All the chat < and > showing nicks has been removed and this is presented as a dialogue. Someone wrote this in an email to TJ. Asked if it was from what he said in #atheism, since it sounded so familiar, he said yes. The person who wrote this in #atheism does not want his name associated with it. No problem. We leave it intact, minus the author’s name, because the answer to it has very interesting information in it.

Fascism dictates by race and sex, what is "weak-willed, "what is "right." Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is also distinguished here, take for example sperm, only the strongest sperm can get fertilization, just because they display strong characteristics does not mean they will survive. Power, how can this be misinterpreted? The weak sperm always dies in due course. In the jungle if an animal embodies a weak trait, how long do you think that would last in a world as complex as this? Not very long, in fact the chances are very high they would be preyed upon by a superior species of some sort and be dealt with accordingly. Man has thought himself to be a more dominant animal, that is as conflicting to that of the jungle species, he has migrated and taken the land, and has even at times took from himself. American culture is over-shadowed by these facts. When the Europeans took the land of the Indians, this wasn't right. This wasn't might. It was the green eyed goblin referred to as jealousy, these peoples' jealousy wasn't the same trait personified by Satanic philosophy and culture. Satanists do know that envy can be a great characteristic, in fact, it is a great trait, when it is properly instructed, if I want something from another man I will not just "steal the rug from underneath" I will find a way to get what I want on my own. Stratification is a biological fact, fascism, like Christianity takes (or attempts to) from this, they strive for victory, but they have done so using all the wrong conduct.

Note of fact (TJ paraphrasing same dialogue responses with < > removed, see sources below):

Your statements on sperm are wrong. Not only does it not matter which sperm gets there first, but there are two types of sperm in two distinct types of males. It is, in the end, the electrical field of the OVA that chooses which sperm to let in - IF ANY!! There has been of late a problem with the electrical field around ova not allowing any sperm of some particular male in (the husband, usually). For more info on this, see Israeli "Zona Blaster" studies. They used a laser to break through the electrical field. Still, it is not known why healthy ova would not allow healthy sperm in for fertilization, thus rendering couples childless. (Not known why?)

About sperm and the elimination of naive ideas: It starts with chimps and gorillas, how they sexually act and how their organs are. Chimps are always horny, have sex a lot, have large testicles and tiny penises. Gorillas are the exact opposite with small "tight" testicles and large penises. It turns out that there are more than one kind of sperm: 1. egg seeking, very passive sperm that just seek the egg out; 2. blocking sperm that form chains and block another person's sperm; 3. attacking sperm that murder other sperm from someone else. Those with large penises and small testicles have MOSTLY egg seeking sperm. Those with small penises and large testicles have mostly the warrior/defender type sperm. This is in chimps/gorillas AND IN HUMAN TYPES. The types are not on a curve or gradation. There are two DISTINCT types in human beings. Also, that men who are away from sex for awhile, build up blocking sperm and if they don't masturbate or in some other way get rid of this so that fresh egg-seeking sperm can come into play, they are NOT the ones who leave descendents! Women who orgasm BEFORE the male does (vaginal orgasm) hold in the sperm for as long as 3 days (called "flow back") but women who don't, do not retain the sperm. THAT there exist blocking and attack sperm is biological PROOF that we have inbuilt in us mechanisms made and tailored BY EVOLUTION for POLYGAMY - NOT for monogamy! ABSOLUTELY!

In some "restriction enzyme DNA" studies, GORILLAS come out closer to humans than chimps! The data is hard to come by so they still regard gorillas as 2nd closest to humans, chimps closest. Interesting. The studies are very hard, time consuming and not often done - so then: WE DONT KNOW! The TYPES of sperm the two distinct groups make are MEASURABLE - these are NOT gradations! Small testicle and big penis men produce MORE egg seeking sperm and LESS blocking and attack sperm. Big testicle and small penis men produce more of the warrior and defender sperm than egg seeking sperm. That is: the sperm itself of these small penis men is more evolved to WAGE WAR ON OTHER SPERM! This is the sperm itself. In a sense, human males are the slaves of this sperm (which has a life of its own) and they are dragged around by the sperm (thinking with the dick?). Sure, this is a purely evolutionary thing in terms of survival in the strict Darwinian sense - but it also has BIG social consequences!!! Those are not dealt with in strict science, by the way. It takes us to SYNTHESIZE it!

When men are away from women for awhile, no matter what type they are, they tend to build up MORE blocking sperm. Ergo: Men that are chaste are at a big disadvantage in terms of evolution as they'd be mating with their wives with blocking sperm.

SOURCES FOR A LOT OF THIS: keep in mind, the bibliographies of these will reveal many MANY other sources.

Eros and Evolution: a natural philosophy of sex, by Richard L. MichodHuman Sperm Competition: copulation, masturbation and infidelity, by R. Robin Baker and Mark A. BellisWith Pleasure: thoughts on the nature of human sexuality, by Paul R. Abramson and Steven D. Pinkerton What's Love Got to Do With it: the evolution of human mating, by Meredith F. Small Scientific American, January 1996 issue, reviews these four books and what's in them. Interesting!Keep in mind, it involves human sexuality which people go insane over, the studies are up in the air. I find it interesting because it tends to BACK UP WHOLLY the synthetic view I came up with of men, TYPES of men. AND WOMEN. Remember my infamous "the ova is saying no" comment? Sure, I had HARD SCI to back that up alright. WHY is the ova saying no? TO WHICH MEN is the ova saying no? That wasn't in the study they did - or if it was, we never will get to hear about it.

Keep in mind, there is far MORE cooperation in nature for real, than there is strife. Don't fall into the stupidity of "human paradigms" based on human culture since the dawn of agriculture. We didn't get to BE Homo Sapiens by wiping each other out, but by cooperating. Behold the human baby for a clue to how much cooperation human beings need just to survive. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean "Social" Darwinism AT ALL. Suggest reading up on evolutionary biology before making statements about it. Niles Eldredge: "Reinventing Darwin" is a good starter because he exposes and explains the pseudo-science of "social" Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a false application of evolutionary theory to "make it fit" what you think you see in only very modern society. Eldredge IS an evolutionary biologists. Dawkins is not any kind of biologists and the ONLY "selfish genes" are oncogenes. Heh, we are not walking tumors!

Back to Satanic Reds index