Oh hi. Didn't notice you there.
*Sits down in comfy loveseat and crosses my legs while smoking in my pipe that oddly shoots out bubbles instead of smoke*
So you came to my profile looking for something. Hoping for something. Was it excitement? Entertainment? Something else random so I can make this a third thing-ment? Who knows, but you are here judging and waiting anxiously for this profile to be relevant to your desires. Who am I? What do I do? Why do I feel to need to ask you questions when this is supposed to be answering them?
*Takes a swig of my bubble pipe*
Calm down. There is more. I assure you. There will be an end to this. Whether it is that awkward moment when we wake up together in hot sweaty, lust filled bedsheets. Or it is the moment that we watch Lost and ponder why did it all have to end in a Church(seriously, what the fuck?). Or it is the time when one looks over the other's dying body as they wither away and embrace death's call, but not before they pull the lively one down to hear their last words: "I love you."
*Cue "canned "awwws" from some random PA*
To be honest the last one will most likely not be me. Legends truly never die. Anyways, you seek description. But how can you describe an experience? Am I magnificent or simply too iconoclastic or just fucking awesome like Popeye's Chicken? These words are the tip of the penis of whom I am (and for the feminists aka rational people, if the penis is life, the vagina is simply omniscient).
*Clenches my fist and shakes it towards the heavens*
And I'll be damned if mere words could describe me!
*Realize the rather random and out of place moodswing and composes myself*
I am I, simply put. I hope that this answers your questions...or only makes you wonder more. Regardless of your inquiries, the show must go on!
*Fades to black...and awkward coughing ensues*
*Important note: My clinical depression elevated to Psychotically depressed. So yeah. No relationships.
**Updated note: I am on anti-depressants now! :)
Edit: In lieu of a discussion I had with my roommate about a certain college football player and a certain incident that involved sexual assault, I feel the need for clarification or some sort of catharsis. I'm just going to say it because I need to vent. The fact that a sexual assault victim has been in previous sexual relationship with their alleged sexual assault attacker does not make it less likely that the victim was actually sexually assaulted. A person can have sex with someone 999 times, but once the victim feels that the "1000th time" was not of their willing volition, the "1000th time" is sexual assault and the prior relationship is irrelevant to the circumstance regardless of how tawdry the relationship may have been. It does not excuse sexual assault nor does it make the victim less credible. It has no bearing to the accusation that it was sexual assault. There is a such thing as domestic sexual assault. Sexual assault perpetrators are usually known by the victim or are close friends with the victim. This statement is a response to victim blaming.
Have you ever heard of the Madonna-whore complex? Well, you have now if you haven't and if you have, well yay. If you think the term refers to some pop singer with daddy issues, then this will be a refreshing.
The Madonna-whore complex is another Freudian conundrum about the minds of men. It believes that men either see woman as saints or debased sexual objects. It explains why men cheat, women think men are dogs and switch teams, and I cry a little bit inside. Now, when it comes to all things Freud, it is best to take this with a grain of salt before embracing because Freud was a sexually repressed coke head and none of things that he presented can ever be considered scientific or even empirical(it is redundant of me to even bother saying that last bit). Why is this relevant? Why am I talking about psycho-analytic crap? Why am I still asking questions?
Men with this disorder(let's face it, it is a disorder) desire a partner who has been sexually degraded(whore), but can't bring themselves to love a respected woman(Madonna). They categorize women in two groups: women they admire(Gwen Stacey...I am a raging Spider-man fan) and women that they want to fuck(Black Cat). As you can see or might suspect, a lot of men have this problem. They can't bring themselves to desire what they love, but desire what they don't love. Sad that little boys would rather have the superficial lady that is reminiscent of a barbie doll rather than the soulfulness of Lauryn Hill(then, again, Hill's only vice is evading her taxes).
Does this bother you as it bothers me? That a female is constantly sexualized? That giving them sexual pleasure is seen as surrendering yourself to them and how you perform could justify infidelity in the unconscious male mind?
These boys are simply that: boys who just realize that their peckers can be used for something other than making smiley faces in the sand. They demand reciprocity for their actions simply because they will it. They send you a message and if you don't respond, you're a frigid bitch simply because you aren't interested. Amazing world this patriarchal society is.
What was the point of all this? A mere contrivance.
I'm going to do this just once so pay attention.
Socialism represents the ideology of those who were left behind during the rise of Liberalism. It is the ideology of the labor class. Socialism has a problem with not only liberal(Capitalism for more clarity) ideas, but the effects that liberalism brought. To put a definition on it, it is a system in which private enterprise is abolished and replaced by some form of common ownership of factories, farms, and other productive enterprises. All socialists, whether you are an Utopian, Marxist, Fabian, European Revisionist, Leninist, or Maoist, believe in the eradication of private property and capitalism is an exploitative and unstable system. Do you see Obama doing any of that? Hell, I recall during a debate him saying that he does not believe government is the answer and ardently believes that capitalism is the most productive economic system that ever has been done. But lets get back to socialism and why it is what it is.
During the years that Liberalism(Capitalism if you are confused) and industrialization became predominant, many found a flaw in Liberalism. The likes of Thomas More and Charles Fourier saw mass inequality and instability within the system so in order to fix this, they thought that they could engineer social society to be better without capitalism and private property. They were the Utopian Socialist. The tenets of an Utopian Socialist were:
1. Do not like private property. Believed that it leads to nothing, but exploitation.
2. Emphasized community and solidarity, but to differentiate from Classical Conservatives, who also believed in community, but thought man were inherently unequal, Socialists believed in equality for all.
3. The Nature of man is that we have a social quality in us, and we have solidarity among us. This contrasts the tenets of Classical Conservatism which believes that man was rational, and to be rational is to be acquisitive. Unlike Classical conservatism, Utopian Socialist believe that there is no hierarchy that people confer their sovereignty to for protection from themselves.
4. Utopians wanted to administrate this view through education and disabuse the masses of the ideas of capitalism and liberalism that has been taught. Why they wanted to do this is because Liberalism was and still is the prevailing ideology at the time. People under a system of capitalism are going to be taught that if you work hard enough and find your niche, you too can become Bill Gates(I will to explain this later under Marxism).
4. As I already stated, they believed that they could socially engineer a society to contrast a society under liberalism just to provide an example of how much better Socialism is.
5. They thought Representative Democracy as the advocacy of the elites and were fervent believers of direct Democracy
After the Utopians tried and were laughed out of Europe, a Jewish man known as Marx came along and sought to scientifically prove that Liberalism would fall and Socialism would take it's place eventually. He viewed Utopians as normative, as it ought to be, instead of empirical, as they are. Marx only had 5 different ideas of Marxism.
The first idea was based on Georg Wilson Freidrich Hegel's Dialectical Flow of History(FUCK YOU! I'm not going explain what he is to you. Look him up and read that shit). Hegel and Marx believed that history has an identifiable direction, and a identifiable purpose. In other words, the direction of history was progressional. How is progress achieved is what your ass is asking, right? Well, through conflict. All progress is made through conflicts in terms of contradictions that arise in all things, and ideas. Think about the human state of ideas, will you? There has always been a predominant set of ideas that would always produce it's opposite. You can take any idea and make it a thesis, thus creating it's opposite,it's antithesis. The two will produce a synthesis thus will represent progress. Let's take religion for example. Man used to believe in many Gods which was predominant in most cultures. This was the thesis. Then, they were paganistic views which serves as the antithesis. Through that, monotheism formed through the synthesis of ideas. Here is some visual aid for guidance.
The second idea was more of a differentiation from Hegel. Hegel thought that this progress is done by God in order unveil God's plan or some shit because he(God) acted through the minds of men. Marx, being an atheist thought this was bullshit(Religion is the opiate of the masses, anyone?) and was exponentially more materialistic. However, the quote "Religion is the opiate of the masses" may have to do with religion being the sign of an oppressed people. It is the soul of a soulless world. The heart in a heartless society. Socialism and Communism is by no means, antagonistic towards people who hold dear to religion. Marx believed that the material possessions that we have generate ideas not ideas produce better ideas. Marx believed that in any time period, one can divide the economic base of society and economic superstructure. Now you are probably wondering what exactly are they. No worries, asshole. Ubernegro will instill your punk ass with knowledge because this is really good practice for my exam and I am really nice. There are components of the economic base of society: Means of production and the relations of production. The means of production is essentially the technological know-how of society at the time period. It is how society did things. The relations of production is the social relation in the production process. Marx believed that if he knew who controlled the means of production in any era and who dominated the relations of production, he could tell you who prevailed in the conflict and what the system was at the time. The superstructure of society is essentially anything that justifies the way the society is structure. It could be religion, ideology, government, art, literature, and etc. From this Marx concluded that the driving point of history has been the struggle of social classes. In any given historical era, there will be a conflict between the economic classes, mainly the ones who control the means of production and dominate the relations of production versus the ones who don't control the means of production and are at the lesser end of the relation of production. Again, here is some visual aid.
Through the combination of the two previous ideas, Marx developed his third: Dialectical Materialism He stated that he uncovered the laws of historical development. He claimed that there were 4 stages of historical development. To continue the theme of thesis/antithesis/synthesis, each dialectic era had them. First stage was primitive communism which was nomads/tribes/empire. Second stage was slavery which had empire/barbarism/landed aristocrats. The third was Feudalism which was comprised of landed aristocrats/bourgeoisie(merchants)/bourgeois democracy. The fourth, and what Marx says is the final, is bour. democracy/proletariat/communism. What you should notice here is that the antithesis always prevails and as each stage develops, there is more exploitation. "More exploitative? Isn't that a loaded statement, Ubernegro?" Hold your horses, asshole. I'll explain that too. Marx pointed out why capitalism is unique compared to the other stages of economic development.
1. If one thinks about the economic mode of production, capitalism is constantly revolutionizing production. It always has to keep come up with something new. For example, look at your iphone or whatever. Next year, there will be a newer one and then a newer one in the year after next.
2. Capitalism is the only economic stage the envelopes the world.
3. There are only two classes: Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. Before you go, "there is a middle class and a lower class and an upper middle class," No the fuck there isn't, motherfucker(As you can see, I am becoming more and more irritated the longer I write this). There are people who own the means of production aka the filthy fucking rich versus people who don't own it aka the 99% aka probably everyone you know.
4. The ability of making it to the bourgeoisie is negligible and limited in possibility. Extremely limited. Damn near impossible. Unless you have a certain skill or asset that no one else possesses and is desirable, SOL.
5. It is the only stage of economic development that in which it falls, there is no more majority. When Capitalism collapses, and trust me, it will collapse, there is no more 1%. What else is there after the means of production is shared by everyone?
The fourth idea that Marx postulates is the need for Revolution. The current owners of the means of production isn't just going to bend over, hand the 99% lube, and get fucked in the ass willingly. The prevailing ideology justifies the current system of ordering things. Remember when that Occupy movement started? Did you hear the media say anything positive about them? Didn't think so. Owners of the means of production will use all means at their disposal to maintain current order. Whether it is government, media, art, literature, they will fucking do it. But why violent revolution? Marx could not find a single instance of large scale peace in any transition. War breeds change. There is no progress without conflict, says Marx.
Marx's fifth and final idea was essentially an outline why capitalism will fall. He sums it up as Capitalism having cancer as in it is eating away at itself. Yes, he agreed that capitalism is the most productive system of ordering economic affairs to date, but it is highly unstable. He, again, provided an outline why capitalism has the seeds of it's own demise.
1. The imbalance between production and consumption Under capitalism, the proletariat does not reap the surplus value of their production. In layman's terms, a capitalist will extract most of the money earned from the product made by the worker and the worker would only receive a small amount of it despite being the ones producing the item. A capitalist's goal is to pay the worker high enough to keep them around, but low enough to make sure they have the most to gain.
2. Grave-digger thesis This is the idea that capital will eventually fall into the hands of the few. The ideal capitalist is to expand and in order to expand, they must compete with and take out other rivals. As capitalist continue to gain, those former entrepreneurs are becoming part of the proletariat because they can only contribute their labor. In summary, the 1% is getting smaller while the proletariat is getting larger.
3. Falling rates of profit This the economic phenomenon where as capital accumulates and becomes more abundant, the rate of return declines thereby decreasing the incentive to invest. II don't feel like explaining this right now.
My main point is that Socialism as Marx defines it has never been achieved. What about Soviet Russia, Cuba, or China? Well they were in the feudalistic era and thus skipped capitalism to reach what they call Socialism and thus missed a shit ton of production that capitalism would bring. Socialism is supposed to be the goal for countries that are highly developed and have capitalism.
Just as I don't compromise my ideals to white supremacists, I sure as hell don't expect any feminist regardless of the type(except maybe liberal feminist) to concede any point to you people on your stance of so-called gender equality because man have it rough just like females do. You fucking idiots, do not blame feminism for a system that men created. Oppression don't work both ways. What you probably are describing is class-ism. As much as you conflate the two as being so similar that they are interchangeable, patriarchy is not the same as class-ism. When a woman insults you because you are a cis-male, she insulted the privilege that you have and continue to flaunt in her face because of how willfully ignorant you are that you have it or unwillingness to empathize with their scenario.
And to you assholes that believe that "out of every 3 women, 1 has been sexually assaulted" is a myth, you have a special contempt for women. Because a woman has lied about being sexually assaulted before, does not mean there is no rape culture. When there is a war and the UN does nothing to stop the raping of women because it is expected, there is a culture to it. When a woman reports sexual assault and then the police question and then investigate the victim and don't even fucking bother interviewing the male, there is a culture to it. When a bunch of football players have their way with a woman and then the town covers it up, there is a culture to it. When there is actually fucking legislation that allows more parental rights to rapist than the victim, there is a culture to it.
I have dated women who have been sexually assaulted by men as well as their family. I know how they've been blamed for their being victimized. I have read so many rape cases where cops try their fucking hardest to dissuade the victims from pressing charges that I can literally and accurately predict the outcome before the case even begins...or doesn't even begin. I have seen it with my own eyes. My mom was a victim of domestic abuse in a society that loves to screw with single moms. And from those experiences, I empathize with them. I know victims who would love to tell people that they were able to rise above it and find this inner personal strength. They would love to tell people that they fought off the depression, the horror, and the shock that slapped them in the face. But no, all that they realized that their lives were ruined and they have absolutely no idea why. Not only that, their closest friends could not believe that they did nothing wrong. They refused to believe that they did nothing to somehow deserve this. "Why did you invite him in the room in the first place?" "Why were you even dressed that way?" "If he did it, then why did the cop not proceed with the case?" FUCK YOU! Yes, I am miserably pissed with you people. I can't deal with you not as a man..but as human being.
Men like MRAs are one of the many reasons why I wonder how in the fuck women put up with men or why do they.
And now I just got another disgusting response from an idiot who states that men misread rape or misread the signs. Because of these so-called mishaps, men are innocent. No asshole, you as a male deal with social signs and manage them everyday. You know when to not joke in the office without being told. You know not to watch fucking football on your Iphone during a funeral. I don't see men misreading your boss's actions when they want shit done. I don't see men not being able to navigate other complex social interactions, but somehow you are utterly dumbfounded when it comes to women and whether they consent or not? Get the fuck out of here.
The above quote is something that I am reserving for the novel that I am writing. I ripped it off from Dante's Inferno so yeah.
If you visit me and feel the need to not message and have a high match percentage(above 80%), I will send an extremely positive message to you and give you kudos for being you.
People of color in the internal colonies of the US cannot defend themselves against police brutality or expropriate the means of survival to free themselves from economic servitude. They must wait for enough people of color who have attained more economic privilege (the “house slaves” of Malcolm X’s analysis) and conscientious white people to gather together and hold hands and sing songs. Then, they believe, change will surely come. People in Latin America must suffer patiently, like true martyrs, while white activists in the US “bear witness” and write to Congress. People in Iraq must not fight back. Only if they remain civilians will their deaths be counted and mourned by white peace activists who will, one of these days, muster a protest large enough to stop the war. Indigenous people need to wait just a little longer (say, another 500 years) under the shadow of genocide, slowly dying off on marginal lands, until-well, they’re not a priority right now, so perhaps they need to organize a demonstration or two to win the attention and sympathy of the powerful. Or maybe they could go on strike, engage in Gandhian noncooperation? But wait-a majority of them are already unemployed, noncooperating, fully excluded from the functioning of the system.
Nonviolence declares that the American Indians could have fought off Columbus, George Washington, and all the other genocidal butchers with sit-ins; that Crazy Horse, by using violent resistance, became part of the cycle of violence, and was “as bad as” Custer. Nonviolence declares that Africans could have stopped the slave trade with hunger strikes and petitions, and that those who mutinied were as bad as their captors; that mutiny, a form of violence, led to more violence, and, thus, resistance led to more enslavement. Nonviolence refuses to recognize that it can only work for privileged people, who have a status protected by violence, as the perpetrators and beneficiaries of a violent hierarchy.
Pacifists must know, at least subconsciously, that nonviolence is an absurdly privileged position, so they make frequent usage of race by taking activists of color out of their contexts and selectively using them as spokespersons for nonviolence. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are turned into representatives for all people of color. Nelson Mandela was too, until it dawned on white pacifists that Mandela used nonviolence selectively, and that he actually was involved in liberation activities such as bombings and preparation for armed uprising. Even Gandhi and King agreed it was necessary to support armed liberation movements (citing two examples, those in Palestine and Vietnam, respectively) where there was no nonviolent alternative, clearly prioritizing goals over particular tactics. Butthe mostly white pacifists of today erase this part of the history and re-create nonviolence to fit their comfort level, even while “claiming the mantle” of Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi. One gets the impression that if Martin Luther King Jr. were to come in disguise to one of these pacifist vigils, he would not be allowed to speak. As he pointed out:
“Apart from bigots and backlashers, it seems to be a malady even among those whites who like to regard themselves as “enlightened.” I would especially refer to those who counsel, “Wait!” and to those who say that they sympathize with our goals but cannot condone our methods of direct-action in pursuit of those goals. I wonder at men who dare to feel that they have some paternalistic right to set the timetable for another man’s liberation.
“Over the past several years, I must say, I have been gravely disappointed with such white “moderates.” I am often inclined to think that they are more of a stumbling block to the Negro’s progress than the White Citizen’s Counciler [sic] or the Ku Klux Klanner.””
Nonviolence is Racist, How Nonviolence Protects The State by Peter Gelderloos
If you think Obama is a Socialist, I refer you to the "my favorite books, tv shows, and music" section of my profile and learn what Marxism is. If you read it and still think so or you refuse to even try to know how wrong you are, get the fuck off my page. I can't deal with your willfully ignorant ass.
If you are a liberal(look up Liberalism in terms of John Locke) feminist or a post-modern liberal feminist, I think that you are an oxymoron and thus stifled every critique that the 2nd wave pointed out. Honestly, read bell hooks or understand post-colonial theory and leave that teleological progressive bullshit in the west.
If you think homosexuality(gay, lesbian, queer, bisexuality, inter-sex, and trans) is immoral, you are a closed minded fuck and you should promptly get the fuck off my page.
If you think that there are only two genders, fucks off my page, you delusional tool.
This does not make me intolerant of views differing from my own. I just don't tolerate indignant assholes who taint ideas or involuntary spread hatred due to simply being willfully self-content in your oblivion. I am not your goddamn teacher nor will I be a guide to show you how to be a better person. Yes, I'm an asshole, but I'm at least trying to make the world a better place for forgotten, forlorn, and unrepresented by not acknowledging those who don't acknowledge them.
For people who may be romantically interested in me or are skeptical about my intentions on this site, I am looking for friends. I got out of a five year relationship that was arduous and enduring, but I learned a lot about myself and I appreciate my ex-partner for the experience. Regardless, it ended on somewhat amicable terms and the kids(not biologically mine, but mine in spirit) are okay. Nonetheless, I am happy for her and the kids and I wish her the best. But if you are still interested in pursuing a relationship with me for some reason or you're just masochistic, please realize that after that experience, I am seriously reconsidering this whole monogamy thing because, as it turns out, when I love, I love hard and that sets me up for the inevitable plunge of disappointment and getting annoyed every time a love song reaches my ears. Also, on a sort of profound level, single relationships have a sort of oppressive tone to them
Am not the perfect feminist ally or whatever. I still have to unlearn patterns and behaviors. And while I support the Queer/non-binary/genderfluid movement, I am still a cis-male and I realize that I am still an obstruction in that particular movement.