The Pain of Child Abuse
The preface to this story and argument is that I am aware of my very upsetting stances on taboo topics such as child abuse, and while I justify these stances largely on tactical and empirical standpoints, this anecdote serves to demonstrate my own psychological strife regarding the topic
In my peasanting, I cross paths with many people, and one day, one such woman who I interact with for the sake of business, she confides in me that she was the victim of child sexual abuse. This was brought up, without any questioning or allegations on my part, spoken as an apology, from her perspective in the context of certain statements from the work-authority regarding her behavior, performance, and some things she might have said.
This was clearly a very troubling and painful experience for her, and I would be lying if I said I was not considerably emotionally moved by her story. I find no joy in hearing how a woman, and subsequently, her family, have suffered due to the damage caused by such trauma. I feel extensively, and especially in person, in the presence of another human, with their face and body causing me to experience their emotions via projection unto empathy, I feel extensive amounts of sympathy for humans. I cannot control this.
Despite feeling such sympathy for the woman, despite feeling almost a twinge of delirious hallucinatory guilt for my stances upon child fair use, the experience once again reminded me of the disconnect between by very human meatbag, and a largely dissociated stance of an empirical and dehumanized social, political, and economic ideology. While experiences such as these do contradict my stances in rhetoric, this only serves to evidence that my emotions are irrational in the face of otherwise sound rhetoric.
While my emotions tell me that my rhetoric is wrong, my rhetoric reminds me that my emotions are irrational, and as rhetoric remains the authority above whimsicality such as emotions, I must concede to rhetoric.
Why Support Child Abuse?
The majority of my support of child abuse, even so far as child murder, stems not from a hatred of children, but of a hatred of adults. This hatred is a proxy war upon these adults which I loathe, for many reasons, as evidenced by my canon. Often these adults will worship children, and this creates a situation where attacking that which they love and worship most can inflict the most damage upon those who are and will always remain my enemy. The damage is suffering, in a tit-for-tat retaliation for the suffering I experience at the merciless hands of their militant delusions such as ethics and idealism which I am forced to not only tolerate, but profess, and act as a proponent of, in order to survive as a peasant.
The vague concept of the mob of the everyman is a faceless void when compared to the inescapable reality of a breathing, meaty, peasant before my eyes. Despite this one peasant being able to produce profound movement within me emotionally, I remain aware of the statistical triviality of the peasant, and thought this cannot quell my emotions in the moment, once I am removed from the situation, the emotions fade, and once again rational logic takes hold of my mind.
My justification of the abuse of the children is no different than the justification of any soldier who kills a man in war. These men are the enemies of his people; thus, he can justify his killing of these men. These men are a threat to his own existence; thus, he can justify the killing of these men.
The everyman remains my enemy, and while it is an unconventional war, it remains a war. I am but a meek, unimposing, fairly small, and otherwise powerless human, armed with nothing but ghost-like rhetoric, often taking the forms of screeds rendered illegible due to my fanciful, rambling, and archaic writing style. Despite being so ill-equipped for the task, out of a sense of duty to the species, I remain vigilant in my undertaking of the folly of waging war against an endless sea of feral and ornery beasts, the collective of the everyman.
The odds are not in my favor, but the philosophy of war dictates that as either myself or my enemy will be destroyed by the complications of our disagreements, our disagreements must be resolved through the waging of war, be it conventional or unconventional. As such, we fight to the death. Though I have no arms for anything beyond a battle of wits, so shall it remain a battle to the death.
The everyman is my enemy, his weapons are his own ignorance, his own folly, his delusions, his susceptibility to indoctrination, his usefulness to my enemies, and many other flaws which cause a statistically irrelevant and powerless beast turn into the deadly stampede of mobocracy.
This is a beast which cannot be reasoned with, and those who know how to whisper the tongue of the everyman take full advantage of his capacity to destroy and debilitate anything which he believes is failing to pay sufficient tribute to the divine peasantry, as this indignation will readily spur him into a stampede.
As I have proven to have little ability to shepherd the everyman, he cannot be understood as a potential ally, and instead, remains an enemy combatant. As such, his women, being the munitions factories producing these weaponized beasts, and his children, being the futures of war, remain entirely valid targets in any campaigns against such a beast, which, despite futile, seek to reduce and minimize the destruction of society resulting from the guerilla warfare of the everyman’s indignation.
The secondary intent is an attempt to minimize the yield which he produces his masters, who, blinded and intoxicated by their ability to whisper the tongue of these farm animals, find themselves succumbing to the same animalistic and carnal delusions that cripple the ability of the everyman to be successful in any pursuit beyond that of blighting the system which he exists within.
While I have endless tactics and not a single soldier, this does not change the fact that valid tactics remain valid independent of the necessary means to the execution of such tactics. To cripple the munitions factories of the everyman is to cripple his ability to stampede, and such remains a valid tactic when attempting to quell his unrelenting campaign seeking, despite any allegations or delusions to the contrary, to ultimately destroy civilization and reduce man to a feral post-civilized state.
Fair Use vs. Abuse
The point remains that many arguments I make regarding children are empirical, rational, or otherwise pragmatic to such a degree that I would not consider them abuse. I would not consider things such as selective reproduction, pragmatic education, or child labor to be child abuse because these benefit the children.
I would not consider the conscription of pubescent girls unto motherhood to be abuse because this is the natural course of an animal’s life, and this also benefits the girl by proxy who benefits from the social integrity and economic stability provided by a much healthier and flush workforce in the subsequent generation.
I genuinely make the above arguments out of compassion, understanding that the everyman has little capacity to understand what is in his best interest, as often times his carnal desires and mental insufficiencies blind him from the foresight necessary to cognize and understand his own best interest.
I would however consider things like Satanic Ritual Child Abuse, or “Satanic ritual trans-consensual-sex” to be abusive, and while I do argue in favor of these, perhaps somewhat in jest, I do so, again as a tactical decision to wage war upon that which I cannot justify, which is the current enfeebled and poisoned psychological state of the everyman.
I argue in favor of these things in spite, in malice, as when I look upon the sea of godless whores, sodomites, fetishists, adulterers, and fornicators, and reason argues…
“If such a fate of being abused and exploited as a godless, ignorant, and worthless whore, nothing but obedient chattel of her occult masters, is all that lie before the woman, what harm has truly come from her abuse if not death as a child?
If such a fate as being an unapologetic if not militant proponent and practitioner of sexual deviance is but the fate of a man, is his abuse and death by these means he will come to champion not the serendipitous fulfillment of his ambitions?
Is such a fate simply not accepting the inevitability of the existence of the child?
I look upon the stampede of the everyman, destroying civilization in the name of his own cannibalistic indignation and self-righteous folly, and reason argues…
“For such beasts to inflict such harm upon society, all in the name of the satiation of their own misguided, irrational, and unjustifiable carnal desires and self-righteous delusions, does this not justify their own abuse as children by men and women who can equally as much justify their cannibalization of the child’s future in the name of self-righteous hedonism in accordance with the same allegedly ethical and idealistic tenets the everyman uses to justify his sadistic war of folly waged upon his own society?”
I look upon the farcical apostasy and godlessness of the everyman, I look upon his endless and unrelenting mutilation of morality, I look upon his limitless tolerance, and reason argues…
“Should a man who, in his self-righteousness, subjects the world to such dysfunction and mutilation in the name of tolerance not be equally as much subjected to this same dysfunction and mutilation in the name of tolerance? When you tolerate the heretic, the infidel, the blasphemer, the degenerate, the hedonist, and the vice-stricken… I find there is no way for me to condemn a group of people who are equally as much unjustifiably tolerated as those you force me to tolerate.”
The Child Rapist vs The Propagandist
Those who abuse children are detrimental to society, much like every other group that is so militantly protected by the tolerance brigade. For when the heretic inflicts ten-thousand units of detriment upon society and is celebrated, it becomes irrational to condemn the pedophile who has done nothing more than inflict ten units of detriment upon society.
The irony is that the detriment of things such as militant godlessness and the antagonization of morality inflict far more damage to society than child abuse. For instance, the child rapist may completely destroy the mind of his victim, but when this is just one child, we can consider this the infliction of 10 units of detriment, with 10 units being necessary to render a child dysfunctional to the point of being irredeemable.
However, the tolerated and celebrated godless anti-moralist, the self-righteous humanist, the delusional idealist, each of these people can inflict one unit of detriment upon hundreds, thousands, and millions of people. Even if the victims of these men are empirically less so harmed by the abuse, the damage is so extensive that it becomes profoundly more so unjustifiable than the isolated damage caused by the child rapist since a single child remains statistically inconsequential.
While the child rapist has rendered one child irredeemable, the propagandist has afflicted ten-million men, each now afflicted by one unit of detriment. This causes the same amount of damage to society as one-million child rapes. The one propagandist here, champion of the everyman, has, empirically speaking, caused damage which is equivalent to the rape of one million children, yet he is celebrated, because he damages society in a way that is more modest and less violent than the act of rape.
These godless propagandists place the delusions and dysfunction of the peasantry on a pedestal and instruct them to revolt, these bastards who teach the peasantry that their carnal and animalistic whims, the fear, delusions, and folly of beasts, are superior to empirically justifiable morality. These propagandists are producing a torrent of caustic bullshit which causes the foundations of civilization to be eroded by blind indignation The foundation of civilization remains to this day the standard indoctrination and conditioning of the everyman, because it is upon his back that society is built, and by his faltering that society will crumble.
When these propagandists who erode away at the necessary foundation of society are worshiped as prophets, logic dictates that all men who aggressively erode the foundation of society are equally as much prophets. The peasants justify their own suicide by propaganda because they enjoy the feelings that their own destruction produces, but as the ends are ultimately the destruction of the foundation of civilization, any means to this same end are equally as much valid, for means are irrelevant in the face of ends, as means are ephemeral and ends are permanent or otherwise extensively longevitous.
These propagandists destroying the psychological health and redeemability of the peasants do so the name of short-sighted greed, they do so in order to attain the capital gains amassed when you provide the service of fondling the animalistic balls of the peasants.
While it is true that the everyman will pay you for fondling his balls, for coddling his delusion, for sucking his penis and calling him God, when your work produces only detriment to civilization, this cannot be understood as work anymore than any other form of inflicting detriment upon society, than the peddling of street drugs or electric heroin, regardless of whether or not the everyman will pay you for inflicting this detriment upon his well-being and his future.
Logic dictates that the mutilation of civilization in the name of short-sighted, self-righteous, vice-driven motives or otherwise mutilating society in the name of irrational, non-yielding, subjective motivations is “to be worshiped”, as evidenced by the championing of the propagandist in the media, the worship of the carnally satisfying, fecklessness-coddling “agreeable everyman” in the viral media, and in the uncontestable soapbox of the immutable self-righteousness of the peasants that is social media.
Tolerance: The Favorite Poison of the Everyman
These forces all dictate that the everyman seeks nothing but his own torture at the hands of his own folly, ignorance, wickedness, and self-righteousness. To argue that the tolerance of child abuse, that the tolerance of murder, that the tolerance of every vice under the sun does not improve upon the caliber of service provided by these favorite poisons of the everyman would be a completely baseless argument. The everyman loves tolerance, because it coddles him as he descends into redeemability. Regardless of how depraved the everyman becomes, so long as he is tolerated despite his depravity, he is contented.
The world of complete tolerance of vice is but the next-square of hop-scotch in this world which has so rapidly abandoned morality and embraced every carnal vice which can be mass-produced and consumed thanks to the advancement of technology.
For when the heretic is tolerated, we have come to a world where the adulterer, the fornicator, the sodomite, the rebellious son, the ritual mixer, the devil worshiper, and now today the transvestite genital-mutilating homosexual grooming children are all tolerated and celebrated in the name of “ethics and morality”, there is no capacity to argue that rapists and murderers are equally as much in need of tolerance in accordance with “ethics and morality”.
It is not that I defend the sexual abuse and murder of children on principal, for on principal I defend net yield, and the abuse and murder of a child will generally lower the net yield of the child. While I am forced to defend the abuse or murder of a child when such actions are the way to maximize the net yield of the child, these instances are few and far between, only applying to children with terminal illnesses which cost more to fix than they do to replace, and those with such extensive dysfunction as to be able to provide less yield for society over a life time of work than they will produce when sold or otherwise processed into capital as a child.
I defend the sexual abuse and murder of children because this is what society has taught me is both desired and “correct” in accordance with every godless tenet of heresy and the mutilation or morality that has defined Western culture for the past 500 years. We are riding a train of tolerance that’s going 80 tolerance-miles per decade, and the bad news for society is that drug abuse, the worship of the peasantry, transgenderism, and every other sexual fetish group have already been tolerated and celebrated last decade.
We are in a new decade, and with it comes new tolerance. The old-flavors of tolerance, the drug addict, the divine peasant, the sexual degenerate, they are old news, they are insufficient, and to argue that “tolerating sexual degenerates is sufficient tolerance” has now become a socially regressive point. This is no different than “Tolerating the German and Irish Catholics is sufficient tolerance, thus anyone with a historical social status below that of these people is unworthy of tolerance”
You cannot “stop tolerating” because the second you say “It is acceptable to be intolerant, hateful, and discriminatory towards this group of people”, for instance, child rapists, today one of the most popular scapegoats for the peasant’s two-minute’s-hate; then you are setting a precedent that people can be “worthy of discrimination”, at which point, you have delegitimized the entire “tolerance movement” which argues “discrimination is unjustifiable” because every argument used to antagonize any group for the past 500 years now once again becomes evidence that said group of people is “worthy of discrimination”
The argument “It’s ok to hate these people”, even when applied to people like rapists and murderers, then justifies the hatred of every intolerant person. If you, as the “champion of tolerance” are preaching for the systematic discrimination against a group of people, this is setting a precedent that “If you dislike somebody enough, if somebody causes damage to society, then it becomes justifiable to systematically discriminate against them.”
The fact that “Child rapists cause people to suffer, thus the are bad and worthy of discrimination” sets the precedent for hate and discrimination to once again dominate and delegitimize the tolerance movement. While members of the tolerance movement feel guilt and shame in the face of diversity, thus they tolerate it, the other party, the hate movement, feels hatred and anger when faced with diversity, and these negative feelings are experienced as suffering.
The tolerant man suffers when the diversity is not accommodated, but the hateful man suffers when the diversity is accommodated. The diversity causes the hateful man to suffer, thus his argument “The diversity causes me to suffer, thus the diversity is bad and worthy of discrimination, because this will alleviate my suffering” becomes valid as the tolerant man seeking to accommodate diversity in order to alleviate the suffering caused by the guilt he feels when exposed to diversity. Regardless of the side, both arguments are valid arguments when “somebody seeking to minimize their suffering” justifies an argument.
The tragic irony if that the rhetorical precedent which makes arguments of discrimination valid is that the allegedly tolerant movement uses this exact same stance to condemn people like rapists and murderers. While the tolerant see the suffering caused by diversity as insufficient to justify discrimination, the hateful see the suffering caused by diversity as sufficient to justify discrimination.
This puts the tolerant in an argumentative pickle, because they are trying to simultaneously wield arguments that say “Tolerance is superior to intolerance” and “Intolerance is superior to tolerance”, which is a hypocritical stance that invariably proves that some part of their argument is false. You’ve essentially bet on both red and black in roulette, and clearly, one of the two bets is going to lose.
Given that “Tolerance is superior to tolerance” this will just as much apply to rapists and murderers, and when you say “but I hate those people”, the tolerance brigade, or otherwise the neo-progressives, will say “Suck it up. You’re a bad person if you’re intolerant.”
Given that “Intolerance is superior to tolerance”, then this just as much applies to every other group subjected to historical discrimination, and the tolerance brigade has sacrificed everything they spent hundreds of years working for.
The Two Resolutions to the Tolerance Pickle
The only two valid stances are either complete intolerance of all things and discrimination against all things, or otherwise the complete tolerance of all things and non-discrimination against all things. These are the only two stances which fail to utilize hypocritical conditional logic which is rooted entirely in subjective opinion.
The empirically correct stance is that discrimination is superior to non-discrimination, because when I’m looking through job applications for who wants to be a village doctor, when the one man who applies that is a certified MD is chosen over a literal dog named Sparky whose owner filled out the application for the dog, this is a form of discrimination.
Discrimination is the backbone of society, and this is why when you open a can of green beans, it isn’t filled with raw sewage. This is an act of discrimination to say “Green beans are different than raw sewage, thus they must be segregated in such a way that properly ensures the optimum processing of both green beans and raw sewage by society”.
The fact that green beans and raw sewage are not indiscriminately placed in the same can at all times does nothing but evidence the “separate but equal” argument, because these two very different things need two very different systems in order to ensure the optimum outcome for society in the face of the existence of both of these things.
This is not to say that any humans are green beans or raw sewage, but this is to say that people are invariably different, and the necessary extent of discrimination to ensure an optimized society extends far beyond the savage lines of race, religion, or sex and comes down to an easily limitless set of qualities that define a human, thus determine what the optimum use of the human is, thus the optimum processing of the human from birth to death. Much like how green beans and poultry are processed differently, the differences between each human necessitates a different form of processing for each human.
This system of extensive discrimination is one that I argue in favor of, just as I would prefer that when I see a doctor, I see a doctor, rather than a dog. Discrimination is essential, and while people say “Discrimination based upon so-and-so is wrong.”, this is again false, because statistics invariably prove that the idealistic notion of “human equality” is a farce, and that people are extensively different.
The problem is not that “Racists discriminate too much”, the problem is that racists don’t discriminate enough. You cannot blindly and broadly discriminate, you need to extensively discriminate based upon every possible criterion, because this is how empirical systems work. Each empirical criterion has some influence upon the system within which it exists, and while some have more influence than others, you will be hard pressed to find an empirical criterion that does not influence the system, for if it did not influence the system, it would not be measurable.
Each human needs to be thoroughly discriminated against based upon every characteristic defining the respective human, because this is the only way to ensure that the can of green beans is full of green beans, rather than a mixture of beans, meat, bullets, lab chemicals, paperwork, and every other product that would provide much more value to society if it were treated as the product it truly is, rather than “Presumed to be green beans, because all nouns are green beans, and all green beans are equally as much green beans as any other green beans, and all green beans need to be treated the same, otherwise you’re evil.”
This is the only way to ensure that the man who can only produce value through peasanting isn’t expected to undertake the education of a scribe. This is the only way to ensure that the woman who produces 500x more value through childbearing than she does through menial labor is tasked with the most valuable use of her time.
But again, I digress, and should you seek more understanding of my arguments, many are contained upon this website and in my books. I will remind you once again, that it is purely a matter of tactics within unconventional warfare that I argue in favor of rape and murder, including the rape and murder of children. The everyman is my enemy, and each member of this stampede was once a child, to remove the child from existence is simply to remove a tumor before it metastasizes into something far more deadly.
While I cannot make this argument in the face of the crying peasants, in the face of the victims, for human biology compels me to feel empathy, this in no way changes the validity of my argument. A truth-finding machine would produce this argument, and even though the truth may cause unpleasant emotions, even in myself, these emotions do nothing to change the truth.
I have done enough drugs and suffered through enough psychosis, delusions, and delirium to the point where I understand the necessity of finding and putting faith in truth. When you start to abandon or condemn the truth, this is when you lose touch with reality, and this is when your life falls apart because your decisions are now guided by hallucinations, delusions, delirium, and other justifications which will never bear the fruit you believe they will, because we live in reality. Reality bends only to the truth and will never bend to your subjective experience. Remember that.
Marzipan is doing her part. This article will improve your life, if you let it.