God

This text appears in Day of Wrath

______ 卐 ______

 
As I said in Hojas Susurrantes, in California I suffered an internal persecutor: a Christian fear of damnation caused by my father’s miserable introjects. On May 24, 1988, a few months after returning from California still carrying in my soul a legion of dementors, I dined with my parents in a restaurant [I wasn’t living with them]. From the street, three days before I had seen the dry branches of my tree and I believed that the tree would die so, in penance, I shaved my beard the next day after having let them grow for a few months; the only time in life I let them grow.
 

Saint Augustine

Before telling what happened in the restaurant I must mention that throughout my childhood I lived under the shadow of the figure of St. Augustine; as I recall, the favorite saint of my father when we lived in San Lorenzo (as we know, Augustine’s ideas had been one of my greatest dementors in California). At dinner with my parents, barely convalescing from the idea that tormented me, I jumped when (my mother?) mentioned the aforementioned saint. I exclaimed that Augustine had rationalized the eternal fire for unbaptized infants… More than convalescing, the psychic wounds of my family’s religion were still open, though not as maddeningly as the suffering in California. My parents felt the vehemence of my words, but not my agony behind them. What my father answered deserves to leave a record and it is worth saying that I wrote it down not in my diary, but in a single sheet. (When planning this volume I had to order my correspondence, documents and loose sheets in dozens of labeled envelopes.) According to my notes, my father answered me:

—Those [Augustine’s views] are people’s mistakes; human failures. I go to what Jesus says.

When I answered that the Gospel of Matthew put Jesus talking about the gnashing of teeth of the damned, he said:

—I do not see [emphasis in his voice] the anathemas of Jesus. I prefer to see the lilies and the birds; come and they will be given food, dressing be added.

On my single sheet, the following day I addressed myself: “Where is the Augustinian father of San Lorenzo? I am reacting—my Epistle [first book of Hojas Susurrantes] and anti-Christianity—against a father and a mother who no longer exist!”

I wrote that, as I said, in 1988. Today, twenty-seven years later, the dementors still persecute me somehow, although in a very much attenuated way compared to my youth. What I want to get is that, if the perpetrator does not recognize his fault, the mental virus transferred to the adult child goes out of control. If my father had been like, say, my very Catholic friend Paulina (who almost daily goes to church), another would be my story. It is not enough to point out the beautiful verses of Matthew to counterbalance the threats of Jesus about Gehenna in that same gospel. It is necessary to recognize that one committed an outrage when “educating” the son in the Christian doctrine of damnation. In one of her letters that she sent me to England by the end of the century, Paulina wrote to me: “Also, since you are not a believer, and you feel that religion was the first reason for your father to crucify you [my emphasis], you must hate religion. And I understand you. And for you it does not make sense to go to church, to say things you do not believe. And that also caused you harm (hell, torture, sadism).”

My father is not like my humble friend. In a dream I had my unconscious caricaturing him, putting in his mouth these words: “I am very Catholic because I only think of my salvation.” To understand the parental egotism that affected me so much, the religious mechanism with which he defended himself from his early sufferings must be analyzed.
 

God for Miller fans

When I returned from California in my twenty-ninth year, I was not only an extremely damaged young man but also extremely naive. I left in the television room [of my parents’ house] a number of books in English that I had brought in such a way that their covers wore the face of Jesus so that my father could see them. At that time I still believed that it was possible to negotiate my father’s faith with solid arguments.

Let us take into account that with the words of Jesus it “sufficed him,” and what he would tell me during the confrontation of the crucifix [recounted in a previous chapter]: that the fact that the miracles were interwoven with the teachings of Jesus implied that the story was true. I arrived in Mexico in February 1988. By the end of 1989 I began to familiarize myself with the skeptical criticism of the allegations of the paranormal by writers whose magazine I subscribed to, The Skeptical Inquirer. It was thanks to these skeptics that I saw clearly that reasoning like those of my father was fallacious. For example, that the (supposed) goodness of the teachings of Jesus demonstrates the historicity of his miracles cannot be sustained. “Logical systems get in trouble,” I paraphrase now from one of the articles in The Skeptical Inquirer, “when they are forced to show their own logic to demonstrate its claims self-referentially.”

When on another occasion I confronted my father with what I had read in those books whose covers he saw, I argued that the killing of the innocents could not be historical, as the historian Josephus, who belonged to the Hebrew priestly caste, does not mention it. (This historian of the 1st century did not silence any of Herod’s authentically historical cruelties.) My father got angry, but he did not answer my argument. While it is more reasonable to assume that the verses of Matthew and Luke about the killing of the innocents are literary fiction, by pure reason I would never get to communicate with him. However, the writers of the CSICOP (acronym of Committee for the Skeptical Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), as this group was then called, had a great limitation. Those who helped me overcome my belief in the miraculous narrative did not reach the core of the problem: the defense mechanism. If my grandfather and the elementary school [in the early 1930s] had not tormented the child César [my father], the adult César would not have clung to the idea of a dad God with the impregnable faith that he did. For Alice Miller, a child whose childhood was lived in an atmosphere of respect is perfectly capable of developing his self without needing the idea of a personal God; preferring, instead, human models. The child destined to be my father could not develop his psyche with worldly models. He had to project the parental luminous side onto the deity of the same religion that his parents taught him.

About five years before I wrote the Epistle [ca. 1983], my father had confessed something important that I picked up right there in the old epistle. He was in his youth completely devastated by something terrible that had happened to him, that he did not specify. He opened the gospels and, according to his words, saw the passage “Come blessed of my father…!” If, for theists like my father, a kind Father has replaced the failed human father, we should not be surprised if they experience great fear upon discovering that this substitute Father also has a dark side. My father does not know English and he did not read what I brought from the United States, but from my Spanish books he borrowed without me knowing Respuesta a Job (Answer to Job) published in 1952 by Carl Jung, of which he told me “I read everything.”

At his late seventy-six years, the Swiss psychologist had dared to uncover the dark side of the God of Hebrews and Christians. The same year that I wrote the Epistle I wrote down in Answer to Job that my father had exclaimed: “A terrible book!” with great emphasis on his voice when pronouncing “terrible.” Jung’s essay had disturbed him so much that he had to read a pious text about Job to console himself. What Jung said about the Judeo-Christian deity is valuable to those who have entered the underworld whose door Miller opened. In May of 1991, three years after the anecdote recounted above, I noted down on the back cover of Answer to Job: “This is the only book I know of that does not criticize religion or Christians or the church: it criticizes God itself.” I could not say it better today, almost a quarter of a century later. Later that year I noted down that Jung had tried to psychoanalyze God. Much later, in my rereading of 2005, I wrote down:

It is amazing how Miller-like this book can be if we only know the ABC of the mind that Jung did not know. Just replace “Yahweh” with “father” and “God” with “mother” and see what you find.

Read for example pages 25f (“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without wisdom?”). They remind me of the conversation I had with my sister in 2000, the day of the cut tree, about dad: “And who are you to…?” he said to my sister. And page 28 (“Yahweh shows Job his omnipotence with so many thunder and lightning”) seems to portray how he treated me in my last confrontation, in 2004 [recounted in my book’s previous chapter]. On page 31 Jung says what for a long time I have said: pride is the other side of infantilism.

Pride is the other side of infantilism. How many times have I told myself this when diagnosing my father! Almost at the beginning of his essay, Jung observes something that could be applied to my initiative to confront my father for what he did, citing the Bible: “Job ‘wanted to reason with God’ (Job, 13:3). Job says ‘I will defend my ways before him’ (13, 15).” Nice phrase, which could summarize what I have written in hundreds of pages: defend my ways before my parents and their witch doctors. Precisely as it was extremely naive of me to hope that whoever destroyed me could, at the same time, listen to my complaint, that same ingenuity had been committed by Job on another level. (Actually, on the same level if we consider that the theistic narrative is nothing but the internal struggle with the parental introjects.) In the context of the supposed goodness of Yahweh, observes Jung: “From a man who does us evil we can not wait that helps us at the same time,” and already openly psychoanalyzing God he adds something that we could impute to either of my parents: “The dependence of the object is absolute when the subject does not possess self-reflection, and, consequently, does not have any vision of oneself.” Like any toxic parent—I would say—, about our parental deities Jung writes: “But Yahweh is too unconscious to be ‘moral’. Morality presupposes conscience.”

What better indication that the idea of God is nothing but the projection of our unresolved, attachment system with our parents! (keep in mind Colin Ross’ class). From this angle, the idea of providence is a parental shadow insofar as it is so full of the dark side that we see ourselves in the need to project it outwards: something that Jung himself was afraid to say. Nevertheless, the Swiss dared to write: “It was natural that humanity, superior to God in certain aspects, should remain unconscious”—unaware of the ultimate nature of the deity. The dissident disciple of Freud wrote the following in the text that scared dad: “Yahweh does not show signs of doubt, repentance or compassion, but only of cruelty and disregard. Yahweh cannot come here with the excuse of unconsciousness, for he flagrantly violates at least three of the commandments that he himself had promulgated at Sinai.”

This brings back to me the fact that my moral was founded on the moralistic tablets of my father. Recall the [1960s] anecdote of Hojas Susurrantes about the “instantaneous introject” when a swarthy boy threw a stone at a helpless crab on the beach. Unfortunately, and parallel to how my father did not regret what he was doing to us, on the next page Jung writes: “Yahweh does not think… of giving Job at least some moral compensation.” And two pages ahead what he says seems to be a reflection of the mentioned speech to Germancito [my nephew], when my father blamed me for my sister’s behavior: “Yahweh puts things backwards, so to speak, and blames Job for what he himself does: man must not be allowed to have any opinion about God.”

Shadow projected to the deity: “Parents should never be judged,” my mother has told me several times. And it is that “Yahweh pays so little attention to the person of Job… that it is not difficult to see that he is totally occupied with himself,” which brings back the penetrating observation of Pedro Martín Moreno and Scott Peck about evil. Later Jung speaks of the “fear of Yahweh to become conscious,” which also brings back the fear of parents like mine to see their behavior.

Yahweh can project, without frowning, his face shadows on man, and remain unconscious at the expense of him…

Job knew Yahweh only of “hearsay.” But now he has experienced the reality of Yahweh even more than David himself. This is an important lesson, which should not be forgotten. Job was once a simpleton; he had come to dream of a “good” God… he believed that God was truthful and faithful…

But to his horror, Job has seen that Yahweh is not a man, but that, in a certain way, he is less than a man, and that he is the same thing that Yahweh says of the Leviathan: “He is king over all the proud” (Job, 41:34).

The mistreated son by his father must not expect moral satisfaction from an intrinsically unconscious being. “I am an amoral natural power, a purely phenomenal force, that does not see its own back.” Job, the son at the complete mercy of the Father whose voice of thunder crushes him when he dared to confront him, becomes, secretly, judge of the divinity.

The author of Answer to Job closes the book’s chapter with these words: “The drama has been consummated for all eternity: the double nature of Yahweh has been revealed, and someone or something has seen and recorded it.”

32 Comments

  1. I told you, white nationalists: Give up the god of the Jews. It’s impossible to save the white race while worshipping such archetype.

    Impossible…

  2. the theistic narrative is nothing but the internal struggle with the parental introjects.

    I love beautiful definitions.

    • Most Xtian nationalists don’t even know what is introjection. They (e.g., Heimbach and Parrott) believe in the god of the Jews simply because, as Schopenhauer says, ‘people learn religions as they learn languages’ from their parents.

      This is why approaching the subject of bad parenting, like teaching white children to worship the god of the Enemy, should be addressed, as a subject, in the pro-white movement.

  3. the parochial elementary schools of yore had it right, whether they simply guessed the importance of hypnotizing the young, or were just following long established traditions.

    you’re on target with the power of belief. the xtian wn’ers simply can’t, w/o a personal crisis as precipitant, rethink their childhood beliefs. those beliefs are the substrate of who they are. even though the watchmen in the watchtower screameth forth. so blaming the jew is easier than blaming oneself.

    and i can only imagine how the liberal mindset would push back being labelled a member of a religion related to xhristianity.

  4. Life is an upward spiral, one’s death only serves to bring forth a new life. Those failing to learn and advance in the present life are destined to relive life repeatedly.

    It’s like a movie where the sets and characters change, while the script remains the same. One must move beyond this material life to progress on the spiral. This requires one to lose all attachments and desires to the material, as well as letting go of those souls binding them here. This means one must forgive those perceived as doing one wrong.

    Forgiveness of one’s opponents is essential. Leaving this life with animosity, hating or standing stubbornly in opposition to others, brings one back to face those same “demons” in the next life. As the Buddhist say (I paraphrase), hatred, revenge, anger are like taking poison to get rid of an unwanted house guest.

    Forgiving one’s enemies frees one from them forever. Leave this life hating or resenting your parents and you will come back to face them again. Next time the roles could be reversed and you might be the tormentor.

    Jesus was not the only one to say “forgive your enemies” it is a common theme that runs throughout all esoteric teachings. However, forgiving one’s enemies does not mean letting them run roughshod over the forgiver. This is a gross Christian misinterpretation of the teachings.

    Like Jesus, we can forgive Jews their depredations on us even as we whip their money changers bloody. Jews must be forgiven even as they are hung from lampposts like Christmas decorations, The white motto should be “Never stop putting forth your very best effort to eliminate the Jew from your nations, but always forgive these parasites as you destroy them.”

    • “I also believe that forgiveness is appropriate only when parents do something to earn it. Toxic parents, especially the more abusive ones, need to acknowledge what happened, take responsibility, and show a willingness to make amends. If you unilaterally absolve parents who continue to treat you badly, who deny much of your reality and feelings, and who continue to project blame onto you, you may seriously impede the emotional work you need to do.”

      ― Susan Forward, Toxic Parents: Overcoming Their Hurtful Legacy and Reclaiming Your Life

  5. My childhood was not too different. My father favored my sisters while telling me I was stupid and would never amount to anything. Unsurprisingly, both sisters received multiple PhDs while I dropped out of ninth grade. He was half right.

    We fought and fought until at last I came home from the Marine Corps to stay for a while and sort out life’s direction. One late evening, about two in the morning, I was in the kitchen making a sandwich when he came charging downstairs with a loaded 44 magnum, thinking he would confront a burglar. Seeing me, he went ballistic (no pun intended) and began yelling how he could have shot me by accident.

    The argument escalated until he put the cocked pistol to my forehead screaming, “I’m ought to to kill you! I’m going to kill you!” Seething, I leveled my gaze at him and said, “Go ahead, pull the trigger! I’m ready to go! Blow my head off, but know this, kill me and we’ll do this again. Think about that when you pull the trigger. So go ahead, kill me, I’m damn sure ready to go! See you in the next life.

    My father stopped, lowered the pistol and stormed off. Our relationship improved measurably from that moment on and curiously, my fanatical father lost interest in firearms.

    Years before, my mother had a reading at an ARE meeting where she was told the problem I had with my father stemmed from the fact that we had been friends in a prior life and he had shot me in a rage. While my mother told me this, she never told my father, but it wasn’t until long after the incident, I remembered what she had told me. I have since forgiven my father and every other person of note in my life needing forgiveness.

    While my mother died last year at 94. My father lives on, turning 94 this year; still the irascible bastard everyone loves.

    Remember, turn other cheek – as you drive stake though their heart.

    • > ‘ I have since forgiven my father and every other person of note in my life needing forgiveness.’

      I cannot speak for you because I ignore the full story. Generally, for an adult child to forgive a parent who never recognised his fault is psychological suicide. Alice Miller said that a child can excuse his parents, if they in their turn are prepared to recognise and admit to their failures. But the demand for forgiveness that we often encounter can pose a danger for healing. These are some quotable quotes from her:

      Quote:

      * It is the resentment of the past, we are told, that is making us ill. In those by now familiar groups in which addicts and their relations go into therapy together, the following belief is invariably expressed. Only when you have forgiven your parents for everything they did to you can you get well. Even if both your parents were alcoholic, even if they mistreated, confused, exploited, beat, and totally overloaded you, you must forgive.

      * The majority of therapists work under the influence of destructive interpretations culled from both Western and Oriental religions, which preach forgiveness to the once-mistreated child. Thereby, they create a new vicious circle for people who, from their earliest years, have been caught in the vicious circle of pedagogy. For forgiveness does not resolve latent hatred and self-hatred but rather covers them up in a very dangerous way.

      * In my own therapy it was my experience that it was precisely the opposite of forgiveness —namely, rebellion against mistreatment suffered, the recognition and condemnation of my parents’ destructive opinions and actions, and the articulation of my own needs— that ultimately freed me from the past.

      * By refusing to forgive, I give up all illusions. Why should I forgive, when no one is asking me to? I mean, my parents refuse to understand and to know what they did to me. So why should I go on trying to understand and forgive my parents and whatever happened in their childhood, with things like psychoanalysis and transactional analysis? What’s the use? Whom does it help? It doesn’t help my parents to see the truth. But it does prevent me from experiencing my feelings, the feelings that would give me access to the truth. But under the bell-jar of forgiveness, feelings cannot and may not blossom freely.

      * I cannot conceive of a society in which children are not mistreated, but respected and lovingly cared for, that would develop an ideology of forgiveness for incomprehensible cruelties. This ideology is indivisible with the command “Thou shalt not be aware” [of the cruelty your parents inflicted to you] and with the repetition of that cruelty on the next generation.

      /End quote

      Only thanks to Miller’s ideas on forgiveness I experienced genuine liberation. But you really have to immerse your mind in our works to see the whole picture.

      • Your anger and resentment is palpable. Harboring animosity, anger and hatred does not liberate one from anything, especially themselves. Instead these thoughts forever shackle them to the past. It is said the Sufi teachings are ancient, going beyond written history. To date I have not found a single example of their being incorrect regarding any aspect of ancient human nature (or anything else for that matter). Like other ancient teachings of this nature, they say the same thing about forgiveness. Who is this Alice Miller?

        A story, The monks and the beautiful girl.

        Once two monks were walking along a river’s edge when they came upon a beautiful girl that wanted to cross the river but could not swim. One of the brothers immediately stepped forward, put the girl on his back and carried her across the river. When they got to the other side, the girl thanked the monk and went on her way.

        As they walked on, the other brother began admonishing the monk for his actions. “You know our vows, you know we are never to talk to women or touch them. You have broken your vows and in doing so have questioned the sanctity of our beliefs. How could you do such a thing? How could you carry that girl on your back knowing it would soil your purity?

        The brother looked at him and said, “I put that girl down back there, yet you carry her along with us. You need to leave her as I did.”

      • > ‘Your anger and resentment is palpable. Harboring animosity, anger and hatred does not liberate one from anything, especially themselves’.

        Quite the contrary! When I forgave my parents I lost my mind and fell into a destructive cult. After processing the pain thanks to Miller, I became a-symptomatic, unlike those family members who lost their minds.

        > ‘Who is this Alice Miller?’

        https://chechar.wordpress.com/category/alice-miller/

  6. Isn’t forgiveness itself a schizophrenic concept? I never understood it. Shouldn’t a person always remember and evaluate things that happened in his life to know better his place in the world?

    By the way, about extermination, wouldn’t all your possible 4 Words-related projects take not that much time, a few decades or centuries at most? I was talking about the life without hatred. Sure, Mediaeval societies did not have an enemy of the state, like in NS Germany, but they did have a lot of hate (partially due to the methods of child rearing).

    Also, I never asked about it, and you never explained, won’t exterminating cruel animals disrupt the food chains?

    • It would cause havoc to exterminate all carnivores. Bio-engineering can only be done if you re-design the herbivores so that they don’t turn into plagues.

      I personally would start with an Apache helicopter​ firing a rocket on the mother orca among an orca pack as they start to hunt a calf whale, and targeting a couple of cruel animals for extermination (like the one of your avatar). No harm is done to Mother Nature with those humble steps. But the most serious perp is, of course, Homo sapiens.

      • Do you notice how the extermination-worthy non-human animals have a tendency towards Matriarchalism?

        Hyenas, Arachnids, (I think) Orcas, and Honey Badgers.

        While Aryans have committed ritual sacrifice, it has never been in such standards and heights as non-Whites, who are all pretty much Matriarchal – The Semites are a clear example, along with the Negroids. I wonder if the correlation between a Matriarchal society and a schizophrenic one is a co-incidence.

        Plus, these Matriarchal societies show an unashamed level of cruelty to animals, which of course goes hand in hand with a carnivorous species.

      • The Legionnaires of Algeria always kept a last bullet for themselves. Death was better than capture, as they would be turned over to Arab women for their death sentence.

  7. . . . Who would nag them to death.

    • Matriarchies in Humans is a strange phenomenon. For example, one may say that Arabs are patriarchal due to the way they treat women today, sticking them in burqas and not letting them go out in public. However, one may see a Matriarchy trying to come through if one would look more closely.

      First of all, the women are ugly, and if they are not it is only down to Indo-European admixture. Only within a patriarchal species/race is sexual dimorphism strong, think of birds, who are probably easiest to spot when it comes down to gender.

      Second of all, this: “The kind of power mothers have is enormous. Take the skyline of Istanbul—enormous breasts, pathetic little willies, a final revenge on Islam. I was so scared I had to crouch in the bottom of the boat when I saw it.” – Angela Carter.

      Third of all, supposedly homosexuality was endemic among the Moors, who were weedy and fit for trade, hence their use of buying and selling unfortunate Aryan girls in the Iberian peninsula. The Sultans never worked to have these girls, they never went into battle in order to abduct their own Caperucita Rojas. They got others to do it for them, because (objectively) they were weak, greasy and rat-faced.

      Compare this with Aryans, who take what they want with iron will, who ironically had the biggest amount of freedoms for Aryan women, but not too much so as be ridiculous about it like modern Whites.

      So why have Arbs suddenly adopted Islam, and if Mongoloids are Matriarchs then where are all the female Mongoloid statesmen? I have absolutely no idea.

  8. Wait, are honey badgers cruel (I know you’ve been mentioning my avatar ad nausem, but I’ve never asked)? And why would you, @JackHalliday, exterminate spiders if they mostly eat insects anyway (insects don’t feel pain)?

    • It’s not only ethics but esthetics: arachnids are repulsive (as some mammals are, like the crazy carnivore of your avatar).

      • I know, you’ve always been a staunch proponent of the concept of objective beauty, but really, what do you have against honey badgers? They seem quite cute to me. They don’t care about snake bites because they have thick skin, so it’s somewhat symbolic.

        Do you consider wolves crazy carnivores, too? That’s what Mediaeval peasants thought.

        And isn’t dew on the spider’s web in the morning quite beautiful? Can’t have that with them exterminated.

      • Every emergent overman would feel a repulsion of arachnids.

      • I don’t really see how the extermination of any carnivores is remotely justifiable.
        Outside of offsetting the balance of the ecosystem, it seems it’d be a waste of resources.
        They’ve merely filled their niche and are oftentimes beautiful creatures (albeit rather violent)

      • On top of that; one doesn’t have to look far to see the significance of violent, oftentimes predatory animals on Europeans.
        The Berserks chose a totem animal, and the three totems were of a wolf, bear and boar.
        Under no circumstances would I want to see such things eradicated even if it meant alleviating some suffering from those animals who are Ill equipped to defend themselves.

      • Strawman: I have never said ‘exterminate all carnivores’ in this thread.

      • Not even all; any or any hostility to them (E.G. your anecdote about attacking Orca’s with attack helicopters)
        It’s just strange.

      • You are completely unfamiliar with the most important post of this site, the ‘introduction to my mind’ which is the intro to the book which syntax I’m reviewing.

    • I would not want to exterminate spiders, though ironically I have strong level of arachnophobia. When I was about 4 years old, my Father caught me stepping on ants in a garden somewhere. He came storming towards me and gave me a speech never to forget.

      I did forget the details of it, but it clearly has left such a mark on my mind that I cannot bring myself to kill any other type of insect, bug, or even arachnid. I am, however, phobic of anything that resembles a spider: certain beetles (Rhino), cockroaches, mantises, millipedes, centipedes, the list goes on.

      Insects may not feel pain, but do they feel fear, dread and despair? If not and these are just Human concepts, then perhaps it is futile trying to save them from webs. The only reason I would kill a non-human animal is if I fear for my safety or if I think they may become a potential infestation, like Fruit Flies.

      I think that most humans are hardwired to find Arachnids disgusting because our ancestors have been these creatures’ prey for Millennia. Take the Brontoscorpio, or the Mesothelae. nevertheless, I have always had a fascination for Spiders and Tarantulas (not sure why).

      P.S
      I am not too sure, but I think there are many cases of Honey Badgers basically torturing other animals for the pure fun of it, as well as killing them for sport, which many White people are not much different from.

  9. So, in the end, after turning overman, man will become the lord of nature, as Christians say about the current human? I just don’t believe you can judge every animal species, especially now now and especially those that don’t even cause suffering. Butterflies love feces…

    • What do you mean? I’ve only talked of a few species that should be removed (starting with this obsolete version of Homo sapiens).

      • I was talking about the ugly spiders and their beautiful web. And that nature may guard secrets to our destiny which we cannot uncover yet so I’m uneasy about any destruction. Ironically, women happen to be arachnophobic more often than men.

  10. Consider the spider, an amazing creature with a brain far smaller than the head of a pin. Yet I have observed spiders relocating their web to more favorable locations when the present location failed yield enough food. Such action indicates analytical reasoning. If one observes such creatures closely, one notices amazing intelligence at work. Note, it takes intelligence to create intelligence.

    Spiders, like all life, work to survive and how often do spiders attack humans? How humans have the temerity to judge other creatures and their actions is beyond me. Of course with certain parasitical species it’s kill or be killed. In that case I find no problem with their destruction. However there is no reason for any animosity. Destroy them and move on.

    • Literally: They are more afraid of us than we are of them. The only reason why we should judge them is

      1) When their contribution to the World’s food chain is unneeded.

      2) When we stop treating defenceless creatures the way we do (a spider counts as defenceless when teamed up with a Hominid, and the Herbivores we seem to have no trouble making suffer, like the Sheep).

      But honestly, there are arthropods out there, specifically in the Jungles (London Zoo has an entire part of a building dedicated to them) which are just so honestly repulsive and sickening it is hard to explain. Most of these creatures are herbivorous and wouldn’t hurt anything, but they are so alien and unnatural, one can’t help but want them wiped off the face of the Earth.

      • As the cat said, “Mice have funny faces, that is why we are compelled to kill them.”


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: