Wartime

In reaction to a text from onb2017, I get upon the following:

As a Westerner speaking from within the West, I don't really see a unification to stand up against those forces which want to keep the workforce and majority of the population of the world down ever coming so soon.

The reason is the following: Everyone - differing groups - can't even agree on the color of turd.
How do you want to achieve a higher and more complex goal like that, if you can't even manage that triviality?

On the other hand, there is to be considered and has to be admitted: Do I want to work together with feminists, with intersectionalists, with Identity Politics disciples, which want to tell me that the suffering of a woman or a black person is always bigger than mine, if I happen to be a paleface and are not female?
Do I want to work together with people whose primary business every day is first offending me, ridiculing me and telling me that I'm the source of the evil of the world because I have the wrong sex (or want to convert into the wrong sex)?

These people should check out health problems with biological origins... Then they would learn that the problems they refer to - social problems - are solvable, if everyone really wants to, while biological health problems rarely are that solvable that they'll be gone completely. Plus, you can't run away from them, as you carry them with you wherever your go, even to the edge of the world with no other humans around anymore.

What I want to say by this: You stupid fools, obsessing with your social/human problems... Get a life. This will keep both of your hands busy with enough to do.
Even if human-made problems can be quite nasty, evil, violent, brutal and malevolent - still they are solvable (because it "simply" requires human agreement on a common basis and fairness), while problems resulting from bad material, material that cannot be exchanged after developing anymore, often aren't.
This type of problems can hit everyone, regarless of skin color, regarless of sex, regardless of ethnicity or wherever you were born on this planet.
Regardless of what you believe in, prefer or think is right and wrong.

And as long as there are larger groups of people which put their reverse racism and sexism as the top priority on their list instead of recognizing the usefullness in achieving something which everyone benefits from, the road to working together for a particular goal is going to be blocked.
Same for people who subscribed to esoteric nonsense, fucked up conspiracy theories and religious faith, who are hostile to fact-based edcuation and well-established medicine (and/or only accept the "education" and "medicine" which they approve of), who react aggressively if they get put in their place once in their lives - who only put an interest in getting themselves and their kin the best life and the best resources, making their children and grand-children and parents survive and leave everyone else to die.

You can't act together if there is no common ground and if each group is only interested in lobbyism for the social group they want to represent because they think their group is the best of all living creatures and everyone else is unworthy trash.
You can't act together if hate and despise for each other is the greatest point you have in common.
And if those who still want to be fair are being laughed at, silenced and then trampled upon - like, what they want and demand from everyone is totally impossible to achieve, or even "ignorant of all the wrongs being done to group X in history".

At least I find, I can't work together with people brain-washed and self-obesessed like that.
(They only want to change to the other side of the table anyway... That's what the character of their acting and their mindset strongly implies.)

Parts of them you even don't want to be seen with because their stupidity and greed is embarrassing as hell.

...Therefore, even if not wanting to subscribe to all that crap that divides everyone, there is no real way around having to surrender to parts of it because the differing social groups in society are so mutually incompatible with each other (also with your own viewpoints) - it's like wanting to make a lion work together with a type of animal that is its natural prey.

Isn’t it a sharp contradiction?
The same kind of people which told you that sexual preferences are inborn and not voluntarily changeable, so that’s why conversion therapies are nonsense, fraud and (should be) legitimately forbidden everywhere - the same kind of people, on the other hand, wants to make you believe that sex (as “gender”) is fake, is an illusion, something like an inborn mental sex that was already coined before a human’s birth doesn’t exist, and that fake is solely constructed and a product of social indoctrination, therefore can be changed, chosen and adopted at will...

Folks: Either you’re really convinced of Biological Determinism, or you’re all for Behaviorism. Changing the explanation patterns according to whatever would make you look virtuous and brought you into a position of being incontestable by any sane person, is neither going to make you appear serious, nor does it seem factually (and by that: scientifically) consistent.
On the contrary, some attentive people may even smell the rat that you’re trying to serve them - that it’s not about facts or really finding them out, but just about building up an emotional narrative.

A myth that gets spread inside the West at least since Hollywood acquired a decisive international position and since people look up to whatever comes from its dream factory: The myth of the “only one”.
There’s one person out there in this world to be “yours”, to love you, to serve you, to fulfill your wishes, to aim for the same goal like you, to sail through good seas and difficult seas with you not leaving your side, and which will stay with you for the rest of your life, no matter what happens...

As reality started to change, as human life in the Western world became faster and people became more and more focused on consuming, as well as became more and more very individual, changing as personalities a couple of times throughout life, a small deduction from this ideal was made in terms of changing that dream to a “cohabitant”, which just stays for an undefined amount of years by your side, but very probably not for the rest of your whole life. - The slash in the timeline that they call “when people began to divorce more often”.
As well as when same-sex relationships became publicly tolerated and not prosecuted anymore.

But one basic principle throughout all these changes in human relationships remained the same: There’s just one person out there to love you and to be with, not two, three or more.
Just ONE.
One person to be intimate with, one person to be the most deeply emotional with, one person to lie in bed and sleep with. Anything else is associated with “dirt”, with being a slut and dragging shame onto one’s name. Leading relationships with more than one person at the same time also easily gets associated with “you do it with everyone who isn’t quick enough to run away from you”, implying an increased sexual neediness, which is, again, associated with different sorts of judgment over the specific person and its character, such as human poorness, a lack of taking care of oneself, lacking personal pride and self-respect, and disloyalty.

Although meanwhile there are means to prevent diseases from spreading through uncontrolled and carelessly having sex with everyone, and means to prevent a woman from possibly getting a child each time she sleeps with a man (as long as she doesn’t make use of a sex technique that prevents semen from entering her vagina), still this dogma from old times keeps being present. It gets used in marketing and in cultural standards - and at least since more Muslims live in the Western world too and bring their custom along with them that up to 4 wives are allowed within the framework of their religion, the refusal and the non-understanding towards relationships between more than two people of a whatever kind of sexual sort increased by a chunk again because it gets considered “alien” to human nature and “inhuman” in emotional terms - for whatever reason - to live one’s life like this.

But, boiled down to the heart of it - what objectivity lies behind all this?
What non-cultural, non-emotional, non-religious reason is there to keep enforcing that illusion, like it is a God-given truth?
Is there actually any at all?

All that what people link with other than a 2-person-relationship are associations that are being shoveled at them and taught to them ever since they were children. Associations that originate in Jewish/Christian religion, that originate in justified fears of earlier centuries and lack of means to put a stop to them effectively, which have been reformed and reshaped over the centuries into more modern forms as religion became lesser and lesser important for a person’s life; even as inventions like condoms and other contraceptives were made and common people allowed to use them.
The only factor that there maybe remains left with some sort of justification, to not let “everyone doing it with everyone higgledy-piggledy” come true is to not produce too many half-siblings which don’t know about each other being such - because incest of whatever kind and genetic sameness proves to be bad for for procreation and leads to increased amounts of birth defects and hereditary diseases.

But - is founding a family and continuing one’s family bloodline the main reason why people come together and form other than platonic relationships?
Or is “family” still just defined by adults procreating children? Haven’t there other forms already come together that generate a similar emotional environment?
Also, through people divorcing way more often throughout their lives, or not marrying at all and getting children even though, isn’t there an increased amount of half-siblings present in a single family through the “patchwork”-model anyway?

So, what reason is it based on to keep this dogma still around and people faithfully believing in it?

One big reason is marketing - because marketing can sell a ton of crap to people then, if they keep looking for that “only one” partner to complete their lives.
People need gadgets, utensils and human services to get pretty to court for each other (e. g. pretty, eye-catching or certain specific clothes, makeup, perfume, hairdressing, manicure, body shaving, coaches for flirting), people need spaces to potentially meet other people in which they will date later (e. g. online dating services, dating agencies, partially also bars and clubs, restaurants for having the date too), people need expensive things to impress other people (e. g. jewelry, expensive cars, a good dress), also they need high-earning jobs in order to leave behind the impression of economic security.

If you keep up that illusion of “there’s one person among millions out there which is destined to end up with you and stay with you forever”, there’s a ton of advantages for this reigning economic system called “capitalism”.
People are going to try to their best to invest in superficial commercial things, people are going to bring in their workforce to earn high status and a big salary - they’re going to aim and stretch for things they can’t reach, but along the way someone else can make a profit from those efforts.
Also, if people just aim for one person, and their heads are filled with illusions about perfection, they’re straight destined to get disappointed by the reality and quickly invest into courting for someone new again. - Which generates new profit for those people whose enterprises sell them the necessary means to enter the new hunt.

If people got down to reducing their expectations, and maybe sometimes accepting that, what they sought to find in just one person alone, to meet it in a couple of people, then this excessive courting would lose a significant reason for it to exist. People perhaps were way more relaxed, didn’t invest these tons of money (they sometimes don’t even have) into crap that’s not gonna secure them the fulfillment they pursue, and they became less judgmental of each other which maybe brings some relationships apart in the first place. Think of excessive jealousy, think of the countless personal definitions what makes out and counts as “cheating”, think of taking possession of a partner’s very life - think of that whole game of either turning or getting turned into a person that you’re not just in order to keep up each other’s expectations towards a relationship.

Investing one’s every power and material in one person is comparable to try to stake everything on one card - very high risk, very much the scenario of possibly losing everything (although you didn’t need to lose it all) and burning one’s hands along with it.
Of course, this provides a situation for adrenaline junkies and for people who are in desperate need of their ego being caressed - because getting the one and winning is very tempting, as it is just that unlikely -, but, realistically speaking, there needs to happen serious contemplation if it is worth accepting that risk every time. All the while as there are many other people out there too and someone can easily quit a relationship if anything about it doesn’t suit for them.
It isn’t the same situation anymore as the potential amount of available partners wasn’t that large because human communities lived farther apart, moving one’s location to a completely different area wasn’t that easy and single individuals didn’t have the modern means to communicate over large distances. So that you were often forced to get along with what you have available locally.

Another factor is: Why do emotional and physical needs always have to be covered in unity?
Who defined that? Who wrote the decree that this has to be the case?
Isn’t the spectrum of possible relationships between humans richer than just that one specific form as the highest form of intimacy, and no other can ever make it to a comparable quality?
Even human psyche is very colorful, can develop into many directions that socially may be considered as “bizarre” - and still there is nearly always a way or at least an ambition to establish tolerance for it.
So, why not also for the idea that you can have several intimate relationships that also include physical aspects?
In the end, some humans have them anyway without anybody of the people involved even knowing about each other (e. g. “ghetto customs of intimate relationships”)... And without spending their life with accepting moral shame.

The one big mistake that Identity Politics (short: ID politics) and the principle of Intersectionality are based upon is: Them assume a group identity of people according to a certain body feature (e. g. skin color, sex, physical disability) or personality feature (e. g. religion, sexual orientation, nationality, cultural origin, political stance, mental handicaps), but which don’t exist in this collective manner as the two want to make believe. Even lesser if it comes to the judgment of moral and humanly virtuous behavior, for which the different valuations of identities of ID politics want to lay down the foundation of how somebody and his deeds should be rated.

Pick an example: Is it universally morally so okay to call out all white people as morally rotten, bad and potential evil-doers in areas where 99% of the whole population is just white-skinned? Isn’t that a big risky and morally-questionable supposition? If not to speak: Insulting?
Doing the same with another skin color easily “earns” you the attribute “racism” - because it simply is such. Judgment of people by their skin color (“giving names” is judging) and what myths your brain carries inside of it regarding that particular body feature.

Go on with the tightly-intertwined topics sexism/born sex/reassigned sex.
It’s a popular fashion these days to apply guilt for anything that goes wrong in this world to born males - because there is a small section of males who have significant political power and links to powerful political and economical offices (no matter who’s currently placed in the seat).
Would it be justified to tell the same “all men are trash”-agenda in an orphanage, in a problem school, in a drug rehab ward, in an anger management group or in an industrial facility where mostly males work? Where people (a remarkable share of males probably) are either because they got dumped by their parents, family and society, where they are in need of help, in need of psychical warmth, and admitted it, or brought there by society because they behavior was unendurable - or where they sacrifice a lot of their physical strength daily to produce gizmos for society?
Are these people responsible through the power of only their own will for how bad the world is?
Boys who were dumped, boys who were beaten, boys who flee into drugs and violence to forget?
Men who work their ass off and sacrifice their health for something that society makes use of later?
...Just always remember: They could also give no fucking damn about society and just be the violent, abusive and/or lazy schmocks which don’t contribute anything to the well-being of others, which cause other people only pain, and leave you standing there “Just do my job yourself, if you’re such a smart ass!”.
Putting all caring fathers, loyal workers and troubled boys and men who want to get out of their misery in the same pot with old greedy capitalist geezers which can’t do without superior power over a part of the earth and large amounts of money, with non-remorseful war criminals, rapists, child molesters, thugs, bullies and whatnot - just because they all share the same born sex and a dick -, is the same sexist argumentation chain that reduces women to the cliché of assumed cooking and cleaning abilities and their physical features such as tits, ass, pussy and the ability to bear children. The same sexist argumentation chain that brings you thought patterns like “I know you want it, baby! Don’t be so shy...”, “Grab them by the pussy”, “Women only want one thing - a man’s wallet” and “All women are bad - except for Mom and except for the hoes who shut up and take my dick into whatever orifice I want it to take her into”.

Another note about “sexual orientation” other than the heterosexual one.
Gays, bisexuals, lesbians, asexuals - they all can be intellectually dumb as a bucket of shrimp, be lazy good-for-nothings, intolerant towards people, be biased like a cliché, be assholes, be abusive, violent, ruthless, cowardly, they can refuse to take over responsibility for their wrongdoing and so on.
Their sexual orientation doesn’t automatically make them morally superior people. As one’s sexual preferences are something that you cannot pick at will (remember that?).
So why should that be an indicator for the quality of a person’s moral virtues?
Or a criterion to not criticize a person if it’s factually due?

Another significant delusion included in this assumption of a supposed “group identity” is that people who get sorted or sort themselves to these groups all harbor nearly the same wishes, hopes, feelings, needs, ambitions and thought patterns.
For real: Does every black person (“black” in the sense of an sub-Saharan African) on earth think the same? Does a wealthy black person in America necessarily mind “his black brothers and sisters” in the rest of the country and do something for them to increase their status within the system?
Do black people worldwide harmonize among each other and not lay a finger upon one other?

Body features and preferences don’t negate peoples bad or good character.
Actually, they don’t have much to do with it. They’re just tiny details of the whole person, nothing more.

Sorting people according to such features, which they mostly can’t be held accountable for as they couldn’t choose them at birth, not only does it tear society apart into groups which don’t exist, but also strengthen the assumption in “average” people that black and white are different on the whole, that non-heterosexuals are like aliens from another planet compared to heterosexuals. That one religion is more virtuous or meaningful than the other and they don’t do the same in praying to imaginary creatures which no human eye has seen until today and kill people over the belief that “their God is the right one”.

To be frank and outspoken: Identity Politics is about to tear down every little bit of the thought that human plebs has fought so hard for that all humans shall be treated equally, have equal rights and possibilities to participate and be punished equally for their wrongdoings.

Admittedly, mankind still did not make it to turn this ideal into a full-blown reality, but it seriously doesn’t get any better if you give up on the idea, citing it to be whatever kind of mistake to actually have wanted that because the wrong people wanted or fought for it.
(In fact, these people are long dead by now and ideals can be modified, so that they better suit the modern circumstances, which those long-dead people couldn’t take into account back then.)
According to that principle, no-one of the ID politics die-hard campaigners probably should use a smart phone, a computer, a car, electronic kitchen gadgets of whatever kind or even eat tofu (if they’re vegans).
Because all that either is produced with economic slavery these days or was invented by somebody who was racist, sexist, bigoted or biased in any way towards another specific type of humans which later turned out to be morally wrong and based on nothing but nonsensical belief.

Um elf auf dem Busbahnhof - einer sitzt, lässt seine Rucksackdisco spielen und es ist an Textzeilen zu verstehen irgendwas mit “Titten springen”, der Reim darauf lautet etwa “alle Kameraden singen”.
Als wenn das noch nicht genug wäre, kommen später zwei weitere recht junge Menschen hinzu (eine männliche Stimme beklagt sich über juckende Eier), gesellen sich zu dem mit der spielenden Musik auf der Bank. Später kann man sich an Hand dessen ausrechen, dass Bier getrunken wurde (ohne es gesehen zu haben), weil das Klirren von Flaschen zu hören ist, die an Stein zerschellen.

Slut - what actually makes out a "slut"?
Is it the many partners he/she had intercourse with?
Is it the many people which he/she let touch his/her body, kissed?
Is it the style according to which he/she does all that?
Or just if he/she does it thoughtlessly - not making much selection between the people he/she does it with? Not taking care of protection from unwanted mother-/fatherhood/transmittable diseases?
What exactly is it that makes a person "slutty" compared to other people?

Socially, there are two standards for measuring: One originates from the interpretation of the term as "sloppy". Doing things sloppy and unfinished, or finished badly and not thoroughly enough, not taking enough care about one's looks and literally neglecting one's outside appearance.
The other definition originates from moral decay - acting hedonistically, selfishly, recklessly and ruthlessly. Primarily measured by one's mating behavior, including sexual intercourse.

So to say, by those definitions, a "slut" is a person which dresses and behaves trashy, whose self-respect is lowered, which acts too carelessly, doesn't invest too much energy into one thing, lives hastily and tends to flee from things after they don't give the right dosage of satisfaction anymore - "sluts" also tend to pickup the most in life regardless of if they'd be morally permitted to or not, rather than giving anything back in return.
In other words, "parasite", on the whole, would rather be a better synonym than just "someone who is promiscuous".

Tolerance and acceptance of promiscuity are cultural issues; Christian religion sanctioned it over centuries and linked it with shame, installing the one-partner-at-a-time exclusiveness that is still common in most of the world's areas.
This hasn't always been this way - this is a matter, a standard, which can be shifted and made to change again, just like it could be shifted to the standard that still is prevalent today. It is not unchangeable.
In earlier centuries more, but still of some relevance in the modern times, it had its practical purpose in order to create more safety for an individual's health and in order to prevent too much intra-familial incest - as the only safe contraception and block to diseases which spread by sexual intercourse for the general populace was simply not doing it.
Partner-exclusiveness through marriage and loyalty to its basic principle meant, two at the same time, that diseases couldn't spread that wildly (that is: if one was sick, he could only pass it on to one other person) and that children in a small community couldn't be that many half-siblings from both mother- and father-family-bloodline among themselves which they never got to know about until they chose a partner inside the community and had one unhealthy child after another with each other.

Today, technically, the need for this measure doesn't exist anymore. It's a question of money, of having access to as much contraception means as one needs for his/her lifestyle, and of human laziness to take care of it or not. Maybe of taboo - in certain circles - and of general sex education in certain proportions still too.
So... that entirely making out a "slut's" behavior is like an artificial standard now. And this needn't be exclusively limited to females.
There are ways meanwhile to practice promiscuity safely.

So... what is there else?
Maybe if he/she practices it without taking care of his/her own and their partner's physical integrity? If the person behaves irresponsibly against better knowledge and against the means available to him/her?
If a woman has three children from three different men differing in not so many years of age - if a man fathered 3 children with 3 different women during the same few years, for example?
If a couple keeps begetting a baby every year to keep their social benefits?

...Easier it is to answer if sticking to the definition of "doing one's job sloppily". Or with the circumstance of neglecting oneself's appearance fully voluntarily.
'Cause a job done badly doesn't always have anything to do with morals, which can be shaped individually and don't have to be objective. Disregard of personal hygiene or overacting in it in a perverted twisted way can follow a subjective pattern that doesn't have to be factually correct, but to a certain minimal extent, it also has an objective core which moving beyond may end up turning harmful for oneself as well as other people.
In other words: It's easier to find a common base and that doesn't always need to have to do with an individual's personal perspective.
Some negative personality traits, or behavior, just tends to cause always trouble, no matter where the individual pops up which shows them. And there even is more than subjective way to feel to it to perceive it like this.

So... what remains at the end of this?

There's more than meets the eye in one's current filter bubble if thinking things through more widely...

"You tell me it's racism / sexism if I talk bad about a person whose skin is darker than mine / who has different fuck habits than me?
Who's talking here all the fucking time "He needs to be preferred because he's from a marginalized social group"?
You know what? If somebody really belongs to a couple of these groups that you call "minorities", you won't even recognize him 'cause you're so caught up in your world of cliches what all of them need to be like! You ever asked one of them what they really want? No, you just think you've found the philosophers' stone and therefore you know all of their pains, all of their needs and all of their wants! And you think they're all one homogeneous mass, like there's no variation between them!
Where's the fucking shit of "everyone forges his own fortune" that you grew up with? Where does all the money come from that you spend every day? You really think that destiny is that tightly set?
Then why don't you give up all your lifestyle and donate it to one of the people you say that they need it much more than you?! If you think you're so privileged, you gonna acquire it back in no time and your life won't be like shit 'cause you're a white cis-gender whore that passes so well in this society..."

Some little nonbinding suggestion for the radical feministas that like to absorb the #MeToo for their own purposes:

If it's your deep desire to have no sex, or only very rarely, and be not annoyed by stuff that is about fleshly desires, then just come to say you're asexual. The family is really big with all kinds of different people!
But, this comes with a little condition: If you admit yourself to seeking no sexual relationships with men, women or whatever else on the spectrum, just pragmatic, platonic or romantic connections, then you've gotta put your eyes and ears into deaf mode really much a lot and you've got to enforce your desires and limits consequently, whenever someone attempts to violate them.
And you've got to learn to read other peoples' intentions. Not tell the whole world all the time it's their duty to create your sex-clean world.
You didn't guess that being asexual has a decent number of people in society identifying with it, really?
So, nobody needs to have your asexual mindset in the back of his head, you've gotta stand for that yourself.
Every. fucking. time.

...The very feeling belonging nowhere, being caught between two chairs, knowing no place you can go to, always the same phrases again your ideas are not desired, you think the wrong way, look at things the wrong way, all of the rest of the world does his own thing without asking you for your opinion, presenting you with a fait accompli all too often, and simply there's nothing you can feel routed to, believe in and just take as it is?
And you think, that homelessness can be filled with a party, with an elite club, with money, with sex, with entertainment, with things you can own, with children you procreate, with people you save, with sacrifice you practice daily, with consuming all that your mouth can find, with hate, with calling your mother soil the greatest country in the world, with waving your hands for a pop star, with religion, with humility and doing all kinds of things people tell you to do?
Don't be a fool! The loss is never going to disappear, no matter what you try to fill that hole with!
You can eat a thousand drugs and pretend ten thousand tons of stuff to your mind, still that wound will remain and it'll continue to bleed endlessly! You feel it in your every cell of your body!
Nothing can cover or change the situation living in a world that constantly says "Fuck off!" to you and "Your survival is none of my business!", unless should you fuck destiny back!
There's no deliverance from it, no relief, and no outer entity can make it disappear!
All that you try to make you forget is just temporary stuff - one year it's one thing, the next it's the other and another measure in the third year, all your life long!
Once you've become, you'll always remain the loner, solitude, a wanderer; all that crap telling you it can revoke that, it's a lie!
Better get a grip on it and learn to endure it every day instead of running after ratcatcher after ratcather that doesn't really make you happy permanently!

---

Something else suitable: https://matrixmann.dreamwidth.org/17000.html

L'amour c'est un sujet compliqué.
Parfois tu dois fabriquer des compromises inhabituels et tu dois vivre avec le fait que tout ne pourrait pas convenir à l'image parfaite d'une relation. Tel que le plan de fonder une famille, la place de résidence, participants possibles complémentaires de la relation, et la profession et les hobbies du compagnon de ta choix.
En les cas durs, c'applique même á du sexe.