Oh Brother – Governmental Big Breeders

You know, as an erstwhile Satanist, (and yes I will still accept the label amongst several others – why not after all!) the subject of “breeders” lurks about me from time to time. This particular peculiar shadow puppet has done so ever since the now legendarily hilarious “Michelle Invents” oops sorry! I meant to say “Michelle Remembers” fantasy narrative in the 80’s. She got her fifteen minutes given to her by hysterical latent right wing pseudo Christians and thereby was something akin to famous briefly. I hope she still gets royalties.

Why did you think like that at me for that statement?

You would hope that Johhny Depp gets royalties for his work in the Pirates films wouldn’t you? I consider her to be an actress in a fictional film too – she did her work and so deserves the royalties! I pride myself in being even handed … heavy handed perhaps – but still even as well! lol

For those of you who may no be too “au fait” on this subject, (of breeders) Satanists are supposed to ensnare young females for the purposes of enslavement and rape to swell their numbers and provide children for sacrifice.

Now the second you say, “I am a Satanist”, (as one may discover with such use of any title) everyone projects onto you their own fantasies almost immediately. Should you be able to prove that you are not as they would wish you to be; they will respond that you are not a “REAL” (in this case) Satanist. It naturally follows to them, (as they consider themselves to be at all times correct) whatever they consider the definition of a term to be must be accurate and encompassing. If you use the term you must therefore do so as according to their predilection! Should you deviate from the definition they hold true in any way, you are not being true to their definition – and therefore are “wrong”, “ill informed”, “incorrect” or only a poser who does not know what they are “on about”.

The fact that the ideas of providing children for sacrifice and at the same time swelling one’s numbers are mutually exclusive goes to show the level of reason we are dealing with here.

That particular fantasy out of the way, I will introduce another that prods my clay feet closer to the point of this particular article……

Satanists apparently are far too busy raping everything in sight to form any sort of lasting relationship or (Gods forbid the use of the word!) “Traditional Family Unit”. The fantasy generally goes on to say that even if they did, (and then it would be a “sham” held together with strict regimens of torture and fear!!!) this same unit would be inculcated with the most perverse and contradictory sets of values imaginable.

This is, (apparently) because, (obviously) Satanists and other such people delight in perversity and being “unnatural”. “Unnatural” is a word these same evangelists tend to define as being “contrary to the “Law of God”. (This is best translated as their own personal interpretation of the “rules of the Church” they prefer to attend.)

Why these Satanists, (who do not care for the Christian “God”) should be at all interested in what his laws are, (in the first case) let alone why they would spend effort in contravening the same is beyond me. This seems to rather go by the wayside more often than be explained in any rational manner – but hey it’s not my premise let alone my argument!

Now let’s have a wee dose of reality here shall we?

Satanists can have family units. These same tend to be more “traditional” than what most people refer to these days when they use the word. When Satanists have extended families, it is because “our people” are important to us. We are unlikely to “whisk people away” off to nursing homes and the like simply because they are a bit inconvenient because that would “smack” to us of betrayal. Besides, such actions would rob the family of some of the most experienced members!

Satanists tend to view the family unit as a source of joy and thereby strength – this simply can not be the case if you deplete the numbers!

As for values, we do have them and we do tend to have these same as the bedrock which underlies the whole family unit. There is, however, no need for “drumming it in” to children because it is already the basis for all of our actions.

Some of these values may startle you but I will tell you some of them.

One big fundamental value is respect being given where it is due and this is largely due to the ideals of indulgence being lauded over abstinence; wisdom over self-deceit; kindness to those who deserve it; vengeance over submission and responsibility being a high ideal to at all times be striven towards. We tend to consider this foremost as a measure of the best basis for correct thought and action. We believe that such things, (afar from being some sort of odd Satanic Dogma) are the bases for the constituents that make up a well ordered and evolutionarily forward thinking society!

These things, (we find) do get ingrained in our children. They see that they are the basis for all of our ways. As we include our children as integral to our family unit, they become like us and in this, there should be, (to anyone with a reasonable intellect) no mystery at all.

Now for the reason for all this elucidation….

Today when looking at the Nine MSN site I see a headline that gave me the creeps.

Big Brother 'good for kids'

The gist of this article is that, as it said: “Young people who watch controversial reality TV shows may actually become better citizens, according to a government report.”

Now here is the clincher – I am once again in the unenviable third manner of argument. It is just as well that I do not get tired of being insightful!

I think that Big Brother is not only a waste of valuable air time but also a vehicle for blisteringly mediocre people to play up in a personally reprehensible and irresponsible fashion for cash and prizes. It lacks any real measurable redeeming features and encourages its viewing audience to value this highly as a goal to be striven to match.

As an institution I think it teaches people to behave in an ignorant and totally facile manner. Its premise is derivative without originality, its process is predictably consistent to the point of being tedious and its coverage is irritating, poorly realised and without any quantifiable artistic merit that I can see. I think that its hostess is culturally, spiritually and even linguistically bankrupt in her presentation and should perhaps get someone professional assistance to craft an acceptable and flattering image for her – rather than that she has consistently presented so far. Its advertising is lack lustre, bereft of “punch” and its over all existence is tenuous in terms of broadcast legality and of course intelligent reception.

Of course the same can indeed be said for much of the modern, “so called” “reality television” programs. Indeed, it has been wryly observed by many commentators that “reality television” is not only oxymoronic by definition but now even in its presentation bears no resemblance to its name. Its purported purpose, (being to entertain by presenting recordings of how people act and interact naturally amongst themselves in a given closed environment) has been entirely circumvented by the entertainment industry’s need to provide a number of well defined excessive stereotypes from each of a variety of publicly acceptable minority groups.

These same then act decidedly unnaturally and “ham” their way into obviously staged or inevitably well defined eustress bordered crises. They do so in such a way that beggars disbelief to the point where they may be considered by their respective target audiences as endearing or representative enough to gain money. It would perhaps be quicker to simply pay people to act in bewilderingly daft manners – that is after all where these programs came from. Those who do not agree would do well to remember that it is programming exemplified by such gems as “American Gladiators” and now represented by the constituents, (or victims depending on one’s insight and views) of “Funniest Home Videos” and the like that were the “ancestors” of our modern “inmates” (it is not commercially a good idea to refer to the same as “contestants” – it gives the “game” away!)

Before I get berated as being overly harsh, I will point out that I did media studies and production at tertiary level and that the main difference between this critique and those you might see elsewhere is that I do not have to pay “lip service” to any particular channel, news corporation, media form, personality etc and so do not have to be “nice”.

This being the case I am free to evaluate it on its merits, (or lack thereof) and comment – and so I have.

Now, all of that being said, let us examine the new headline.

It reads: “Big Brother 'good for kids’”

I would argue that this is not even close to a correct statement without a fair whack of qualification. I would say that Big Brother is good for kids only if you wish to raise children who will evidence the same behaviours and values they will witness on this kind of show. The same can be said of adults – many of which in the audience, (frankly) will be more adept at parroting mindlessly whatever they see on it than the kids will!

Now let’s examine the précis given.

“Young people who watch controversial reality TV shows may actually become better citizens, according to a government report.”

I will obviously be ignoring that I would say this is a vast over simplification of the findings, released to correspond nicely with the end of one Big Brother and the pitch beginning of the next season.

The key word here is “citizens”. If by this you mean people who will abide by the latest government edicts and conform to the status quo with little or no thought of deviation then I must say that I agree. Of course, it is also worth noting that when people say “kids” and “young people” they generally don’t mean the same thing at all.

So, over all what do I think?

Well while you may have picked up on the fact that I believe that “reality television” and in particular “Big Brother” has little or no worth, this is not simply due to the act of deconstruction, but also due to the subjective bias involved in the process itself because it was I who deconstructed and critiqued it. Because I do have values, (a Satanist with values directed toward a better future? Surely not!) and these same values are almost diametrically opposed to those sort that are evidenced by such television we should expect no less.

Now for something you may not be expecting.

I have no problems whatsoever with the mainstay of society gobbling this and the rest like it up in a wholesale fashion!

Frankly, I think that children exposed to this viewing, (especially with the approval and participation of their parents!) will suffer no actual harm, and indeed may well grow up to be better acclimatised to the wider society they will live in than those who do not.

They will not only have something in common to talk about and model themselves on – they will inevitably, generally display the same values and cultural practices both as a result of their early exposure and by way of observing the participation and acceptance of such by their own role models. Simply put, if it is good enough for “mom and dad” then it is good enough for them.

They may well even, (as has been suggested) make model citizens that the government would prize highly.

I applaud the idea of the wider society I live in being mired in such values as the practice of many of MY VALUES rather relies on them being thus for the successful achievement of my goals with relative ease. The sort of simple, easy to manipulate stereotypes that we see on such shows would make for a very suggestible wider community and such is always hoped for when resistance to one’s views is encountered. The desired opposition is an easily quantified and manipulated one. Harsh but true – you could ask your own governments but unlike me they cannot afford the luxury of such truth! lol

Do I believe that the wider society will, (in any “absolute” sense) be damaged by the widespread social acceptance of such values as “acceptable voyeurism”, (exemplified by the shows themselves) folly as wisdom, (continual and consistent silliness plus surrendering the sense of personal dignity for money) socially irresponsible interaction only one step removed from the most stereotypical of social disturbance, (constructed interpersonal crises as “entertainment”) the introduction of pastimes such as "turkey slapping" (this is a matter of public record!) to children under the age of consent (and of course to the adults that are often more like children than the offspring who they have conditioned to behave like adults!)?

Well I think that my views in answer to this subject are best summed up, (ironically!) by the picture that Nine MSN ran as accompaniment to the headline. MSN News and the values of Satanism overlapping? I can’t wait to hear the new “conspiracy theories” on that one!! lol

Sexuality? – Not from where I am standing!

Now this one is a short one … hopefully it will remain that way and have the good common decency to die a naturally graceful death. If it could be rigged so that this happens with a laugh track – all the better!

There is, it so happens another new “Sexuality” out there – VeganSexuality.

Now I foresee that this will strike a loud chord amongst weak hearted souls who need to cut their existence up into small bites. I don't have anything against Vegans as per se - indeed I get on really well with a couple.

That being said, as far as I am concerned the terms Homo and Hetero were cutting sexual experience up needlessly. This should not be taken as meaning that I champion Bisexuality either by the way – that also is for those too soft to be who they are without a badge to identify them as acceptably “part of a social subgrouping” (and before some people get up in arms every sociologist with half a brain you speak to will agree that this is indeed the purpose of invented sub cultural terms – only they will use a kinder term … identification!)

Be who you are – should you need a label to explain what you do or who you are it should be your name or what you are doing at the time I say! A fine example of this is a magician friend of mine who, when asked what “he does” at convocations and the like simply says: “I am a Bus Driver”. He quite rightly separates what he does and what he believes semantically while recogising that the two can only be separated in abstraction making the belief, (in terms of the question asked) irrelevant. Yes he is a bus driver, yes he professes to a pagan faith – but that is a different conversation really isn’t it!?

Back to the topic at hand … Sexual experience, (I believe) should be an exploration that all people undertake. I was lucky in that my first mentor made it clear that I should indeed try everything I had ever wanted to before embarking seriously on my magical career. He said this because the magician must remain the master of their own will. If they have “secret” or “hidden” desires, these may be seized upon by those more knowledgeable and used to manipulate the magician.

Even worse, these same may NOT manipulate the magician – the magician may simply wind up being manipulated by those underlying facets of desire themselves. Such things can skew one’s whole career and steer you irrevocably towards things that may ensnare you.

As a result of this advice, I had literally, (and yes I mean that seriously) tried everything of a sexual nature that I could even think of, (I was a bit of a stickler for completeness at the time!!) before I seriously got into my “career”. Anything I had ever even heard of and thought about at all – I did. The result of this exploration was that at the end, there were no secrets for me. I knew what I liked and what I didn’t and that was more than enough. I eschewed blanket terms for the acts – that was, (I reasoned) just another mask for them to be hidden or sublimated under. Each of the acts was simply considered, compared and evaluated for what it was and really therefore had to be considered alone – not as a part of a loose categorization. I don’t know anyone silly enough to say that all sex with women/men/animals/inanimate objects/entities etc is “the same”. Each experience really needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

Now, after all this exposition, (which hopefully will allow you dear reader to understand the reasoning for my position) we come to my reaction to certain Vegans announcing themselves as a veritable new sexuality.

Now a while back, when I was faced with the erroneously named “Metrosexual” subspecies, (and subspecies they have become!! Don’t get me started!) all I could do was laugh. Imagine males who have discovered personal hygiene! I had spent years concocting particular scented washes and so on for particular effects and my make up was legendary … a small number of the rest of the population had finally cottoned on to the lesson I delivered to one yob years earlier with the line in public: “You think I look like a poof do you? Well let’s consider that I have a girl on each arm .. and you are out with … two other males … hmmm … do the math!” Laugh? I almost shat myself!

Now we have some Vegans, (of all people) announcing that they will only have sex with other Vegans. As the broadcast I heard pointed out – they seem to forget that they also are made of meat. Even more amusingly, they have announced that as far as they are concerned non Vegans are “graveyards for animals”. There are any number of jokes about eating, animals and sex, that could be made to totally steal the wind out of these sails not the least of which WAS used at the time: “Where do Vegans get the energy to have sex I wonder?” This aside, I must say that if nothing else they are on the right track with the denigration of meat eaters in relation to their views. Paul McDermot made it obvious years ago in the Doug Anthony All Stars when he made jokes about necrophiles referring to others as “breathers”. All political parties, (and any subculture is by definition a class division and thereby a political division) in order to form a coherent identity must define itself in opposition to all others. So fair comment.

To me it is a minority group doing something to get noticed, suffering, (as all efforts often do) from the body blow that is delivered by the question: “And why do you imagine, (a priori) that non Vegans would necessarily want to have sex with you?”

Hey Vegans after all, (more than many other groups based on food bias) are a small closed circle community that not only does not interact well with others but is rarely visited – by anyone.

Now generally this can be combated in a few ways but in this case it is more vulnerable for one reason that anyone who has ever lived with a vegetarian of any description while not being one themselves can testify to … and no it is nothing to do with the general level of whinging that many go on with about what one might chose to put in one’s stomach. It was implied within the other joke I remember from the broadcast when it was asked what would be worse – “to be a graveyard for animals or a compost heap?”

We all get up in the morning and at some stage have to make use of the amenities. Let’s avoid being graphic here and let those who know nod and laugh – it is after all perhaps the best response to this new segregation anyway.