of conscious thought activity. The mind behaves in a modular fashion. Different tasks are handled by different parts of the mind, and what one part is doing another part might be unaware of. Brain science shows this, and so does my own experience. For example, while having breakfast one day, I brought my glass to my mouth to take a drink of water. While I was doing this, I looked down and noticed my glass wasn't on the table. I started wondering where it was and began looking around for it. All the while my glass was in my hand. This is just one illustration of the modularity of the mind. What's important to bear in mind is that mental activity is modular.


The modular conception of the mind allows us to think of a person as, so to speak, a set of different people, a government, if you will. Decision making is a process that involves different mental modules interacting with each other. There are different ways in which they may interact with each other to make decisions. In healthy decision making, the modules are all listened to and given due consideration. In unhealthy decision making, some of the modules are not listened to. Just like a person who isn't listened to, mental modules will employ tricks and tactics to manipulate the decision making. This is the basis of self-deception. One part of the mind is denied its rightful role in decision making. So it seeks power through dishonest means. It deceives the part of the mind which makes the actual decisions.

One of the distinctive things about the klippoth is the inability assimilate carnal knowledge. Thus in a klippoth, the body, which is as much a part of the mind as the brain is, will engage in all kinds of machinations to secure its part in the decision making process. As one example, Paul of Tarsus, who is perhaps the world's most famous klippoth, complained that his body regularly made him do sinful things that he didn't want to do. Speaking as someone who is not a klippoth, I don't have this same experience. My body does not make me do sinful things I don't want to do.

Getting back to the general principle, unheeded parts of the mind will resort to manipulative tactics to secure their role in decision making. When decision making is healthy, all each part of the mind needs to do is present the facts as it knows them. When decision making becomes unhealthy, a mental module may employ deception to further its agenda. One of the grander deceptions is to pretend to be the voice of a deity. Julian Jaynes talks about this in his book on the bicameral brain. In Charismatic Christian churches today, there is a lot of talk about the Holy Spirit talking to people. With this idea floating around, it becomes easy for an unheeded part of the mind to manipulate the larger mind by pretending to be the Holy Spirit. Thus, part of the mind gets its agenda through through chicanery and deception.


This is the sort of thing that I'm describing as evil. What at one level is seemingly irrational fabrication of facts is at a more basic level simple and straightforward chicanery. If we think of chicanery only in terms of what a person deliberately and consciously decides to do, evil makes no sense. But when we think of separate parts of the mind as autonomous units, evil begins to make sense. In an evil person, one part of the mind is conning another part.

It is obvious how the inner intrigues of the mind account for the fabrication of facts. But what about the selective use of moral principles? Can it account for this? So far all I have mentioned is outright deception. There are other tactics at the disposal of the mental modules. The conscious part of the mind suppresses other parts, and that it why they resort to tactics. Well, they also have the ability to suppress different parts of the mind. For example, they can suppress the conscience, letting it be heard only when it serves their purposes. They can also deceive the conscience, thereby manipulating it into becoming indignant at other people's actions and oblivious to one's own misdeeds.

All of this will be clearer if we postulate a few mental modules and describe interactions between them. Since it is only for the sake of illustration, I won't worry that the classification isn't exactly correct. I will speak of the shadow, the ego, the ego ideal, and the conscience. The ego is the conscious part of the mind. The ego ideal consists of those parts of the mind which the ego recognizes as part of itself. The shadow consists of those parts of the mind that the ego refuses to recognize. The conscience is the part of the mind concerned with right and wrong. It is wholly possible that in some people the conscience belongs to the shadow.

How can this be? How can the conscience be part of the shadow? Wouldn't anyone naturally include the conscience in the ego ideal? No. If we realize that the shadow is just the unrecognized part of oneself, not someone's evil side as the popular imagination has it, we can begin to see how the conscience may become part of the shadow. Christianity teaches us that we are naturally sinful and that our desires are corrupt and ungodly. If a Christian who believes this hears the voice of his conscience, he may assume that it is coming from God rather than from himself. I have come across an idea among Charismatics, and perhaps it is common among other Christians, that God convicts us when we do something wrong. What this means is that God lets us know that we did something bad. This has never happened to me in all my life. God has never convicted me. But my conscience has convicted me from time to time. The voice of God doesn't guide me in my moral decisions, but my conscience does. So I believe that many Christians mistake the voice of their conscience for the voice of God.


What is the consequence of this? What does it matter whether someone thinks his conscience is his conscience or thinks it is God? It matters a great deal. When you recognize that your conscience is part of you, you will take measures to cultivate your moral sensibilities. You will want to know right from wrong. You will want to try to make consistent moral judgements. You will want to cultivate your empathy, and so on. This is all because you recognize the responsibility is yours to make correct moral decisions. But those who mistake the conscience for the voice of God will place the responsibility for making the right decisions squarely on God's shoulders. When I told Carisha that her actions toward me were immoral, she told me that if she were behaving immorally, God would convict her, and she added that God had not convicted her. That is how she morally evaluated her action. She waited for a word from God that she was wrong and received none. She completely shirked her responsibility to judge her actions by the application of moral principles. She shirked her responsibility to use her conscience consciously.

I believe that Carisha's conscience operates unconsciously. It is part of her shadow. As a result, it is poorly developed, and it doesn't guide her actions well. Her ego will listen to her conscience when it supports the ego, for example when it says that she is in the right and someone else is in the wrong. But her conscience is less able to guide her actions. It is not finely honed, and it lacks the strength to make a firm impression on her ego. This describes one way in which someone may use moral principles selectively. A conscience that is in the shadow has a hard time making itself heard. It is more likely to be heard when it has the backing of other parts of the mind.

When the different parts of the shadow are in agreement, the shadow becomes stronger and can more directly control the person. For example, suppose that someone has been repressing pain caused by the actions of someone he loves. Let's say he has also been suppressing his conscience. But after a while he feels not only hurt but wronged. His pain and his moral sensibilities both agree that something has gone wrong. This may lead to outbursts of anger, directed by the shadow, which includes his hurt feelings and his conscience. He may then condemn his love for things he never thought to condemn himself for, even though his conscience should have guided him away from similar behavior.

When it comes down to things, evil and the shadow are related. It is wrong to say that evil is just the promptings of the shadow. There may be good things repressed in the shadow. The shadow may include the conscience, a love of life, the desire to dance, etc. These are not bad things. Evil results when the conscience is put in the shadow. It is not having a shadow that makes someone evil. It is what goes into the shadow that makes a person evil. That is what makes evil people moralistic without being moral.


Recognizing the conscience and saying "so what?" to it.

No conscience What about people without any conscience? Do such people exist? Are they evil? I believe everyone has a conscience. I understand the conscience to be that part of the psyche which evaluates goodness and moral worth. To some extent, everyone evaluates. It is hard for me to even imagine a person who does not evaluate anything. The best example I have is the protagonist of Camus's novel The Stranger. He was fairly indifferent and lackadaisical. He might be an example of someone with no conscience. But he did seem to evidence some conscience. He went for a walk with a friend who, if I recall correctly, was drunk, and he offered to hold onto his gun for safe keeping. This shows concern for his friend, himself, and those around them. Yet when he accidentally shot an arab with the gun, he let himself go to the gallows without even caring what was happening. Anyhow, I believe that a person who lacks a conscience, if such a person exists, will be like Camus's stranger, lackadaisical and uncaring. When someone cares deeply about something, he has a conscience. Consider Dracula, as portrayed in the recent movie Bram Stoker's Dracula. When his wife died, he allied himself with the forces of evil to reunite himself with his wife. This shows the value he placed on his wife. It wasn't lack of a conscience that led him to choose evil. It was his conscience, perhaps an underdeveloped conscience, but a conscience nonetheless, that motivated his choice.

When we accuse someone of having no conscience, I think we mean something other than what I have been describing as a conscience. We will usually think that someone lacks a conscience when she does something so atrocious we think that anybody's conscience would have stopped them. For example, some people probably think that Susan Smith has no conscience, because she did the unthinkable, she deliberately murdered her own children. It is certainly true that most mothers have a conscience that stops them from killing their children even when they are really aggravated with them. That does not mean, however, that Susan Smith lacks a conscience. All it implies is that her conscience, if she has one, is not like the conscience of other mothers.

Consider this. People often accuse others of not having a sense of humor. For example, I once came across the joke, "Socrates' last word: I drank what?" I thought it wasn't funny and said so in some on-line forum. Someone else accused me of having no sense of humor. Now I know that accusation is completely false. I laugh loud and often at various things. The reasoning of my accuser was that I didn't appreciate a joke he found funny, so I must not have a sense of humor. I believe that similar reasoning is employed by people who accuse Susan Smith of having no conscience. Some mother notices that Susan Smith did something she would never do in a million years, so she concludes that Susan Smith has no conscience. This is just bad reasoning, and it sheds no light on what a conscience really is.


It does, however, shed light on a common misunderstanding about the conscience. The misconception is that the conscience always knows right from wrong. The conscience does not always know what it right, and sometimes it is wrong about what is right. For example, a boy who was raised in the Ku Klux Klan might make friends with a black boy and feel pangs of guilt because he doesn't hate him. The pangs of guilt come from his conscience. But his conscience is messed up. Perhaps Susan Smith just has a messed up conscience too.

It must be understood that the conscience is not some mystical barometer of right and wrong. It is the part of the psyche which makes judgements about right and wrong. Whether it makes the right judgements depends in large part on how developed it is. The conscience needs to be trained, educated, and exercised. The conscience can be twisted toward evil, it can be undeveloped or deluded. The conscience can be a very dangerous thing. It can convince people that the evil they do is morally right.

Treating the conscience as an infallible barometer of right and wrong is a way of disowning it. Instead of recognizing the judgements of the conscience as one's own judgements, the person who disowns his conscience in this way mistakes the judgements of his conscience as perceptions of right and wrong. This is the mistake committed by intuitionism. Intuitionist such as Moore thought that they could immediately intuit what is good. But they can't really. What they intuit as good is more or less what they have been brought up to believe is good. For example, Moore's intuition would probably tell him that it is wrong to eat the flesh of dead relatives after they pass away. My intuition certainly has a hard time with this idea. Yet there have been people who think this is a way to honor their dead and whose intuitions tell them that it is wrong to cremate the dead. In our society, we don't find anything wrong with this. This is just to illustrate that our intuitions are informed by what we believe.


*What bearing does all this have on the repressing of the conscience?*

When a person represses his conscience, his conscience may take control of his actions without him realizing that this is going on. That is how the shadow works. Although the things in the shadow are unacknowledged by the ego, they still affect behavior. If the conscience were just an infallible guide to right and wrong, a repressed conscience might still be a good thing. After all, it would make a person do what is right even if he weren't aware of it. But the conscience is not infallible. It is as prone to error as any other faculty of the psyche.

When something is repressed into the shadow, it doesn't grow and mature. It can even deteriorate. So when someone has his conscience in the shadow, he doesn't grow morally. He doesn't becoming better at telling right from wrong. He leaves his conscience undeveloped. So when his conscience takes control of his behavior, it is often to make him do what is wrong. Although it is a conscience, it is an untrained and undeveloped conscience, and it often makes bad decisions as a result.

Furthermore, when the shadow causes some behavior and the ego notices this behavior without knowing what its source is, the ego will often make up a story for itself to believe that somehow justifies the behavior. This is one reason why evil people will make moral judgements first and then come up with reasons for their judgements. What is happening is that an undeveloped conscience in the shadow makes some moral decision for reasons unknown to the ego, then the ego makes up a rationale for the judgement.




*Are people deliberately evil?* Are people deliberately evil? In a sense they are, in a sense they aren't. People are deliberately evil in the sense that there own choices create their shadow. In choosing what to repress, a person is responsible for becoming evil. But what about people who deliberately choose to become evil. I don't mean people who choose to be whatever it is they identify with the word "evil." There are different concepts of evil, and someone choosing to be "evil" might not be choosing to be what I have described as evil. What I mean is deliberately choosing to repress one's conscience. I think that when anyone understands what repression is, he is not going to choose to repress his conscience. Rather, he will try to integrate it into his psyche. However, not everyone understands the ramifications of repression. Some people imagine that repressing something is almost as good as getting rid of it. Thus, someone might choose to repress his conscience because it keeps him from having fun, from getting ahead, or whatever. Because the conscience can get in the way of various desires, people sometimes want to free themselves from the conscience. That is one of the reasons people will drink alcohol for. They want to become uninhibited, free from their conscience. Dr. Jeckyl wanted to free himself from his conscience. People trained to become torturers will take progressive steps to dull their consciences. They will start by hurting animals and move on to humans. So people sometimes actively choose to repress their consciences, which is to become evil

This sort of activity has been referred to as doubling. Doctors who worked in Nazi concentration camps had to repress part of their conscience in order to do their jobs without breaking down or feeling extremely guilty. The doctors developed for themselves a second persona. At home they would be kind and caring and stuff, but at work they would become heartless.


The repression of the conscience is a common way to run away from guilt. Many people are uncomfortable with feeling guilty. Whole religions have arisen to release people from this discomfort. That testifies to how unpleasant guilt is to many people. The proper way to deal with guilt is to use it as a spur to becoming a better person and for doing better next time. This involves accepting the guilt and living with it. But it is usually easier to evade the conscience. Thus people are strongly tempted to evade the conscience, and many people succumb to this temptation. When they do, they take a step closer to being evil or sink further into evil.

For many people, the choice they perceive is not between being good and being evil but between feeling guilty and being evil. Given this choice, it is less surprising that some people choose evil. They are not deliberately evil if this means deliberately choosing evil for its own sake, but they are deliberately evil if this can include choosing evil for the sake of escaping the discomfort of guilt. Bear in mind that most evil people do not think of their choice in these terms. They are focused more on what they are escaping from than on what they are turning to. But they are still turning to evil by their own choice, and that makes them deliberately evil.

Are evil people blind to their evil? Do evil people know that they are evil? I think it is common for evil people to hide from themselves the nature of the choices that made them evil. They are often running away from guilt, and most people who run from guilt imagine, i.e. delude themselves into believing, that they are running away from evil and choosing good. So if you ask the average evil person if he is evil, he will usually say that he is really a good person who regularly avoids immorality. What then are we to make of people who describe themselves as evil? For some people, I think this really is a way of becoming evil. Embracing "evil" may be a way of convincing yourself that you don't really need to feel guilty about anything. This is a way of escaping guilt, and that usually involves repressing the conscience. When that is going on, identifying oneself with evil is a way of becoming evil.




But other people who call themselves evil might be doing something else entirely. For example, identifying yourself as evil may be a way of dis-identifying yourself with a morality you reject. Nietzsche called himself an Immoralist, which is akin to calling yourself evil. But Nietzsche wasn't choosing evil, per se, he was rejecting Christian morality. Some people call themselves Satanists for the same reason. They believe that Christian morality is sick and twisted and reject it in favor of a "Satanic" morality. So calling yourself evil can be a way of dis-identifying yourself with self-described good people you believe are really evil.

Calling yourself evil may also be a way of rebelling or a way to shock people. People might also describe themselves as evil because someone has convinced them are evil, perhaps by making them feel very guilty. If that is the case, such a person is better than an evil person who runs from guilt. Of course, such a person could become evil by running from his guilt.

What about people who do evil deliberately? This may describe people who deliberately choose to do something that is in fact evil. Or it may describe people who deliberately choose what they take to be evil. The first interpretation is easy to deal with. Evil people may convince themselves that some evil is good. People may also just be mistaken about what is good and evil. A scientist who agrees with Descartes that animals are mindless automatons incapable of pain might not be evil, yet he may still choose to cut open live dogs to examine their circulatory system. The second interpretation is what I really want to deal with here. There is an attitude, decried by Ayn Rand and others, that integrity is alright in theory but doesn't work in practice.
I believe all too many people are willing to give up integrity for fame and fortune and other goods. I have a friend who moved to Hollywood after college, but she ended up leaving Hollywood to preserve her integrity. This tells me something about the integrity of the people who remain there. In general, people often find themselves in positions which at some time or other ask them to compromise their integrity. For example, a person might lose his job if he reports something shady going on in his business. Or a person might get a better deal on something if he doesn't ask too many questions about where it is coming from. Even in the supermarket, someone may buy the cheaper carton of eggs without inquiring whether free range chickens laid these eggs. These are all instances in which people may gradually compromise their integrity.

These are all instances of people doing what they know to be wrong or evil. But they also involve rationalizing and self-deception. People generally don't say to themselves, "Yes, I'm doing evil, and I feel good about, damn it!" Rather, they say things to themselves like, "Well, you know, what difference is this going to make in the broad scheme of things? It's not really that bad. It's just a little indiscretion." People will deliberately choose evil to attain other ends, but they will try to minimize to themselves the extent of their evil with platitudes like "Well, we can't be perfect all the time." What this reveals is that people become evil gradually. A good person doesn't wake up one day and say to himself, "I have decided to devote my life to evil, because it will be so much more profitable." Rather, people make tiny little decisions that compromise their integrity, and these decisions gradually repress the conscience further and further. People become evil through a process that is similar to erosion.

So people will deliberately do evil things when they are small enough for people to find some way to rationalize them. But what about bigger things like killing people or destroying people's lives? First of all, the size of an evil is not the only factor that affects a person's ability to minimize to himself its evil. Another factor is distance. When you are distanced from the consequences of your actions, it is easier to imagine to yourself that what you doing is not so bad. For example, if you put a lot of people out of work, destroying the economy of a town, you may feel less guilty about it if you know none of these people. There are also other factors. It may be easier to kill someone if you kill a "nigger," a "gook," or an "injun" instead of a fellow human being. For example, someone may think to himself, "Ah, what I did ain't so bad. He was a Goddamn faggot and nigger any way."

People can choose to do great evil by minimizing to themselves the scope of the evil and then by convincing themselves that it is ok to be a little bit bad. When they do this, they are being dishonest with themselves. So they do evil deliberately but without realizing the enormity of their evil.

People of the Lie My description of an evil person has similarities with Scott Peck's. Is it substantially the same as his? Is Peck's description just another way of describing the same thing, or does he describe something different. We should bear in mind first that I gave two descriptions of an evil person, which in fact coincide with each other. My first description got at the symptoms of evil, and my second got at its essence. The essence of evil is a disowned conscience. A disowned conscience manifests itself in such phenomena as backwards moralizing, the selective use of moral principles, and the fabrication of reality. Peck describes an evil person as someone who refuses to recognize his own sin, his own evil. Is this something that results from a disowned conscience? I believe it can result from a disowned conscience. One of the functions of the conscience is to produce guilt feelings. A person of the lie refuses to own guilt feelings. He disowns his guilt feelings, which means he disowns their source, the conscience. So my description of an evil person matches everyone whom Peck's matches. Does it go the other way too? Is everyone with a disowned conscience a person of the lie. I'm not so sure of this.



*There are many ways to disown the conscience.*
One way is to refuse to acknowledge it. People of the lie do this when it produces guilt feelings. Another way is to imagine that it is something outside of oneself, such as God. If you have a disowned conscience and feel that God condemns you for something you have done, you might feel guilty and not shove aside your guilt. That seems to be something a person of the lie doesn't do. So my understanding of an evil person may be broader than Peck's.

Is everyone with a disowned conscience evil? Is everyone with a disowned conscience really evil? After all, there are many ways for a person to disown his conscience. Some of these ways give the conscience more influence than others. Some even make a god of the conscience. Could someone who treats his conscience as a god really be evil? I say that this is precisely what an evil person is, a person with a disowned conscience. It doesn't matter why or how that conscience is disowned. It is disowning the conscience that makes one evil. What does it mean to disown the conscience? To disown something is to refuse to acknowledge something as one's own. It does not mean to lose something altogether. With regard to physical objects, disowning something may result in its loss. But disowning the conscience never results in its loss. What it results in is the impoverishment, the lessened power, and the stagnation of the conscience. The conscience remains with the person. It is just unacknowledged as one's own.

I grant that the conscience may have more influence over the person if it is mistaken for a god than if it is ignored altogether. But it still remains impoverished. The person who mistakes his conscience for a god neglects his responsibility to cultivate and educate his conscience. Thus his conscience remains primitive, and he follows it unquestioningly. A wise person accepts his conscience as his own, cultivates and educates it, and even questions it. This is good. What the conscience-worshipper does is evil.

*Why is disowning your conscience the essence of evil?*

The Conscientious Nazi There is an example that has been raised against Kant's ethics that may be raised against my theory of evil for different reasons. The example is of a Nazi who employs the categorical imperative to sanction his persecution of Jews. He decides to act on the maxim, "If someone is a Jew, you should persecute him." He is willing to legislate this maxim to everyone. Even if it turns out that he is a Jew, he will favor this maxim. That is how dedicated he is to the Nazi cause. The problem for Kant is that he has used the categorical imperative to justify what is clearly immoral. The problem for my theory is that it seems to illustrate a conscientious man who is evil. I have described an evil person as someone with a disowned conscience. So we may well think that the opposite of an evil person is a conscientious person. That is in fact true in a sense. My response is that the Nazi is not really conscientious. It is true that he is using a moral theory to justify his actions. So it seems that he is letting his conscience guide him instead of doing whatever he wants. But that is not what is going on. If anyone conscientiously examines Kant's ethics, he will find that it comes up short and is not a suitable moral guide. Since the Nazi was guiding his behavior solely on the basis of Kant's ethics, that shows that he did not conscientiously examine Kant's ethics. He just let the categorical imperative substitute for his conscience, which is a way of disowning the conscience.