King David

I concede my material is not exact and coherent, but in the broadest scope, this topic has world wide global economy implications as well as the future of our species involved. It's complicated, interwoven and can be difficult to get your point across without stumbling onto something else that requires to have its own discussion. Emotionally disturbed? yes. I realized what was going on where that government and women have undermined male value towards close to nothing without any compensatory equivalents. It would be pretty hard to not be emotionally moved if you do in fact have a pulse. I do agree that women are trying to make the best choices with what is available to them, this is natural. Their choices though, by and large have no acknowledgement for my best interests and women therefore, receive not my loyalty or attention. This is also natural, you catch more bee's with honey than you do with vinegar. The solutions you provide including wearing funny hats, and using backhanded compliments on women do not seem to me to be very substantial. In fact, if it is funny hats alone that is proposed to save you then PUA is the objectification of men and it means there is little that can save you. It is a pity we have become victims in this zero sum game but it is what it is. The real rift is not so much social (I actually get along with many women quite famously) as it is political and cultural. My contention is like that of Stefan's, where the only political and cultural entity capable of creating enough change to make any significant improvements would be that of women themselves; which would amount to a self imposed feminist hair cut. If that is not the mother of all paradoxes (pardon the pun) I don't know what is. KD

You think this crap is new and original? That is almost as ridiculous as literal creationism. The only thing that is new in this game is massive state power and machines that can do everything that families used to have to manage through division of labour, when people actually really depended on people doing things, not just emotionally. Again, speaking for me; I choose to not want women in my life. And, so PUA uses the collective of women's attention to inflate your own identity in a public setting, through a series of ineffectual displays of "alpha", that you are really fighting to liberate these women from there would be harem masters. I think not broesky. KD

"Male identity without the female? What does that even mean?" My point exactly. I didn't say that MGTOW heals the rift, I don't believe anything of the sort. Nor do I care about such things. My concern is simply my self preservation, as anything past this has become demonised by state, workplace, marriage, community and otherwise. It's called being passive aggressive, and it's how to deal with a situation where your identity has been completely nullified. If I cared about the outcome of settling this so called rift more so than my own well being, I might go as far as to go on a hunger strike, but I don't. I would probably starve to death, ironically without anyone noticing anyways. PUA IS the trigger of animalistic harem based mating structures. LOL KD

"A man who does not know how to talk to women is perpetually stuck in childhood" Never mind the thousands of creative and technical geniuses who added to progress over the ages that have never figured out the lizard tongue double speak that women en masse perpetuate daily, and is ever more alienating what otherwise would be ambitious young boys both from the dating scene and the work force. And because, like I was saying before that the entire modern world that exists today is due to men's presence in these fields until now, this is kind of a big deal. This is the typical rhetoric that can be expected from the public. A man's sexual validity, and even identity must be validated by a female, whom by and large have little experience in any real life hard knocks that men will eventually face. MGTOW is not trying to speak to women, we see the futility of trying this. Most women will never acknowledge there ever was a problem let alone reflect on themselves on how to fix a greater societal issue that really has little to do with their immediate needs, or dalliances. PUA is not a healing of the rift. It is engineering a formula to get into a girls pants, through the satiation of a womans desires. Although I'm not entirely opposed to their technique and knowledge, I think that a healing of the rift would start with what a male identity is actually comprised of without the female. If people no longer have social circles and communities to live within as you say "obliterated", then we are most certainly doomed. If you look at anything that relies entirely on itself for everything it needs you must realize how much harder life is alone. Just in saying that you betray naiveté. Community, and thereby social responsibility is the very core of our existence. If you cannot grasp that then you will never understand a woman anyways, or man for that matter. King David

The lack of empathy that Thomas exhibits is the nihilistic archetype that is meant to convey that he takes his sexual persona too lightly to really care about his relationships. The other guy, I forgot his name, takes his sexual persona too seriously to make light of the heavy effect that your sexual persona has on the people in your life. Together they explain the human condition for sexual existentialism, I've not seen the movie but the book is really about all four of them with the two female equivalents and a bowlers hat thrown in for a good time. I didn't find the ending tragic, not in the novel at least. It was a chance occurrence in a infinite possibility universe. Like the girl says at the end, that she thought he must have been happy if he was taking joy rides into the country with his partner at that stage of his life, he just was never any good with mechanics. KD

They shit all over everyone

Check out my post on The Denial of Existential Realities in philosophy KD

"Most of you know this, but for convenience here are the factors I see as contributing to the diminishment of men's value in the modern dating scene:(1) Wide availability of cheap birth control.(2) No fault divorce.(3) Welfare and other such programs.(4) Universal public education, mostly delivered by female teachers prior to high school, which both provides subsidized day care, and conditions boys within a matriarchal environment.(5) Delayed adulthood largely caused by ever escalating state-mandated educational and licensing requirements, as well as the distortion caused by the subsidy of mass higher education (hiring criteria, student debt).(6) Modern feminist ideology largely arising from the replacement of men as providers with the state as provider." Like I said on page 2, machines and mechanization has contributed to this effect as well. If dildo's are the objectification of men, what then of vibrators? The context and scope of this issue includes the economy, and economy is all about decisions. The economy largely has catered to women since mechanization and this has been acceptable because women control the lion's share of the economy, and thereby the lion's share of our societies morals and ethics. This is telling really when you consider how long that blood diamonds have been sought after. Think about toys for example, a hundred years ago toys were reserved for the children of the wealthy and were rare artifacts, Now days they are a veritable billion dollar industry, Never mind smart phones and whatever else. These technologies and economies for the most part undermine the patriarchy and empower women. This is debatable to degrees for sure, but the point is that our economy is no longer focussed on the family unit as the patriarchy has lost its teeth. Consumerism is the name of the feminist game, it is egocentric, and it plays right into the palms of the government and ruling classes. There is a MGTOW web post that points out the matriarchal bubble we live in. Generally anything that women find valuable is a bad investment. Women think that conventional assets like gold, real estate, and consumerist crap are good investments so any of those things are in fact inflated and are terrible investments. Get your prepin gear and diversify, diversify, diversify. King David

I can concede that women are more vulnerable in consequences but certainly not in the field. Todays day and age it is women whom have the leg up(or legs if I was to venture an inappropriate pun) . Boys are basically getting hosed in this department of our upbringing. Which brings me to what I think is more to the issue. That being decision's, it should be the woman's and it should be wise. My opinion is that your sexual behavior is not only central to a large part of your identity, but as well your physical being. Though there are different forms of birth control, anything that is chemical I would think is nothing more than an attack on yourself. The entire reason anyone comes into being is to procreate, Chinese medicine shows that so long as your fertility is intact then most of your health will follow. This is clearly a critical organ, one that should be left to its own devices. It may be unfair, but none the less this must be the case that if a woman is not ready for the consequences, she should learn restraint. Therefore the decision with whomever she pairs with must not be whimsical. There needs to be more onus on responsibility, from a younger age, on both parties. An honest, forthright, and helpful discussion with pubescent children is something that I think is beyond discussion under the current societal paradigm to the detriment of us all. My experience is that people take all this "alpha" behaviour WAY to seriously, which is probably part of the reason this problem will go unchecked in the mainstream and education system. Real alpha is taking care of your shit, not peacocking or whatever else it is those losers do. The tragedy is that their are many/almost all women are at the very least, susceptible to this charade. King David

Holo Cene, if you want to delineate the battle lines you must consider the technological environment we live in today, hypergamy has been around for ever but it was not until wide spread consumerist culture took its grip that the feminist movement began.During the pre-mechanized era the patriarchy was the force behind the moral compass and social responsibilities of communities, whether it was through church, media, government, localities, mafia or otherwise. They were not always right or 100% fair but the focus was always on growth and a future.Like the song in Canada sais "and all thy sons command", which incidentally was just recently lobbied to be changed by feminists to "and all of us command". This is a clear example of the real shift in thinking these days where you are not even talking about the same damn thing. Like I said somewhere else is that it should be natural that any valid authority that governs, does so with the needs of the future in mind. I'm willing to bet it has less to do with who is in power than what the mental state their constituents are geared towards. Do they seek instant gratification, or do they seek to save resources and plan for the future?The patriarchy wasn't about being a cynical old codger, it was about preserving the integrity of the family. They would not have dreamed of wasting money on frivolities and waste because it was not their money to spend. It belonged to the family. When these old guys first saw horseless buggies they were nuisances. Aircraft were for ninnies. Sooner or later though, enough of them got to riding around in a car and soon realized the comforts and benefits. This would become the milestone on which our culture would perform its radical 180 degree change. Reluctantly at first, added expenses like fuel and maintenance could be justified by increased productivity, but as the Joneses started ramping up their haul, the Jones boys started garnering everybody's daughters attention and naturally as throughout history, what a woman sees she wants. What a woman wants she gets (large generalization I know but bare with me). This was an important change, as one day it would give licence to burning bras. Even after this shift in values occurred you could not immediately turn a culture over from solely focussing your families and nations efforts towards the future, this was the very core of society, psychology, and biology. It would not really change from that perspective after this for another two whole generations.Those two generations were the ones that went to Europe to take care of ruling class business. As well keep in mind that at least in WW2, 97% of service men and women were not front line regulars (I can't say for WW1 cause I don't know the stat but is likely similar), the other 3% were the men that either came home irrevocably damaged and disenfranchised, or stayed in Europe forever more. All those people were exposed to highly advanced technology, state propaganda, heroism and big government through some very trying years, yet they were never forced to comprehend the horrors that wild ideological politics and government are capable of producing. All this mechanization became normal, convenient and much more accessible to the general public which was now primed to overthrow the 10 000 some years of beta providing forward thinking, patriarchal dominated culture (most of which can really be associated with the bible). Biological compulsions could now be denied in favor of some Elvis twerking and hamburger gobbling to satiate some immediate dalliances.So, let me ask you this, now that we have opened Pandora's Box just how does any of you propose to fix a problem in a world of 8 b people, each with unique values, morals, priorities, and entitlements to shift their thinking away from immediate jerkoff gratification in favor of a more honorable, stoicism of managing technological implements that are unique to the human race, for the betterment of the future generations. Frig, a lot of people cannot even afford to have children these days, why the hell would they care about future generations? It is not a co-incidence that feminism occurred when it did, they saw a chance to cede power and organized a wildly successful political coupe. Nancy Astor politically ruined Churchill in a matter of months after he had personally contributed to more successes between the two wars than anybody else in the world. She wasn't even British! To put this all in perspective, just consider how different mankind is from our fellow earth organisms. The bible, and other cultural implements in regards to the Sumerians, and Chinese, occurred as a response to the need for a new human psychology that focussed on individual family units rather than feral packs of mobile sex machine apes. The proof that this experiment in agricultural derived social engineering was successful is a testament to the diversity and intelligence of life, it is a testament to the value and righteousness of the bible, and a testament to the stead fast commitment of men to their families throughout the ages, beta men albeit. Our society and culture is fractured, the way that all of natures glorious herds have historically dealt with fractures is through violence (my euphemism for this is "aligning political will"), splintering, or simple total destruction. Quite a pickle=>me MGTOW King David

Righhht, just like how gay men don't pass on their genes and now we have no gay men, good one.

I could see some personal liabilities associated with his public persona. Fame, at least it seems to me would be hell (I've even deleted my facebook account). Especially with the contrarian views he advocates as well and criticisms of the media and government. All the more to applaud in his righteous crusade to enlighten our dumbasses I guess, Tip of the hat Mr. Molyneux! King David

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-buzz/florida-woman-pays-11-075-44-tax-bill-170811673.html This really cracked me up...classic KD

My apologies, here is the piece in question that should have been the focal point of my original post, I was reaching out to see if someone else had encountered the work and could relate to the philosophy. "Captured by the Germans during the Second World War, he was placed in a camp together with a group of British officers. They shared a latrine. Stalin’s son habitually left a foul mess. The British officers resented having their latrine smeared with shit, even if it was the shit of the son of the most powerful man in the world. They brought the matter to his attention. He took offence. They brought it to his attention again and again, and tried to make him clean the latrine. He raged, argued and fought. Finally, he demanded a hearing with the camp commander. He wanted the commander to act as arbiter. But the arrogant German refused to talk about shit. Stalin’s son could not stand the humiliation. Crying out to heaven in the most terrifying of Russian curses, he took a running jump into the electrified barbed-wire fence that surrounded the camp. He hit the target, His body, which would never again make a mess of the Britishers’ latrine, was pinned to the wire."(Milan Kundera – The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1984) I was thinking that the philosophy transcends the piece and this phenomenon relates to the perceived necessity of mafia, and governments (in that order). You talk about the removal of waste like it is a rational conscious decision, it is not. You also think that it should be the concern of society and government provide this service, why? If I created waste and hired my neighbor to dispose of it with a shovel, I would suspect that he should charge me dearly for the service, because like you say "The smell is unpleasant to the vast majority of rational individuals on this planet." Now if some organization, say the mafia approaches me and offers me the service at reduced rate, simply because they don't think that my waste smells that bad, then what does that say about that organization? Firstly, I applaud the reduced fee's, secondly, I psychologically relate to the organization as they are now pumping my tires to make it seem less of a burden to take care of my shit. Fast forward a couple thousand years, throw in a couple modern conveniences and what are you looking at? Modern government is nothing more than a glorified Mafioso turd gobbler, with fringe benefits of military industrial complex, and fiat currency. "It would seem that nature, which has so wisely ordered the organs of our body for our happiness, has also given us pride to spare us the mortifications of knowing our imperfections" -Fancois VI Duc De La Rochefoucauld King David

It was war itself that created Hitler . It was war itself that created the Red Communist Revolution that created fanatical anti-Semitism in Germany. The allies never scorned Stalin for committing genocide on his own people, it was merely convenient for them to exploit Hitler's genocide in the media, Canada, and USA had internment camps of their own. The common thread with all these atrocities is that they were committed by governments. They cannot, and will not ever behave ethically. What ever you do, do not ever join the army. King David

I hate to call this a review but rather a more detailed discussion about the podcast as I think this subject has wildly important implications. I really loved this podcast but I think it could have related more detail to the financial aspect of ww1, as the implications of this conflict, and the financing of it, especially the final two years of it are nothing short of astounding. Germany began the war with ambitions of a quick victory, which was stemmed at the First Battle of the Marne. England, more or less was implicated in the war by expansionist imperial policy during the late Victorian era. After her husband passed away her generals browbeat her into all kinds of expansion that the UK really could have done without. To add more context to these stories, Otto von Bismarck had been the first autocrat to institute a social security tax that was to be paid out to the elderly after the then ripe old age of 65 yo. Being that most every body in Germany was dead at this age it essentially turned into a cash cow for the ambitious juvenile empire. This tax was essentially what afforded the arms race that led to the war, as most if not all the money collected was actually used to finance the building of the German Imperial Navy, and their fleet of dreadknots. The progression of the war followed the formula of dreadknots + battlefield success = imperial credit. Germany's success in France allowed them to continue with the war. Their success at Tannenburg was what enabled them to attack Verdun. Their success with the Brest-Litovsk Treaty was what enabled Operation Michael, etc. As for the allies, who in general had a much greater naval capacity due to English Imperial primacy, often found credit available to them regardless of the disastrous land campaigns they suffered as they bumbled from one defeat to another. Gallipoli, The Somme, etc. The naval battle of Jutland in 1916 easily could have ended the war if Germany had suffered any significant losses. A good analogy would be that Germany was the short stack in a poker game and had they lost they would no longer have the ante to stay in the game. Ironically, their fleet they refused to expose to pitched combat is to this day still lying on the ocean floor since German disarmament in 1919. So, like Stefan correctly asses in the Myth about World Wars, is that after 1916, European powers were ready to abandon their ambitious pursuit of conquest after two years of ridiculously exhausting and terrible combat, but something changed. Ohh did it ever change. Stefan points out that USA joined the allied war effort despite Woodrow Wilson's election campaign of isolationism. What he could have elaborated on was why. There was the Lusitanea, and there was those poor Belgians, but I would argue that those were not alone enough. What was missing from the pod cast was that there was Jewish and banking financiers, both heavily invested into armaments production and gold. The proof these were forces in the USA public support for the war effort is the promise afforded to the Jewish Zionists that assured them the creation of the State of Israel. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is real. Personally, I have no problem with the creation of Israel, but why on earth would they put it in the middle east where everybody wants to kill them I will never know. Of course besides the text of the Bible I mean. Show me Solomon's Temple and I may believe they have a case for their choice of location. Another relationship worth mentioning here is that of the American media campaign and the influence the Jewish community has had in Hollywood. Coincidence? So naturally, because a bunch of Zionists, and bankers stood to loose their shirts through a war monger campaign, 1916 - 1918 can now be associated with the bloodiest period of all human history until then, eclipsed only by the even bloodier consequences associated with 1916 - 1918, in the Russian Revolution, the rise of the Nazi's, WW2, the immediate collapse of the Ottoman, and Austrian Hungarian Empires, the conscription act which almost tore Canada apart, the eventual Chinese Revolution... I could go on here but I will just leave it with calling it the rise of socialism, enough said. If you have ever looked at a map of the world today and thought "I wonder why ....*", I suggest reading the book Paris 1919. Essential reading for any modern political scientist. King David

His acknowledgement of empirical realities is what distinguishes him as far as I am concerned.

Of course we already live in an an-cap world, that is the only world that is real. Any thing that is perpetrated by the government will have some illusory concept that can justify their validity their purpose. The most obvious example I can think of is the justice system, in were if you to have a son per say, and lets for dramatic sake say that he was murdered. Now, the state will try and provide to you a concept of justice in locking away the perpetrator of this terrible hypothetical crime, or even by gassing the poor devil. The reality is that nothing could ever bring your son back and all that gassing a guy or gal would accomplish is to make it so somebody else is at a loss for their child. The only real justice in this case would be that your son was never murdered in the first place. At least in Leviticus Law, you may be rewarded some oxen for your loss, which in my mind, even in todays age where I would have little use for oxen, they would still be preferable to some sick fantasy by which torturing the perpetrator on the taxpayers (my) dime(s) is meant as compensation and the serving of "Justice". I believe in Kierkegaardian existentialism this would amount to a "for itself" concept of serving justice. "In itself" would be something like your concept of justice ie you still have a son (please correct me if this is wrong). So here is a fun game, pick any government service you want and try and identify the illusory concept they seek to promulgate. Hint: they can't actually keep you safe or healthy. King David

e Did anyone notice the color? To be clear, it is not just men that there is open licence to trash on and mutilate in popular media, in particular it is white anglo men that are constantly in open season. The narrative that it was the white patriarchy that was associated with all the worlds problems until now has been fed down our throats to the point that by association, the "class" of white Anglophone males must be evil and rightly deserve our scorn. Pure ruling class media deflection. This hypocrisy really has gone unchecked to the point where men en masse have just now began to check out of the mainstream. Like I eluded to in some previous content, basically the only class of people that were never part of the ruling elites livestock herd across the entire world, and the all of history was basically white aristocratic women. So naturally because they were afforded this exemption, all the white men in the socialism era must suffer constant denigration, you know, to make up for it. My opinion is that people should have learnt something from how these spoiled white princesses were treated, in that everybody deserves to be treated with such distinction and not be considered disposable, regardless of class. Instead of that, we (white men) have been demonized to the point where it is now common knowledge that it was always the white man "class" that was exempt from disposability and we should naturally relish the opportunity to repent for "our" sins by constantly eating all of this societies shit pails of deflection. I can hardly go out in public without acknowledging this expectation amongst people, and outside my elementary school years this has pretty much been the case. Even then, in Kindergarten I had my face smashed into a Hasbrow miniature castle by one of my female classmates. Now, before you start trying to somehow dismiss this story or deflect blame or whatever, I have no idea what that was about back then as it was quite some time ago and I could have very well instigated the disagreement. I can however verify this story is real, I even know this girl (woman today) and she is very well to do and actually runs the local Buddhist community chapter. The purpose of my recalling it here is to communicate just how young this perception can be taught to children, and how deep this problem permeates. King David

That is assuming the universe is not a closed system

Maybe a little, but some will enter into the dermis layer along with the warm water. Regardless, I was referring to how soap will rinse away my man oil and the emu oil that I condition with. Those two are more valuable and plentiful than the two or three drops of peppermint for my bath that will mostly go down the drain. By the end of the bath I can barely sense the peppermint and assume it bleeds away to vapour and thereby will be introduced into my lungs as well. I will bathe every other day or third day so it is pretty hard to consider myself a diva of waste by conventional metrics. My use of oil and flesh for sustenance is bred from my practice of living, my moral conflict with ending a life whether plant, animal, sentient or otherwise for my personal utilities I would consider as part of the paradoxical nature of intelligence. I try to limit my waste and do not dismiss the action lightly, I fully realize that if I were to spend time with the pig from which my bacon came I would have developed an emotional attachment to it. That is however the cycle of life and could slay the beast myself if it were demanded of me. I eat pig, I shit pig, pig shit grows truffles which nourish the offspring of said pig in a perfect world. If the cycle is broken the piglets no longer get to eat delicious truffles and I not longer get to eat delicious pig (bad example considering my handle, good example in terms of mmmm). Nobody gets out of life alive, when my time comes it will be my turn to give back to nature. King David

I can agree with a lot of what you are saying but want to point out some examples you use for animals are domesticated and bred based on their docile nature. Wild turkey is avian and have been observed to mourn the loss of their brethren. I am never quick to dismiss the intelligence of animals as they operate on different levels of existence. My decision to eat them has more to do with the demands of living than it is on any philosophical basis.

Ya I could see that, which is why it is wise to supplement your hide with all the oil you can muster. Like I said, I think that the heat is part of the equation. Read the Leviticus Law for offerings to the Lord, there are detailed instructions there on how to procure the fat from the sacrifice as well as the protocol on how to perform the offering. Some variations on the theme that would play out something like a fat sauna. I always find the details of bible absolutely astounding. 50 pages about sacrificial laws repeating the same thing about different animals but 600 years living in accordance with the lord gets a passing mention, then he gives up the ghost and that was that. "The fat is for the lord" Another part of the equation that nobody seems to acknowledge that you touch on is oxidation. Oxidation is what other than electricity? The same electricity that is associated with the inner workings of the sun and the earth. The same that is the sum of your entire consciousness, thereby your everything, and the same that dissipates energy at a rate quicker than any other of the predominant universal forces. Electricity is associated with crystals and facilitates the majority of entropic loss on planet earth. Oxygen destroys everything that it comes into contact with yet it powers the coppertop batteries that we refer to as human life. Plants build electric charges through photoelectric absorption and use it to power potential actions that regulate their photo synthesis. Bees and animals alike navigate with magnetic fields and sense potentials, which naturally represent a vital portion of the ecosystem. Human did not invent electricity, we simply observed it and put it to use, albeit much later in time than bees and animals yet we find a way to aggrandize our achievement anyways. Electricity seems to me to be the currency of life, and my speculation is that it is the fat that maintains cellular permeability that allows the ion exchange that facilitates oxidation. Cations are a large molecule and need space to move, a healthy cell is a fatty cell. The bible represents to me the knowledge that can only be attained through a period of trial and error that is on the magnitude of sedimentary and evolutionary processes. In contrast science is by definition a controlled micro observation of localized phenomenon. The mechanics of the universe cannot be appreciated in that manner. I mean if after 300 years of good science all we can come up with is the Higgs Boson? (which still does not explain gravity anyways) I would naturally start looking somewhere else. Remember, science also gave us "The Greenhouse Effect". A bit off topic but I do enjoy this subject. As for showering with soap it is rare. I usually take and Epsom salt bath with essential oils thrown in. Who can afford to waste good oil? King David

LOL, that kid is unreal. Them are the type of kids that make me question the NAP. He's a dominant male Honey Boo Boo. In regards to my fat comment, yes of course too much fat is bad for you. However that is simply in regards to ingestion and taste. My own practice includes daily oiling (or fatting) of my hide. Fat and heat, like the Jews used to do with the Ark of the Covenant, or fat and sunlight as I like to do is THE essential ingredient to maintain the integrity of your skin, which I would argue is the most important organ of your body. This BS about Pro-Active, soap, tea tree and other cutting agents to fix or promote your skin can be easily disproven by the 30 000 some years of human history where oil was revered and liberally applied all over the body. That is all well and anecdotal, but if you actually look biologically at living cells it is of the highest order of functions to create fats to store chemical energy and are even involved in maintaining cellular integrity. You could say that fat is the mechanism by which life reduces entropic decay...in general. If that is not sacred I don't know what is OMG, Katy Perry lied to us! King David

In the phrase denying your waste, I mean to say not acknowledge your basic functions. If you had read the book like you say, you would understand that what I was trying to avoid saying is that Kundera explains Stalin's sons sanitation practices as somewhat lacking. He shit all over the place, the inmates complained and when he could not believe that someone so inferior to him thought he was unsanitary he more or less committed suicide. Philosophically, his ego could not bear the disgrace, and this would be the extreme case where one could "deny oneself". For example if your ego cannot fathom that your body is capable of producing filth and your shit does not stink, you are denying existential realities was what I meant. You choose to avoid the historical substance of the post in that governments and mafia has cohorted to control trash removal throughout human history which is not unimportant to my point. The point is that our inability as a society to recognize as a society that it is our filth that we create is what we all have in common, and because of this denial we cannot assume moral control over our governing bodies that in theory are created by us and meant to serve us. The moral and ethical state of modern governments are a result of our compulsive desire to view the world through rose tinted glasses and to never claim responsibility for the flotsam and jetsam that is associated with living. It's like saying that you are interested in your wellbeing and health but never addressing the state of your stool. So now I got to use all the words I didn't want to have to say, and I'm guessing I lost you from your first read anyways. Smell you later;)