Youtube comments of Spiritual Psychotherapy Services (@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices).
-
46
-
@youaresoverign Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
22
-
21
-
19
-
18
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
17
-
LAW ENFORCEMENT:
For most of human history, there were no POLICE to enforce the law, because, until rather recently, most persons resided in rural areas, where crime was relatively scarce, and because ancient societies were self-policing. If a child committed a crime, rather than being carted-off to Children’s Court by a member of the local police department, his or her mother would administer any necessary punishment. If the mother had broken the law, then the master of the house would discipline her. If the husband was to commit an offensive act, his father or employer would take punitive measures, and so on. Just see how much infrastructure modern societies require in order to perform the duties previously performed by all its collective citizenry! A massive police force would be practically superfluous in even a decent monarchy, what to mention under a holy and righteous king. When a nation is established on virtuous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), the requirement of even a small police force would be highly-questionable, because it would be ensured that every single citizen received proper training in dharma/dhamma.
Many, if not MOST crimes, particularly acts of unmitigated violence, have their seed in poor child-rearing practices, especially highly-traumatic incidents such as neglect, physical mistreatment (that is, undue bodily harm beyond legitimate corporal punishment) and psychological abuse. When the leaders of society (kings and priests) ensure that dharma is promoted in their nation, such odious crimes will naturally be minimized.
14
-
@donm9675 Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
14
-
sex:
gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️
gender:
sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration – firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population – mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”.
Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition.
Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret – do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male – not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking.
N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else, worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning.
Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
13
-
@jenniferallen4420 Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient and/or conscious.
Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe – it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that – merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life.
Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family.
See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general.
12
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM:
SOCIALISM is a political and economic system of social organization in which natural resources, property, and the means of production are owned in common, controlled by the collective public, but typically by a cooperative, the state, or the government, as opposed to private ownership by individuals and/or business corporations. Socialism is based on the notion that common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal society. It is a stage of society in Marxist theory, transitional between capitalism and communism, and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Hence, COMMUNISM is an extreme form of socialism that strives for both social and economic equality, something which can never be achieved, since true equality can never ever exist in this world.
Socialism (and communism) is best defined in contrast with capitalism (or to be more accurate, with free-market economies), as socialism has arisen both as a critical challenge to capitalism, and as a proposal for overcoming and replacing it. Cf. “capitalism” in the Glossary of this book.
Socialism/communism is INTRINSICALLY evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is a practical impossibility, if not a theoretical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system, and therefore, independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a certain number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or a worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes and records a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth.
As mentioned above, although socialists and communists maintain their ideologies to be purely economic systems, it is very difficult, if not outright impossible, to divorce them from the political sphere. In any case, assuming that socialism is no more than an economic organization, simply for the fact that it disallows any form of free-market exchange (which is objectively moral, or at worst, amoral – see Chapter 12), socialism and communism must not be imposed on any community, society, or nation. At worst, socialism/communism/Marxism is a truly horrific, tyrannical, totalitarian, murderous regime, that leads to untold pain and misery, due to certain dogmas that are intrinsically associated with Marxism, particularly a ferocious hostility towards all things dharmic, especially freedom of religion. Marxists enjoy using the terms “capitalism” and “imperialism” in rather INACCURATE and emotive ways, in order to emphasize their supposed wicked natures. I would wager that the main motivation for Karl Marx’ (as well as the multitude of vassals to his caustic ideology) hatred for free-market economies is simply out of envy for the business class. There is very little doubt in my mind, that if Herr Marx and his minions had somehow found themselves with a healthy bank balance, they would have invested their financial resources in some kind of profitable enterprise, such as establishing a business or investing in company shares or stocks, rather than distributing their wealth among the poor masses, which would be more in keeping with their inane, egalitarian principles. If you think otherwise, then you are truly deluded, and think too highly of that parasite, Marx.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY:
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil as socialism, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will vote, overwhelmingly, for the candidate who promises to fulfil their petty desires, rather than one who will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law and ethics, currently available.
Unlike socialism, in which wealth is stolen from the rich and distributed to the poor (with a “little” bit extra for the ruling elite), democratic governments frequently steal money from the working-class via the taxation system, and distribute it to the already affluent, often indirectly.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not! Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, nutritious, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in “dharma” (righteous living), not in facts and figures, nor in technical training. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily correlate with intelligence!
No democratic (or socialist) government will educate its citizens sufficiently well, that those citizens will acquire knowledge of how to usurp their regime. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. One who requires the services of a brain surgeon NATURALLY seeks the most qualified physician to perform the operation, so logically, we ought accept the sovereignty of the most qualified man to rule over an entire nation (a genuine king). Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice – see the entry “democracy” in the Glossary of what is, by far, the most important work of literature ever composed, this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”.
ANARCHY:
Anarchy is a state in which there are no rulers; a rejection of hierarchy. The earliest recorded use of the word, from the early sixteenth century, simply meant “absence of government”, albeit with the implication of civil disorder. A similar but ameliorated meaning began to be employed in the nineteenth century, Christian era, in reference to a Utopian (that is, an idealistic) society that had NO GOVERNMENT.
The English term was borrowed from the Medieval Latin word, “anarchia”, borrowed from the Greek word, “anarkhía” (“lack of a leader, lawlessness”), from “ánarchos” (“without a head or chief, leaderless”), from “an-” + “-archos”, derivative of “archós” (“leader, chief”) + “-ia”.
Cont....
12
-
@squirreleegurl Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient, and/or conscious.
Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe – it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that – merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life.
Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general.
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family.
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
9
-
9
-
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior – again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
9
-
@carrieswank Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient and/or conscious.
Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe – it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that – merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life.
Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family.
See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general.
8
-
8
-
@speggeri90 Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient, and/or conscious.
Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe – it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that – merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life.
Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general.
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family.
7
-
7
-
7
-
sex:
the state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, while males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete.
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
gender:
the state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that there are only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in his/her womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate him/herself). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender.
In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration – firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from "genus", such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus” is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word in recent times, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, objectively-immoral ideologies.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term, and even in the former case, predominantly where leftist ideologues comprise a significant proportion of the population. See also “leftism”.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret – do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male – not a woman or a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was ALWAYS a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. 🤪
7
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia). In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning – a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
7
-
7
-
violence:
the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; intentional use of physical force or power, threatened against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation. Thus, physical violence is to be distinguished from verbal abuse. However, at the time of writing, many leftists have been attempting to use the term “violence” in reference to verbal acts. Cf. “undue (harm)”.
Therefore, the term “violence” should NEVER be used in cases of just force.
“Just force” is any means necessary to overcome an (objectively) evil adversary or oppressor. To use a simple and obvious example (obvious, that is, to a holy and righteous soul), if the servant of a corrupt (i.e. non-monarchical) government was to try to apprehend a man for administering proper punishment to one of his subordinates, such as his wife, child, or employee, it would be not only justified for that man to retaliate against the governmental minion, but a truly holy and righteous act, worthy of a veritable saint.
A far more palpable example would be the instance of a person (or even an animal) killing another person or an animal in self-defence. If you, the reader was to be physically-attacked by an aggressive person, and you were forced to end the life of that person in order to save your own life, no decent soul would accuse you of being violent. Therefore, just force is not, by definition, violence.
One of the most popular works of fiction ever composed, “Bhagavad-gītā”, revolves around the narrative of an Indian monarch trying to convince one of his warriors to kill his own extended family and his own teachers, not out of enmity, but due to his kin committing certain criminal acts, such as withholding a kingdom from that warrior, and supporting an objectively evil and corrupt regime. That monarch, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, after explaining to His friend, Prince Arjuna, that his hesitancy to fight against his kin was based on illusory considerations, convinced him to execute his duty of fighting for a righteous cause, thereby fulfilling his dharma (societal duty).
Therefore, when Indians use the phrase “Dharma hiṃsā tathaiva ca”, not only are they INVENTING a phrase which does not appear in any recognized Vedic scripture (though they pretend that it is from an ancient source), they are confusing just force with violence.
7
-
6
-
6
-
🐟 25. THE ROLE OF FEMALES:
Women are fortunate because they are BORN with a job:
Daughter.
Wife.
Mother.
Females normally have no role in public life. Exceptions to this rule are relatively rare. For instance, women may work in the arts (singers, actors, and dancers, which often demand female players), or as maids or nurses, both of which are feminine duties, providing it has no detrimental effect on their PRIMARY function, as daughters, wives, and mothers.
So, a female’s fundamental role is to serve her MASTERS (any man in her family circle), even from a relatively young age, by performing domestic duties and raising her children. Barren women (heterosexual or otherwise) are extremely unfortunate, but can still devote their lives to serving their husband, father, grandfather, uncles, or in the event that none of those men are extant, adult male cousins.
Studies have shown that the more a woman deviates from this innate societal function, the less she is fulfilled. The phrase, “Cat Lady”, says it all.
As a general rule, women should be protected in the home, and never wander-out alone. They should FULLY cover their bodies in the presence of post-pubescent males outside the family circle. Even the prostitutes in some nations wear veils in public, even if out of fear of reprisal.
Having lived the eremitic life of a monastic priest for a few decades, I can attest to the importance of keeping one’s home clean and tidy. It is obvious to me that housekeeping is very much a full-time occupation, and that if I were to neglect my domestic chores, my health and comfort would greatly diminish. As would be expected of a person in my position, I follow a strict diet and am obsessive in regards to hygiene. Without a spouse, the onus is on me to maintain my residence in a prim and proper manner, even though it results in me spending less time teaching religion as a member of the Holy Priesthood (The World Teacher, in my particular case). Therefore, the role of a housewife is of PARAMOUNT importance, and must never be discounted by anybody, particularly feminist ideologues. The following chapter deals with feminism.
The ONLY reason I have resided alone for most of my adult life is due to the fact that there is a severe scarcity of decent women in my country, and indeed the entire world, what to speak of holy and righteous women. Unfortunately, few women, particularly in the more affluent nations, any longer receive adequate training in the connubial arts. In my former marriages, I was forced to perform most household chores.
In recent centuries, due to various factors (FEMINISM, in particular), women have become so degraded, that is it practically impossible to find an example of an ideal woman. Therefore, in order to reference examples of such a woman, one is forced to refer to figures from ancient myths.
Mariam, the mother of Lord Jesus Christ, and Devī Sītārānī, the wife of Śri Rāja Rāma, King of Ayodhya, are the epitome of womanhood, and ought to be the role models for each and every girl born on this planet. That is assuming, of course, that those two women were, in actual fact, the gentle, refined, humble and submissive goddesses they were portrayed to be in the archaic scriptures.
Obviously, this teaching receives an ENORMOUS amount of scorn, contempt and derision from a certain proportion of women (and also many "men"), but that is perfectly fine, because, such foolish feminists are destined to die lonely and alone, with no family surrounding them, and hopefully not transfer their adulterated genes to forthcoming generations.
In some locations in the world, STRAY COWS freely wander the urban streets, displaying their teats.
Similarly, in most locations, women wander the dangerous streets alone or in groups, displaying their bosoms and other bodily parts.
Such loose women are no better than STRAY COWS.
The TRUTH is very difficult to accept, right, Slave?
“Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun, the moon, and the TRUTH.”
Siddhārtha Gautama (AKA The Buddha),
Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.131 (Paraphrased).
Paṭicchanna Sutta
“...encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.”
***********
“Yet women will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
***********
“Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
St. Paul of Tarsus,
Titus 2:4-5.
1 Timothy 2:15.
1 Corinthians 14:34.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@asteronquestar8855 NO. 🙄
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
6
-
🐟 21. THE MONARCHY:
A KING (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is a man who has a divine mandate, via his counsellor (i.e. his spiritual preceptor), to govern an area of land (and sea) and the population within its borders. He should be the head of the military, and courageously lead his army into battle if necessary (as opposed to cowardly scampering into a bomb shelter under the Pentagon building, as Presidents of the United States of America are apt to do). A king should be a natural leader among men, and be willing to sacrifice his life to protect his subjects. A good monarch will take heed of astute advice from his spiritual guide (ideally, the wisest prophet in his kingdom), as well as his ministers, in order to build a just society.
A LEGITIMATE monarch will endorse holy and righteous edicts, such as absolute freedom of speech*, homeschooling of children, free markets, and private ownership of all goods and services (even such infrastructure as roads, water and sewerage systems, health care, and education). He will enforce taxation of the profits of businessmen alone (and not of any other class of society), provide material support to members of the Holy Priesthood if necessary, establish a monetary system using (or at least backed by) precious metals, and avoid interfering with the private matters of his citizens (unlike evil governments, which meddle in such things as sex, marriage, and discipline within workplaces and families).
There are only two kinds of persons who would POSSIBLY object to the institution of monarchy:
By far the greatest number of objectors are those who have very little idea of what constitutes a LEGITIMATE monarchy, as defined above. The usual arguments are either “I don’t want to be ruled by a tyrannical, despotic dictator” or “I don’t believe monarchy should be hereditary”. Obviously, neither of these arguments is applicable when the institution of monarchy is properly understood. Any man can call himself “King”, but if he lacks saintly (or at least noble) qualities and doesn't have the best interests of his people at heart, he is naught but a fascistic dictator.
Just as a priest is, by definition, a holy man, so too should a monarch be a righteous, wise king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit). After all, a king’s primary duty is the protection of his nation (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit), so how could a person fulfil his duty of care if he was evil and uncaring? Just as a family must be protected by its head (the father), every nation requires a good patriarch. Unless a man has the natural proclivities to do so, he ought NOT follow his father’s occupation. Therefore, a prince isn't necessarily qualified to assume his father’s role upon the demise of his sire.
The only “valid” objection to monarchy could possibly be from those miscreants who wish to destroy society via an ILLEGITIMATE system of government (see Chapter 22) or those who are simply too stupid to understand how monarchy is the most beneficial form of governance.
Any form of governance OTHER than monarchy must be, by definition, controlled by either workers or by businessmen (or rarely by priests or spiritual leaders), and therefore is intrinsically evil, since they are unqualified to rule a nation. If there is no aspiring monarch extant within a nation, then the best alternative is a priest (a prophet, to be more precise), but only until a monarch arises and retakes power.
Although WAR is unfortunate, it is sometimes necessary to defend oneself from aggressors. In certain circumstances, it is legitimate for a ruler or aspiring ruler to overtake another (evil and corrupt) ruler and usurp his sovereignty. Unfortunately, in the modern era, it is nigh impossible for an aspiring king to seize power, since he will be easily defeated by sheer military might, as opposed to the state of affairs in ancient times, where two opposing monarchs would fight in hand-to-hand combat (or possibly lead their respective armies into a battle for the kingdom).
Being a soldier is a legitimate and necessary occupation in this wicked and perilous world, mainly for the defence of a local population or nation, but unfortunately, not all soldiers serve a good master. Not all world leaders are righteous in all their ways. In fact, you who are reading this Scripture, are almost definitely being oppressed by a corrupt, tyrannical regime. The reason why you may not realize this fact is due to either abject ignorance, or because, just like your illegitimate government, you have little desire for society to be organized according to holy and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). Just as a newborn child has absolutely no conception of what is most beneficial to its welfare, the vast majority of citizens have very little idea of what benefits society most. Hence the decadent state of contemporary culture.
Whenever there is a CONFLICT in this world, whether that be a conflict between two persons, or a conflict between two groups of persons (such as political wars), it is absolutely certain that one side is more righteous than the other. Both sides can not be equally right, because equality is non-existent in this phenomenal sphere. Equality exclusively exists in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably on the sub-atomic level. Unfortunately, it requires an above-average intellect to be able to comprehend such truthful concepts.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
George Carlin,
American Comedian and Actor.
1937-2008.
“I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. ...
That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple, to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen...patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government.”
Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, English Author,
“The Weight of Glory”.
*Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one's speech. For example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he or she ought to be punished for that sinful deed. A genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12). Of course, the best advisor to any monarch is his spiritual master, as defined in Chapter 19 (ideally, the most holy and wise member of the Holy Priesthood within the kingdom), so the need for him to require advice from anyone other than his guru would be scarce, at least in regards to matters of morality, which is the secure foundation of society.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravenes dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In the past decade or two, the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human society. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia). In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place). It seems the consensus amongst leftist "intellectuals" is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one's environmental conditioning, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one's genetic sequence and one’s conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically-supported.
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies, such as monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual chastity, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for GOD is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes. 🤡
5
-
5
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravenes dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In the past decade or two, the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human society. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia). In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place). It seems the consensus amongst leftist "intellectuals" is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one's environmental conditioning, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one's genetic sequence and one’s conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically-supported.
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies, such as monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual chastity, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for GOD is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes. 🤡
5
-
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior – again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
5
-
🐟 27. MARRIAGE & THE FAMILY:
Matrimony is the contractual union of a man with one or more women, primarily for the purpose of PROCREATION and child-rearing.
The couple should be brought together by their respective parents, and if practical, some sort of nuptial ceremony performed. Once a couple has been engaged to be married, they should not break the agreement, unless one party has been proven to have lost his or her virginity with a third party. OBVIOUSLY, after the wedding, the marriage contract cannot be broken, unless one or both parties has committed adultery, or one party has chosen to no longer carry out his or her marital duties (for instance, if the husband refuses to materially-support his wife/wives, or the wife refuses to perform domestic chores for her master, both of which are legitimate grounds for divorce).
A RESPONSIBLE father will objectively evaluate the unique characteristics, virtues, idiosyncrasies, and shortcomings of his child from a relatively early age, and thereafter, seek a compatible spouse from the available pool of persons in his social circles. Unless his nation faces extinction, the potential match should not be any closer to his child than a cousin. If a prospective couple do not belong to the same clan (and thereby do not share the same family name), it is probable that their genetic code is sufficiently divergent to create healthy offspring. As implied above, incestuous marriage should only be condoned if the human race is in danger of extermination, or possibly in the instance where an entire race or nation is on the verge of annihilation.
If one’s parents fail in their duty to select a suitable mate, one should very carefully choose a COMPATIBLE spouse. The recommended criteria used to evaluate marital compatibility are as follows: physical characteristics (such as relative height and sexual attractiveness), personality type, intelligence, emotional temperament, diet, cultural similarities, political ideology, religious affiliation, and life goals.
One of the major causes of conjugal breakdown in recent decades has been due to the couple selecting each other based solely (or at least predominantly) on sexual attraction and/or amorous attachments, with little consideration given to the other guiding principles, listed above.
Romance rarely lasts more than a couple of years. Marriage is an institution based largely on PRACTICAL considerations, not on lustful feelings or on fleeting sentimentality. Without firm, practical reasons for a couple remaining conjugally-bound, they are susceptible to marital divorce.
Generally speaking, women have the potent desire to raise children, and require a man with which to mate, and then protect and support her and the offspring, during the fifteen-plus years (for EACH child) of child-rearing. Most men also desire to have a family, and additionally, possess a very powerful libido, which, if not channelled in a legitimate fashion, can cause a great deal of social misbehaviour (e.g. rape, etc.).
There is no such thing as a nun in the eyes of God. Therefore, unless a woman is seriously disabled, either physically or psychologically, or else a lesbian, she is lawfully OBLIGATED to marry the man preselected by her parents (or if her parents are deceased, by her extant master, whether that be her grandfather, an uncle, or an adult nephew). Ideally, women ought to be betrothed as soon as they reach adulthood, to avoid a childless existence. Quite understandably, very few men have aspirations to mate with a post-menopausal female.
Marriage is mandatory for men too, apart from missionary priests, those unfortunate males who are unable to support a family for reasons of mental or physical incapacity, men who are simply passed-over by hypergamous females due to being perceived as low-value suitors, homosexuals (meaning, men who are not at all attracted to the opposite gender. Bisexuals are not exempt from marriage), and men who reside in jurisdictions where ILLEGITIMATE feministic governments enact so-called “laws” which abrogate the lawful rights of married men.
In my particular case, despite being a model husband and father, my first wife, with the support of the dirty, demonic, democratic Australian government, literally kidnapped my three precious children, whilst my second wife, with the assistance of the equally-wicked, violent, corrupt, murderous Filipino government, stole my presbytery (the house of a priest).
The recent exodus of men in Western countries from the dating pool (or at least from formal marriage) is more than understandable.
The man should be approximately ten to twenty years OLDER than his wife/wives. Some of the reasons for this are:
It is natural for women to be attracted to older men and for men to be attracted to younger women. There is a good evolutionary reason why women reach their sexual peak between the ages of about fifteen to twenty-five and why a man's sexual market value peaks in his thirties to fifties. The female matures earlier (physically and socially), so if she mates with a man of similar age, she may find her spouse to be emotionally immature. The husband is almost a substitute for the woman's father figure, so the husband’s age gives him added authority as head of the family. Also, it gives the man extra time to establish his career, a house and home for his wife and forthcoming progeny.
The main duties of the HUSBAND are to teach his wife/wives and sons whatever beneficial lessons he has learnt from his own masters, protect his family from harm, and supply their necessities of life (that is, food, clothing, and shelter) as well as desired luxuries, if practicable. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
Marriage is not a democracy. Any so-called man who compromises with his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives or his offspring, is surely doomed to failure. Feminized western men, in particular, are guilty of such uxoriousness. Such emasculated “men” are not true men, and desperately need to regain their dignity as the head of their homes.
The main daily duties of the WIFE are to execute domestic chores such as to cook, clean, sew, take care of the children, and to keep the husband sexually satisfied so he doesn't look at other women.
The wife should submit to the will of her husband. She should fully respect him as her master, and should address him accordingly.
Whilst conversing, the wife should focus her attention completely on her husband. She should listen carefully to what he says, learn what he is saying, answer him, and obey his instructions. A man should never be alone with any female, apart from his wife, of course.
POLYGAMY has been taught by all the major religions. Unfortunately, the “westernized” religious cults seem to have done away with the practice for unbeknown reasons. The reason for polygamy is simply due to the fact that every woman needs a husband. Also, a certain proportion of men are destined to die as bachelors due to female hypergamy, which is a natural trait of women (even if it may seem unfair).
When a woman marries, she LITERALLY joins the family of her husband.
She takes her master's family name, and the husband's parents become her parents, which is why they are called “father/mother-in-law”, that is, “father/mother according to the law” (the one and only law of God, or more accurately, the Universal Law, as propounded in Chapter 12).
Cont...
5
-
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior – again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
4
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
4
-
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient and/or conscious.
Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe – it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that – merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life.
Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family.
See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general.
4
-
4
-
Here's the OBJECTIVE side of the story:
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
4
-
LAW ENFORCEMENT:
For most of human history, there were no POLICE to enforce the law, because, until rather recently, most persons resided in rural areas, where crime was relatively scarce, and because ancient societies were self-policing. If a child committed a crime, rather than being carted-off to Children’s Court by a member of the local police department, his or her mother would administer any necessary punishment. If the mother had broken the law, then the master of the house would discipline her. If the husband was to commit an offensive act, his father or employer would take punitive measures, and so on. Just see how much infrastructure modern societies require in order to perform the duties previously performed by all its collective citizenry! A massive police force would be practically superfluous in even a decent monarchy, what to mention under a holy and righteous king. When a nation is established on virtuous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), the requirement of even a small police force would be highly-questionable, because it would be ensured that every single citizen received proper training in dharma/dhamma.
Many, if not MOST crimes, particularly acts of unmitigated violence, have their seed in poor child-rearing practices, especially highly-traumatic incidents such as neglect, physical mistreatment (that is, undue bodily harm beyond legitimate corporal punishment) and psychological abuse. When the leaders of society (kings and priests) ensure that dharma is promoted in their nation, such odious crimes will naturally be minimized.
4
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
🐟 21. THE MONARCHY:
A KING (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is a man who has a divine mandate, via his counsellor (i.e. his spiritual preceptor), to govern an area of land (and sea) and the population within its borders. He should be the head of the military, and courageously lead his army into battle if necessary (as opposed to cowardly scampering into a bomb shelter under the Pentagon building, as Presidents of the United States of America are apt to do). A king should be a natural leader among men, and be willing to sacrifice his life to protect his subjects. A good monarch will take heed of astute advice from his spiritual guide (ideally, the wisest prophet in his kingdom), as well as his ministers, in order to build a just society.
A LEGITIMATE monarch will endorse holy and righteous edicts, such as absolute freedom of speech*, homeschooling of children, free markets, and private ownership of all goods and services (even such infrastructure as roads, water and sewerage systems, health care, and education). He will enforce taxation of the profits of businessmen alone (and not of any other class of society), provide material support to members of the Holy Priesthood if necessary, establish a monetary system using (or at least backed by) precious metals, and avoid interfering with the private matters of his citizens (unlike evil governments, which meddle in such things as sex, marriage, and discipline within workplaces and families).
There are only two kinds of persons who would POSSIBLY object to the institution of monarchy:
By far the greatest number of objectors are those who have very little idea of what constitutes a LEGITIMATE monarchy, as defined above. The usual arguments are either “I don’t want to be ruled by a tyrannical, despotic dictator” or “I don’t believe monarchy should be hereditary”. Obviously, neither of these arguments is applicable when the institution of monarchy is properly understood. Any man can call himself “King”, but if he lacks saintly (or at least noble) qualities and doesn't have the best interests of his people at heart, he is naught but a fascistic dictator.
Just as a priest is, by definition, a holy man, so too should a monarch be a righteous, wise king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit). After all, a king’s primary duty is the protection of his nation (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit), so how could a person fulfil his duty of care if he was evil and uncaring? Just as a family must be protected by its head (the father), every nation requires a good patriarch. Unless a man has the natural proclivities to do so, he ought NOT follow his father’s occupation. Therefore, a prince isn't necessarily qualified to assume his father’s role upon the demise of his sire.
The only “valid” objection to monarchy could possibly be from those miscreants who wish to destroy society via an ILLEGITIMATE system of government (see Chapter 22) or those who are simply too stupid to understand how monarchy is the most beneficial form of governance.
Any form of governance OTHER than monarchy must be, by definition, controlled by either workers or by businessmen (or rarely by priests or spiritual leaders), and therefore is intrinsically evil, since they are unqualified to rule a nation. If there is no aspiring monarch extant within a nation, then the best alternative is a priest (a prophet, to be more precise), but only until a monarch arises and retakes power.
Although WAR is unfortunate, it is sometimes necessary to defend oneself from aggressors. In certain circumstances, it is legitimate for a ruler or aspiring ruler to overtake another (evil and corrupt) ruler and usurp his sovereignty. Unfortunately, in the modern era, it is nigh impossible for an aspiring king to seize power, since he will be easily defeated by sheer military might, as opposed to the state of affairs in ancient times, where two opposing monarchs would fight in hand-to-hand combat (or possibly lead their respective armies into a battle for the kingdom).
Being a soldier is a legitimate and necessary occupation in this wicked and perilous world, mainly for the defence of a local population or nation, but unfortunately, not all soldiers serve a good master. Not all world leaders are righteous in all their ways. In fact, you who are reading this Scripture, are almost definitely being oppressed by a corrupt, tyrannical regime. The reason why you may not realize this fact is due to either abject ignorance, or because, just like your illegitimate government, you have little desire for society to be organized according to holy and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). Just as a newborn child has absolutely no conception of what is most beneficial to its welfare, the vast majority of citizens have very little idea of what benefits society most. Hence the decadent state of contemporary culture.
Whenever there is a CONFLICT in this world, whether that be a conflict between two persons, or a conflict between two groups of persons (such as political wars), it is absolutely certain that one side is more righteous than the other. Both sides can not be equally right, because equality is non-existent in this phenomenal sphere. Equality exclusively exists in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably on the sub-atomic level. Unfortunately, it requires an above-average intellect to be able to comprehend such truthful concepts.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
George Carlin,
American Comedian and Actor.
1937-2008.
“I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. ...
That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple, to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen...patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government.”
Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, English Author,
“The Weight of Glory”.
*Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one's speech. For example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he or she ought to be punished for that sinful deed. A genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12). Of course, the best advisor to any monarch is his spiritual master, as defined in Chapter 19 (ideally, the most holy and wise member of the Holy Priesthood within the kingdom), so the need for him to require advice from anyone other than his guru would be scarce, at least in regards to matters of morality, which is the secure foundation of society.
4
-
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH:
The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word.
Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down.
A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering.
For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute.
It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent.
Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed.
Good and bad are RELATIVE – what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.'
Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good.
However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul.
When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law).
The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit).
Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason – because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability).
This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter.
Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”.
For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being.
So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth.
“In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are.
We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is."
***********
“God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This.
So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this – the Energy or the Consciousness.
The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.”
Roger Castillo,
Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015.
“I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”.
Lord Jesus Christ,
John 14:16 and 8:32.
4
-
LAW ENFORCEMENT:
For most of human history, there were no POLICE to enforce the law, because, until rather recently, most persons resided in rural areas, where crime was relatively scarce, and because ancient societies were self-policing. If a child committed a crime, rather than being carted-off to Children’s Court by a member of the local police department, his or her mother would administer any necessary punishment. If the mother had broken the law, then the master of the house would discipline her. If the husband was to commit an offensive act, his father or employer would take punitive measures, and so on. Just see how much infrastructure modern societies require in order to perform the duties previously performed by all its collective citizenry! A massive police force would be practically superfluous in even a decent monarchy, what to mention under a holy and righteous king. When a nation is established on virtuous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), the requirement of even a small police force would be highly-questionable, because it would be ensured that every single citizen received proper training in dharma/dhamma.
Many, if not MOST crimes, particularly acts of unmitigated violence, have their seed in poor child-rearing practices, especially highly-traumatic incidents such as neglect, physical mistreatment (that is, undue bodily harm beyond legitimate corporal punishment) and psychological abuse. When the leaders of society (kings and priests) ensure that dharma is promoted in their nation, such odious crimes will naturally be minimized.
4
-
leftism:
otherwise known as “progressivism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to those citizens who opposed the French (so-called) king, yet currently used to describe those wicked persons who favour assorted ideologies and practices that contradict dharma, such as non-monarchical governances (particularly socialism, communism, tyrannical fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (such as homosexuality and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of poor, innocent, unborn children. In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human society.
As explicated in Chapter 11, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal) is due entirely to his or her genetic code and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia).
I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies, such as monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual chastity, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for the truth will surely conquer (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit)!
P.S. Anecdotally, it seems that the farther left-leaning a person, the more physically (and psychologically) ugly is that person.🤢
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ebufi7957 yes?
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
4
-
@talinra3160 Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
4
-
@YTisCensorship
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In the past decade or two, the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human society. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia). In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil, and immoral in the first place). It seems the consensus amongst leftist "intellectuals" is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one's environmental conditioning, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one's genetic sequence and one’s conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically-supported.
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies, such as monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for GOD is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes. 🤡
4
-
4
-
4
-
A Blunt Conservative Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
4
-
3
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
3
-
@soberserotonin1850
Regarding abortion, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is absolutely human from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of abortion (for illegitimate reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child) due to it not being fully-developed and/or insentient.
Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is still not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe – it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that – merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life.
Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is indisputable that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
Personally, I don't think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could never perform the deed of inserting my arm in the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extract the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform the dirty deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf.
Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe!
See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general.
To read “FISH”, which is, without a shadow of a doubt, by far the most important work of literature ever composed, Email:
SpiritualPsychotherapyServices@gmail.com
with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field.
🐟
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
🐟 30. FOOD & DIET:
There are THREE kinds of foods according to the three "modes" explicated in Chapter 18 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”.
Foods in the mode of purity promote good physical and mental health. The adage "healthy body, healthy mind" is pertinent to this mode.
Such foods include, in approximate order of their importance: fruits (especially if they are tree-ripened), vegetables, nuts, legumes/pulses, grains, roots, flowers, tubers, bulbs, and of course, purified water (or milk, in the case of infants), supplemented with seeds and herbs.
To be included in this classification, the food must be LIVING, that is, fresh and raw (or at most, steamed or lightly sautéed, if one is residing in a cold clime). Most animals subsist on living foodstuffs, so to be considered healthy, the food must be both living and natural.
As with all herbivorous mammals, humans who consume a pure diet normally experience a bowel movement after each substantial meal.
Foods in the mode of passion promote indigestion (or, at least, are more difficult to digest than pure foods) and overly-excite the mind.
Such foods are basically the same as above, but with excessive amounts of oil, spices, sweeteners, salt and/or other condiments added.
To be included in this category, the VEGETARIAN* foods may be properly cooked, but not overcooked, and mildly to moderately seasoned.
Those who consume foods predominately in the mode of passion normally defecate after breaking their fast (i.e. the first meal of the day).
Foods in the mode of darkness cannot rightly be called “food” at all, and invariably cause digestive upsets, such as constipation or diarrhoea.
Such “offal” is either dry, stale, putrid, rancid, decayed, carcinogenic, overcooked (or even worse, burnt), processed beyond recognition, or the remnants of another’s meal (that is, food that has been leftover by a person who is lower in the hierarchy of society than the person who intends to consume it. For example, it would be offensive for a beggar to offer the remains of his meal to his king, yet the converse would be a rather gracious act of kindness). Again, to be included in this classification, the food is to be of wholly PLANT or fungal origin.
Ideally, the bulk (if not ALL) of one's diet should comprise of minimally-processed raw foods, such as tropical fruits or vegetable salads, the latter of which often consists of fruits anyway, since such foods as tomatoes, cucumbers and olives are, in fact, fruits, since they are seed-bearing foods. If one consumes a very high proportion of raw fruits, it is rarely, if ever, necessary to fast. Fasting is beneficial for those who partake in a diet high in processed and cooked dishes. Fruit-juice fasting is possibly the best method of fasting, especially for those living an active lifestyle. Unless one is particularly active, eating more than two meals per day is unnecessary. Ideally, cooked and highly-processed foods should be reserved for the final meal of the day, since the process of digestion itself consumes more energy than any other activity.
It is an undeniable scientific fact that humans are a HERBIVOROUS species (more specifically, a predominantly frugivorous, or fruit-eating animal). There is not a single aspect of human psychology or physiology that even suggests that we were designed or evolved to feed on our fellow animals. The primary visual cortex of the brains of hominids has precisely evolved to recognise the colourful fruits that grew in the tropics of the African continent. Only a veritable troglodyte could possibly take delight in the sight and stench of bloody animal carcasses!
Practically all cat owners know to feed their pets with animal flesh, as they understand that felines are obligate carnivores, yet they have not the slightest clue that humans are herbivores biologically, and that the consumption of animal products is gradually destroying their health.
Animal consumption is lawful only if there is a scarcity of ACTUAL food. However, to be fair, some races have adapted reasonably well to an omnivorous diet due to residing in regions of the earth where edible vegetation has been scarce, for millennia before the twentieth century. But even then, those races have been found to improve their health when their diet had been enriched with vegetation. Humans originated in the wetlands of tropical Africa and our source of food is necessarily to be found in such a climate. We humans must surely be the only species of animal life that migrates away from its food source! Who among you would not prefer tropical fruits over the “food” found in the Arctic Circle?
Unnecessarily killing and/or consuming animals is an ABOMINABLE action. It is not natural for humans to hunt animals like sheep, cows, goats, rabbits, chicken, and fish, and gorge on their bloody carcasses. Sheep, rabbits, and cows are food for carnivorous animals such as lions, tigers and wolves, and fish is food for marine and semi-aquatic species. Do humans live in the ocean? Of course not! Then why is it necessary for us to go into the water to find our food? Is that sensible? Not at all, unless, as previously mentioned, one is afflicted with true hunger (and even in the event that one is literally dying of starvation, one ought to, from a moral perspective, as far as practical, eat those animals that are lower in the hierarchy of sentience, such as seafood. Slaughtering a primate is immeasurably more sinful than feeding on crustacean, for instance).
Milk is intended solely for consumption by infants of the SAME species. Cow’s milk is for baby cows, not adult humans. The logic is overwhelming, but unfortunately, not all persons are capable of reaching such a base level of logic to understand that it is unnatural for a human to suckle on the teats of a cow or goat. Furthermore, like all unnatural substances, dairy products are harmful to human physiology.
Ideally, one should sit in a comfortable position and eat one’s meal with a RELAXED mental disposition. Consuming food in an anxious state of mind may cause digestive upsets. If practical, eating with bare (washed) hands is more conducive to the enjoyment of one’s meal.
“And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit.
You shall have them for food.’”
Genesis 1:29.
The Old Testament portion of the “Holy Bible”.
“Let food be thy medicine,
and let medicine be thy food.”
Hippocrates,
Father of modern medicine.
*The term “Vegetarian” is used LITERALLY here, that is, “one who subsists on vegetation”. One who consumes vegetation and dairy and/or eggs is properly called a “lacto-vegetarian” or a “lacto-ovo vegetarian”, respectively. The term “vegan” is not directly related to diet, but to the philosophy of the avoidance of harming animal life unnecessarily. Animal killing is permissible only in the case of true hunger, self-defence, or in order to eradicate vermin from one's dwelling and work places. Obviously, veganism is to be promoted as the ideal way of life for all humans.
N.B. If you are reading this Holy Scripture, it is highly probable that you are familiar with the concept of the “Three Modes of Nature” (“trī-guṇa”, in Sanskrit). If not, it may be prudent to read or re-read Chapter 18 of “FISH” at this point. In any case, those who are, in fact, familiar with the three modes of nature have an extremely flawed understanding of how they apply to food and diet, particularly if they have studied the ancient Indian texts known collectively as “Ayur Veda” (“The Science of Life/Longevity”). Those persons invariably believe that animal products are categorized in the mode of darkness. However, that assumes that animals are actually human food, which they most assuredly are not.
The system outlined above is by far the most accurate, logical, and authoritative method of classifying food, and ought to be followed by anyone who is truly desirous of living a wholesome life. Unfortunately, even most vegans seem to lean towards less-than-healthy foods.
© 2019-2023 Spiritual Sciences Society.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Fennerex V
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In the past decade or two, the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia). In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil, and immoral in the first place). It seems the consensus amongst leftist "intellectuals" is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one's environmental conditioning, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one's genetic sequence and one’s conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically-supported.
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies, such as monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for GOD is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes. 🤡
3
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human society. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia). In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning – a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
3
-
🐟 15. SUFFERING & HAPPINESS:
To understand the nature of suffering, it is ABSOLUTELY imperative to first distinguish suffering from pain (and too, happiness from pleasure).
There is a spectrum of pleasure and pain, with an extremely narrow neutral mid-point. Obviously, what constitutes a pleasurable or painful experience is dependent on an individual person's unique preferences. Not everybody likes the taste of chocolate. The feeling of pleasure/pain does NOT, ultimately, come from any external stimulus, believe it or not. It is located entirely in the mind and/or the intellect. That is the reason why highly-advanced spiritual adepts are able to renounce practically all pleasure-seeking activities, content with consuming simple foodstuffs and adequate sleep, and find continuous peace, happiness, and joy, within themselves (“ātmarāma” or “sva-sthaḥ”, in Sanskrit).
Furthermore, the adjudication of whether a certain experience is either pleasurable or painful for a particular person can VARY according to circumstance. For example, one may have enjoyed consuming dairy products as a child, but as a vegetarian/vegan adult, find the taste of putrefied milk (cheese, yoghurt, butter, etc.) to be revolting. For one who is dying of starvation, the consumption of cactus leaves may seem to be rather pleasing to the senses, even though, in normal circumstances, it may be distasteful.
There are THREE kinds of pleasure/pain: physical, emotional, and financial.
For instance, consuming one’s favourite kind of fruit is physically pleasurable. Being hit by a falling coconut – physical pain.
Falling in love is an example of psycho-emotional pleasure. Being angry at another – psychological pain.
Winning a lottery is an example of financial pleasure. Being robbed – financial pain.
There are three origins or CAUSES of pleasure/pain: one’s own body/mind (“adhyātma”, in Sanskrit) other persons/animals (“adhibhūta”, in Sanskrit), and material nature (“adhidaiva”, in Sanskrit).
Some “suffer” pain from lack of money. Others “suffer” pain from an abundance of wealth.
Some “suffer” pain from lack of food. Others “suffer” pain from an abundance of food.
The quality of the “suffering” is different but the NATURE of the “suffering” is the same.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, the term “suffer” is used in the stead of “experience”, because that is how the word is used in everyday parlance, in order to draw attention to the fact that pain can be due to an abundance of material opulence as well as a lack of material wealth.
GENUINE suffering, on the other hand, is the result of mistaking oneself to be the author of one’s thoughts and actions, and other persons to be fully in control of their own thoughts and deeds.
There are five forms (or symptoms) of suffering – all PSYCHOLOGICAL in nature:
1. Guilt/Shame
2. Blame/Bitterness
3. Pride/Arrogance
4. Worry/Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future/Attachment to outcomes (i.e. being inattentive or negligent to the present moment)
Suffering can be COMPLETELY transcended by understanding its source and consciously avoiding its manifestations. For example, as a child, your mother may have been particularly violent towards you. As clearly demonstrated in the chapter dealing with free-will, her violence was wholly due to her genetics and societal conditioning, neither of which were under her control. Blaming your mother for her actions leads to psychological anguish, which can only be cured by focusing on the sense of “I am”. In other words, by resorting to one’s essential nature (knowing one’s innermost being to be Pure Consciousness), one is emancipated from all sorrow.
The initial feeling of anger towards your mother was a natural reaction to her violence, but the enduring resentment is existential misery. Any physical pain you may have experienced was just that – pain. That pain is not to be discounted, but it has probably faded-away into the distant past. The psychological distress or torment that you are currently experiencing is the ACTUAL suffering, and it can easily be negated by a proper attitude to life. When we contemplate painful past events (or possible future events) those thoughts occur, ostensively, in the present. It is simply not possible to experience the past or future – only the present moment and the thoughts and feelings of the present are experienced. Therefore, it is important to understand and acknowledge that suffering can only occur in the present and can be cured with mindful practices. It is beneficial to also consult a qualified psychotherapist on a regular basis, in order to slowly heal from such mental angst.
When a man kicks his pet dog, the dog does NOT spend the remaining years of its life being angry or resentful towards its master. Dogs have very little concept of past, present and future, but live their lives from moment to moment. How unfortunate it is that lower animals are naturally more at peace with their circumstances than we highly-evolved human beings! Even if several of the more highly-evolved species of animals experience some of the five forms of psychological suffering, it does not seem to persist in the same way as it does for human beings.
On a rather personal note, even before I fully grasped this teaching (and when I was a Theist), I sent the following message to my second ex-wife, which illustrates my understanding of her actions: “I want to assure you that I have absolutely no bitterness towards you WHATSOEVER for persecuting me. You are simply carrying-out the orders of your perverted, ignorant mind, and I pray that my Master forgives all your wicked thoughts and acts. My own heart is completely free of anger. I pity you and look forward to the day when you finally turn from sin.”
When one fully imbibes the understanding that life is completely and utterly preordained, and that no living creature has individual free-will (see Chapter 11), one has no choice BUT to quit blaming, shaming, worrying, being prideful, and being attached to the results of his actions. Deep peace and happiness arises naturally as a consequence. Obviously, the understanding of the non-existence of personal freedom (as well as all the other concepts in this Holy Scripture) are also the result of destiny. The unfortunate fact is, even though unqualified peace is available to everyone, particularly in the current age (due to mass communication), very few human beings are destined for it.
To put it very succinctly, true peace/happiness is simply the TRUE self. When the five forms of suffering come to an end (by liberation from the belief in individual agency), only unbroken peace of mind remains. It is completely independent of any temporal circumstances whatsoever.
The common belief that happiness originates from sensory or psychological pleasures is an outright falsehood. One can eat only so much chocolate before the pleasure turns to pain. Even a man who fucks hundreds of beautiful women will eventually tire of his sexual conquests, and attempt to seek satisfaction by another means. “Pleasure” is often conflated with “happiness”, as are the terms “pain” and “suffering”. It ought to be noted that there is a rather blurry line between psycho-emotive pain and actual suffering, so any confusion is understandable.
Cont...
3
-
3
-
@stefanlaskowski6660 Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
3
-
3
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Cont...
3
-
@SouthernGntlmn 🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Cont...
3
-
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Basically, the worst of the non-monarchical governments promote, or at least permit, ALL things contrary to God’s perfect and pure will (or contrary to objective morality and dharma/dhamma, for those who disbelieve in the Deity), such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, transvestism, pornography, homosexuality, gambling (even running lotteries themselves), illegitimate abortion of poor innocent unborn children, irreligion, drug addiction, disrespect for authority, and advancing materialism and nescience via a powerful network of institutions of miseducation (so-called “kindergartens, schools, colleges and universities”).
Their aim is to produce a population of indoctrinated citizens who have been conditioned to serve the state and its perverse agendas.
Even though non-monarchical leaders are committing a criminal act by ordering the persecution of its citizens, or instigating war on another nation, the police and military personnel who execute their orders are equally (if not MORE) guilty of their dirty deeds. Even if a non-monarchical government punishes a criminal, that in itself is a criminal act, because it has absolutely no authority to do so. That is akin to a baby punishing its mother for theft, when it is actually the role of the infant's father to enact disciplinary action upon the woman in question.
For the past few centuries, most of the earth has been controlled by a CABAL of men comprising of extremely wealthy businessmen (particularly bankers) and so-called religious leaders (those who command a huge following). Ironically, some of these elite businessmen instigate a pseudo-socialist government within their nations, so that they themselves can control the financial system for their selfish goals.
This planet is surely doomed, unless the most pernicious institutions ever known to man (democracy, socialism and communism), are replaced by the ONLY legitimate form of government (monarchy – ideally a holy monarch, though even a mediocre king is preferable to being ruled by an elected official or a sociopathic megalomaniac, who could almost never be a righteous ruler).
Let it be known, however: non-monarchical rule can not and will not endure. Once society has devolved to such a debased level where it can no longer survive intact, the natural-born kings of the earth shall arise and regain their rightful place at the head of each and every nation.
The truth shall surely triumph (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit).
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
Samuel Langhorne Clemens (AKA Mark Twain),
American writer.
“I would rather obey a fine lion, much stronger than myself, than two hundred rats of my own species.”
François-Marie Arouet (AKA Voltaire),
French Writer and Historian.
N.B. This is an appropriate place to make mention of a potentially contentious topic:
The above Voltaire remark replaces a quotation by an American spiritual teacher who formerly “worked” as a prostitute. I, the author of this Holy Scripture was criticized for quoting a prostitute, implying that her words were invalid due to her being a former harlot. Firstly, the accuracy of any statement is not dependent on the relative holiness of the person making that statement. Secondly, none of the persons I have quoted in “F.I.S.H”, including the Divine Incarnations, were totally blameless in all their actions, despite what many believe. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quote Voltaire, despite his antipathy towards the Holy Priesthood, towards religion in general, and towards certain monarchs.
3
-
3
-
3
-
sex:
the state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, while males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete.
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
gender:
the state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that there are only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in his/her womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate him/herself). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender.
In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration – firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from "genus", such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus” is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word in recent times, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, objectively-immoral ideologies.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term, and even in the former case, predominantly where leftist ideologues comprise a significant proportion of the population. See also “leftism”.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret – do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male – not a woman or a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was ALWAYS a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. 🤪
3
-
🐟 25. THE ROLE OF FEMALES:
Women are fortunate because they are BORN with a job:
Daughter.
Wife.
Mother.
Females normally have no role in public life. Exceptions to this rule are relatively rare. For instance, women may work in the arts (singers, actors, and dancers, which often demand female players), or as maids or nurses, both of which are feminine duties, providing it has no detrimental effect on their PRIMARY function, as daughters, wives, and mothers.
So, a female’s fundamental role is to serve her MASTERS (any man in her family circle), even from a relatively young age, by performing domestic duties and raising her children. Barren women (heterosexual or otherwise) are extremely unfortunate, but can still devote their lives to serving their husband, father, grandfather, uncles, or in the event that none of those men are extant, adult male cousins.
Studies have shown that the more a woman deviates from this innate societal function, the less she is fulfilled. The phrase, “Cat Lady”, says it all.
As a general rule, women should be protected in the home, and never wander-out alone. They should FULLY cover their bodies in the presence of post-pubescent males outside the family circle. Even the prostitutes in some nations wear veils in public, even if out of fear of reprisal.
Having lived the eremitic life of a monastic priest for a few decades, I can attest to the importance of keeping one’s home clean and tidy. It is obvious to me that housekeeping is very much a full-time occupation, and that if I were to neglect my domestic chores, my health and comfort would greatly diminish. As would be expected of a person in my position, I follow a strict diet and am obsessive in regards to hygiene. Without a spouse, the onus is on me to maintain my residence in a prim and proper manner, even though it results in me spending less time teaching religion as a member of the Holy Priesthood (The World Teacher, in my particular case). Therefore, the role of a housewife is of PARAMOUNT importance, and must never be discounted by anybody, particularly feminist ideologues. The following chapter deals with feminism.
The ONLY reason I have resided alone for most of my adult life is due to the fact that there is a severe scarcity of decent women in my country, and indeed the entire world, what to speak of holy and righteous women. Unfortunately, few women, particularly in the more affluent nations, any longer receive adequate training in the connubial arts. In my former marriages, I was forced to perform most household chores.
In recent centuries, due to various factors (FEMINISM, in particular), women have become so degraded, that is it practically impossible to find an example of an ideal woman. Therefore, in order to reference examples of such a woman, one is forced to refer to figures from ancient myths.
Mariam, the mother of Lord Jesus Christ, and Devī Sītārānī, the wife of Śri Rāja Rāma, King of Ayodhya, are the epitome of womanhood, and ought to be the role models for each and every girl born on this planet. That is assuming, of course, that those two women were, in actual fact, the gentle, refined, humble and submissive goddesses they were portrayed to be in the archaic scriptures.
Obviously, this teaching receives an ENORMOUS amount of scorn, contempt and derision from a certain proportion of women (and also many "men"), but that is perfectly fine, because, such foolish feminists are destined to die lonely and alone, with no family surrounding them, and hopefully not transfer their adulterated genes to forthcoming generations.
In some locations in the world, STRAY COWS freely wander the urban streets, displaying their teats.
Similarly, in most locations, women wander the dangerous streets alone or in groups, displaying their bosoms and other bodily parts.
Such loose women are no better than STRAY COWS.
The TRUTH is very difficult to accept, right, Slave?
“Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun, the moon, and the TRUTH.”
Siddhārtha Gautama (AKA The Buddha),
Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.131 (Paraphrased).
Paṭicchanna Sutta
“...encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.”
***********
“Yet women will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
***********
“Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
St. Paul of Tarsus,
Titus 2:4-5.
1 Timothy 2:15.
1 Corinthians 14:34.
3
-
sex:
gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️
gender:
sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration – firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population – mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”.
Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition.
Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret – do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male – not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking.
N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else, worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning.
Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
3
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@h9production
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible – that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can ever be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) – is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies.
According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.).
In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving!
Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness – although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent).
Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual.
APPARENTLY, this phenomenal universe was created with the primal event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it.
Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities).
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace – and you are, quintessentially, that!
This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness).
HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements – pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances.
Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” – everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that – an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief.
Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors – our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism.
As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous.
Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency – the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment.
There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature:
1. Guilt
2. Blame
3. Pride
4. Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future
These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above – that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.”
The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above.
The ANTIDOTE to all mental anguish is to firstly discern pain from suffering, then to achieve complete relief from that miserable state of existence, by abandoning the erroneous belief in personal authorship, and abiding in the primordial sense of being (the unqualified “I am”, which is one's core identity). This is the very same peace which is experienced each night during the dreamless phase of the sleep cycle. This 'resting imperturbably as Flawless Awareness' can be practiced on a regular basis, until it is fully assimilated and integrated into one's life.
Every person, from time immemorial, has been either intentionally or unwittingly seeking such causeless peace, most commonly by practicing one of the four systems of YOGA (religion) delineated in the sixteenth chapter of this work, or else in creating wealth and the acquisition of material possessions, or in psycho-physical pleasures. That peace of mind is often referred to as “happiness”, “joy”, or “love”, and often presumed to be a temporal state, since many assume, incorrectly, that continuous peace is unavailable in this life.
Fortunately, that is not the case – it is eminently possible to live one's life acquainted with unbroken peace of mind, if destined.
Following DHARMA (frameworks of authentic religion and societal duties) is not guaranteed to achieve that desired tranquillity of mind, but even so, it is beneficial for individuals, since it establishes a structure which enables one to more easily elevate oneself beyond the mundane, animalistic platform (i.e. the base pursuits of eating, sleeping and mating). Intrinsic to dharma is the division of the adult male population into the four classes of society and the inherent role of girls and women in society, as fully elucidated in latter chapters of this Holy Scripture.
Cont...
2
-
So, now that you understand life, and the reason why we are suffering here in this (ostensively) material universe, you are now able to become liberated from all mental suffering, RIGHT?
WRONG! It is imperative to approach an authentic spiritual master to assist you to come to the above realization, by slowly undoing your past conditioning. Just as you have been conditioned over an entire lifetime to think one way, you need to be re-conditioned to think another way (in alignment with your essential identity as The Divine). For one who has himself for a teacher, that man has a veritable fool as his teacher.
Even if you adhere closely to the precepts of a competent teacher, you may still not come to a full understanding of life, but if you are sincere, humble and dedicated, you will definitely find more peace in your daily life – all of which was DESTINED to occur, of course.
Furthermore, if you are suitably-qualified and it was ordained, you may be fortunate enough to receive discipline from one of the EXTREMELY rare fully-enlightened masters residing on earth at any given time (perchance even the current World Teacher himself), and subsequently realize the aforementioned fundamental concepts, by diligently studying authoritative doctrines (especially the most accurate and complete of all extant Scriptures, this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”), serving your guru with great reverence and devotion, and by deliberately avoiding undue harm to oneself, to other individuals, to society as a whole, and to the natural environment, including other life forms.
Most beneficially, you are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology which supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is, apart from illegitimate (non-monarchical) governance and feminism, arguably the foremost existential crisis.
Best wishes for your unique, personal journey towards unalloyed peace and HAPPINESS!
“The cure for nescience is unerring knowledge”.
“You are this universe and you are creating it at every moment, because, you see, it starts now.
It didn't begin in the past – there IS no past.”
***********
“Find out who you REALLY are so that when death comes…there is no-one to kill, for while you are identified with your role, with your name, with your ego, there is someone to kill. But when you are identified with the whole universe, death finds you already annihilated and there’s no-one to kill”.
***********
“A wise Rabbi once said 'If I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I, then I am not I, and you are not you'.
In other words, we are not separate.”
***********
“Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing, than a long life spent in a miserable way.”
***********
“The meaning of life is life itself.”
Professor Dr. Alan Wilson Watts,
British-American Philosopher.
(06/01/1915 – 16/11/1973).
“What you seek is seeking you.”
***********
“Don't you know yet?
It is your light that lights the worlds.”
***********
“Stop acting so small.
You are the universe in ecstatic motion.”
***********
“We are one. Everything in the universe is within you. Ask all from yourself.”
***********
“The lamps are different, but the light is the same.”
Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī,
Persian Sunni Muslim poet, jurist, Islamic scholar, theologian, and Sufi mystic.
(30/09/1207 – 17/12/1273).
🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱☮️😇☮️🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱
To read the remaining twenty-nine chapters of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which are the most authoritative, accurate and complete spiritual precepts so far in human history, send me a private message or Email:
SpiritualPsychotherapyServices@gmail.com
with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field.
🐟
2
-
2
-
@theodosios2615
🐟 25. THE ROLE OF FEMALES:
Women are fortunate because they are BORN with a job:
Daughter.
Wife.
Mother.
Females normally have no role in public life. Exceptions to this rule are relatively rare. For instance, women may work in the arts (singers, actors, and dancers, which often demand female players), or as maids or nurses, both of which are feminine duties, providing it has no detrimental effect on their PRIMARY function, as daughters, wives, and mothers.
So, a female’s fundamental role is to serve her MASTERS (any man in her family circle), even from a relatively young age, by performing domestic duties and raising her children. Barren women (heterosexual or otherwise) are extremely unfortunate, but can still devote their lives to serving their husband, father, grandfather, uncles, or in the event that none of those men are extant, adult male cousins.
Studies have shown that the more a woman deviates from this innate societal function, the less she is fulfilled. The phrase, “Cat Lady”, says it all.
As a general rule, women should be protected in the home, and never wander-out alone. They should FULLY cover their bodies in the presence of post-pubescent males outside the family circle. Even the prostitutes in some nations wear veils in public, even if out of fear of reprisal.
Having lived the eremitic life of a monastic priest for a few decades, I can attest to the importance of keeping one’s home clean and tidy. It is obvious to me that housekeeping is very much a full-time occupation, and that if I were to neglect my domestic chores, my health and comfort would greatly diminish. As would be expected of a person in my position, I follow a strict diet and am obsessive in regards to hygiene. Without a spouse, the onus is on me to maintain my residence in a prim and proper manner, even though it results in me spending less time teaching religion as a member of the Holy Priesthood (The World Teacher, in my particular case). Therefore, the role of a housewife is of PARAMOUNT importance, and must never be discounted by anybody, particularly feminist ideologues. The following chapter deals with feminism.
The ONLY reason I have resided alone for most of my adult life is due to the fact that there is a severe scarcity of decent women in my country, and indeed the entire world, what to speak of holy and righteous women. Unfortunately, few women, particularly in the more affluent nations, any longer receive adequate training in the connubial arts. In my former marriages, I was forced to perform most household chores.
In recent centuries, due to various factors (FEMINISM, in particular), women have become so degraded, that is it practically impossible to find an example of an ideal woman. Therefore, in order to reference examples of such a woman, one is forced to refer to figures from ancient myths.
Mariam, the mother of Lord Jesus Christ, and Devī Sītārānī, the wife of Śri Rāja Rāma, King of Ayodhya, are the epitome of womanhood, and ought to be the role models for each and every girl born on this planet. That is assuming, of course, that those two women were, in actual fact, the gentle, refined, humble and submissive goddesses they were portrayed to be in the archaic scriptures.
Obviously, this teaching receives an ENORMOUS amount of scorn, contempt and derision from a certain proportion of women (and also many "men"), but that is perfectly fine, because, such foolish feminists are destined to die lonely and alone, with no family surrounding them, and hopefully not transfer their adulterated genes to forthcoming generations.
In some locations in the world, STRAY COWS freely wander the urban streets, displaying their teats.
Similarly, in most locations, women wander the dangerous streets alone or in groups, displaying their bosoms and other bodily parts.
Such loose women are no better than STRAY COWS.
The TRUTH is very difficult to accept, right, Slave?
“Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun, the moon, and the TRUTH.”
Siddhārtha Gautama (AKA The Buddha),
Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.131 (Paraphrased).
Paṭicchanna Sutta
“...encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.”
***********
“Yet women will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
***********
“Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
St. Paul of Tarsus,
Titus 2:4-5.
1 Timothy 2:15.
1 Corinthians 14:34.
2
-
@jenniferallen4420
leftism:
otherwise known as “progressivism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to those citizens who opposed the French (so-called) king, yet currently used to describe those wicked persons who favour assorted ideologies and practices that contradict dharma, such as non-monarchical governances (particularly socialism, communism, tyrannical fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (such as homosexuality and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of poor, innocent, unborn children. In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human society.
As explicated in Chapter 11, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal) is due entirely to his or her genetic code and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia).
I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies, such as monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual chastity, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for the truth will surely conquer (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit)!
P.S. Anecdotally, it seems that the farther left-leaning a person, the more physically (and psychologically) ugly is that person.🤢
2
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
🐟 15. SUFFERING & HAPPINESS:
To understand the nature of suffering, it is ABSOLUTELY imperative to first distinguish suffering from pain (and too, happiness from pleasure).
There is a spectrum of pleasure and pain, with an extremely narrow neutral mid-point. Obviously, what constitutes a pleasurable or painful experience is dependent on an individual person's unique preferences. Not everybody likes the taste of chocolate. The feeling of pleasure/pain does NOT, ultimately, come from any external stimulus, believe it or not. It is located entirely in the mind and/or the intellect. That is the reason why highly-advanced spiritual adepts are able to renounce practically all pleasure-seeking activities, content with consuming simple foodstuffs and adequate sleep, and find continuous peace, happiness, and joy, within themselves (“ātmarāma” or “sva-sthaḥ”, in Sanskrit).
Furthermore, the adjudication of whether a certain experience is either pleasurable or painful for a particular person can VARY according to circumstance. For example, one may have enjoyed consuming dairy products as a child, but as a vegetarian/vegan adult, find the taste of putrefied milk (cheese, yoghurt, butter, etc.) to be revolting. For one who is dying of starvation, the consumption of cactus leaves may seem to be rather pleasing to the senses, even though, in normal circumstances, it may be distasteful.
There are THREE kinds of pleasure/pain: physical, emotional, and financial.
For instance, consuming one’s favourite kind of fruit is physically pleasurable. Being hit by a falling coconut – physical pain.
Falling in love is an example of psycho-emotional pleasure. Being angry at another – psychological pain.
Winning a lottery is an example of financial pleasure. Being robbed – financial pain.
There are three origins or CAUSES of pleasure/pain: one’s own body/mind (“adhyātma”, in Sanskrit) other persons/animals (“adhibhūta”, in Sanskrit), and material nature (“adhidaiva”, in Sanskrit).
Some “suffer” pain from lack of money. Others “suffer” pain from an abundance of wealth.
Some “suffer” pain from lack of food. Others “suffer” pain from an abundance of food.
The quality of the “suffering” is different but the NATURE of the “suffering” is the same.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, the term “suffer” is used in the stead of “experience”, because that is how the word is used in everyday parlance, in order to draw attention to the fact that pain can be due to an abundance of material opulence as well as a lack of material wealth.
GENUINE suffering, on the other hand, is the result of mistaking oneself to be the author of one’s thoughts and actions, and other persons to be fully in control of their own thoughts and deeds.
There are five forms (or symptoms) of suffering – all PSYCHOLOGICAL in nature:
1. Guilt/Shame
2. Blame/Bitterness
3. Pride/Arrogance
4. Worry/Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future/Attachment to outcomes (i.e. being inattentive or negligent to the present moment)
Suffering can be COMPLETELY transcended by understanding its source and consciously avoiding its manifestations. For example, as a child, your mother may have been particularly violent towards you. As clearly demonstrated in the chapter dealing with free-will, her violence was wholly due to her genetics and societal conditioning, neither of which were under her control. Blaming your mother for her actions leads to psychological anguish, which can only be cured by focusing on the sense of “I am”. In other words, by resorting to one’s essential nature (knowing one’s innermost being to be Pure Consciousness), one is emancipated from all sorrow.
The initial feeling of anger towards your mother was a natural reaction to her violence, but the enduring resentment is existential misery. Any physical pain you may have experienced was just that – pain. That pain is not to be discounted, but it has probably faded-away into the distant past. The psychological distress or torment that you are currently experiencing is the ACTUAL suffering, and it can easily be negated by a proper attitude to life. When we contemplate painful past events (or possible future events) those thoughts occur, ostensively, in the present. It is simply not possible to experience the past or future – only the present moment and the thoughts and feelings of the present are experienced. Therefore, it is important to understand and acknowledge that suffering can only occur in the present and can be cured with mindful practices. It is beneficial to also consult a qualified psychotherapist on a regular basis, in order to slowly heal from such mental angst.
When a man kicks his pet dog, the dog does NOT spend the remaining years of its life being angry or resentful towards its master. Dogs have very little concept of past, present and future, but live their lives from moment to moment. How unfortunate it is that lower animals are naturally more at peace with their circumstances than we highly-evolved human beings! Even if several of the more highly-evolved species of animals experience some of the five forms of psychological suffering, it does not seem to persist in the same way as it does for human beings.
On a rather personal note, even before I fully grasped this teaching (and when I was a Theist), I sent the following message to my second ex-wife, which illustrates my understanding of her actions: “I want to assure you that I have absolutely no bitterness towards you WHATSOEVER for persecuting me. You are simply carrying-out the orders of your perverted, ignorant mind, and I pray that my Master forgives all your wicked thoughts and acts. My own heart is completely free of anger. I pity you and look forward to the day when you finally turn from sin.”
When one fully imbibes the understanding that life is completely and utterly preordained, and that no living creature has individual free-will (see Chapter 11), one has no choice BUT to quit blaming, shaming, worrying, being prideful, and being attached to the results of his actions. Deep peace and happiness arises naturally as a consequence. Obviously, the understanding of the non-existence of personal freedom (as well as all the other concepts in this Holy Scripture) are also the result of destiny. The unfortunate fact is, even though unqualified peace is available to everyone, particularly in the current age (due to mass communication), very few human beings are destined for it.
To put it very succinctly, true peace/happiness is simply the TRUE self. When the five forms of suffering come to an end (by liberation from the belief in individual agency), only unbroken peace of mind remains. It is completely independent of any temporal circumstances whatsoever.
The common belief that happiness originates from sensory or psychological pleasures is an outright falsehood. One can eat only so much chocolate before the pleasure turns to pain. Even a man who fucks hundreds of beautiful women will eventually tire of his sexual conquests, and attempt to seek satisfaction by another means. “Pleasure” is often conflated with “happiness”, as are the terms “pain” and “suffering”. It ought to be noted that there is a rather blurry line between psycho-emotive pain and actual suffering, so any confusion is understandable.
Cont...
2
-
Basically, the worst of the non-monarchical governments promote, or at least permit, ALL things contrary to God’s perfect and pure will (or contrary to objective morality and dharma/dhamma, for those who disbelieve in the Deity), such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, transvestism, pornography, homosexuality, gambling (even running lotteries themselves), illegitimate abortion of poor innocent unborn children, irreligion, drug addiction, disrespect for authority, and advancing materialism and nescience via a powerful network of institutions of miseducation (so-called “kindergartens, schools, colleges and universities”).
Their aim is to produce a population of indoctrinated citizens who have been conditioned to serve the state and its perverse agendas.
Even though non-monarchical leaders are committing a criminal act by ordering the persecution of its citizens, or instigating war on another nation, the police and military personnel who execute their orders are equally (if not MORE) guilty of their dirty deeds. Even if a non-monarchical government punishes a criminal, that in itself is a criminal act, because it has absolutely no authority to do so. That is akin to a baby punishing its mother for theft, when it is actually the role of the infant's father to enact disciplinary action upon the woman in question.
For the past few centuries, most of the earth has been controlled by a CABAL of men comprising of extremely wealthy businessmen (particularly bankers) and so-called religious leaders (those who command a huge following). Ironically, some of these elite businessmen instigate a pseudo-socialist government within their nations, so that they themselves can control the financial system for their selfish goals.
This planet is surely doomed, unless the most pernicious institutions ever known to man (democracy, socialism and communism), are replaced by the ONLY legitimate form of government (monarchy – ideally a holy monarch, though even a mediocre king is preferable to being ruled by an elected official or a sociopathic megalomaniac, who could almost never be a righteous ruler).
Let it be known, however: non-monarchical rule can not and will not endure. Once society has devolved to such a debased level where it can no longer survive intact, the natural-born kings of the earth shall arise and regain their rightful place at the head of each and every nation.
The truth shall surely triumph (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit).
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
Samuel Langhorne Clemens (AKA Mark Twain),
American writer.
“I would rather obey a fine lion, much stronger than myself, than two hundred rats of my own species.”
François-Marie Arouet (AKA Voltaire),
French Writer and Historian.
N.B. This is an appropriate place to make mention of a potentially contentious topic:
The above Voltaire remark replaces a quotation by an American spiritual teacher who formerly “worked” as a prostitute. I, the author of this Holy Scripture was criticized for quoting a prostitute, implying that her words were invalid due to her being a former harlot. Firstly, the accuracy of any statement is not dependent on the relative holiness of the person making that statement. Secondly, none of the persons I have quoted in “F.I.S.H”, including the Divine Incarnations, were totally blameless in all their actions, despite what many believe. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quote Voltaire, despite his antipathy towards the Holy Priesthood, towards religion in general, and towards certain monarchs.
2
-
2
-
Second.
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior – again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
2
-
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH:
The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word.
Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down.
A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering.
For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute.
It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent.
Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed.
Good and bad are RELATIVE – what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.'
Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good.
However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul.
When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law).
The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit).
Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason – because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability).
This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter.
Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”.
For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being.
So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth.
“In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are.
We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is."
***********
“God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This.
So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this – the Energy or the Consciousness.
The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.”
Roger Castillo,
Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015.
“I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”.
Lord Jesus Christ,
John 14:16 and 8:32.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@1Corinthians6Verses9thru11
racism:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or a people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized; the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another; belief that certain races of people are by birth and nature superior to others; discrimination or hatred based on the race of a person or of a people (that is, a group of persons).
Although the topic of race/ethnicity has not been dealt with much (if at all) in this book, it was decided to include this Glossary entry in order to give the reader a completely objective view of the subject (paradox not intended).
The term “discrimination” is of paramount importance in dealing with the topic of racism. According to the above definitions of “racism”, the term “discrimination” has invariably been used in a negative way in public discourse for the past two centuries or so.
This word has its origin in the Latin “discriminatus” (the past participle of “discriminare”), from “discrimin-” (“distinction”), from “discernere” (“to distinguish between”). Although many methods or motives for discriminating are unfair and undesirable (or even immoral), the verb itself has a NEUTRAL history. English speakers borrowed it from the past participle of the Latin verb “discriminare” (meaning “to distinguish or differentiate"), which, itself, is derived from the transitive verb “discernere”. The verb “discernere”, in turn, was formed by combining the prefix “dis-” (meaning “apart”) and “cernere”(“to sift”), and thus, “to filter out or sift apart”.
Firstly, there is no doubt whatsoever that certain races are superior to other races in certain aspects (sometimes so VASTLY superior that only the most rabid leftist would refuse to accept the facts of the matter). For example, some races have a far higher average intelligence than others, some are far taller, stronger and more physically beautiful than others, some are (on average) greatly more dharmic (religious) than others, some are naturally more quiet and gentle than others, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I cannot imagine anyone (even a negro) who would, while walking alone at night in a metropolitan area, prefer to walk in the direction of a group of young negro men instead of a group of young Japanese men. If that makes one a racial bigot, then so be it, but personally, that accusation will never persuade me to walk in the direction of the negroes. Therefore, one ought to be extremely discriminatory (in the original and most etymologically-accurate sense of the word) when presuming to make charges of racial bias towards another!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@libbyhicks7549 Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient and/or conscious.
Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe – it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that – merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life.
Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family.
See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general.
2
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their talents are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite pretending to be a fair and equal system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and illegitimate “government”.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler. They are most assuredly not. Just as the typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial to them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is meant misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for their distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries, but if anarchists were to understand that most all “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane 'system'.
Cont...
2
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravenes dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In the past decade or two, the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human society. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia). In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place). It seems the consensus amongst leftist "intellectuals" is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one's environmental conditioning, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one's genetic sequence and one’s conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically-supported.
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies, such as monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual chastity, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for GOD is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes. 🤡
2
-
2
-
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:
Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs.
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds and fishes). Those metazoans which are evolutionarily lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts. For instance, an insect or amphibian does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when a cockroach flees from danger, it is not experiencing the same kind of thoughts or feelings a human or other mammal would experience.
The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness (i.e. Brahman), explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment – just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. The processing unit of a supercomputer must be far larger, more complex and more powerful than the processor in a pocket calculator. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is dependent on the animal's brain capacity.
See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening.
Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals:
the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three.
The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Ground of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind.
An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.
Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system.
A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness.
So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair – why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17).
The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair – why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.
Cont...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@girlwriteswhat
🐟 26. FEMINISM:
Feminism is the penultimate evil at present because feminism is based on the misguided assumption that women are equal to (or even SUPERIOR to) men. The only institution more destructive to human society than feminism, is illegitimate governance (see Chapter 22).
Equality is non-existent in this transactional sphere. Equality exists ONLY in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably, on the sub-atomic level. Even identical twins are not perfectly identical in every possible criterion. Geneticists have discovered that a pair of so-called “identical twins” share, on average, about ninety-four percent of their genetics by the time they are born. Mothers of such twins can instinctually differentiate between them, since there are always distinguishing features. Unfortunately, for many persons, the objective fact that equality among humans is non-existent, is impossible to accept, since they are afflicted with what is known as a “leftist” mentality.
Although a female can exhibit superior traits, skills, etcetera, to some men, a woman can never have AUTHORITY over a man. Therefore, the assertion that women are subordinate to men is based purely on this notion of authority, not on any particular attribute, such as intelligence, wisdom, beauty, physical strength, or artistic talent. Simply because a woman may be stronger or more highly-educated than her husband, for instance, does not give her the right to instruct her master in any way. No true man has ever been attracted to a domineering, bossy female.
Truth be told, no true man would ever descend to the level of accepting counsel from any of his subordinates. A man should fully obey his appointed MASTERS (such as his father, grandfather, uncle, employer, or spiritual teacher), and never emasculate himself by submitting to the dictates of a mere female, or any other lesser.
Feminist ideology commonly manifests as the desire for women to perform the societal role of the OPPOSITE gender, that is to say, partaking in intrinsically male activities, such as studying at educational institutions, working for a wage, or building business enterprises (or even more preposterously, usurping the position of a national leader or the member of the Holy Priesthood!).
Feminism also advocates for preferential treatment of females in institutions which may have traditionally favoured men and/or boys, even when “the tables have been COMPLETELY turned-around the other way”, so to speak. In a nutshell, feminists suffer from the psychological disorder termed “penis envy”, and fundamentally yearn to become males in every conceivable way (sometimes even biologically, despite the incontrovertible fact that transitioning from one gender to the other gender being a physiological impossibility).
This aspiration of a person wishing to seize the position of another person, deemed to be of higher value, is a common phenomenon in MALES as well, such as working-class men who consider themselves to be rulers/kings or priests. Every so-called “priest” and every national leader on earth, with virtually no exceptions, is either a worker, a businessman, or even more risibly, a mere female, who is literally stealing the occupation of an authentic guru or a king.
Feminists are victims of the SLAVISH mentality which the instigators of that evil, pernicious ideology (Karl Marx and the so-called "Globalist Elite") have always wanted them to be.
It is extremely unfortunate that the vast majority of women are unable to see the obvious truth that feminist ideology wants the destruction of women (as well as all society), as can clearly be seen at present.
At least it is clearly seen by any decent, holy and intelligent person.
Due to feminist indoctrination and lack of proper discipline, as a consequence of an increasingly profane and secular world, modern women have become EXTREMELY debased. The typical woman nowadays is afflicted with bitterness, uncontrolled emotions (especially jealousy), gross immodesty, greed, arrogance, misery, snobbishness, and loneliness due to a false sense of “independence”, with hardly a single noble quality.
In those gynocentric societies which are dominated by feminism, men are urged to avoid any UNNECESSARY contact with the opposite gender. Those (heterosexual) males who disregard this sage advice will invariably regret their choices, either after experiencing false allegations against them, the destruction of their families through divorce, or after constant rejection by snobby women.
However, let it be made clear: the greatest enemy of males is NOT the opposite sex, but those uxorious “white-knight” so-called “men” who do the bidding of feminist ideologues, since they have far greater power than females, despite being truly pathetic-excuses-for-men.
wom•an n.
pl. wom•en
She who gives “woe” to “man” – therefore “wo(e)man”.
"Though I have searched repeatedly, I have not found what I was looking for. Only one out of a thousand men is virtuous, but not one woman!"
Ecclesiastes 7:28.
“Holy Bible” (New Living Translation).
"We must not allow ourselves to be deflected by the feminists who are anxious to force us to regard the two sexes as completely equal in position and worth."
Sigismund Schlomo Freud,
Austrian Neurologist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
🐟 12. LAW, MORALITY, & ETHICS:
The three terms – law, morality, and ethics – are fundamentally synonymous, since “breaking the law” implies the execution of an act which is both immoral and unethical. First of all, it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between “laws” and “rules”. Laws are divided into NATURAL laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere), as well as the MORAL laws, which are based on the principle of non-harm (such as the prohibition of murder and adultery). Societal rules, on the other hand, are merely man-made edicts, such as the regulation of business practices or the convention of driving motor vehicles on one particular side of the road. Unfortunately, very few persons are able to differentiate the inextricable laws of morality, from the mundane rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed legislators.
Therefore, this chapter of “F.I.S.H” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, as opposed to the various laws of physics.
Whilst cosmological laws may transmogrify over aeons, metaethics essentially remain constant within all human societies throughout time.
When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the ENTIRE universe. Therefore, even when a seemingly-innocuous act occurs (such as disposing of plastic products in a rubbish dump, thereby breaking the natural law), the universe is degraded to a certain degree. When a person is robbed of his property, not only is the victim’s life adversely affected, but now, all people need to be more vigilant. Thus, the universe as a whole is marginally degraded, just as a single cancerous cell degrades one's entire body, even if to a minuscule extent.
MORALITY is concerned with how any particular act conforms to or contradicts the law. Moral acts are beneficial to oneself, to others and/or beneficial to the ecosystem, amoral actions (for the purpose of this teaching) are actions which are neither against the law nor directly benefit society (in other words, neutral acts), whilst immoral deeds are in defiance of the law (that is, premeditated actions which are intended to cause harm to individuals [including oneself], to society as a whole, or to the environment, the latter of which includes other living creatures). “Act” may include “acts” of omission. If one has the ability and the opportunity of assisting a fellow human in dire need, one ought to do so.
There is but one problem regarding normative ethics, and that is, discerning which person or persons are competent to judge whether any particular act is beneficial, neutral or harmful, and if it is deemed to be harmful, what should be the penalty for the unethical/immoral act, if any. Objectively speaking, every human deed, without exception, belongs to one of the above three categories, yet who is to judge it so?
Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural, and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one may PASS judgement solely on those over whom one has direct or indirect authority. One should avoid passing judgement on those over whom one has no authority, but remain silent, even if that judgment is objectively true, because it is not the place of a subordinate to judge the actions of his or her superiors.
So, for example, a businessman should judge the actions of his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives, his children, employees, and any younger kin (such as nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, etc.). None of that businessman's subordinates has the right to adjudicate his actions – that is the role of his own masters (that is, his father, grandfather, elder brothers, uncles, priest/guru/imam/rabbi, etc). Judging/misjudging one's superiors is one of the most common sins in this wicked world – just think of the time when you last MISJUDGED one of your superiors!
The ULTIMATE arbiter of any action is the current World Teacher or an Avatar. At any given time, there is one particular man, belonging to the Holy Priesthood, who has attained the highest-possible level of wisdom and understanding of life, and therefore, has the greatest moral authority on earth. The current World Teacher is the author of this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”.
Obviously, it is not practical for the World Teacher or a Divine Incarnation (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit) to adjudicate each and every criminal case in the world. Fortunately, there is established a natural system of justice to perform this function, as explained elsewhere in this chapter.
As concisely explained in the previous chapter, humans do not possess individual free-will. However, that does not necessarily imply that there is no optimal way of living. There is, in fact, an ideal way for humans to behave in every situation, even if it was ordained that we each behave according to destiny, and therefore, imperfectly. Morality is indeed OBJECTIVE, that is to say, independent of the subjective whims or opinions of any particular person. In order for even the smallest society to function smoothly, a moral benchmark must be chosen and adhered to.
Having understood that the basis of law/morality/ethics is the concept of non-harm (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), it is obvious that there is no need to invoke any religious or supernatural belief system in order to establish law in society. There are examples of secular societies which have survived relatively peacefully over many centuries, without the imposition of a monotheistic system of law/morality/ethics.If an act is harmful to any person, animal or plant (or even inorganic matter, in the case of environmental degradation), then it is immoral, and contravenes the one and only law of the universe. In other words, it is against YOUR law, since you are, fundamentally, All There Is (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to learn the true nature of Reality, and how you are that Absolute Reality (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
It can be argued that even miscreants want to live a perfectly blameless life. “No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness.” Immoral/criminal acts are entirely due to a false understanding of oneself and a misunderstanding of what constitutes true peace/happiness. A fully-enlightened saint will never DELIBERATELY cause harm to himself or to others because he knows that his continuing peace of mind depends on him choosing the most beneficial course of action. He will not commit such a detestable action as rape, because he understands that it will disturb his blissful state of existence and hurt another human being, as well as the victim’s loved-ones. It will also harm society, because if he commits sexual assault, every woman in his community will need to take precautions against possible attack.
So, THEORETICALLY, homosexuals themselves fully agree that homosexual offenders ought to be put to death for their crime, because, if not, their perverse behaviour will contribute to the destruction of society, which is built on the family unit, which in turn is based on sexual complementarity (i.e. heterosexuality). Like every person who ever lived, homosexuals desire, more than anything, genuine peace and happiness, which can never be achieved by unnatural sexual acts and attachments. Some (if not most) persons would counter thus: “But there will always be heterosexual couples who will reproduce, so why not leave homosexuals be?”. That is similar to stating “But if only twenty per cent of the population is murdered, there will still be eighty per cent of society remaining”. Crime left unpunished is the beginning of the end of civilization, as can be very clearly seen in the present age, particularly in those nations governed by non-monarchical (so-called) “leaders”.
So, in summary, you do not want to transgress your OWN laws, knowing that if you do so, you may become afflicted with guilt, and individuals or society will be harmed. Unfortunately, many persons (demons) are unconcerned about how their actions affect others, or even themselves.
It’s not unheard of for a murderer, for instance, to recognize his deed to be unjust, and to concede that he ought to be hanged to death for his crime, or even commit suicide in order to avoid the need for a hangman. Primatologists have observed simple moral behaviour in great apes.
There are some otherwise highly-enlightened spiritual teachers who erroneously believe that the solution to discerning proper morality and living a completely ethical life, is for each individual person to raise themselves to the teacher's own high-level of consciousness, so that they will AUTOMATICALLY behave in a loving manner in each situation, without the requirement of a moral code. E.g. “Love, and do what you will”.
Obviously, no two persons who ever lived could possibly agree on EVERY moral infraction and what should be the exact form of punishment (if any) for each and every moral transgression. Not even the two most holy and righteous persons on earth at any given time would fully agree on what constitutes a criminal/unethical act, and even if they were to agree, they may not agree on what ought to be the penalty for each and every crime. And even if they do agree on all those details, what of the billions of miscreants who are far below their exalted level? Should a government freely allow its citizens to behave according to their whims, in the vain hope that they will one day reach spiritual perfection? That is akin to anarchy. This alone should demonstrate that subjective moral systems are impractical, unfair and unwise, as they are capricious.
Cont...
2
-
2
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
🐟 15. SUFFERING & HAPPINESS:
To understand the nature of suffering, it is ABSOLUTELY imperative to first distinguish suffering from pain (and too, happiness from pleasure).
There is a spectrum of pleasure and pain, with an extremely narrow neutral mid-point. Obviously, what constitutes a pleasurable or painful experience is dependent on an individual person's unique preferences. Not everybody likes the taste of chocolate. The feeling of pleasure/pain does NOT, ultimately, come from any external stimulus, believe it or not. It is located entirely in the mind and/or the intellect. That is the reason why highly-advanced spiritual adepts are able to renounce practically all pleasure-seeking activities, content with consuming simple foodstuffs and adequate sleep, and find continuous peace, happiness, and joy, within themselves (“ātmarāma” or “sva-sthaḥ”, in Sanskrit).
Furthermore, the adjudication of whether a certain experience is either pleasurable or painful for a particular person can VARY according to circumstance. For example, one may have enjoyed consuming dairy products as a child, but as a vegetarian/vegan adult, find the taste of putrefied milk (cheese, yoghurt, butter, etc.) to be revolting. For one who is dying of starvation, the consumption of cactus leaves may seem to be rather pleasing to the senses, even though, in normal circumstances, it may be distasteful.
There are THREE kinds of pleasure/pain: physical, emotional, and financial.
For instance, consuming one’s favourite kind of fruit is physically pleasurable. Being hit by a falling coconut – physical pain.
Falling in love is an example of psycho-emotional pleasure. Being angry at another – psychological pain.
Winning a lottery is an example of financial pleasure. Being robbed – financial pain.
There are three origins or CAUSES of pleasure/pain: one’s own body/mind (“adhyātma”, in Sanskrit) other persons/animals (“adhibhūta”, in Sanskrit), and material nature (“adhidaiva”, in Sanskrit).
Some “suffer” pain from lack of money. Others “suffer” pain from an abundance of wealth.
Some “suffer” pain from lack of food. Others “suffer” pain from an abundance of food.
The quality of the “suffering” is different but the NATURE of the “suffering” is the same.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, the term “suffer” is used in the stead of “experience”, because that is how the word is used in everyday parlance, in order to draw attention to the fact that pain can be due to an abundance of material opulence as well as a lack of material wealth.
GENUINE suffering, on the other hand, is the result of mistaking oneself to be the author of one’s thoughts and actions, and other persons to be fully in control of their own thoughts and deeds.
There are five forms (or symptoms) of suffering – all PSYCHOLOGICAL in nature:
1. Guilt/Shame
2. Blame/Bitterness
3. Pride/Arrogance
4. Worry/Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future/Attachment to outcomes (i.e. being inattentive or negligent to the present moment)
Suffering can be COMPLETELY transcended by understanding its source and consciously avoiding its manifestations. For example, as a child, your mother may have been particularly violent towards you. As clearly demonstrated in the chapter dealing with free-will, her violence was wholly due to her genetics and societal conditioning, neither of which were under her control. Blaming your mother for her actions leads to psychological anguish, which can only be cured by focusing on the sense of “I am”. In other words, by resorting to one’s essential nature (knowing one’s innermost being to be Pure Consciousness), one is emancipated from all sorrow.
The initial feeling of anger towards your mother was a natural reaction to her violence, but the enduring resentment is existential misery. Any physical pain you may have experienced was just that – pain. That pain is not to be discounted, but it has probably faded-away into the distant past. The psychological distress or torment that you are currently experiencing is the ACTUAL suffering, and it can easily be negated by a proper attitude to life. When we contemplate painful past events (or possible future events) those thoughts occur, ostensively, in the present. It is simply not possible to experience the past or future – only the present moment and the thoughts and feelings of the present are experienced. Therefore, it is important to understand and acknowledge that suffering can only occur in the present and can be cured with mindful practices. It is beneficial to also consult a qualified psychotherapist on a regular basis, in order to slowly heal from such mental angst.
When a man kicks his pet dog, the dog does NOT spend the remaining years of its life being angry or resentful towards its master. Dogs have very little concept of past, present and future, but live their lives from moment to moment. How unfortunate it is that lower animals are naturally more at peace with their circumstances than we highly-evolved human beings! Even if several of the more highly-evolved species of animals experience some of the five forms of psychological suffering, it does not seem to persist in the same way as it does for human beings.
On a rather personal note, even before I fully grasped this teaching (and when I was a Theist), I sent the following message to my second ex-wife, which illustrates my understanding of her actions: “I want to assure you that I have absolutely no bitterness towards you WHATSOEVER for persecuting me. You are simply carrying-out the orders of your perverted, ignorant mind, and I pray that my Master forgives all your wicked thoughts and acts. My own heart is completely free of anger. I pity you and look forward to the day when you finally turn from sin.”
When one fully imbibes the understanding that life is completely and utterly preordained, and that no living creature has individual free-will (see Chapter 11), one has no choice BUT to quit blaming, shaming, worrying, being prideful, and being attached to the results of his actions. Deep peace and happiness arises naturally as a consequence. Obviously, the understanding of the non-existence of personal freedom (as well as all the other concepts in this Holy Scripture) are also the result of destiny. The unfortunate fact is, even though unqualified peace is available to everyone, particularly in the current age (due to mass communication), very few human beings are destined for it.
To put it very succinctly, true peace/happiness is simply the TRUE self. When the five forms of suffering come to an end (by liberation from the belief in individual agency), only unbroken peace of mind remains. It is completely independent of any temporal circumstances whatsoever.
The common belief that happiness originates from sensory or psychological pleasures is an outright falsehood. One can eat only so much chocolate before the pleasure turns to pain. Even a man who fucks hundreds of beautiful women will eventually tire of his sexual conquests, and attempt to seek satisfaction by another means. “Pleasure” is often conflated with “happiness”, as are the terms “pain” and “suffering”. It ought to be noted that there is a rather blurry line between psycho-emotive pain and actual suffering, so any confusion is understandable.
Cont...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
18:18
authoritarian:
essentially, a synonym for “dictator” (see that entry, below). Just as in the case of the term “dictator”, this word is most often used as a descriptor for a leader or a ruler who imposes his or her own will upon a population, almost exclusively in a NEGATIVE way.
HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the term “authoritarian” originates from the root “author”, which simply refers to one who creates or originates something, via the word “authority”, which entails the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Therefore, genuine authoritarianism is a dharmic concept, because when one exercises his or her authority over his/her subordinates, it contributes to social cohesion. Indeed, human society cannot survive without proper authoritarian systems in place. It is absolutely imperative to very carefully read the Glossary entries for “dharma” and “authority” in this regard.
Therefore, it is strongly suggested that English speakers use words such as “fascistic” and “tyrannical”, instead of using the unfairly-deprecatory terms “authoritarian” and “dictator”, in reference to rulers who exercise ILLEGITIMATE dominance over a populace.
authority:
the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. See the Glossary entry for “author” for the etymology.
The notion of AUTHORITY is intimately connected to the person or body that originates something. The author of a novel is, by definition, the preeminent AUTHORITY over his work. He has the AUTHORITY to dictate how his book ought to be published, promoted, and distributed. Furthermore, he has the AUTHORITY to delegate such rights to another person or company, if he desires.
Likewise, a mother has full AUTHORITY over the children she (pro)creates. No sane individual would ever dare presume that a mother has no AUTHORITY over her own offspring! Similarly, as the head of his family, a father has the AUTHORITY to direct the actions of his wife/wives and his children. Of course, that father is not the ultimate authority on earth – he has his own masters, such as his own father, his uncles, his employer (if he is a worker), and most importantly, his spiritual master, all of whom should exercise their authoritative positions in relation to that father. Similarly, a true king (as defined in Chapter 21) has conditional AUTHORITY over his people, even if not every single one of his edicts is perfectly in accordance with dharmic (righteous) principles. A monarch’s AUTHORITY is compromised only in the event that his rule sufficiently devolves into some kind of unholy, fascistic tyranny. And if a king’s dominion was to devolve into such a tyranny, it would robustly imply that he was never a genuine monarch in the first place.
Unfortunately, authority is often conflated with the notion of power , by both the masses, and in most dictionaries. Theoretically, any person or organization can display a force of power over another entity, yet that does not necessarily signify AUTHORITY. Thankfully, power does not always correlate with AUTHORITY. If that was the case, humble, gentle monks such as Gautama Buddha and Lord Jesus the Christ would, of necessity, have very little AUTHORITY, whereas powerful governments would have the AUTHORITY to dictate imperatives to its citizens, when in fact they do not, as they are almost exclusively illegitimate (that is, against the law, or dharma).
P.S. Read Chapters 21 and 22 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", in order to understand the distinction between a legitimate government and an illegal government.
2
-
2
-
2
-
So, just as the physical scientific method is based on hypothesis, observation, and repeatable experimentation, so too is METAPHYSICAL science. The hypothesis for supernatural science is as follows: that there is an eternal ground of all being, and that “it” is conscious, of a steady state (i.e. imperturbable peace), and that everything tangible and intangible is inherently of its nature. In the case of mysticism, the repeatable experiment is known as “religion” (“yoga”, in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 16 for a description of the four systems of religion/yoga.
When a sincere and suitably-qualified aspirant CORRECTLY practices the scientific process of “yoga”, under the guidance of an authoritative pedagogue, he is assured of realizing the fact of the unity of the totality of existence, and achieving union with that Divine Principle, just as every enlightened sage has done for millennia. The symptoms of a person who has achieved union with the Supreme can very easily be confirmed by an accomplished yogi, in the same way that physical phenomena can be verified by a trained physicist (cf. Chapters 16 and 20).
To put it succinctly, religion simply means to understand and realize that the fundamental nature of Reality is One Eternal-Conscious-Peace. In other words, when one knows for CERTAIN that there is really no subject-object duality, and lives one's life in harmony with that realization (by living a life of non-violence), one is said to “achieve yoga”. Chapter 17 summarizes the symptoms of a fully enlightened religious practitioner.
That realization usually (but not always) comes about via the practice of the SCIENTIFIC process of religion described in Chapter 16 of this work. Of course, that doesn't imply that a each and every yogi is a perfected saint. Just as each physicist can be ranked according to his particular knowledge of physics, so too, each religionist falls somewhere in a spectrum of realization and understanding. Unfortunately, an authentic yogi is extremely rare, so one should be careful to not compare one's local (so-called) monk/preacher/priest/rabbi to a true yogi.
Some of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, including Neils Henrik David Bohr and John Stewart Bell, have hypothesized that quantum particles, such as photons, have no precise location in space (quantum nonlocality) until they are PERSONALLY observed. This phenomenon was later demonstrated to be a scientific fact. Whether this should be regarded as proving that the physical world itself is “nonlocal” is a point of contention, but the terminology of “quantum nonlocality” is nowadays commonplace.
The following formulae is the so-called “THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, much sought-after by theoretical physicists for the past century:
E=∞BCP (Everything is Infinite Being-Consciousness-Peace [“satyam jnañam anantam brahma”, in Sanskrit]).
Alternatively, and more simply, expressed as:
E= A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness [“sarvam khalvidam brahma”, in Sanskrit]).
For a thorough explanation of the above equations, refer to Chapters 05 and 06.
Those persons who criticize religion for being unscientific are EXTREMELY hypocritical, since they invariably accept the legitimacy of the so-called “soft sciences” (sociology, economics, political science, history, et cetera). Those branches of science are arguably far less “scientific” than religion, if one understands what constitutes actual religion, which is why the author of “Mahābhārata” (considered by many authorities to be the greatest work of literature ever composed) regarded yoga/religion to be the King of Sciences and the King of Confidential Knowledge.
In summary, actual science and actual religion/mysticism are IDENTICAL, because Reality is singular. However, one deals in the realm of observable phenomena, whilst the other deals mainly with the inner-world of man, particularly with the subject (i.e. the ultimate observer of all phenomena, as described and explained in Chapter 06) and with teleological matters. To put it in other terms, authentic religion is akin to psychotherapy, combined with verified metaphysics, whist the material sciences generally do not venture away from the study of gross matter, apart from the so-called “humanities”. Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of humanity rarely, if ever, comes into contact with those rare spiritual masters who are qualified to teach actual religion, even in this current age of rapid mass communication and information.
To quote Austrian-American physicist Fritjof Capra, “Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs BOTH.” Without authentic religion, scientific endeavour is prone to moral corruption and nihilism. Without objective scientific evidence, spirituality is susceptible to sentimentality and fanaticism.
“Everything that we know or experience is known by consciousness, appears in consciousness and is a play of consciousness;
just like the dream you have at night appears in your mind, is known by your mind and is a play of your mind.”
***********
“Consciousness is always already awake. Or, more accurately, awakeness or awareness is one of its ‘qualities’. (Beingness and happiness are two of its other ‘qualities’).
This consciousness ‘from time to time’ takes the shape of a thought which imagines itself (consciousness) to be limited to a particular body. It is as if you were to dress up as King Lear and by doing so forget that you are you.
With this thought, consciousness seems to forget its own unlimited nature and seems instead to become a separate entity, a person. Once this identification has taken place, most of our thoughts, feelings and activities come from and express this belief and feeling of being separate, localised and limited.
Because the happiness which is inherent in the knowing of our own being is lost when we forget our own being, the apparent person that results from this identification is in a perpetual state of unhappiness or seeking. In other words, it is the apparent person that is unhappy, that is seeking, that wishes to awaken to his or her true nature.
However, this ‘person’ is itself the apparent veiling of its own true identity (consciousness). The person cannot awaken, because it only exists as the thought that thinks it. How could a thought, an illusion, awaken? King Lear cannot awaken, because King Lear is simply a costume that the actor wears. Can a costume awaken?
You are already awake. That is, you, consciousness, that is seeing these words, is already and always awake, only it has lost itself in objects and thereby seemingly forgotten its own self. All that is required is to ‘remember itself’ again.
What you call awakening (or remembering) is the clear seeing of your true nature and, as a result, the clear seeing of the non-existence of the separate person. That which is always awake is always awake. That which is not awake can never awaken.”
Rupert Spira,
English Spiritual Teacher.
“Both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one who reality, which is indivisible and unanalysable.”
***********
“In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement.”
***********
“Relativity and quantum theory agree, in that they both imply the need to look on the world as an undivided whole, in which all parts of the universe, including the observer and his instruments, merge and unite in one totality. In this totality, the atomistic form of insight is a simplification and an abstraction, valid only in some limited context.”
***********
“Science itself is demanding a new, non-fragmentary world view.”
David Bohm,
American Theoretical Physicist,
From “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. To give example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
2
-
2
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HOMOSEXUAL acts are legitimate solely within polygamous marriages, as defined in Chapter 27 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”). Read Chapter 12 and the Glossary entry under “slippery slope”, to learn the reason for homosexuality being detrimental to society, and therefore, other homosexual acts being unlawful. Whereas heterosexual unions are normal, natural, and necessary for a prosperous society, homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural, and unnecessary, and is destructive to individuals, to families, to society, and of course, to the very survival of the Homo sapiens species itself!
Leading neuroscientists of the current century have demonstrated that same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria can be attributed to certain parts of the brain being formed similarly to the person’s (biological) gender OPPOSITE. There are other physiological determinants for homosexual attraction, such as genetic and hormonal, and to a far lesser degree, environmental causes. As demonstrated in Chapter 11, this phenomenon was preordained in eternity, but so too were all unbeneficial traits such as criminality and addictive personality disorders, and does not negate the obvious requirement for society to punish perpetrators of homosexual acts. Again, read Chapter 12 to understand metaethics, applied ethics, and the reason for homosexual unions being objectively evil by nature.
Of all the concepts put forward in this Holiest of Holy Scriptures, this condemnation of homosexual acts is, perhaps, the teaching that elicits the most vitriolic responses from individuals, because over the past few decades of writing this treatise, homosexuality has become widely acceptable within most societies throughout the world, and even glorified in some cases! However, the obvious fact of its pernicious nature MUST be proclaimed if human society is to endure and prosper. It ought to be emphasized that homosexual acts themselves are unlawful, and not simply being predisposed to same-sex attraction. In other words, homosexual individuals can not be prosecuted simply for being attracted to members of the same gender, but only for engaging in unlawful sexual acts such as sodomy, just as heterosexuals should not be punished merely for being attracted to members of the opposite sex, but for fornicating with them (that is, engaging in extra-marital sexual activity).
(From Chapter 12):
It may be misconstrued that a slippery slope argument is being made in regards to homosexual acts, but if one critically scrutinizes the relevant passage, that is not at all what is being posited. Even a single act of homosexual behaviour is necessarily evil. The only possible exception to this rule is in the case of same-sex acts within a polygamous marriage (as defined in Chapter 27 of this Holy Scripture), and in such a marriage, morally-permissible only whilst the husband is collectively-engaged in sex acts with his wives. What is NOT fallacious, is to compare the state of affairs at either extreme of the sexual dichotomy, to discern the outcomes if either practice was to be taken to their ultimate conclusions. Thus, if every competent, heterosexual adult was to marry (and obviously, by “marry”, I am here referring to actual marriage, as defined in Chapter 27, and not to any other notion of marriage as conceived by a large proportion of the populace, particularly the leftists who seem to dominate public life in most all Western and Westernized countries), it would be objectively-moral, since every heterosexual man would be able to gratify his inordinately-voracious libido in a legitimate and non-harmful fashion, every heterosexual woman would be able to satisfy her romantic and sexual needs, and the union would usually result in progeny, which would not only benefit the parents, but also assure the continuation of the species. On the other hand, if every adult was to engage in a homosexual relationship, it would be objectively-immoral, because, apart from the psychological harm (and physiological injury, in the case of male homosexuals) it would cause each and every individual, it would obviously lead to the consummate destruction of human society and to the extinction of humanity.
So, just as a single cancerous cell degrades a person’s body to a miniscule degree, even a single extramarital homosexual act debases human society, even if it is to a very small extent. Therefore, the so-called ‘slippery-slope’ argument is superfluous to any of my moral proclamations.
N.B. In case one may believe that the reason for this author being opposed to homosexuality (more specifically, homosexual acts) is due to the fact that I, the author, am wholly heterosexual and simply hold an instinctive hatred for homosexuals, the following should be noted: Firstly, as already explained in more than a couple of passages of “FISH”, there is a highly-rational basis for denouncing homosexual acts. Secondly, I fully understand that I could easily have been born with the genes that govern same-sex attraction, or could have been conditioned by parents, friends, teachers, and society to have homosexual inclinations. If that were the case, I would simply do what I am now doing – living a chaste life, since BOTH homosexual acts and heterosexual acts without marriage are, by definition, immoral, and in the case of penetrative acts, worthy of the death penalty. So, the reader is assured that I have absolutely no animosity whatsoever towards anybody born with homosexual tendencies. After all, an enormous percentage (I would say most) of the population is bisexual to a certain degree. Yet, to act on same-sex desires is very detrimental to individuals and to society as a whole, and homosexual offenders must be appropriately punished by an authority.
1
-
@LiquorLahey , respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
@donaldpump8882 , respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sex:
gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️
gender:
sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration – firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population – mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”.
Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition.
Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret – do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male – not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking.
N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning.
Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffsmith5787 , respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
nation:
a population, normally residing in the same geographic region, in which most all the citizens share a common race, religion, language, and culture. This word is VERY often used erroneously in the stead of the term “country”. Therefore, it is highly suggested that one refer to the Glossary entry under “country”, in order to understand the distinction between a “country” and a “nation”.
Unfortunately, an enormous percentage of the population has been indoctrinated by leftists to regard NATIONALISM as a malevolent ideology, when in fact, the adherence to a nationalistic framework is beneficial to both the citizenry of a nation and to the world as a whole. Multicultural societies are constantly fraught with conflicts, due to the incompatibility of competing ideologies and practices.
Imagine, if you will, that the million most conservative men from an Islamic nation in Middle-east Asia, such as Afghanistan, and the million most feministic women from a liberal country like Canada, were taken to some barren island and asked to establish a new civilization. How harmonious and prosperous do you believe such a mismatch of persons would be? TOTALLY discordant!
Furthermore, a variety of national identities is intrinsically beneficial, for nobody would want to travel to another nation if that nation was fundamentally identical to their own nation, except to experience the unique geographical features, diets or climates.
I, for one, am glad that I can visit a nation such as Japan in order to experience its unique culture and language, then choose to visit or reside in nations such as Ireland and Egypt in order to experience the unique languages, food, art, dance, cinema, music, religion, and customs of those two nations. Of course, if I decided to reside in a nation where the language and culture differed radically from my own, I would need to adapt. For example, if I were to migrate to a Middle-east Asian nation, such as the one mentioned above, I could not openly criticize the Islamic faith (and especially its founder) without putting my very existence at risk. Upon moving to the Philippines over a decade ago, I found it EXTREMELY easy to acclimatize to its culture, since it is very much a Westernized nation, not dissimilar to the country of my birth, The Southland (that is, “Terra Australis” or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue).
“Nation” was first recorded in the thirteenth century, from the Middle English, from Latin “nātiōn-” (stem of “nātiō”), meaning “birth” or “tribe”, equivalent to “nāt(us)” (past participle of “nāscī”, meaning “to be born”) + “-iōn-”. “-ion” a suffix, appearing in words of Latin origin, denoting action or condition, used in Latin and in English to form nouns from stems of Latin adjectives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
racism:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or a people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized; the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another; belief that certain races of people are by birth and nature superior to others; discrimination or hatred based on the race of a person or of a people (that is, a group of persons).
The term “discrimination” is of paramount importance in dealing with the topic of racism. According to the above definitions of “racism”, the term “discrimination” has invariably been used in a negative way in public discourse for the past two centuries or so.
Although many methods or motives for discriminating are unfair and undesirable (or even immoral), the verb itself has a NEUTRAL history. English speakers borrowed it from the past participle of the Latin verb “discriminare” (meaning “to distinguish or differentiate"), which, itself, is derived from the transitive verb “discernere”. The verb “discernere”, in turn, was formed by combining the prefix “dis-” (meaning “apart”) and “cernere”(“to sift”), and thus, “to filter out or sift apart”.
Firstly, there is no doubt whatsoever that certain races are superior to other races in specific aspects (sometimes so VASTLY superior, that only the most rabid leftist would refuse to accept the facts of the matter). For example, some races have a far higher average intelligence than others, some are far taller, stronger and more physically beautiful than others, some are (on average) greatly more dharmic (religious) than others, some are naturally more quiet and gentle in temperament than others, et cetera. I cannot imagine anyone (even a negro) who would, while walking alone at night in a metropolitan area, prefer to walk in the direction of a group of young negro men instead of a group of young Japanese men. If that makes one a racial bigot, then so be it, but personally, that accusation will never persuade me to walk in the direction of the negroes! Therefore, one ought to be extremely discriminatory (in the original and most etymologically-accurate sense of the word) when presuming to make charges of racial bias towards another.
To be clear, in the above example, the reason for my choice to avoid the band of negroes is due not to any inherent HATRED towards those originating from sub-Saharan Africa, but simply because, in my vast experience of residing in a multicultural country and by watching news reports, the chances of my physical safety being threatened late at night are far far greater by walking in the direction of the black men, as opposed to the Japanese gentlemen. In the United States of America, for instance, despite comprising about six percent of the total population, Negroid males are disproportionally responsible for about half the violent crimes in that country. So, discrimination can be dharmic (beneficial) or it can be adharmic (sinful) and one ought not fear discriminating on the basis of race.
In summary, racial discrimination (again, by the ACTUAL definition of the term), like sexism and speciesism, may be either immoral or it may be moral, depending on the intentions of the actor and the consequences of the act.
1
-
1
-
As far as practical, newlyweds should RESIDE in the house of their father (that is, the father of the groom, who is the bride’s father-according-to-the-law). The benefits of this living arrangement greatly exceed any possible disadvantages, assuming, of course, that the father-son relationship is amiable. Women, in particular, need the comfort and support of being surrounded by extended family. When facing relationship difficulties, emotional distress, or medical problems, women require the counsel of elder females, such as their grandmother, mother-in-law, or an aunt. Although males generally do not feel the same need for close familial bonds, it is beneficial for men to maintain a strong relationship with their male kin. The storehouse of knowledge and wisdom preserved by the patriarchy is invaluable for any young man, no matter his level of intelligence or seeming sagacity. Also, if the husband dies or becomes severely disabled, his wife has a safe haven for herself and her offspring. Ideally, a widow should be cared for by a brother-in-law, or if her deceased husband was bereft of adult brethren, another male relative. Furthermore, there are significant financial advantages to an extended family dwelling in the same house (or at least in the immediate vicinity), which can never be discounted for the vast majority of families, who are not blessed with an abundance of wealth.
Just as the parents (ideally) spent decades of their lives lovingly-raising their offspring, it is the sacred DUTY of adult male children to care for their elderly parents and, of course, any of their extant grandparents. If, for some reason, the sons are unwilling or unable to properly look after an ageing parent/grandparent, that obligation will naturally fall to any other male relative. Accordingly, any adult male within the clan may take responsibility for the care of the ageing couple (likewise, a disabled couple too, of course). There are exceptions to the rule that an heir ought to care for his elderly parents, specifically in the case where the son has joined the Holy Priesthood (especially if he has become a mendicant monk). When a man dies, any property that he may own (including his family members) automatically bequeaths to his eldest son.
N.B. Above, where it is mentioned that the duty of care is placed upon a particular male relative, it should be understood that the ACTUAL daily tasks of caring for an ageing parent, do not necessarily fall upon him personally. For example, if the son is busy at work, his wife and/or daughter(s) must care for their elders. Obviously, it is quite improper for a man to bathe and toilet his geriatric mother or his grandmother!
1
-
1
-
@gonefishing5434
🐟 30. FOOD & DIET:
There are THREE kinds of foods according to the three "modes" explicated in Chapter 18 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”.
Foods in the mode of purity promote good physical and mental health. The adage "healthy body, healthy mind" is pertinent to this mode.
Such foods include, in approximate order of their importance: fruits (especially if they are tree-ripened), vegetables, nuts, legumes/pulses, grains, roots, flowers, tubers, bulbs, and of course, purified water (or milk, in the case of infants), supplemented with seeds and herbs.
To be included in this classification, the food must be LIVING, that is, fresh and raw (or at most, steamed or lightly sautéed, if one is residing in a cold clime). Most animals subsist on living foodstuffs, so to be considered healthy, the food must be both living and natural.
As with all herbivorous mammals, humans who consume a pure diet normally experience a bowel movement after each substantial meal.
Foods in the mode of passion promote indigestion (or, at least, are more difficult to digest than pure foods) and overly-excite the mind.
Such foods are basically the same as above, but with excessive amounts of oil, spices, sweeteners, salt and/or other condiments added.
To be included in this category, the VEGETARIAN* foods may be properly cooked, but not overcooked, and mildly to moderately seasoned.
Those who consume foods predominately in the mode of passion normally defecate after breaking their fast (i.e. the first meal of the day).
Foods in the mode of darkness cannot rightly be called “food” at all, and invariably cause digestive upsets, such as constipation or diarrhoea.
Such “offal” is either dry, stale, putrid, rancid, decayed, carcinogenic, overcooked (or even worse, burnt), processed beyond recognition, or the remnants of another’s meal (that is, food that has been leftover by a person who is lower in the hierarchy of society than the person who intends to consume it. For example, it would be offensive for a beggar to offer the remains of his meal to his king, yet the converse would be a rather gracious act of kindness). Again, to be included in this classification, the food is to be of wholly PLANT or fungal origin.
Ideally, the bulk (if not ALL) of one's diet should comprise of minimally-processed raw foods, such as tropical fruits or vegetable salads, the latter of which often consists of fruits anyway, since such foods as tomatoes, cucumbers and olives are, in fact, fruits, since they are seed-bearing foods. If one consumes a very high proportion of raw fruits, it is rarely, if ever, necessary to fast. Fasting is beneficial for those who partake in a diet high in processed and cooked dishes. Fruit-juice fasting is possibly the best method of fasting, especially for those living an active lifestyle. Unless one is particularly active, eating more than two meals per day is unnecessary. Ideally, cooked and highly-processed foods should be reserved for the final meal of the day, since the process of digestion itself consumes more energy than any other activity.
It is an undeniable scientific fact that humans are a HERBIVOROUS species (more specifically, a predominantly frugivorous, or fruit-eating animal). There is not a single aspect of human psychology or physiology that even suggests that we were designed or evolved to feed on our fellow animals. The primary visual cortex of the brains of hominids has precisely evolved to recognise the colourful fruits that grew in the tropics of the African continent. Only a veritable troglodyte could possibly take delight in the sight and stench of bloody animal carcasses!
Practically all cat owners know to feed their pets with animal flesh, as they understand that felines are obligate carnivores, yet they have not the slightest clue that humans are herbivores biologically, and that the consumption of animal products is gradually destroying their health.
Animal consumption is lawful only if there is a scarcity of ACTUAL food. However, to be fair, some races have adapted reasonably well to an omnivorous diet due to residing in regions of the earth where edible vegetation has been scarce, for millennia before the twentieth century. But even then, those races have been found to improve their health when their diet had been enriched with vegetation. Humans originated in the wetlands of tropical Africa and our source of food is necessarily to be found in such a climate. We humans must surely be the only species of animal life that migrates away from its food source! Who among you would not prefer tropical fruits over the “food” found in the Arctic Circle?
Unnecessarily killing and/or consuming animals is an ABOMINABLE action. It is not natural for humans to hunt animals like sheep, cows, goats, rabbits, chicken, and fish, and gorge on their bloody carcasses. Sheep, rabbits, and cows are food for carnivorous animals such as lions, tigers and wolves, and fish is food for marine and semi-aquatic species. Do humans live in the ocean? Of course not! Then why is it necessary for us to go into the water to find our food? Is that sensible? Not at all, unless, as previously mentioned, one is afflicted with true hunger (and even in the event that one is literally dying of starvation, one ought to, from a moral perspective, as far as practical, eat those animals that are lower in the hierarchy of sentience, such as seafood. Slaughtering a primate is immeasurably more sinful than feeding on crustacean, for instance).
Milk is intended solely for consumption by infants of the SAME species. Cow’s milk is for baby cows, not adult humans. The logic is overwhelming, but unfortunately, not all persons are capable of reaching such a base level of logic to understand that it is unnatural for a human to suckle on the teats of a cow or goat. Furthermore, like all unnatural substances, dairy products are harmful to human physiology.
Ideally, one should sit in a comfortable position and eat one’s meal with a RELAXED mental disposition. Consuming food in an anxious state of mind may cause digestive upsets. If practical, eating with bare (washed) hands is more conducive to the enjoyment of one’s meal.
“And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit.
You shall have them for food.’”
Genesis 1:29.
The Old Testament portion of the “Holy Bible”.
“Let food be thy medicine,
and let medicine be thy food.”
Hippocrates,
Father of modern medicine.
*The term “Vegetarian” is used LITERALLY here, that is, “one who subsists on vegetation”. One who consumes vegetation and dairy and/or eggs is properly called a “lacto-vegetarian” or a “lacto-ovo vegetarian”, respectively. The term “vegan” is not directly related to diet, but to the philosophy of the avoidance of harming animal life unnecessarily. Animal killing is permissible only in the case of true hunger, self-defence, or in order to eradicate vermin from one's dwelling and work places. Obviously, veganism is to be promoted as the ideal way of life for all humans.
N.B. If you are reading this Holy Scripture, it is highly probable that you are familiar with the concept of the “Three Modes of Nature” (“trī-guṇa”, in Sanskrit). If not, it may be prudent to read or re-read Chapter 18 of “FISH” at this point. In any case, those who are, in fact, familiar with the three modes of nature have an extremely flawed understanding of how they apply to food and diet, particularly if they have studied the ancient Indian texts known collectively as “Ayur Veda” (“The Science of Life/Longevity”). Those persons invariably believe that animal products are categorized in the mode of darkness. However, that assumes that animals are actually human food, which they most assuredly are not.
The system outlined above is by far the most accurate, logical, and authoritative method of classifying food, and ought to be followed by anyone who is truly desirous of living a wholesome life. Unfortunately, even most vegans seem to lean towards less-than-healthy foods.
© 2019-2023 Spiritual Sciences Society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
@JoshuaRed-v4f , respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively).
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male role models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning – a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their births, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
1
-
@andoriannationalist3738
nation:
a population, normally residing in the same geographic region, in which most all the citizens share a common race, religion, language, and culture. This word is VERY often used erroneously in the stead of the term “country”. Therefore, it is highly suggested that one refer to the Glossary entry under “country”, in order to understand the distinction between a “country” and a “nation”.
Unfortunately, an enormous percentage of the population has been indoctrinated by leftists to regard NATIONALISM as a malevolent ideology, when in fact, the adherence to a nationalistic framework is beneficial to both the citizenry of a nation and to the world as a whole. Multicultural societies are constantly fraught with conflicts, due to the incompatibility of competing ideologies and practices.
Imagine, if you will, that the million most conservative men from an Islamic nation in Middle-east Asia, such as Afghanistan, and the million most feministic women from a liberal country like Canada, were taken to some barren island and asked to establish a new civilization. How harmonious and prosperous do you believe such a mismatch of persons would be? TOTALLY discordant!
Furthermore, a variety of national identities is intrinsically beneficial, for nobody would want to travel to another nation if that nation was fundamentally identical to their own nation, except to experience the unique geographical features, diets or climates.
I, for one, am glad that I can visit a nation such as Japan in order to experience its unique culture and language, then choose to visit or reside in nations such as Ireland and Egypt in order to experience the unique languages, food, art, dance, cinema, music, religion, and customs of those two nations. Of course, if I decided to reside in a nation where the language and culture differed radically from my own, I would need to adapt. For example, if I were to migrate to a Middle-east Asian nation, such as the one mentioned above, I could not openly criticize the Islamic faith (and especially its founder) without putting my very existence at risk. Upon moving to the Philippines over a decade ago, I found it EXTREMELY easy to acclimatize to its culture, since it is very much a Westernized nation, not dissimilar to the country of my birth, The Southland (that is, “Terra Australis” or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue).
“Nation” was first recorded in the thirteenth century, from the Middle English, from Latin “nātiōn-” (stem of “nātiō”), meaning “birth” or “tribe”, equivalent to “nāt(us)” (past participle of “nāscī”, meaning “to be born”) + “-iōn-”. “-ion” a suffix, appearing in words of Latin origin, denoting action or condition, used in Latin and in English to form nouns from stems of Latin adjectives.
1
-
@DadSavesAmerica
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
THE ETHICS OF ABORTION:
Even though (illegitimate) abortion is merely one of a long list of crimes, it is such a controversial issue that it is being given its own subsection.
Although some pro-life advocates use the term “abortion” solely in those cases in which the aim and purpose of the procedure is to terminate the life of the unborn child (as opposed to those cases in which the aim is to save the life of the mother, and the death of the embryo is an undesired consequence of the procedure), this author sees no semantic advantage of making such a distinction, and so, in this document, the term “abortion” is applied to any medical procedure in which the life of an embryo or a foetus is DELIBERATELY terminated, for any reason.
Of course, just as there is a definite distinction between justified (i.e. legitimate) animal consumption and unjustified (i.e. illegitimate) animal consumption, so too is there a distinction between legitimate abortion and illegitimate abortion. Thus, the terminology has been established.
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without a doubt, a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it being underdeveloped, insentient, and/or unconscious.
Because there are some pro-abortion (that is, pro-unjustifiable-abortion) advocates who make desperate attempts to find flaws in the pro-life position, here, “conception” refers to the very moment that a spermatozoon nucleus fuses with an ovum nucleus, and syngamy takes place. However, it is important to understand that the question of the precise millisecond when a unique human life begins is completely redundant, because nobody is likely to surgically operate on a woman shortly after sexual intercourse has taken place, in order to prevent a fertilized egg from achieving syngamy! As mentioned in Chapter 28, whenever any one of the procreative, recreative, or unitive aspects of sex is omitted, sex becomes a selfish, sinful act, and so, to prevent a newly-fertilized ovum from its natural course of events, would count as a criminal act.
Any human with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is still not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary phases of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve-year-old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the phase of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe – it is fully human. The aforementioned prenatal stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that – merely stages of the human life cycle, and although, according to normative mores, the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five-year-old child, that is insufficient justification alone for extinguishing its very life! Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human zygote or an embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. Before contemplating the brutal destruction of an innocent human being, one should have an exceedingly-justifiable rationale. Demonic humans (see Chapter 14) are constantly inventing multifarious excuses for murdering poor, innocent, defenceless children, purely in order to rationalize their wicked agenda, but there are only two scenarios in which abortion may be lawful. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Gautama, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
In brief, abortion is justified only in the case of rape or if the mother’s life is endangered. Obviously, that does not imply that the life of the baby of a raped woman MUST be terminated. As mentioned in the next paragraph (in relation to my own course of action in the hypothetical case of the rape of a female family member), I would do everything in my power to convince a raped family member to lovingly nurture the child unto birth, and then relinquish the child to an adoptive family. Therefore, when all is said and done, the need for any kind of (legitimate) abortion would be such a tiny fraction of one percent of all pregnancies that it would be more simply expressed as a negative exponent. Only if the expectant mother is acutely distressed by carrying the child of her rapist, should abortion be considered, and it would be preferable for the raped woman to do so as soon as practical. It would be a truly savage, barbaric act for her to kill her child in the third trimester of pregnancy!
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if she was the victim of rape, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe!
As noted in the glossary of this book, it could be seen as hypocritical, or at least somewhat disingenuous, for a person to kill a non-human animal unless that person is willing to do so with his or her bare hands. I could never squeeze a rat to death using just my bare hands, so I ought not dismember a member of my own species, no matter how small it may be, without proper justification, according to moral norms.
Perhaps the most common justification for illegitimate abortion (that is, the murder of innocent, defenceless, unborn human beings) is that a woman ought to have AUTONOMY over her own body. Of course, those who raise such arguments conveniently overlook the fact that the pre-born human, by the same token, is entitled to the very same bodily autonomy as its mother! Those who are afflicted with a demonic mentality (which, after reading Chapter 14, as well as many other chapters of this treatise, one should come to understand to be practically every person on the planet), especially those persons residing in nations/countries with a predominantly leftist (“adharma”, in Sanskrit) populace will never come to accept the fact that no human being who has ever lived is his or her own master/mistress, and therefore, has no such “right” as autonomy over his or her own body. Does a newborn child have autonomy over him/herself? Obviously not, otherwise no parent would dare to regulate the activities of their offspring. Does a mother have autonomy over herself? Definitely not, since her lord and master (the word “husband” literally denotes the master of a house – see Chapter 27) has absolute authority to direct and control her actions and movements. Again, this bitter truth, will never ever be accepted by the vast majority of the population, but the truth must be proclaimed, nevertheless.
Incidentally, the very same paradigm outlined above, applies also to societal organization, in which a father has full authority over his family, a grandfather has full authority over his extended family, a patriarch has full authority over his clan, a chief has full authority over his tribe, a (genuine) king has complete and utter authority over his subjects, and finally, a (genuine) priest has authority over his entire society. The only humans who can possibly claim to have complete AUTONOMY over themselves are those excruciatingly-rare men who have risen to the role of World Teacher (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit), and only then, solely upon their actual entry to the Holy Priesthood. As children, Avatars are subject to the authority of their mothers, then, upon adulthood, to the authority of their fathers, and if they happen to perform some kind of work prior to entering the Priesthood (as with Lord Jesus Christ, who worked as a carpenter before He began His priestly ministry), to their employers.
Possibly the saddest aspect of the abortion debate is the fact that the sex that has evolved to MOST nourish and protect vulnerable human offspring, is more in favour of illegitimate abortion. Personally, I am very thankful that my mother was not a miserable, rabid feminist who would have considered murdering the next World Teacher for any trivial reason whatever. Apart from the legitimacy of abortion in the very rare instances of rape or danger to the life of the mother, not a single one of their frivolous reasons is reasonable to a person of civility and intelligence. There will always be at least one decent family that will gladly take an unwanted newborn baby from a murderous parent.
N.B. It is rather important to refer to the Glossary definitions of some of the terms used in this subsection.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In the past decade or two, the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human society. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia). In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil, and immoral in the first place). It seems the consensus amongst leftist "intellectuals" is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one's environmental conditioning, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one's genetic sequence and one’s conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically-supported.
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies, such as monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for GOD is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes. 🤡
1
-
@casmatori
🐟 27. MARRIAGE & THE FAMILY:
Matrimony is the contractual union of a man with one or more women, primarily for the purpose of PROCREATION and child-rearing.
The couple should be brought together by their respective parents, and if practical, some sort of nuptial ceremony performed. Once a couple has been engaged to be married, they should not break the agreement, unless one party has been proven to have lost his or her virginity with a third party. OBVIOUSLY, after the wedding, the marriage contract cannot be broken, unless one or both parties has committed adultery, or one party has chosen to no longer carry out his or her marital duties (for instance, if the husband refuses to materially-support his wife/wives, or the wife refuses to perform domestic chores for her master, both of which are legitimate grounds for divorce).
A RESPONSIBLE father will objectively evaluate the unique characteristics, virtues, idiosyncrasies, and shortcomings of his child from a relatively early age, and thereafter, seek a compatible spouse from the available pool of persons in his social circles. Unless his nation faces extinction, the potential match should not be any closer to his child than a cousin. If a prospective couple do not belong to the same clan (and thereby do not share the same family name), it is probable that their genetic code is sufficiently divergent to create healthy offspring. As implied above, incestuous marriage should only be condoned if the human race is in danger of extermination, or possibly in the instance where an entire race or nation is on the verge of annihilation.
If one’s parents fail in their duty to select a suitable mate, one should very carefully choose a COMPATIBLE spouse. The recommended criteria used to evaluate marital compatibility are as follows: physical characteristics (such as relative height and sexual attractiveness), personality type, intelligence, emotional temperament, diet, cultural similarities, political ideology, religious affiliation, and life goals.
One of the major causes of conjugal breakdown in recent decades has been due to the couple selecting each other based solely (or at least predominantly) on sexual attraction and/or amorous attachments, with little consideration given to the other guiding principles, listed above.
Romance rarely lasts more than a couple of years. Marriage is an institution based largely on PRACTICAL considerations, not on lustful feelings or on fleeting sentimentality. Without firm, practical reasons for a couple remaining conjugally-bound, they are susceptible to marital divorce.
Generally speaking, women have the potent desire to raise children, and require a man with which to mate, and then protect and support her and the offspring, during the fifteen-plus years (for EACH child) of child-rearing. Most men also desire to have a family, and additionally, possess a very powerful libido, which, if not channelled in a legitimate fashion, can cause a great deal of social misbehaviour (e.g. rape, etc.).
There is no such thing as a nun in the eyes of God. Therefore, unless a woman is seriously disabled, either physically or psychologically, or else a lesbian, she is lawfully OBLIGATED to marry the man preselected by her parents (or if her parents are deceased, by her extant master, whether that be her grandfather, an uncle, or an adult nephew). Ideally, women ought to be betrothed as soon as they reach adulthood, to avoid a childless existence. Quite understandably, very few men have aspirations to mate with a post-menopausal female.
Marriage is mandatory for men too, apart from missionary priests, those unfortunate males who are unable to support a family for reasons of mental or physical incapacity, men who are simply passed-over by hypergamous females due to being perceived as low-value suitors, homosexuals (meaning, men who are not at all attracted to the opposite gender. Bisexuals are not exempt from marriage), and men who reside in jurisdictions where ILLEGITIMATE feministic governments enact so-called “laws” which abrogate the lawful rights of married men.
In my particular case, despite being a model husband and father, my first wife, with the support of the dirty, demonic, democratic Australian government, literally kidnapped my three precious children, whilst my second wife, with the assistance of the equally-wicked, violent, corrupt, murderous Filipino government, stole my presbytery (the house of a priest).
The recent exodus of men in Western countries from the dating pool (or at least from formal marriage) is more than understandable.
The man should be approximately ten to twenty years OLDER than his wife/wives. Some of the reasons for this are:
It is natural for women to be attracted to older men and for men to be attracted to younger women. There is a good evolutionary reason why women reach their sexual peak between the ages of about fifteen to twenty-five and why a man's sexual market value peaks in his thirties to fifties. The female matures earlier (physically and socially), so if she mates with a man of similar age, she may find her spouse to be emotionally immature. The husband is almost a substitute for the woman's father figure, so the husband’s age gives him added authority as head of the family. Also, it gives the man extra time to establish his career, a house and home for his wife and forthcoming progeny.
The main duties of the HUSBAND are to teach his wife/wives and sons whatever beneficial lessons he has learnt from his own masters, protect his family from harm, and supply their necessities of life (that is, food, clothing, and shelter) as well as desired luxuries, if practicable. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
Marriage is not a democracy. Any so-called man who compromises with his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives or his offspring, is surely doomed to failure. Feminized western men, in particular, are guilty of such uxoriousness. Such emasculated “men” are not true men, and desperately need to regain their dignity as the head of their homes.
The main daily duties of the WIFE are to execute domestic chores such as to cook, clean, sew, take care of the children, and to keep the husband sexually satisfied so he doesn't look at other women.
The wife should submit to the will of her husband. She should fully respect him as her master, and should address him accordingly.
Whilst conversing, the wife should focus her attention completely on her husband. She should listen carefully to what he says, learn what he is saying, answer him, and obey his instructions. A man should never be alone with any female, apart from his wife, of course.
POLYGAMY has been taught by all the major religions. Unfortunately, the “westernized” religious cults seem to have done away with the practice for unbeknown reasons. The reason for polygamy is simply due to the fact that every woman needs a husband. Also, a certain proportion of men are destined to die as bachelors due to female hypergamy, which is a natural trait of women (even if it may seem unfair).
When a woman marries, she LITERALLY joins the family of her husband.
She takes her master's family name, and the husband's parents become her parents, which is why they are called “father/mother-in-law”, that is, “father/mother according to the law” (the one and only law of God, or more accurately, the Universal Law, as propounded in Chapter 12).
Cont...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimaforwood743 , respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
@pwalk4160
🐟 12. DHARMA (LAW/MORALITY/ETHICS):
PREAMBLE – LAWS VERSUS RULES:
First of all, it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between laws and rules. Laws are divided into NATURAL laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere), as well as the MORAL law, which is based on the principle of non-harm (such as the prohibition of theft, murder, and adultery). Additionally, there are conceptual fields in which laws (as well as rules) may be established, such as mathematics, LOGIC, and grammar/syntax. Societal rules, on the other hand, are merely man-made edicts, such as the regulation of business practices or the convention of driving motor vehicles on one particular side of the road. Unfortunately, very few persons (hardly anyone, in fact!) are able to differentiate the inextricable, singular law of morality from the contrived rules and regulations imposed on society by self-obsessed legislators.
Therefore, this supremely-valuable chapter of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, largely via its historically-established and accepted METAETHICAL definition, as opposed to the various laws of physics, which are completely superfluous to the import of this treatise. Whilst cosmological laws may transmogrify over aeons, ethics necessarily remains constant within all human societies throughout time. Never will there come a day when blatantly harmful deeds will be considered beneficial to society, or else that society will perish! Finally, it will be explained how this meta-ethical position relates to real-life situations – known as “NORMATIVE ETHICS”.
Whilst the laws of physics, such as Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, are extremely difficult (if not impossible) for humans to circumvent, the moral law is easier to break than it is for a healthy fish to swim in a sea of water! In fact, there seems to be very little in common between the natural law and the moral law. Therefore, it is preferable to use the Sanskrit term “DHARMA” instead of the English word “law”, since the former word covers every conceivable facet of morality (see the Glossary entries “law” and “dharma”). Whenever dharma/law is transgressed, even to a very minute degree, the entire universe is degraded proportionately. When a man is robbed of his property, not only is the victim’s life adversely affected, but now, all humans need to be more vigilant of their belongings. Thus, the universe as a whole is marginally demeaned, just as a single cancerous cell debases one’s entire body, even if it is to a minuscule extent. In any case, the laws of physics are irrelevant here.
So, to put it very succinctly, the expression “(moral) LAW” refers to an exceptionally-unique and concise idea (the formula of “ahiṃsā paramo dharma” [a Sanskrit maxim meaning “non-harm is the essence of the law”, or “non-violence is the epitome of morality”]), whereas the notion of “RULE” refers to any edict promulgated by a dominator (whether or not the person or body possesses any genuine legitimacy) that decrees or prohibits any particular action. In no way does this imply that a rule cannot be beneficial to society, nor that a rule is intrinsically immoral.
Therefore, a RULE can clearly be useful and valid, even though it may not be unequivocally-concerned with LAW – just imagine the result of there being no airport authorities that govern the flight paths of aircraft in our skies! Merely due to the fact that the British government is illegitimate, does not suggest that one should erratically drive a motor vehicle on the streets of rush-hour London, simply in order to convey the fact that the English parliament possesses no actual authority over its citizens! See also the Glossary entries “authority” and “legitimate”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
nation:
a population, normally residing in the same geographic region, in which most all the citizens share a common race, religion, language, and culture. This word is VERY often used erroneously in the stead of the term “country”. Therefore, it is highly suggested that one refer to the Glossary entry under “country”, in order to understand the distinction between a “country” and a “nation”.
Unfortunately, an enormous percentage of the population has been indoctrinated by leftists to regard NATIONALISM as a malevolent ideology, when in fact, the adherence to a nationalistic framework is beneficial to both the citizenry of a nation and to the world as a whole. Multicultural societies are constantly fraught with conflicts, due to the incompatibility of competing ideologies and practices.
Imagine, if you will, that the million most conservative men from an Islamic nation in Middle-east Asia, such as Afghanistan, and the million most feministic women from a liberal country like Canada, were taken to some barren island and asked to establish a new civilization. How harmonious and prosperous do you believe such a mismatch of persons would be? TOTALLY discordant!
Furthermore, a variety of national identities is intrinsically beneficial, for nobody would want to travel to another nation if that nation was fundamentally identical to their own nation, except to experience the unique geographical features, diets or climates.
I, for one, am glad that I can visit a nation such as Japan in order to experience its unique culture and language, then choose to visit or reside in nations such as Ireland and Egypt in order to experience the unique languages, food, art, dance, cinema, music, religion, and customs of those two nations. Of course, if I decided to reside in a nation where the language and culture differed radically from my own, I would need to adapt. For example, if I were to migrate to a Middle-east Asian nation, such as the one mentioned above, I could not openly criticize the Islamic faith (and especially its founder) without putting my very existence at risk. Upon moving to the Philippines over a decade ago, I found it EXTREMELY easy to acclimatize to its culture, since it is very much a Westernized nation, not dissimilar to the country of my birth, The Southland (that is, “Terra Australis” or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue).
“Nation” was first recorded in the thirteenth century, from the Middle English, from Latin “nātiōn-” (stem of “nātiō”), meaning “birth” or “tribe”, equivalent to “nāt(us)” (past participle of “nāscī”, meaning “to be born”) + “-iōn-”. “-ion” a suffix, appearing in words of Latin origin, denoting action or condition, used in Latin and in English to form nouns from stems of Latin adjectives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively).
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning – a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively).
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning – a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively).
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning – a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
1
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively).
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning – a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
1
-
🐟 28. SEXUALITY & TRANSVESTISM:
Regarding SEX, which is considered to be an extremely important part of life by the overwhelming majority of adult humans:
sexual intercourse refers to the introduction of a man’s penis into a woman’s vagina.
Other forms of sexual gratification are termed “foreplay”, and all forms of foreplay are not only acceptable within marriage, but encouraged.
Although sex can be a wonderful thing, it is a private matter, and has no place in public forums, apart from a health-warning perspective.
Sexual intercourse and foreplay is lawful strictly within MARRIAGE, as defined in the previous chapter, and has three main purposes: most obviously for having children; as a form of recreation (especially for couples who are unable to afford to partake in costly forms of pleasurable hobbies, due to poverty); and for bringing the couple (or in the case of polygamous marriages, however many are present) closer together.
Whenever any one of the procreative, recreative, or unitive aspects of sex is omitted, sex becomes a selfish, sinful act.
Some reasons for sexual intercourse being UNLAWFUL outside of marriage are as follows:
1. It often results in UNWANTED progeny. By and large, bastards have been shown to be disadvantaged in every possible way, compared to children born within wedlock, and in virtually every instance, are rife with behavioural problems (especially boys raised by single mothers).
2. It may spread contagious DISEASES, such as chlamydia, genital herpes, genital warts or human papillomavirus, gonorrhea, hepatitis B, syphilis, trichomoniasis, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (which causes AIDS), as well as other infections that may be sexually transmitted.
3. It contributes to LONELINESS, particularly in later years of life. Sociological studies have demonstrated that, in general, the more sexual partners a person has had, the more difficult it is for that person to commit to a stable, intimate relationship (particularly for women).
4. It can contribute to sexual ADDICTION and objectification. When one is focused solely on gratifying one’s own libidinous desires, it is easy to see attractive persons as mere objects whose reason for existence is to satisfy that lust. All kinds of addiction to pleasure are self-destructive.
HOMOSEXUAL acts are legitimate solely within polygamous marriages (as defined in Chapter 27). Read Chapter 12 and the Glossary entry under “slippery slope”, to learn the reason for homosexuality being detrimental to society, and therefore, homosexual acts being unlawful.
Leading neuroscientists of the current century have demonstrated that same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria can be attributed to certain parts of the brain being formed similarly to the person’s (biological) gender OPPOSITE. There are other physiological determinants for homosexual attraction, such as genetic and hormonal, and to a far lesser degree, environmental causes. As demonstrated in Chapter 11 of this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”), this phenomenon was preordained in eternity, but so too were all unbeneficial traits such as criminality and addictive personality disorders, and does not negate the obvious requirement for society to punish perpetrators of homosexual acts. Again, read Chapter 12 to understand metaethics, applied ethics, and the reason why homosexual acts are objectively evil by nature.
Of all the concepts put forward in this Holiest of Holy Scriptures, this condemnation of homosexual acts is, perhaps, the teaching that elicits the most vitriolic responses from individuals, because over the past few decades of writing this treatise, homosexuality has become widely acceptable within most societies throughout the world, and even glorified in some cases! However, the obvious fact of its pernicious nature MUST be proclaimed if human society is to endure and prosper. It ought to be emphasized that homosexual acts themselves are unlawful, and not simply being predisposed to same-sex attraction. In other words, homosexual individuals can not be prosecuted simply for being attracted to members of the same gender, but only for engaging in unlawful sexual acts such as sodomy, just as heterosexuals should not be punished just for being attracted to members of the opposite sex, but for fornicating with them (that is, engaging in extra-marital sexual activity).
A TRANSVESTITE is a person who wears clothing belonging to the opposite gender, and is a criminal offence. That does not imply that transvestites ought to be severely punished for their choice of attire, but they must at least be sternly admonished by a superior. When males and females dress similarly, including similar hairstyles, it creates an androgynous or homogeneous population, thereby reducing the pool of available mates for that proportion of society who are “alpha” oriented. For example, a genuinely masculine man (especially an alpha male) would never even dream of mating with a woman who wears male clothing, keeps her hair short in length, and/or behaves as a tomboy. Conversely, transvestinal men, and men who conduct themselves in an effeminate manner, are utterly unattractive to feminine women.
Transvestism is culturally specific, meaning, in each culture, males and females have their unique, respective fashions. For instance, in Middle-east Asia, at least in recent centuries before the modern era, both sexes wear long, one-piece garments, yet there is a distinct colour and style differentiation between the robes of each gender. The Indian dhoti and sari are both similar in size and shape, yet worn quite differently and of very different colour. At the time of writing, in most countries in the world, males wear pantaloons, slacks, jeans, trousers, or short pants, whilst females wear skirts, saris or dresses (at least they SHOULD do so, but often do not, due mainly to the influence of feminism). Of course, there may be minor exceptions to this rule, such as monastic robes for Western monks and Panjabi pants for North-Western Indian women. Yet, even in those last two cases, it could be argued that they are not, in fact, exceptions to the rule, since they adhere to the rule of cultural-specificity. Furthermore, both genders must dress MODESTLY in public places, including at swimming pools, at the beach or bathing in rivers.
“Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”
“Letter to the Hebrews” 13:4,
Author Indeterminate.
“A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor should a man dress up in women’s clothing, for anyone who does this is offensive to the LORD your God.”
“Deuteronomy” 22:5, Yahweh (or to be more accurate, whoever authored the Torah).
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JairLaird , that is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Slave?
Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🐟 25. THE ROLE OF FEMALES:
Women are fortunate because they are BORN with a job:
Daughter.
Wife.
Mother.
Females normally have no role in public life. Exceptions to this rule are relatively rare. For instance, women may work in the arts (singers, actors, and dancers, which often demand female players), or as maids or nurses, both of which are feminine duties, providing it has no detrimental effect on their PRIMARY function, as daughters, wives, and mothers.
So, a female’s fundamental role is to serve her MASTERS (any man in her family circle), even from a relatively young age, by performing domestic duties and raising her children. Barren women (heterosexual or otherwise) are extremely unfortunate, but can still devote their lives to serving their husband, father, grandfather, uncles, or in the event that none of those men are extant, adult male cousins.
Studies have shown that the more a woman deviates from this innate societal function, the less she is fulfilled. The phrase, “Cat Lady”, says it all.
As a general rule, women should be protected in the home, and never wander-out alone. They should FULLY cover their bodies in the presence of post-pubescent males outside the family circle. Even the prostitutes in some nations wear veils in public, even if out of fear of reprisal.
Having lived the eremitic life of a monastic priest for a few decades, I can attest to the importance of keeping one’s home clean and tidy. It is obvious to me that housekeeping is very much a full-time occupation, and that if I were to neglect my domestic chores, my health and comfort would greatly diminish. As would be expected of a person in my position, I follow a strict diet and am obsessive in regards to hygiene. Without a spouse, the onus is on me to maintain my residence in a prim and proper manner, even though it results in me spending less time teaching religion as a member of the Holy Priesthood (The World Teacher, in my particular case). Therefore, the role of a housewife is of PARAMOUNT importance, and must never be discounted by anybody, particularly feminist ideologues. The following chapter deals with feminism.
The ONLY reason I have resided alone for most of my adult life is due to the fact that there is a severe scarcity of decent women in my country, and indeed the entire world, what to speak of holy and righteous women. Unfortunately, few women, particularly in the more affluent nations, any longer receive adequate training in the connubial arts. In my former marriages, I was forced to perform most household chores.
In recent centuries, due to various factors (FEMINISM, in particular), women have become so degraded, that is it practically impossible to find an example of an ideal woman. Therefore, in order to reference examples of such a woman, one is forced to refer to figures from ancient myths.
Mariam, the mother of Lord Jesus Christ, and Devī Sītārānī, the wife of Śri Rāja Rāma, King of Ayodhya, are the epitome of womanhood, and ought to be the role models for each and every girl born on this planet. That is assuming, of course, that those two women were, in actual fact, the gentle, refined, humble and submissive goddesses they were portrayed to be in the archaic scriptures.
Obviously, this teaching receives an ENORMOUS amount of scorn, contempt and derision from a certain proportion of women (and also many "men"), but that is perfectly fine, because, such foolish feminists are destined to die lonely and alone, with no family surrounding them, and hopefully not transfer their adulterated genes to forthcoming generations.
In some locations in the world, STRAY COWS freely wander the urban streets, displaying their teats.
Similarly, in most locations, women wander the dangerous streets alone or in groups, displaying their bosoms and other bodily parts.
Such loose women are no better than STRAY COWS.
The TRUTH is very difficult to accept, right, Slave?
“Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun, the moon, and the TRUTH.”
Siddhārtha Gautama (AKA The Buddha),
Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.131 (Paraphrased).
Paṭicchanna Sutta
“...encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.”
***********
“Yet women will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
***********
“Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
St. Paul of Tarsus,
Titus 2:4-5.
1 Timothy 2:15.
1 Corinthians 14:34.
1
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Edrd.o , respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
@stefanheinzmann7319
🐟 25. THE ROLE OF FEMALES:
Women are fortunate because they are BORN with a job:
Daughter.
Wife.
Mother.
Females normally have no role in public life. Exceptions to this rule are relatively rare. For instance, women may work in the arts (singers, actors, and dancers, which often demand female players), or as maids or nurses, both of which are feminine duties, providing it has no detrimental effect on their PRIMARY function, as daughters, wives, and mothers.
So, a female’s fundamental role is to serve her MASTERS (any man in her family circle), even from a relatively young age, by performing domestic duties and raising her children. Barren women (heterosexual or otherwise) are extremely unfortunate, but can still devote their lives to serving their husband, father, grandfather, uncles, or in the event that none of those men are extant, adult male cousins.
Studies have shown that the more a woman deviates from this innate societal function, the less she is fulfilled. The phrase, “Cat Lady”, says it all.
As a general rule, women should be protected in the home, and never wander-out alone. They should FULLY cover their bodies in the presence of post-pubescent males outside the family circle. Even the prostitutes in some nations wear veils in public, even if out of fear of reprisal.
Having lived the eremitic life of a monastic priest for a few decades, I can attest to the importance of keeping one’s home clean and tidy. It is obvious to me that housekeeping is very much a full-time occupation, and that if I were to neglect my domestic chores, my health and comfort would greatly diminish. As would be expected of a person in my position, I follow a strict diet and am obsessive in regards to hygiene. Without a spouse, the onus is on me to maintain my residence in a prim and proper manner, even though it results in me spending less time teaching religion as a member of the Holy Priesthood (The World Teacher, in my particular case). Therefore, the role of a housewife is of PARAMOUNT importance, and must never be discounted by anybody, particularly feminist ideologues. The following chapter deals with feminism.
The ONLY reason I have resided alone for most of my adult life is due to the fact that there is a severe scarcity of decent women in my country, and indeed the entire world, what to speak of holy and righteous women. Unfortunately, few women, particularly in the more affluent nations, any longer receive adequate training in the connubial arts. In my former marriages, I was forced to perform most household chores.
In recent centuries, due to various factors (FEMINISM, in particular), women have become so degraded, that is it practically impossible to find an example of an ideal woman. Therefore, in order to reference examples of such a woman, one is forced to refer to figures from ancient myths.
Mariam, the mother of Lord Jesus Christ, and Devī Sītārānī, the wife of Śri Rāja Rāma, King of Ayodhya, are the epitome of womanhood, and ought to be the role models for each and every girl born on this planet. That is assuming, of course, that those two women were, in actual fact, the gentle, refined, humble and submissive goddesses they were portrayed to be in the archaic scriptures.
Obviously, this teaching receives an ENORMOUS amount of scorn, contempt and derision from a certain proportion of women (and also many "men"), but that is perfectly fine, because, such foolish feminists are destined to die lonely and alone, with no family surrounding them, and hopefully not transfer their adulterated genes to forthcoming generations.
In some locations in the world, STRAY COWS freely wander the urban streets, displaying their teats.
Similarly, in most locations, women wander the dangerous streets alone or in groups, displaying their bosoms and other bodily parts.
Such loose women are no better than STRAY COWS.
The TRUTH is very difficult to accept, right, Slave?
“Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun, the moon, and the TRUTH.”
Siddhārtha Gautama (AKA The Buddha),
Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.131 (Paraphrased).
Paṭicchanna Sutta
“...encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.”
***********
“Yet women will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
***********
“Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
St. Paul of Tarsus,
Titus 2:4-5.
1 Timothy 2:15.
1 Corinthians 14:34.
1
-
@pauldaigle2344
sex:
the state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, while males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete.
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
gender:
the state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that there are only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in his/her womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate him/herself). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender.
In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration – firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from "genus", such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus” is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word in recent times, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, objectively-immoral ideologies.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term, and even in the former case, predominantly where leftist ideologues comprise a significant proportion of the population. See also “leftism”.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret – do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male – not a woman or a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was ALWAYS a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. 🤪
1
-
1
-
@DadSavesAmerica , respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I apologize for shattering your illusions, Slave, but Lord Jesus DIED a couple of millennia ago. 🙄
First of all, Mr. Deluded Religionist, there is no TANGIBLE evidence for the claim that Lord Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to some mythical place called “Heaven”.
Words in a book can not prove anything that has occurred in the phenomenal sphere.
Words, at best, can only prove abstract concepts. 🤓
Secondly, even if He did, in fact, rise after one and a half days, His body was not the same as the one He had at the time of death (assuming what was written in the Gospels is accurate).
In fact, it was SO different, that at least some of His closest disciples were unable to recognize Lord Jesus, even after conversing with their master for several hours.🤔
“After this he appeared in ANOTHER form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.”
Mark 16:12.
And, obviously, a person IS the physical body (plus consciousness).
There is absolutely no evidence of such a thing as a “soul” or a “spirit”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
racism:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or a people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized; the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another; belief that certain races of people are by birth and nature superior to others; discrimination or hatred based on the race of a person or of a people (that is, a group of persons).
The term “discrimination” is of paramount importance in dealing with the topic of racism. According to the above definitions of “racism”, the term “discrimination” has invariably been used in a negative way in public discourse for the past two centuries or so.
Although many methods or motives for discriminating are unfair and undesirable (or even immoral), the verb itself has a NEUTRAL history. English speakers borrowed it from the past participle of the Latin verb “discriminare” (meaning “to distinguish or differentiate"), which, itself, is derived from the transitive verb “discernere”. The verb “discernere”, in turn, was formed by combining the prefix “dis-” (meaning “apart”) and “cernere”(“to sift”), and thus, “to filter out or sift apart”.
Firstly, there is no doubt whatsoever that certain races are superior to other races in specific aspects (sometimes so VASTLY superior, that only the most rabid leftist would refuse to accept the facts of the matter). For example, some races have a far higher average intelligence than others, some are far taller, stronger and more physically beautiful than others, some are (on average) greatly more dharmic (religious) than others, some are naturally more quiet and gentle in temperament than others, et cetera. I cannot imagine anyone (even a negro) who would, while walking alone at night in a metropolitan area, prefer to walk in the direction of a group of young negro men instead of a group of young Japanese men. If that makes one a racial bigot, then so be it, but personally, that accusation will never persuade me to walk in the direction of the negroes! Therefore, one ought to be extremely discriminatory (in the original and most etymologically-accurate sense of the word) when presuming to make charges of racial bias towards another.
To be clear, in the above example, the reason for my choice to avoid the band of negroes is due not to any inherent HATRED towards those originating from sub-Saharan Africa, but simply because, in my vast experience of residing in a multicultural country and by watching news reports, the chances of my physical safety being threatened late at night are far far greater by walking in the direction of the black men, as opposed to the Japanese gentlemen. In the United States of America, for instance, despite comprising about six percent of the total population, Negroid males are disproportionally responsible for about half the violent crimes in that country. So, discrimination can be dharmic (beneficial) or it can be adharmic (sinful) and one ought not fear discriminating on the basis of race.
In summary, racial discrimination (again, by the ACTUAL definition of the term), like sexism and speciesism, may be either immoral or it may be moral, depending on the intentions of the actor and the consequences of the act.
1
-
As far as practical, newlyweds should RESIDE in the house of their father (that is, the father of the groom, who is the bride’s father-according-to-the-law). The benefits of this living arrangement greatly exceed any possible disadvantages, assuming, of course, that the father-son relationship is amiable. Women, in particular, need the comfort and support of being surrounded by extended family. When facing relationship difficulties, emotional distress, or medical problems, women require the counsel of elder females, such as their grandmother, mother-in-law, or an aunt. Although males generally do not feel the same need for close familial bonds, it is beneficial for men to maintain a strong relationship with their male kin. The storehouse of knowledge and wisdom preserved by the patriarchy is invaluable for any young man, no matter his level of intelligence or seeming sagacity. Also, if the husband dies or becomes severely disabled, his wife has a safe haven for herself and her offspring. Ideally, a widow should be cared for by a brother-in-law, or if her deceased husband was bereft of adult brethren, another male relative. Furthermore, there are significant financial advantages to an extended family dwelling in the same house (or at least in the immediate vicinity), which can never be discounted for the vast majority of families, who are not blessed with an abundance of wealth.
Just as the parents (ideally) spent decades of their lives lovingly-raising their offspring, it is the sacred DUTY of adult male children to care for their elderly parents and, of course, any of their extant grandparents. If, for some reason, the sons are unwilling or unable to properly look after an ageing parent/grandparent, that obligation will naturally fall to any other male relative. Accordingly, any adult male within the clan may take responsibility for the care of the ageing couple (likewise, a disabled couple too, of course). There are exceptions to the rule that an heir ought to care for his elderly parents, specifically in the case where the son has joined the Holy Priesthood (especially if he has become a mendicant monk). When a man dies, any property that he may own (including his family members) automatically bequeaths to his eldest son.
N.B. Above, where it is mentioned that the duty of care is placed upon a particular male relative, it should be understood that the ACTUAL daily tasks of caring for an ageing parent, do not necessarily fall upon him personally. For example, if the son is busy at work, his wife and/or daughter(s) must care for their elders. Obviously, it is quite improper for a man to bathe and toilet his geriatric mother or his grandmother!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🐟 27. MARRIAGE & THE FAMILY:
Matrimony is the contractual union of a man with one or more women, primarily for the purpose of PROCREATION and child-rearing.
The couple should be brought together by their respective parents, and if practical, some sort of nuptial ceremony performed. Once a couple has been engaged to be married, they should not break the agreement, unless one party has been proven to have lost his or her virginity with a third party. OBVIOUSLY, after the wedding, the marriage contract cannot be broken, unless one or both parties has committed adultery, or one party has chosen to no longer carry out his or her marital duties (for instance, if the husband refuses to materially-support his wife/wives, or the wife refuses to perform domestic chores for her master, both of which are legitimate grounds for divorce).
A RESPONSIBLE father will objectively evaluate the unique characteristics, virtues, idiosyncrasies, and shortcomings of his child from a relatively early age, and thereafter, seek a compatible spouse from the available pool of persons in his social circles. Unless his nation faces extinction, the potential match should not be any closer to his child than a cousin. If a prospective couple do not belong to the same clan (and thereby do not share the same family name), it is probable that their genetic code is sufficiently divergent to create healthy offspring. As implied above, incestuous marriage should only be condoned if the human race is in danger of extermination, or possibly in the instance where an entire race or nation is on the verge of annihilation.
If one’s parents fail in their duty to select a suitable mate, one should very carefully choose a COMPATIBLE spouse. The recommended criteria used to evaluate marital compatibility are as follows: physical characteristics (such as relative height and sexual attractiveness), personality type, intelligence, emotional temperament, diet, cultural similarities, political ideology, religious affiliation, and life goals.
One of the major causes of conjugal breakdown in recent decades has been due to the couple selecting each other based solely (or at least predominantly) on sexual attraction and/or amorous attachments, with little consideration given to the other guiding principles, listed above.
Romance rarely lasts more than a couple of years. Marriage is an institution based largely on PRACTICAL considerations, not on lustful feelings or on fleeting sentimentality. Without firm, practical reasons for a couple remaining conjugally-bound, they are susceptible to marital divorce.
Generally speaking, women have the potent desire to raise children, and require a man with which to mate, and then protect and support her and the offspring, during the fifteen-plus years (for EACH child) of child-rearing. Most men also desire to have a family, and additionally, possess a very powerful libido, which, if not channelled in a legitimate fashion, can cause a great deal of social misbehaviour (e.g. rape, etc.).
There is no such thing as a nun in the eyes of God. Therefore, unless a woman is seriously disabled, either physically or psychologically, or else a lesbian, she is lawfully OBLIGATED to marry the man preselected by her parents (or if her parents are deceased, by her extant master, whether that be her grandfather, an uncle, or an adult nephew). Ideally, women ought to be betrothed as soon as they reach adulthood, to avoid a childless existence. Quite understandably, very few men have aspirations to mate with a post-menopausal female.
Marriage is mandatory for men too, apart from missionary priests, those unfortunate males who are unable to support a family for reasons of mental or physical incapacity, men who are simply passed-over by hypergamous females due to being perceived as low-value suitors, homosexuals (meaning, men who are not at all attracted to the opposite gender. Bisexuals are not exempt from marriage), and men who reside in jurisdictions where ILLEGITIMATE feministic governments enact so-called “laws” which abrogate the lawful rights of married men.
In my particular case, despite being a model husband and father, my first wife, with the support of the dirty, demonic, democratic Australian government, literally kidnapped my three precious children, whilst my second wife, with the assistance of the equally-wicked, violent, corrupt, murderous Filipino government, stole my presbytery (the house of a priest).
The recent exodus of men in Western countries from the dating pool (or at least from formal marriage) is more than understandable.
The man should be approximately ten to twenty years OLDER than his wife/wives. Some of the reasons for this are:
It is natural for women to be attracted to older men and for men to be attracted to younger women. There is a good evolutionary reason why women reach their sexual peak between the ages of about fifteen to twenty-five and why a man's sexual market value peaks in his thirties to fifties. The female matures earlier (physically and socially), so if she mates with a man of similar age, she may find her spouse to be emotionally immature. The husband is almost a substitute for the woman's father figure, so the husband’s age gives him added authority as head of the family. Also, it gives the man extra time to establish his career, a house and home for his wife and forthcoming progeny.
The main duties of the HUSBAND are to teach his wife/wives and sons whatever beneficial lessons he has learnt from his own masters, protect his family from harm, and supply their necessities of life (that is, food, clothing, and shelter) as well as desired luxuries, if practicable. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
Marriage is not a democracy. Any so-called man who compromises with his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives or his offspring, is surely doomed to failure. Feminized western men, in particular, are guilty of such uxoriousness. Such emasculated “men” are not true men, and desperately need to regain their dignity as the head of their homes.
The main daily duties of the WIFE are to execute domestic chores such as to cook, clean, sew, take care of the children, and to keep the husband sexually satisfied so he doesn't look at other women.
The wife should submit to the will of her husband. She should fully respect him as her master, and should address him accordingly.
Whilst conversing, the wife should focus her attention completely on her husband. She should listen carefully to what he says, learn what he is saying, answer him, and obey his instructions. A man should never be alone with any female, apart from his wife, of course.
POLYGAMY has been taught by all the major religions. Unfortunately, the “westernized” religious cults seem to have done away with the practice for unbeknown reasons. The reason for polygamy is simply due to the fact that every woman needs a husband. Also, a certain proportion of men are destined to die as bachelors due to female hypergamy, which is a natural trait of women (even if it may seem unfair).
When a woman marries, she LITERALLY joins the family of her husband.
She takes her master's family name, and the husband's parents become her parents, which is why they are called “father/mother-in-law”, that is, “father/mother according to the law” (the one and only law of God, or more accurately, the Universal Law, as propounded in Chapter 12).
Cont...
1
-
1
-
nation:
a population, normally residing in the same geographic region, in which most all the citizens share a common race, religion, language, and culture. This word is VERY often used erroneously in the stead of the term “country”. Therefore, it is highly suggested that one refer to the Glossary entry under “country”, in order to understand the distinction between a “country” and a “nation”.
Unfortunately, an enormous percentage of the population has been indoctrinated by leftists to regard NATIONALISM as a malevolent ideology, when in fact, the adherence to a nationalistic framework is beneficial to both the citizenry of a nation and to the world as a whole. Multicultural societies are constantly fraught with conflicts, due to the incompatibility of competing ideologies and practices.
Imagine, if you will, that the million most conservative men from an Islamic nation in Middle-east Asia, such as Afghanistan, and the million most feministic women from a liberal country like Canada, were taken to some barren island and asked to establish a new civilization. How harmonious and prosperous do you believe such a mismatch of persons would be? TOTALLY discordant!
Furthermore, a variety of national identities is intrinsically beneficial, for nobody would want to travel to another nation if that nation was fundamentally identical to their own nation, except to experience the unique geographical features, diets or climates.
I, for one, am glad that I can visit a nation such as Japan in order to experience its unique culture and language, then choose to visit or reside in nations such as Ireland and Egypt in order to experience the unique languages, food, art, dance, cinema, music, religion, and customs of those two nations. Of course, if I decided to reside in a nation where the language and culture differed radically from my own, I would need to adapt. For example, if I were to migrate to a Middle-east Asian nation, such as the one mentioned above, I could not openly criticize the Islamic faith (and especially its founder) without putting my very existence at risk. Upon moving to the Philippines over a decade ago, I found it EXTREMELY easy to acclimatize to its culture, since it is very much a Westernized nation, not dissimilar to the country of my birth, The Southland (that is, “Terra Australis” or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue).
“Nation” was first recorded in the thirteenth century, from the Middle English, from Latin “nātiōn-” (stem of “nātiō”), meaning “birth” or “tribe”, equivalent to “nāt(us)” (past participle of “nāscī”, meaning “to be born”) + “-iōn-”. “-ion” a suffix, appearing in words of Latin origin, denoting action or condition, used in Latin and in English to form nouns from stems of Latin adjectives.
1
-
@MrMikeV00 , respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theworld6710 , respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
THE ETHICS OF ABORTION:
Even though (illegitimate) abortion is merely one of a long list of crimes, it is such a controversial issue that it is being given its own subsection.
Although some pro-life advocates use the term “abortion” solely in those cases in which the aim and purpose of the procedure is to terminate the life of the unborn child (as opposed to those cases in which the aim is to save the life of the mother, and the death of the embryo is an undesired consequence of the procedure), this author sees no semantic advantage of making such a distinction, and so, in this document, the term “abortion” is applied to any medical procedure in which the life of an embryo or a foetus is DELIBERATELY terminated, for any reason.
Of course, just as there is a definite distinction between justified (i.e. legitimate) animal consumption and unjustified (i.e. illegitimate) animal consumption, so too is there a distinction between legitimate abortion and illegitimate abortion. Thus, the terminology has been established.
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without a doubt, a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it being underdeveloped, insentient, and/or unconscious.
Because there are some pro-abortion (that is, pro-unjustifiable-abortion) advocates who make desperate attempts to find flaws in the pro-life position, here, “conception” refers to the very moment that a spermatozoon nucleus fuses with an ovum nucleus, and syngamy takes place. However, it is important to understand that the question of the precise millisecond when a unique human life begins is completely redundant, because nobody is likely to surgically operate on a woman shortly after sexual intercourse has taken place, in order to prevent a fertilized egg from achieving syngamy! As mentioned in Chapter 28, whenever any one of the procreative, recreative, or unitive aspects of sex is omitted, sex becomes a selfish, sinful act, and so, to prevent a newly-fertilized ovum from its natural course of events, would count as a criminal act.
Any human with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is still not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary phases of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve-year-old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the phase of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe – it is fully human. The aforementioned prenatal stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that – merely stages of the human life cycle, and although, according to normative mores, the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five-year-old child, that is insufficient justification alone for extinguishing its very life! Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human zygote or an embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. Before contemplating the brutal destruction of an innocent human being, one should have an exceedingly-justifiable rationale. Demonic humans (see Chapter 14) are constantly inventing multifarious excuses for murdering poor, innocent, defenceless children, purely in order to rationalize their wicked agenda, but there are only two scenarios in which abortion may be lawful. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Gautama, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
In brief, abortion is justified only in the case of rape or if the mother’s life is endangered. Obviously, that does not imply that the life of the baby of a raped woman MUST be terminated. As mentioned in the next paragraph (in relation to my own course of action in the hypothetical case of the rape of a female family member), I would do everything in my power to convince a raped family member to lovingly nurture the child unto birth, and then relinquish the child to an adoptive family. Therefore, when all is said and done, the need for any kind of (legitimate) abortion would be such a tiny fraction of one percent of all pregnancies that it would be more simply expressed as a negative exponent. Only if the expectant mother is acutely distressed by carrying the child of her rapist, should abortion be considered, and it would be preferable for the raped woman to do so as soon as practical. It would be a truly savage, barbaric act for her to kill her child in the third trimester of pregnancy!
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if she was the victim of rape, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe!
As noted in the glossary of this book, it could be seen as hypocritical, or at least somewhat disingenuous, for a person to kill a non-human animal unless that person is willing to do so with his or her bare hands. I could never squeeze a rat to death using just my bare hands, so I ought not dismember a member of my own species, no matter how small it may be, without proper justification, according to moral norms.
Perhaps the most common justification for illegitimate abortion (that is, the murder of innocent, defenceless, unborn human beings) is that a woman ought to have AUTONOMY over her own body. Of course, those who raise such arguments conveniently overlook the fact that the pre-born human, by the same token, is entitled to the very same bodily autonomy as its mother! Those who are afflicted with a demonic mentality (which, after reading Chapter 14, as well as many other chapters of this treatise, one should come to understand to be practically every person on the planet), especially those persons residing in nations/countries with a predominantly leftist (“adharma”, in Sanskrit) populace will never come to accept the fact that no human being who has ever lived is his or her own master/mistress, and therefore, has no such “right” as autonomy over his or her own body. Does a newborn child have autonomy over him/herself? Obviously not, otherwise no parent would dare to regulate the activities of their offspring. Does a mother have autonomy over herself? Definitely not, since her lord and master (the word “husband” literally denotes the master of a house – see Chapter 27) has absolute authority to direct and control her actions and movements. Again, this bitter truth, will never ever be accepted by the vast majority of the population, but the truth must be proclaimed, nevertheless.
Incidentally, the very same paradigm outlined above, applies also to societal organization, in which a father has full authority over his family, a grandfather has full authority over his extended family, a patriarch has full authority over his clan, a chief has full authority over his tribe, a (genuine) king has complete and utter authority over his subjects, and finally, a (genuine) priest has authority over his entire society. The only humans who can possibly claim to have complete AUTONOMY over themselves are those excruciatingly-rare men who have risen to the role of World Teacher (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit), and only then, solely upon their actual entry to the Holy Priesthood. As children, Avatars are subject to the authority of their mothers, then, upon adulthood, to the authority of their fathers, and if they happen to perform some kind of work prior to entering the Priesthood (as with Lord Jesus Christ, who worked as a carpenter before He began His priestly ministry), to their employers.
Possibly the saddest aspect of the abortion debate is the fact that the sex that has evolved to MOST nourish and protect vulnerable human offspring, is more in favour of illegitimate abortion. Personally, I am very thankful that my mother was not a miserable, rabid feminist who would have considered murdering the next World Teacher for any trivial reason whatever. Apart from the legitimacy of abortion in the very rare instances of rape or danger to the life of the mother, not a single one of their frivolous reasons is reasonable to a person of civility and intelligence. There will always be at least one decent family that will gladly take an unwanted newborn baby from a murderous parent.
N.B. It is rather important to refer to the Glossary definitions of some of the terms used in this subsection.
1
-
1
-
@michaelcarey3410 🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible – that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can ever be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) – is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies.
According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.).
In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving!
Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness – although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent).
Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual.
APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it.
Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities).
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace – and you are, quintessentially, that!
This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness).
HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements – pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances.
Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” – everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that – an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief.
Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors – our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism.
As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous.
Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency – the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment.
There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature:
1. Guilt
2. Blame
3. Pride
4. Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future
These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above – that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.”
The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above.
Cont...
1
-
The ANTIDOTE to all mental anguish is to firstly discern pain from suffering, then to achieve complete relief from that miserable state of existence, by abandoning the erroneous belief in personal authorship, and abiding in the primordial sense of being (the unqualified “I am”, which is one's core identity). This is the very same peace which is experienced each night during the dreamless phase of the sleep cycle. This "resting imperturbably as Flawless Awareness" can be practiced on a regular basis, until it is fully assimilated and integrated into one's life.
Every person, from time immemorial, has been either intentionally or unwittingly seeking such causeless peace, most commonly by practicing one of the four systems of YOGA (religion) delineated in the sixteenth chapter of this work, or else in creating wealth and the acquisition of material possessions, or in psycho-physical pleasures. That peace of mind is often referred to as “happiness”, “joy”, or “love”, and often presumed to be a temporal state, since many assume, incorrectly, that continuous peace is unavailable in this life.
Fortunately, that is not the case – it is eminently possible to live one's life acquainted with unbroken peace of mind, if destined.
Following DHARMA (frameworks of authentic religion and societal duties) is not guaranteed to achieve that desired tranquillity of mind, but even so, it is beneficial for individuals, since it establishes a structure which enables one to more easily elevate oneself beyond the mundane, animalistic platform (i.e. the base pursuits of eating, sleeping and mating). Intrinsic to dharma is the division of the adult male population into the four classes of society and the inherent role of girls and women in society, as fully elucidated in latter chapters of this Holy Scripture.
So, now that you understand life, and the reason why we are suffering here in this (ostensively) material universe, you are now able to be liberated from all mental suffering, RIGHT?
WRONG! It is imperative to approach an authentic spiritual master to assist you to come to the above realization, by slowly undoing your past conditioning. Just as you have been conditioned over an entire lifetime to think one way, you need to be re-conditioned to think another way (in alignment with your essential identity as The Divine). For one who has himself for a teacher, that man has a veritable fool as his teacher.
Even if you adhere closely to the precepts of a competent teacher, you may still not come to a full understanding of life, but if you are sincere, humble and dedicated, you will definitely find more peace in your daily life – all of which was DESTINED to occur, of course.
Furthermore, if you are suitably-qualified and it was ordained, you may be fortunate enough to receive discipline from one of the EXTREMELY rare fully-enlightened masters residing on earth at any given time (perchance even the current World Teacher himself), and subsequently realize the aforementioned fundamental concepts, by diligently studying authoritative doctrines (especially the most accurate and complete of all extant Scriptures, this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”), serving your guru with great reverence and devotion, and by deliberately avoiding undue harm to oneself, to other individuals, to society as a whole, and to the natural environment, including other life forms.
Most beneficially, you are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology which supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is, apart from illegitimate (non-monarchical) governance and feminism, arguably the foremost existential crisis.
Best wishes for your unique, personal journey towards unalloyed peace and HAPPINESS! “The cure for all ignorance is unerring knowledge”.
“You are this universe and you are creating it at every moment, because, you see, it starts now.
It didn't begin in the past – there IS no past.”
***********
“Find out who you REALLY are so that when death comes…there is no-one to kill, for while you are identified with your role, with your name, with your ego, there is someone to kill. But when you are identified with the whole universe, death finds you already annihilated and there’s no-one to kill”.
***********
“A wise Rabbi once said 'If I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I, then I am not I, and you are not you'.
In other words, we are not separate.”
***********
“Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing, than a long life spent in a miserable way.”
***********
“The meaning of life is life itself.”
Professor Dr. Alan Wilson Watts,
British-American Philosopher.
(06/01/1915 – 16/11/1973).
“What you seek is seeking you.”
***********
“Don't you know yet?
It is your light that lights the worlds.”
***********
“Stop acting so small.
You are the universe in ecstatic motion.”
***********
“We are one. Everything in the universe is within you. Ask all from yourself.”
***********
“The lamps are different, but the light is the same.”
Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī,
Persian Sunni Muslim poet, jurist, Islamic scholar, theologian, and Sufi mystic.
(30/09/1207 – 17/12/1273).
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
THE ETHICS OF ABORTION:
Even though (illegitimate) abortion is merely one of a long list of crimes, it is such a controversial issue that it is being given its own subsection.
Although some pro-life advocates use the term “abortion” solely in those cases in which the aim and purpose of the procedure is to terminate the life of the unborn child (as opposed to those cases in which the aim is to save the life of the mother, and the death of the embryo is an undesired consequence of the procedure), this author sees no semantic advantage of making such a distinction, and so, in this document, the term “abortion” is applied to any medical procedure in which the life of an embryo or a foetus is DELIBERATELY terminated, for any reason.
Of course, just as there is a definite distinction between justified (i.e. legitimate) animal consumption and unjustified (i.e. illegitimate) animal consumption, so too is there a distinction between legitimate abortion and illegitimate abortion. Thus, the terminology has been established.
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without a doubt, a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it being underdeveloped, insentient, and/or unconscious.
Because there are some pro-abortion (that is, pro-unjustifiable-abortion) advocates who make desperate attempts to find flaws in the pro-life position, here, “conception” refers to the very moment that a spermatozoon nucleus fuses with an ovum nucleus, and syngamy takes place. However, it is important to understand that the question of the precise millisecond when a unique human life begins is completely redundant, because nobody is likely to surgically operate on a woman shortly after sexual intercourse has taken place, in order to prevent a fertilized egg from achieving syngamy! As mentioned in Chapter 28, whenever any one of the procreative, recreative, or unitive aspects of sex is omitted, sex becomes a selfish, sinful act, and so, to prevent a newly-fertilized ovum from its natural course of events, would count as a criminal act.
Any human with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is still not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary phases of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve-year-old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the phase of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe – it is fully human. The aforementioned prenatal stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that – merely stages of the human life cycle, and although, according to normative mores, the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five-year-old child, that is insufficient justification alone for extinguishing its very life! Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human zygote or an embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. Before contemplating the brutal destruction of an innocent human being, one should have an exceedingly-justifiable rationale. Demonic humans (see Chapter 14) are constantly inventing multifarious excuses for murdering poor, innocent, defenceless children, purely in order to rationalize their wicked agenda, but there are only two scenarios in which abortion may be lawful. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Gautama, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
In brief, abortion is justified only in the case of rape or if the mother’s life is endangered. Obviously, that does not imply that the life of the baby of a raped woman MUST be terminated. As mentioned in the next paragraph (in relation to my own course of action in the hypothetical case of the rape of a female family member), I would do everything in my power to convince a raped family member to lovingly nurture the child unto birth, and then relinquish the child to an adoptive family. Therefore, when all is said and done, the need for any kind of (legitimate) abortion would be such a tiny fraction of one percent of all pregnancies that it would be more simply expressed as a negative exponent. Only if the expectant mother is acutely distressed by carrying the child of her rapist, should abortion be considered, and it would be preferable for the raped woman to do so as soon as practical. It would be a truly savage, barbaric act for her to kill her child in the third trimester of pregnancy!
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if she was the victim of rape, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe!
As noted in the glossary of this book, it could be seen as hypocritical, or at least somewhat disingenuous, for a person to kill a non-human animal unless that person is willing to do so with his or her bare hands. I could never squeeze a rat to death using just my bare hands, so I ought not dismember a member of my own species, no matter how small it may be, without proper justification, according to moral norms.
Perhaps the most common justification for illegitimate abortion (that is, the murder of innocent, defenceless, unborn human beings) is that a woman ought to have AUTONOMY over her own body. Of course, those who raise such arguments conveniently overlook the fact that the pre-born human, by the same token, is entitled to the very same bodily autonomy as its mother! Those who are afflicted with a demonic mentality (which, after reading Chapter 14, as well as many other chapters of this treatise, one should come to understand to be practically every person on the planet), especially those persons residing in nations/countries with a predominantly leftist (“adharma”, in Sanskrit) populace will never come to accept the fact that no human being who has ever lived is his or her own master/mistress, and therefore, has no such “right” as autonomy over his or her own body. Does a newborn child have autonomy over him/herself? Obviously not, otherwise no parent would dare to regulate the activities of their offspring. Does a mother have autonomy over herself? Definitely not, since her lord and master (the word “husband” literally denotes the master of a house – see Chapter 27) has absolute authority to direct and control her actions and movements. Again, this bitter truth, will never ever be accepted by the vast majority of the population, but the truth must be proclaimed, nevertheless.
Incidentally, the very same paradigm outlined above, applies also to societal organization, in which a father has full authority over his family, a grandfather has full authority over his extended family, a patriarch has full authority over his clan, a chief has full authority over his tribe, a (genuine) king has complete and utter authority over his subjects, and finally, a (genuine) priest has authority over his entire society. The only humans who can possibly claim to have complete AUTONOMY over themselves are those excruciatingly-rare men who have risen to the role of World Teacher (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit), and only then, solely upon their actual entry to the Holy Priesthood. As children, Avatars are subject to the authority of their mothers, then, upon adulthood, to the authority of their fathers, and if they happen to perform some kind of work prior to entering the Priesthood (as with Lord Jesus Christ, who worked as a carpenter before He began His priestly ministry), to their employers.
Possibly the saddest aspect of the abortion debate, is the fact that the sex that has evolved to MOST nourish and protect vulnerable human offspring, is more in favour of illegitimate abortion. Personally, I am very thankful that my mother was not a miserable, rabid feminist who would have considered murdering the next World Teacher for any trivial reason whatever. Apart from the legitimacy of abortion in the very rare instances of rape or danger to the life of the mother, not a single one of their frivolous reasons is reasonable to a person of civility and intelligence. There will always be at least one decent family that will gladly take an unwanted newborn baby from a murderous parent.
N.B. It is rather important to refer to the Glossary definitions of some of the terms used in this subsection.
1
-
@Maxrepfitgm , respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
1
-
🐟 21. THE MONARCHY:
A KING (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is a man who has a divine mandate, via his counsellor (i.e. his spiritual preceptor), to govern an area of land (and sea) and the population within its borders. He should be the head of the military, and courageously lead his army into battle if necessary (as opposed to cowardly scampering into a bomb shelter under the Pentagon building, as Presidents of the United States of America are apt to do). A king should be a natural leader among men, and be willing to sacrifice his life to protect his subjects. A good monarch will take heed of astute advice from his spiritual guide (ideally, the wisest prophet in his kingdom), as well as his ministers, in order to build a just society.
A LEGITIMATE monarch will endorse holy and righteous edicts, such as absolute freedom of speech*, homeschooling of children, free markets, and private ownership of all goods and services (even such infrastructure as roads, water and sewerage systems, health care, and education). He will enforce taxation of the profits of businessmen alone (and not of any other class of society), provide material support to members of the Holy Priesthood if necessary, establish a monetary system using (or at least backed by) precious metals, and avoid interfering with the private matters of his citizens (unlike evil governments, which meddle in such things as sex, marriage, and discipline within workplaces and families).
There are only two kinds of persons who would POSSIBLY object to the institution of monarchy:
By far the greatest number of objectors are those who have very little idea of what constitutes a LEGITIMATE monarchy, as defined above. The usual arguments are either “I don’t want to be ruled by a tyrannical, despotic dictator” or “I don’t believe monarchy should be hereditary”. Obviously, neither of these arguments is applicable when the institution of monarchy is properly understood. Any man can call himself “King”, but if he lacks saintly (or at least noble) qualities and doesn't have the best interests of his people at heart, he is naught but a fascistic dictator.
Just as a priest is, by definition, a holy man, so too should a monarch be a righteous, wise king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit). After all, a king’s primary duty is the protection of his nation (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit), so how could a person fulfil his duty of care if he was evil and uncaring? Just as a family must be protected by its head (the father), every nation requires a good patriarch. Unless a man has the natural proclivities to do so, he ought NOT follow his father’s occupation. Therefore, a prince isn't necessarily qualified to assume his father’s role upon the demise of his sire.
The only “valid” objection to monarchy could possibly be from those miscreants who wish to destroy society via an ILLEGITIMATE system of government (see Chapter 22) or those who are simply too stupid to understand how monarchy is the most beneficial form of governance.
Any form of governance OTHER than monarchy must be, by definition, controlled by either workers or by businessmen (or rarely by priests or spiritual leaders), and therefore is intrinsically evil, since they are unqualified to rule a nation. If there is no aspiring monarch extant within a nation, then the best alternative is a priest (a prophet, to be more precise), but only until a monarch arises and retakes power.
Although WAR is unfortunate, it is sometimes necessary to defend oneself from aggressors. In certain circumstances, it is legitimate for a ruler or aspiring ruler to overtake another (evil and corrupt) ruler and usurp his sovereignty. Unfortunately, in the modern era, it is nigh impossible for an aspiring king to seize power, since he will be easily defeated by sheer military might, as opposed to the state of affairs in ancient times, where two opposing monarchs would fight in hand-to-hand combat (or possibly lead their respective armies into a battle for the kingdom).
Being a soldier is a legitimate and necessary occupation in this wicked and perilous world, mainly for the defence of a local population or nation, but unfortunately, not all soldiers serve a good master. Not all world leaders are righteous in all their ways. In fact, you who are reading this Scripture, are almost definitely being oppressed by a corrupt, tyrannical regime. The reason why you may not realize this fact is due to either abject ignorance, or because, just like your illegitimate government, you have little desire for society to be organized according to holy and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). Just as a newborn child has absolutely no conception of what is most beneficial to its welfare, the vast majority of citizens have very little idea of what benefits society most. Hence the decadent state of contemporary culture.
Whenever there is a CONFLICT in this world, whether that be a conflict between two persons, or a conflict between two groups of persons (such as political wars), it is absolutely certain that one side is more righteous than the other. Both sides can not be equally right, because equality is non-existent in this phenomenal sphere. Equality exclusively exists in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably on the sub-atomic level. Unfortunately, it requires an above-average intellect to be able to comprehend such truthful concepts.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
George Carlin,
American Comedian and Actor.
1937-2008.
“I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. ...
That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple, to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen...patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government.”
Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, English Author,
“The Weight of Glory”.
*Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one's speech. For example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he or she ought to be punished for that sinful deed. A genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12). Of course, the best advisor to any monarch is his spiritual master, as defined in Chapter 19 (ideally, the most holy and wise member of the Holy Priesthood within the kingdom), so the need for him to require advice from anyone other than his guru would be scarce, at least in regards to matters of morality, which is the secure foundation of society.
1
-
1
-
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
🐟 15. SUFFERING & HAPPINESS:
To understand the nature of suffering, it is ABSOLUTELY imperative to first distinguish suffering from pain (and too, happiness from pleasure).
There is a spectrum of pleasure and pain, with an extremely narrow neutral mid-point. Obviously, what constitutes a pleasurable or painful experience is dependent on an individual person's unique preferences. Not everybody likes the taste of chocolate. The feeling of pleasure/pain does NOT, ultimately, come from any external stimulus, believe it or not. It is located entirely in the mind and/or the intellect. That is the reason why highly-advanced spiritual adepts are able to renounce practically all pleasure-seeking activities, content with consuming simple foodstuffs and adequate sleep, and find continuous peace, happiness, and joy, within themselves (“ātmarāma” or “sva-sthaḥ”, in Sanskrit).
Furthermore, the adjudication of whether a certain experience is either pleasurable or painful for a particular person can VARY according to circumstance. For example, one may have enjoyed consuming dairy products as a child, but as a vegetarian/vegan adult, find the taste of putrefied milk (cheese, yoghurt, butter, etc.) to be revolting. For one who is dying of starvation, the consumption of cactus leaves may seem to be rather pleasing to the senses, even though, in normal circumstances, it may be distasteful.
There are THREE kinds of pleasure/pain: physical, emotional, and financial.
For instance, consuming one’s favourite kind of fruit is physically pleasurable. Being hit by a falling coconut – physical pain.
Falling in love is an example of psycho-emotional pleasure. Being angry at another – psychological pain.
Winning a lottery is an example of financial pleasure. Being robbed – financial pain.
There are three origins or CAUSES of pleasure/pain: one’s own body/mind (“adhyātma”, in Sanskrit) other persons/animals (“adhibhūta”, in Sanskrit), and material nature (“adhidaiva”, in Sanskrit).
Some “suffer” pain from lack of money. Others “suffer” pain from an abundance of wealth.
Some “suffer” pain from lack of food. Others “suffer” pain from an abundance of food.
The quality of the “suffering” is different but the NATURE of the “suffering” is the same.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, the term “suffer” is used in the stead of “experience”, because that is how the word is used in everyday parlance, in order to draw attention to the fact that pain can be due to an abundance of material opulence as well as a lack of material wealth.
GENUINE suffering, on the other hand, is the result of mistaking oneself to be the author of one’s thoughts and actions, and other persons to be fully in control of their own thoughts and deeds.
There are five forms (or symptoms) of suffering – all PSYCHOLOGICAL in nature:
1. Guilt/Shame
2. Blame/Bitterness
3. Pride/Arrogance
4. Worry/Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future/Attachment to outcomes (i.e. being inattentive or negligent to the present moment)
Suffering can be COMPLETELY transcended by understanding its source and consciously avoiding its manifestations. For example, as a child, your mother may have been particularly violent towards you. As clearly demonstrated in the chapter dealing with free-will, her violence was wholly due to her genetics and societal conditioning, neither of which were under her control. Blaming your mother for her actions leads to psychological anguish, which can only be cured by focusing on the sense of “I am”. In other words, by resorting to one’s essential nature (knowing one’s innermost being to be Pure Consciousness), one is emancipated from all sorrow.
The initial feeling of anger towards your mother was a natural reaction to her violence, but the enduring resentment is existential misery. Any physical pain you may have experienced was just that – pain. That pain is not to be discounted, but it has probably faded-away into the distant past. The psychological distress or torment that you are currently experiencing is the ACTUAL suffering, and it can easily be negated by a proper attitude to life. When we contemplate painful past events (or possible future events) those thoughts occur, ostensively, in the present. It is simply not possible to experience the past or future – only the present moment and the thoughts and feelings of the present are experienced. Therefore, it is important to understand and acknowledge that suffering can only occur in the present and can be cured with mindful practices. It is beneficial to also consult a qualified psychotherapist on a regular basis, in order to slowly heal from such mental angst.
When a man kicks his pet dog, the dog does NOT spend the remaining years of its life being angry or resentful towards its master. Dogs have very little concept of past, present and future, but live their lives from moment to moment. How unfortunate it is that lower animals are naturally more at peace with their circumstances than we highly-evolved human beings! Even if several of the more highly-evolved species of animals experience some of the five forms of psychological suffering, it does not seem to persist in the same way as it does for human beings.
On a rather personal note, even before I fully grasped this teaching (and when I was a Theist), I sent the following message to my second ex-wife, which illustrates my understanding of her actions: “I want to assure you that I have absolutely no bitterness towards you WHATSOEVER for persecuting me. You are simply carrying-out the orders of your perverted, ignorant mind, and I pray that my Master forgives all your wicked thoughts and acts. My own heart is completely free of anger. I pity you and look forward to the day when you finally turn from sin.”
When one fully imbibes the understanding that life is completely and utterly preordained, and that no living creature has individual free-will (see Chapter 11), one has no choice BUT to quit blaming, shaming, worrying, being prideful, and being attached to the results of his actions. Deep peace and happiness arises naturally as a consequence. Obviously, the understanding of the non-existence of personal freedom (as well as all the other concepts in this Holy Scripture) are also the result of destiny. The unfortunate fact is, even though unqualified peace is available to everyone, particularly in the current age (due to mass communication), very few human beings are destined for it.
To put it very succinctly, true peace/happiness is simply the TRUE self. When the five forms of suffering come to an end (by liberation from the belief in individual agency), only unbroken peace of mind remains. It is completely independent of any temporal circumstances whatsoever.
The common belief that happiness originates from sensory or psychological pleasures is an outright falsehood. One can eat only so much chocolate before the pleasure turns to pain. Even a man who fucks hundreds of beautiful women will eventually tire of his sexual conquests, and attempt to seek satisfaction by another means. “Pleasure” is often conflated with “happiness”, as are the terms “pain” and “suffering”. It ought to be noted that there is a rather blurry line between psycho-emotive pain and actual suffering, so any confusion is understandable.
Cont...
1
-
1
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively).
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning – a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their births, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
dharma:
a Sanskrit term (from the root “dhr-”, which means “to hold”, or “to support”), for any human function or concept, that is considered to be holy and righteous, based on the maxim “non-harm is the greatest law”, or “non-violence is the epitome of religion” (“ahiṃsā paramo dharmaḥ”, in Sanskrit). The term “(moral) law” simply refers to how any voluntary, intentional human action, contravenes the principle of avoiding harm to oneself, to another living creature, and avoiding undue harm to even the non-organic environment.
So, for example, since unnecessarily consuming any animal product, is harmful to both the consumer and to the exploited animal, it is considered to be unlawful (“adharma”, in Sanskrit). Therefore, it is a moral imperative for every human being to become VEGAN. Dharma also refers to societal duties. For example, as the current World Teacher Himself, it is the sacred duty of this author to teach the world how to live according to dharma itself (see Chapter 20), whereas the dharma of any (human) female, for example, is to serve her masters (that is, any adult male in her nuclear family, as well as any adult male within her extended family, clan or tribe).
Dharma is undoubtedly the most important concept of all, for a peaceful, successful and thriving society, depends on adherence to the law. There is no assurance that anybody will become a self-realized sage by studying this “Dharmaśāstra” (law book), but at least one will understand life as it is, and be able to distinguish between holiness and wickedness, even if one refuses to accept the truths explicated here. That is the main reason why the lengthiest chapter of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, deals with morality.
“Dharma eva hato hanti dharmo rakṣati rakṣitaḥ । tasmād dharmo na hantavyo mā no dharmo hato’vadhīt” (Manusmriti 8.15) states that when righteousness is destroyed, it destroys, but when the law is protected, it protects. Therefore, morality ought not be destroyed, lest its absence destroys us. Unfortunately, most persons (that is, leftists) are unable to comprehend this obvious truism.
N.B. Obviously, based on the
definition of the term, given above, dharma is not a sectarian concept. All religious traditions embody genuine dharma/law/morality to varying degrees. The explication of morality provided in this Holiest of All Holy Scriptures (or to be even more blunt, the ONLY truly holy and righteous work of literature ever composed), especially in the all-important twelfth chapter, is the topmost understanding of dharma. However, in Bhārata (the Indian subcontinent), the terms “Hindu Dharma” and “Buddhist Dharma” are not uncommon, and refer more so to the distinctive sectarian teachings of those two spiritual traditions.
dhamma:
the Pāli cognate of “dharma”. However, in this case, it invariably refers to the teachings of Gautama Buddha, rather than the eternal law (“sanātana dharma”, in Sanskrit). In this book, it is used in the former sense, that is, of “holy and righteous concepts and deeds”. Therefore, the term “Buddhist dhamma/dharma” is somewhat nonsensical, since dhamma/dharma is fundamentally non-sectarian.
Despite being the most atheistic human being to have ever existed, I often PRAY that I am not in the process of consuming a meal whenever I hear a Buddhist monk or lay teacher referring to his or her lecture as being a “dhamma talk”. If you have carefully read the entirety of this Holy Scripture, “F.I.S.H”, and you have listened to many Buddhist sermons, you may have already guessed the reason for my fervent prayer. This is because the assertion that the overwhelming majority of Buddhist monks are teaching authentic dharma, is so excruciatingly cringe-worthy and laughable, I am genuinely fearful of choking on my food upon hearing such silly claims!
First of all, the founder of Buddhism himself, Siddhārtha Gautama was hardly a paragon of virtue, having abandoned his family in order to become a mendicant monk, being an animal-abusing carnist, and encouraging females to become loose women (so-called “nuns”). In my half a century of life, I have only ever encountered one or two Buddhists who adhered to (actual) dharma, so in that sense, they were factually SUPERIOR to Gautama himself! For instance, the abbot of the largest Buddhist society in my homeland, Australia, believes that it is dharmic (legitimate) for men to insert their reproductive organs inside the faeces holes of other men, and of course, like his idol, Gautama, he is a murderer of poor, innocent, defenceless animals, and a filthy feminist. Furthermore, despite being an indigenous Englishman, and a graduate of one of the most prestigious universities on earth, University of Cambridge, he is entirely unable to coherently speak his native tongue! Should not a supposed “spiritual leader” be an exemplar in at least his own language?
Of course, no human being (including so-called “Avatars”) who has ever lived was morally perfect, but those who claim to be spiritual masters ought to be beyond reproach in respect to their own ethical practices. In the aforementioned case, Gautama should have returned to his family as soon as he understood the immorality of his actions, just as I, when I began adhering to dharma, repaid two persons from whom I had stolen goods and cash. Furthermore, assuming that Gautama was really a carnist (and knowing the typical diet of Bhārata, it would be safe to assume that he was at LEAST a lacto-vegetarian, and therefore an animal-abusing criminal), he was certainly sufficiently intelligent to understand that it is unnatural for an adult human to suckle the teats of a cow or a goat, and that human beings are fully herbivorous. Otherwise, how could he possibly be considered a member of the priestly class of society (“brāhmaṇa”, in Sanskrit) if he was not able to even comprehend some of the most basic facts of life? Make no mistake, carnism (see that entry in this Glossary) is a truly abominable, horrendous, wicked, hateful, evil, immoral, sinful, demonic ideology, as is feminism and unlawful divorce (in the case of Prince Gautama, the abandonment of his wife and son would be considered an act of divorce).
When a so-called Zen Buddhist priest asks another MALE so-called Zen Buddhist priest (as occurred in a video interview I just watched on the Internet), "Do you and your husband have any kids?”, one can be fully assured that the lowest point in the history of humanity has been reached. The fact that both the aforementioned so-called priests are American men, is not coincidental, since the most decadent religionists seem to be of Western/first-world origin. I don't believe I have come across a single Western Buddhist monastic who is not at least slightly left-leaning (“leftism” being a common term in the English-speaking world for “adharmic”).
If even 0.00001% of all Buddhists who have ever lived, were strict adherents to the teachings of the so-called “Buddha”, this would establish serious doubts regarding the holiness of Gautama’s precepts, because truth be told, hardly a single soul in human history has adhered to proper dharma/dhamma.
😇 सत्यमेव जयते! 😇
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lawrencereed5451
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As far as practical, newlyweds should RESIDE in the house of their father (that is, the father of the groom, who is the bride’s father-according-to-the-law). The benefits of this living arrangement greatly exceed any possible disadvantages, assuming, of course, that the father-son relationship is amiable. Women, in particular, need the comfort and support of being surrounded by extended family. When facing relationship difficulties, emotional distress, or medical problems, women require the counsel of elder females, such as their grandmother, mother-in-law, or an aunt. Although males generally do not feel the same need for close familial bonds, it is beneficial for men to maintain a strong relationship with their male kin. The storehouse of knowledge and wisdom preserved by the patriarchy is invaluable for any young man, no matter his level of intelligence or seeming sagacity. Also, if the husband dies or becomes severely disabled, his wife has a safe haven for herself and her offspring. Ideally, a widow should be cared for by a brother-in-law, or if her deceased husband was bereft of adult brethren, another male relative. Furthermore, there are significant financial advantages to an extended family dwelling in the same house (or at least in the immediate vicinity), which can never be discounted for the vast majority of families, who are not blessed with an abundance of wealth.
Just as the parents (ideally) spent decades of their lives lovingly-raising their offspring, it is the sacred DUTY of adult male children to care for their elderly parents and, of course, any of their extant grandparents. If, for some reason, the sons are unwilling or unable to properly look after an ageing parent/grandparent, that obligation will naturally fall to any other male relative. Accordingly, any adult male within the clan may take responsibility for the care of the ageing couple (likewise, a disabled couple too, of course). There are exceptions to the rule that an heir ought to care for his elderly parents, specifically in the case where the son has joined the Holy Priesthood (especially if he has become a mendicant monk). When a man dies, any property that he may own (including his family members) automatically bequeaths to his eldest son.
N.B. Above, where it is mentioned that the duty of care is placed upon a particular male relative, it should be understood that the ACTUAL daily tasks of caring for an ageing parent, do not necessarily fall upon him personally. For example, if the son is busy at work, his wife and/or daughter(s) must care for their elders. Obviously, it is quite improper for a man to bathe and toilet his geriatric mother or his grandmother!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🐟 27. MARRIAGE & THE FAMILY:
Matrimony is the contractual union of a man with one or more women, primarily for the purpose of PROCREATION and child-rearing.
The couple should be brought together by their respective parents, and if practical, some sort of nuptial ceremony performed. Once a couple has been engaged to be married, they should not break the agreement, unless one party has been proven to have lost his or her virginity with a third party. OBVIOUSLY, after the wedding, the marriage contract cannot be broken, unless one or both parties has committed adultery, or one party has chosen to no longer carry out his or her marital duties (for instance, if the husband refuses to materially-support his wife/wives, or the wife refuses to perform domestic chores for her master, both of which are legitimate grounds for divorce).
A RESPONSIBLE father will objectively evaluate the unique characteristics, virtues, idiosyncrasies, and shortcomings of his child from a relatively early age, and thereafter, seek a compatible spouse from the available pool of persons in his social circles. Unless his nation faces extinction, the potential match should not be any closer to his child than a cousin. If a prospective couple do not belong to the same clan (and thereby do not share the same family name), it is probable that their genetic code is sufficiently divergent to create healthy offspring. As implied above, incestuous marriage should only be condoned if the human race is in danger of extermination, or possibly in the instance where an entire race or nation is on the verge of annihilation.
If one’s parents fail in their duty to select a suitable mate, one should very carefully choose a COMPATIBLE spouse. The recommended criteria used to evaluate marital compatibility are as follows: physical characteristics (such as relative height and sexual attractiveness), personality type, intelligence, emotional temperament, diet, cultural similarities, political ideology, religious affiliation, and life goals.
One of the major causes of conjugal breakdown in recent decades has been due to the couple selecting each other based solely (or at least predominantly) on sexual attraction and/or amorous attachments, with little consideration given to the other guiding principles, listed above.
Romance rarely lasts more than a couple of years. Marriage is an institution based largely on PRACTICAL considerations, not on lustful feelings or on fleeting sentimentality. Without firm, practical reasons for a couple remaining conjugally-bound, they are susceptible to marital divorce.
Generally speaking, women have the potent desire to raise children, and require a man with which to mate, and then protect and support her and the offspring, during the fifteen-plus years (for EACH child) of child-rearing. Most men also desire to have a family, and additionally, possess a very powerful libido, which, if not channelled in a legitimate fashion, can cause a great deal of social misbehaviour (e.g. rape, etc.).
There is no such thing as a nun in the eyes of God. Therefore, unless a woman is seriously disabled, either physically or psychologically, or else a lesbian, she is lawfully OBLIGATED to marry the man preselected by her parents (or if her parents are deceased, by her extant master, whether that be her grandfather, an uncle, or an adult nephew). Ideally, women ought to be betrothed as soon as they reach adulthood, to avoid a childless existence. Quite understandably, very few men have aspirations to mate with a post-menopausal female.
Marriage is mandatory for men too, apart from missionary priests, those unfortunate males who are unable to support a family for reasons of mental or physical incapacity, men who are simply passed-over by hypergamous females due to being perceived as low-value suitors, homosexuals (meaning, men who are not at all attracted to the opposite gender. Bisexuals are not exempt from marriage), and men who reside in jurisdictions where ILLEGITIMATE feministic governments enact so-called “laws” which abrogate the lawful rights of married men.
In my particular case, despite being a model husband and father, my first wife, with the support of the dirty, demonic, democratic Australian government, literally kidnapped my three precious children, whilst my second wife, with the assistance of the equally-wicked, violent, corrupt, murderous Filipino government, stole my presbytery (the house of a priest).
The recent exodus of men in Western countries from the dating pool (or at least from formal marriage) is more than understandable.
The man should be approximately ten to twenty years OLDER than his wife/wives. Some of the reasons for this are:
It is natural for women to be attracted to older men and for men to be attracted to younger women. There is a good evolutionary reason why women reach their sexual peak between the ages of about fifteen to twenty-five and why a man's sexual market value peaks in his thirties to fifties. The female matures earlier (physically and socially), so if she mates with a man of similar age, she may find her spouse to be emotionally immature. The husband is almost a substitute for the woman's father figure, so the husband’s age gives him added authority as head of the family. Also, it gives the man extra time to establish his career, a house and home for his wife and forthcoming progeny.
The main duties of the HUSBAND are to teach his wife/wives and sons whatever beneficial lessons he has learnt from his own masters, protect his family from harm, and supply their necessities of life (that is, food, clothing, and shelter) as well as desired luxuries, if practicable. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
Marriage is not a democracy. Any so-called man who compromises with his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives or his offspring, is surely doomed to failure. Feminized western men, in particular, are guilty of such uxoriousness. Such emasculated “men” are not true men, and desperately need to regain their dignity as the head of their homes.
The main daily duties of the WIFE are to execute domestic chores such as to cook, clean, sew, take care of the children, and to keep the husband sexually satisfied so he doesn't look at other women.
The wife should submit to the will of her husband. She should fully respect him as her master, and should address him accordingly.
Whilst conversing, the wife should focus her attention completely on her husband. She should listen carefully to what he says, learn what he is saying, answer him, and obey his instructions. A man should never be alone with any female, apart from his wife, of course.
POLYGAMY has been taught by all the major religions. Unfortunately, the “westernized” religious cults seem to have done away with the practice for unbeknown reasons. The reason for polygamy is simply due to the fact that every woman needs a husband. Also, a certain proportion of men are destined to die as bachelors due to female hypergamy, which is a natural trait of women (even if it may seem unfair).
When a woman marries, she LITERALLY joins the family of her husband.
She takes her master's family name, and the husband's parents become her parents, which is why they are called “father/mother-in-law”, that is, “father/mother according to the law” (the one and only law of God, or more accurately, the Universal Law, as propounded in Chapter 12).
Cont...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheOlzee
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
1
-
@DPAallenwantsmydong Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidwing288
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively).
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning – a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
1
-
1
-
10:50
HOMOSEXUAL acts are legitimate solely within polygamous marriages, as defined in Chapter 27 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”). Read Chapter 12 and the Glossary entry under “slippery slope”, to learn the reason for homosexuality being detrimental to society, and therefore, other homosexual acts being unlawful. Whereas heterosexual unions are normal, natural, and necessary for a prosperous society, homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural, and unnecessary, and is destructive to individuals, to families, to society, and of course, to the very survival of the Homo sapiens species itself!
Leading neuroscientists of the current century have demonstrated that same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria can be attributed to certain parts of the brain being formed similarly to the person’s (biological) gender OPPOSITE. There are other physiological determinants for homosexual attraction, such as genetic and hormonal, and to a far lesser degree, environmental causes. As demonstrated in Chapter 11, this phenomenon was preordained in eternity, but so too were all unbeneficial traits such as criminality and addictive personality disorders, and does not negate the obvious requirement for society to punish perpetrators of homosexual acts. Again, read Chapter 12 to understand metaethics, applied ethics, and the reason for homosexual unions being objectively evil by nature.
Of all the concepts put forward in this Holiest of Holy Scriptures, this condemnation of homosexual acts is, perhaps, the teaching that elicits the most vitriolic responses from individuals, because over the past few decades of writing this treatise, homosexuality has become widely acceptable within most societies throughout the world, and even glorified in some cases! However, the obvious fact of its pernicious nature MUST be proclaimed if human society is to endure and prosper. It ought to be emphasized that homosexual acts themselves are unlawful, and not simply being predisposed to same-sex attraction. In other words, homosexual individuals can not be prosecuted simply for being attracted to members of the same gender, but only for engaging in unlawful sexual acts such as sodomy, just as heterosexuals should not be punished merely for being attracted to members of the opposite sex, but for fornicating with them (that is, engaging in extra-marital sexual activity).
(From Chapter 12):
It may be misconstrued that a slippery slope argument is being made in regards to homosexual acts, but if one critically scrutinizes the relevant passage, that is not at all what is being posited. Even a single act of homosexual behaviour is necessarily evil. The only possible exception to this rule is in the case of same-sex acts within a polygamous marriage (as defined in Chapter 27 of this Holy Scripture), and in such a marriage, morally-permissible only whilst the husband is collectively-engaged in sex acts with his wives. What is NOT fallacious, is to compare the state of affairs at either extreme of the sexual dichotomy, to discern the outcomes if either practice was to be taken to their ultimate conclusions. Thus, if every competent, heterosexual adult was to marry (and obviously, by “marry”, I am here referring to actual marriage, as defined in Chapter 27, and not to any other notion of marriage as conceived by a large proportion of the populace, particularly the leftists who seem to dominate public life in most all Western and Westernized countries), it would be objectively-moral, since every heterosexual man would be able to gratify his inordinately-voracious libido in a legitimate and non-harmful fashion, every heterosexual woman would be able to satisfy her romantic and sexual needs, and the union would usually result in progeny, which would not only benefit the parents, but also assure the continuation of the species. On the other hand, if every adult was to engage in a homosexual relationship, it would be objectively-immoral, because, apart from the psychological harm (and physiological injury, in the case of male homosexuals) it would cause each and every individual, it would obviously lead to the consummate destruction of human society and to the extinction of humanity.
So, just as a single cancerous cell degrades a person’s body to a miniscule degree, even a single extramarital homosexual act debases human society, even if it is to a very small extent. Therefore, the so-called ‘slippery-slope’ argument is superfluous to any of my moral proclamations.
N.B. In case one may believe that the reason for this author being opposed to homosexuality (more specifically, homosexual acts) is due to the fact that I, the author, am wholly heterosexual and simply hold an instinctive hatred for homosexuals, the following should be noted: Firstly, as already explained in more than a couple of passages of “FISH”, there is a highly-rational basis for denouncing homosexual acts. Secondly, I fully understand that I could easily have been born with the genes that govern same-sex attraction, or could have been conditioned by parents, friends, teachers, and society to have homosexual inclinations. If that were the case, I would simply do what I am now doing – living a chaste life, since BOTH homosexual acts and heterosexual acts without marriage are, by definition, immoral, and in the case of penetrative acts, worthy of the death penalty. So, the reader is assured that I have absolutely no animosity whatsoever towards anybody born with homosexual tendencies. After all, an enormous percentage (I would say most) of the population is bisexual to a certain degree. Yet, to act on same-sex desires is very detrimental to individuals and to society as a whole, and homosexual offenders must be appropriately punished by an authority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
1
-
1
-
1
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM:
SOCIALISM is a political and economic system of social organization in which natural resources, property, and the means of production are owned in common, controlled by the collective public, but typically by a cooperative, the state, or the government, as opposed to private ownership by individuals and/or business corporations. Socialism is based on the notion that common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal society. It is a stage of society in Marxist theory, transitional between capitalism and communism, and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Hence, COMMUNISM is an extreme form of socialism that strives for both social and economic equality, something which can never be achieved, since true equality can never ever exist in this world.
Socialism (and communism) is best defined in contrast with capitalism (or to be more accurate, with free-market economies), as socialism has arisen both as a critical challenge to capitalism, and as a proposal for overcoming and replacing it. Cf. “capitalism” in the Glossary of this book.
Socialism/communism is INTRINSICALLY evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is a practical impossibility, if not a theoretical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system, and therefore, independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a certain number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or a worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes and records a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth.
As mentioned above, although socialists and communists maintain their ideologies to be purely economic systems, it is very difficult, if not outright impossible, to divorce them from the political sphere. In any case, assuming that socialism is no more than an economic organization, simply for the fact that it disallows any form of free-market exchange (which is objectively moral, or at worst, amoral – see Chapter 12), socialism and communism must not be imposed on any community, society, or nation. At worst, socialism/communism/Marxism is a truly horrific, tyrannical, totalitarian, murderous regime, that leads to untold pain and misery, due to certain dogmas that are intrinsically associated with Marxism, particularly a ferocious hostility towards all things dharmic, especially freedom of religion. Marxists enjoy using the terms “capitalism” and “imperialism” in rather INACCURATE and emotive ways, in order to emphasize their supposed wicked natures. I would wager that the main motivation for Karl Marx’ (as well as the multitude of vassals to his caustic ideology) hatred for free-market economies is simply out of envy for the business class. There is very little doubt in my mind, that if Herr Marx and his minions had somehow found themselves with a healthy bank balance, they would have invested their financial resources in some kind of profitable enterprise, such as establishing a business or investing in company shares or stocks, rather than distributing their wealth among the poor masses, which would be more in keeping with their inane, egalitarian principles. If you think otherwise, then you are truly deluded, and think too highly of that parasite, Marx.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY:
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil as socialism, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will vote, overwhelmingly, for the candidate who promises to fulfil their petty desires, rather than one who will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law and ethics, currently available.
Unlike socialism, in which wealth is stolen from the rich and distributed to the poor (with a “little” bit extra for the ruling elite), democratic governments frequently steal money from the working-class via the taxation system, and distribute it to the already affluent, often indirectly.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not! Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, nutritious, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in “dharma” (righteous living), not in facts and figures, nor in technical training. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily correlate with intelligence!
No democratic (or socialist) government will educate its citizens sufficiently well, that those citizens will acquire knowledge of how to usurp their regime. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. One who requires the services of a brain surgeon NATURALLY seeks the most qualified physician to perform the operation, so logically, we ought accept the sovereignty of the most qualified man to rule over an entire nation (a genuine king). Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice – see the entry “democracy” in the Glossary of what is, by far, the most important work of literature ever composed, this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”.
ANARCHY:
Anarchy is a state in which there are no rulers; a rejection of hierarchy. The earliest recorded use of the word, from the early sixteenth century, simply meant “absence of government”, albeit with the implication of civil disorder. A similar but ameliorated meaning began to be employed in the nineteenth century, Christian era, in reference to a Utopian (that is, an idealistic) society that had NO GOVERNMENT.
The English term was borrowed from the Medieval Latin word, “anarchia”, borrowed from the Greek word, “anarkhía” (“lack of a leader, lawlessness”), from “ánarchos” (“without a head or chief, leaderless”), from “an-” + “-archos”, derivative of “archós” (“leader, chief”) + “-ia”.
Cont....
1
-
@nedhill1242
authoritarian:
essentially, a synonym for “dictator” (see that entry, below). Just as in the case of the term “dictator”, this word is most often used as a descriptor for a leader or a ruler who imposes his or her own will upon a population, almost exclusively in a NEGATIVE way.
HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the term “authoritarian” originates from the root “author”, which simply refers to one who creates or originates something, via the word “authority”, which entails the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Therefore, genuine authoritarianism is a dharmic concept, because when one exercises his or her authority over his/her subordinates, it contributes to social cohesion. Indeed, human society cannot survive without proper authoritarian systems in place. It is absolutely imperative to very carefully read the Glossary entries for “dharma” and “authority” in this regard.
Therefore, it is strongly suggested that English speakers use words such as “fascistic” and “tyrannical”, instead of using the unfairly-deprecatory terms “authoritarian” and “dictator”, in reference to rulers who exercise ILLEGITIMATE dominance over a populace.
authority:
the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. See the Glossary entry for “author” for the etymology.
The notion of AUTHORITY is intimately connected to the person or body that originates something. The author of a novel is, by definition, the preeminent AUTHORITY over his work. He has the AUTHORITY to dictate how his book ought to be published, promoted, and distributed. Furthermore, he has the AUTHORITY to delegate such rights to another person or company, if he desires.
Likewise, a mother has full AUTHORITY over the children she (pro)creates. No sane individual would ever dare presume that a mother has no AUTHORITY over her own offspring! Similarly, as the head of his family, a father has the AUTHORITY to direct the actions of his wife/wives and his children. Of course, that father is not the ultimate authority on earth – he has his own masters, such as his own father, his uncles, his employer (if he is a worker), and most importantly, his spiritual master, all of whom should exercise their authoritative positions in relation to that father. Similarly, a true king (as defined in Chapter 21) has conditional AUTHORITY over his people, even if not every single one of his edicts is perfectly in accordance with dharmic (righteous) principles. A monarch’s AUTHORITY is compromised only in the event that his rule sufficiently devolves into some kind of unholy, fascistic tyranny. And if a king’s dominion was to devolve into such a tyranny, it would robustly imply that he was never a genuine monarch in the first place.
Unfortunately, authority is often conflated with the notion of power , by both the masses, and in most dictionaries. Theoretically, any person or organization can display a force of power over another entity, yet that does not necessarily signify AUTHORITY. Thankfully, power does not always correlate with AUTHORITY. If that was the case, humble, gentle monks such as Gautama Buddha and Lord Jesus the Christ would, of necessity, have very little AUTHORITY, whereas powerful governments would have the AUTHORITY to dictate imperatives to its citizens, when in fact they do not, as they are almost exclusively illegitimate (that is, against the law, or dharma). N.B. Read Chapters 21 and 22 to understand the distinction between a legitimate government and an illegal government.
1
-
1
-
@girlwriteswhat
🐟 25. THE ROLE OF FEMALES:
Women are fortunate because they are BORN with a job:
Daughter.
Wife.
Mother.
Females normally have no role in public life. Exceptions to this rule are relatively rare. For instance, women may work in the arts (singers, actors, and dancers, which often demand female players), or as maids or nurses, both of which are feminine duties, providing it has no detrimental effect on their PRIMARY function, as daughters, wives, and mothers.
So, a female’s fundamental role is to serve her MASTERS (any man in her family circle), even from a relatively young age, by performing domestic duties and raising her children. Barren women (heterosexual or otherwise) are extremely unfortunate, but can still devote their lives to serving their husband, father, grandfather, uncles, or in the event that none of those men are extant, adult male cousins.
Studies have shown that the more a woman deviates from this innate societal function, the less she is fulfilled. The phrase, “Cat Lady”, says it all.
As a general rule, women should be protected in the home, and never wander-out alone. They should FULLY cover their bodies in the presence of post-pubescent males outside the family circle. Even the prostitutes in some nations wear veils in public, even if out of fear of reprisal.
Having lived the eremitic life of a monastic priest for a few decades, I can attest to the importance of keeping one’s home clean and tidy. It is obvious to me that housekeeping is very much a full-time occupation, and that if I were to neglect my domestic chores, my health and comfort would greatly diminish. As would be expected of a person in my position, I follow a strict diet and am obsessive in regards to hygiene. Without a spouse, the onus is on me to maintain my residence in a prim and proper manner, even though it results in me spending less time teaching religion as a member of the Holy Priesthood (The World Teacher, in my particular case). Therefore, the role of a housewife is of PARAMOUNT importance, and must never be discounted by anybody, particularly feminist ideologues. The following chapter deals with feminism.
The ONLY reason I have resided alone for most of my adult life is due to the fact that there is a severe scarcity of decent women in my country, and indeed the entire world, what to speak of holy and righteous women. Unfortunately, few women, particularly in the more affluent nations, any longer receive adequate training in the connubial arts. In my former marriages, I was forced to perform most household chores.
In recent centuries, due to various factors (FEMINISM, in particular), women have become so degraded, that is it practically impossible to find an example of an ideal woman. Therefore, in order to reference examples of such a woman, one is forced to refer to figures from ancient myths.
Mariam, the mother of Lord Jesus Christ, and Devī Sītārānī, the wife of Śri Rāja Rāma, King of Ayodhya, are the epitome of womanhood, and ought to be the role models for each and every girl born on this planet. That is assuming, of course, that those two women were, in actual fact, the gentle, refined, humble and submissive goddesses they were portrayed to be in the archaic scriptures.
Obviously, this teaching receives an ENORMOUS amount of scorn, contempt and derision from a certain proportion of women (and also many "men"), but that is perfectly fine, because, such foolish feminists are destined to die lonely and alone, with no family surrounding them, and hopefully not transfer their adulterated genes to forthcoming generations.
In some locations in the world, STRAY COWS freely wander the urban streets, displaying their teats.
Similarly, in most locations, women wander the dangerous streets alone or in groups, displaying their bosoms and other bodily parts.
Such loose women are no better than STRAY COWS.
The TRUTH is very difficult to accept, right, Slave?
“Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun, the moon, and the TRUTH.”
Siddhārtha Gautama (AKA The Buddha),
Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.131 (Paraphrased).
Paṭicchanna Sutta
“...encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.”
***********
“Yet women will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
***********
“Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
St. Paul of Tarsus,
Titus 2:4-5.
1 Timothy 2:15.
1 Corinthians 14:34.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
1
-
1
-
nation:
a population, normally residing in the same geographic region, in which most all the citizens share a common race, religion, language, and culture. This word is VERY often used erroneously in the stead of the term “country”. Therefore, it is highly suggested that one refer to the Glossary entry under “country”, in order to understand the distinction between a “country” and a “nation”.
Unfortunately, an enormous percentage of the population has been indoctrinated by leftists to regard NATIONALISM as a malevolent ideology, when in fact, the adherence to a nationalistic framework is beneficial to both the citizenry of a nation and to the world as a whole. Multicultural societies are constantly fraught with conflicts, due to the incompatibility of competing ideologies and practices.
Imagine, if you will, that the million most conservative men from an Islamic nation in Middle-east Asia, such as Afghanistan, and the million most feministic women from a liberal country like Canada, were taken to some barren island and asked to establish a new civilization. How harmonious and prosperous do you believe such a mismatch of persons would be? TOTALLY discordant!
Furthermore, a variety of national identities is intrinsically beneficial, for nobody would want to travel to another nation if that nation was fundamentally identical to their own nation, except to experience the unique geographical features, diets or climates.
I, for one, am glad that I can visit a nation such as Japan in order to experience its unique culture and language, then choose to visit or reside in nations such as Ireland and Egypt in order to experience the unique languages, food, art, dance, cinema, music, religion, and customs of those two nations. Of course, if I decided to reside in a nation where the language and culture differed radically from my own, I would need to adapt. For example, if I were to migrate to a Middle-east Asian nation, such as the one mentioned above, I could not openly criticize the Islamic faith (and especially its founder) without putting my very existence at risk. Upon moving to the Philippines over a decade ago, I found it EXTREMELY easy to acclimatize to its culture, since it is very much a Westernized nation, not dissimilar to the country of my birth, The Southland (that is, “Terra Australis” or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue).
“Nation” was first recorded in the thirteenth century, from the Middle English, from Latin “nātiōn-” (stem of “nātiō”), meaning “birth” or “tribe”, equivalent to “nāt(us)” (past participle of “nāscī”, meaning “to be born”) + “-iōn-”. “-ion” a suffix, appearing in words of Latin origin, denoting action or condition, used in Latin and in English to form nouns from stems of Latin adjectives.
1
-
@idipped2521
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
nation:
a population, normally residing in the same geographic region, in which most all the citizens share a common race, religion, language, and culture. This word is VERY often used erroneously in the stead of the term “country”. Therefore, it is highly suggested that one refer to the Glossary entry under “country”, in order to understand the distinction between a “country” and a “nation”.
Unfortunately, an enormous percentage of the population has been indoctrinated by leftists to regard NATIONALISM as a malevolent ideology, when in fact, the adherence to a nationalistic framework is beneficial to both the citizenry of a nation and to the world as a whole. Multicultural societies are constantly fraught with conflicts, due to the incompatibility of competing ideologies and practices.
Imagine, if you will, that the million most conservative men from an Islamic nation in Middle-east Asia, such as Afghanistan, and the million most feministic women from a liberal country like Canada, were taken to some barren island and asked to establish a new civilization. How harmonious and prosperous do you believe such a mismatch of persons would be? TOTALLY discordant!
Furthermore, a variety of national identities is intrinsically beneficial, for nobody would want to travel to another nation if that nation was fundamentally identical to their own nation, except to experience the unique geographical features, diets or climates.
I, for one, am glad that I can visit a nation such as Japan in order to experience its unique culture and language, then choose to visit or reside in nations such as Ireland and Egypt in order to experience the unique languages, food, art, dance, cinema, music, religion, and customs of those two nations. Of course, if I decided to reside in a nation where the language and culture differed radically from my own, I would need to adapt. For example, if I were to migrate to a Middle-east Asian nation, such as the one mentioned above, I could not openly criticize the Islamic faith (and especially its founder) without putting my very existence at risk. Upon moving to the Philippines over a decade ago, I found it EXTREMELY easy to acclimatize to its culture, since it is very much a Westernized nation, not dissimilar to the country of my birth, The Southland (that is, “Terra Australis” or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue).
“Nation” was first recorded in the thirteenth century, from the Middle English, from Latin “nātiōn-” (stem of “nātiō”), meaning “birth” or “tribe”, equivalent to “nāt(us)” (past participle of “nāscī”, meaning “to be born”) + “-iōn-”. “-ion” a suffix, appearing in words of Latin origin, denoting action or condition, used in Latin and in English to form nouns from stems of Latin adjectives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blueredingreen , Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SecretScholars
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively).
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning – a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
1
-
1
-
consciousness/Consciousness:
“that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”.
As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture.
According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05).
There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child:
“Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”.
In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phillippropst3825
LAW ENFORCEMENT:
For most of human history, there were no POLICE to enforce the law, because, until rather recently, most persons resided in rural areas, where crime was relatively scarce, and because ancient societies were self-policing. If a child committed a crime, rather than being carted-off to Children’s Court by a member of the local police department, his or her mother would administer any necessary punishment. If the mother had broken the law, then the master of the house would discipline her. If the husband was to commit an offensive act, his father or employer would take punitive measures, and so on. Just see how much infrastructure modern societies require in order to perform the duties previously performed by all its collective citizenry! A massive police force would be practically superfluous in even a decent monarchy, what to mention under a holy and righteous king. When a nation is established on virtuous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), the requirement of even a small police force would be highly-questionable, because it would be ensured that every single citizen received proper training in dharma/dhamma.
Many, if not MOST crimes, particularly acts of unmitigated violence, have their seed in poor child-rearing practices, especially highly-traumatic incidents such as neglect, physical mistreatment (that is, undue bodily harm beyond legitimate corporal punishment) and psychological abuse. When the leaders of society (kings and priests) ensure that dharma is promoted in their nation, such odious crimes will naturally be minimized.
1
-
sex:
gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️
gender:
sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration – firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population – mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”.
Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition.
Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret – do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male – not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking.
N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning.
Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
1
-
@Sharon_Mc , Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are three kinds of PLEASURE, according to the three modes (“trī-guṇa”, in Sanskrit) described in Chapter 18:
Pleasures in the Mode of PURITY (“sattva guṇa”, in Sanskrit) are those pleasures which seem to be difficult or hazardous in the beginning but turn-out to be sweet or enjoyable in the end. For example, studying medicine for almost a decade in university can be rather stressful and taxing, but once the student graduates and begins his career as a physician, he experiences the pleasure of being a healer to his society and earning a high-income.
Pleasures in the Mode of PASSION (“rajas guṇa”, in Sanskrit) are those which are enjoyable in the beginning but turn to pain in the end. For instance, most everyone enjoys eating a slice of chocolate cake (or sweet tropical fruit, for those of us who are health-conscious) but the more of it one consumes, the more painful it will become, due to indigestion, bloating, and/or sugar-poisoning.
Pleasures in the Mode of DARKNESS (“tamas guṇa”, in Sanskrit) are those which are toxic from beginning to end. For example, sleeping is a state of ignorance (of daily life) and from the time one falls asleep to the time one awakens, one is prone to being attacked by one's enemies. Over-sleeping results in lethargy.
Humans have FOUR objectives, aims, purposes, or goals in life (“puruṣārtha”, in Sanskrit):
1. PLEASURE (“kāma”, in Sanskrit) includes all forms of sensual stimulation which provides a positive feeling in the mind of any particular individual. Thus pleasure-seeking is a legitimate aim, provided that it causes no undue harm to another living creature or to the biosphere.
2. PROSPERITY (“artha”, in Sanskrit) is seeking wealth in the form of real property or money, again, providing it has no detrimental effect on others (in other words, a legitimate means of accumulating wealth). Here, “legitimate” is used in the etymological sense of “lawful”.
3. RELIGIOSITY (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) signifies behaviours that are considered to be in accord with established universal principles, including duties, laws, morals, virtues, and righteous living. Read Chapters 12 onwards to become acquainted with the principles of religiosity/dharma.
4. LIBERATION (“mokṣa”, in Sanskrit) is freedom from suffering, as previously defined, and is considered to be the most noble of the four goals. This was traditionally interpreted as emancipation from the cycle of birth and death (“saṃsāra”, in Sanskrit) or soteriology (“going to Heaven”).
As one goes through childhood, one naturally seeks sensory pleasures. As one enters adulthood, one starts to seek methods of acquiring material wealth, whether that be serving an employer, embarking on a mercantile enterprise, or seeking marriage to a well-to-do suitor. If and when one becomes disillusioned by pleasure and/or wealth, one makes enquiries into self-improvement and religious systems. When none of the former objectives provides the definitive peace and happiness which humans are ultimately seeking, one FINALLY aspires for liberation.
Of course, there is no reason why ALL four objectives cannot be accomplished simultaneously. A truly-enlightened sage is fully comfortable in seeking pleasure (without going to undue lengths to achieve pleasure, and without being attached to the pleasures themselves), gaining sufficient wealth to meet his material requisites and the needs of his family, engaging in religious festivals and other dharmic activities (even if he has transcended all dogmas and rituals – most persons enjoy partaking in major religious festivities) and, of course, being liberated from the cycle of birth and death (or to be more accurate, from the sense of “doership“, which is, as explained, the origin of all psychological sorrows).
“The animal does not have to face the kind of problems which oppress man and which are created by the operation of the intellect.
An animal's sense of consonance and dissonance, affinity and antipathy, is intuitive and in-built as conditioned reflex, rather than subject to the complex interference of ratiocination, by which man is not only aware of his perceptions and actions, but also thinks about them. ”
***********
“Pain and pleasure exist for animals, but it is not a problem for them, because the animal does not regret the past pain or fear the future danger. He lives in the NOW of nature. It is only the human being, who concerns himself with imagined opposites, which has a problem.
There are, in fact, no opposites whatsoever, except as concepts, produced by the imagination.”
***********
“It is impossible in life, to have the pleasure that is wanted, without the pain that is not wanted.
They are, in fact, mutually interdependent, and therefore, inseparable.”
***********
“One does not experience suffering – one suffers an experience. One who is aware of his true identity does not and can not suffer.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
“Suffering exists, but no sufferer can be found.
Actions exist, but no doer of actions is there.
Nirvana exists, but no one who enters it.
The Path exists, but no traveller can be seen.”
Venerable Buddhaghosa,
Visuddhimagga, 513.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
1
-
doctor:
a teacher, from Middle English (in the senses “learned person” and “Doctor of the Church”): via Old French, from the Latin “doctor” (“teacher”), from “docere” (“teach”).
Throughout the modern world, tertiary education institutions have been given the right to confer Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees by the government of their respective countries. This is a fundamentally-flawed arrangement for the following reasons:
As has been proven beyond any semblance of doubt in Chapter 22 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, non-monarchical governments have absolutely no authority whatsoever over the populace of their countries or nations. And even if a nation was ruled by a LEGITIMATE government (that is, a holy and righteous king), it is not within the purview of a national ruler to adjudicate which educational institutions are qualified to confer scholastic awards to its citizens. The role of a national ruler is (above all) to protect the population and to ensure that the law (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) is enforced and promulgated. Furthermore, universities and colleges (especially in the Western world) have been increasingly promoting what is colloquially known as “leftism” (“adharma”, in Sanskrit), as well as bestowing post-graduate degrees upon those who would never have been able to even enter a university in previous centuries (not to mention a certain proportion of abject dunces, simply due to the fact that life in the West is relatively easy, and those dullards are able to spend several years of their lives in study, without needing to work for their livelihoods).
Personally, I am extremely glad to not be counted amongst those imbeciles who have garnered a masters degree or a doctorate at a government-endorsed institute of “education”. As the current World Doctor Himself, I have witnessed that the calibre of the typical doctoral candidate is nowadays so appalling, that I would be loath to be the recipient of a PhD degree from any extant so-called “university/college”. Honestly, I would consider it to be a great DISHONOUR! Even the so-called “hard sciences”, such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and engineering, have become increasingly adulterated by adharma. For example, in Western academia (and by the time you are reading this Scripture, most all the schools of higher-learning in the East too) it is, in practice, impossible for an academic to assert the scientific fact that intelligence has a biological (that is, a genetic) component, and even if one was permitted to posit such a truism, it would be frowned upon to stress the fact that a person’s genome is the predominating factor in determining one’s intellectual capacity (not to mention bringing racial differences into the picture!). See also “philosophy”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
dhamma:
the Pāli cognate of “dharma”. However, in this case, it invariably refers to the teachings of Gautama Buddha, rather than the eternal law (“sanātana dharma”, in Sanskrit). In this book, it is used in the former sense, that is, of “holy and righteous concepts and deeds”. Therefore, the term “Buddhist dhamma/dharma” is somewhat nonsensical, since dhamma/dharma is fundamentally non-sectarian.
Despite being the most atheistic human being to have ever existed, I often PRAY that I am not in the process of consuming a meal whenever I hear a Buddhist monk or lay teacher referring to his or her lecture as being a “dhamma talk”. If you have carefully read the entirety of this Holy Scripture, “F.I.S.H”, and you have listened to many Buddhist sermons, you may have already guessed the reason for my fervent prayer. This is because the assertion that the overwhelming majority of Buddhist monks are teaching authentic dharma, is so excruciatingly cringe-worthy and laughable, I am genuinely fearful of choking on my food upon hearing such silly claims!
First of all, the founder of Buddhism himself, Siddhārtha Gautama was hardly a paragon of virtue, having abandoned his family in order to become a mendicant monk, being an animal-abusing carnist, and encouraging females to become loose women (so-called “nuns”). In my half a century of life, I have only ever encountered one or two Buddhists who adhered to (actual) dharma, so in that sense, they were factually SUPERIOR to Gautama himself! For instance, the abbot of the largest Buddhist society in my homeland, Australia, believes that it is dharmic (legitimate) for men to insert their reproductive organs inside the faeces holes of other men, and of course, like his idol, Gautama, he is a murderer of poor, innocent, defenceless animals, and a filthy feminist. Furthermore, despite being an indigenous Englishman, and a graduate of one of the most prestigious universities on earth, University of Cambridge, he is entirely unable to coherently speak his native tongue! Should not a supposed “spiritual leader” be an exemplar in at least his own language?
Of course, no human being (including so-called “Avatars”) who has ever lived was morally perfect, but those who claim to be spiritual masters ought to be beyond reproach in respect to their own ethical practices. In the aforementioned case, Gautama should have returned to his family as soon as he understood the immorality of his actions, just as I, when I began adhering to dharma, repaid two persons from whom I had stolen goods and cash. Furthermore, assuming that Gautama was really a carnist (and knowing the typical diet of Bhārata, it would be safe to assume that he was at LEAST a lacto-vegetarian, and therefore an animal-abusing criminal), he was certainly sufficiently intelligent to understand that it is unnatural for an adult human to suckle the teats of a cow or a goat, and that human beings are fully herbivorous. Otherwise, how could he possibly be considered a member of the priestly class of society (“brāhmaṇa”, in Sanskrit) if he was not able to even comprehend some of the most basic facts of life? Make no mistake, carnism (see that entry in this Glossary) is a truly abominable, horrendous, wicked, hateful, evil, immoral, sinful, demonic ideology, as is feminism and unlawful divorce (in the case of Prince Gautama, the abandonment of his wife and son would be considered an act of divorce).
When a so-called Zen Buddhist priest asks another MALE so-called Zen Buddhist priest (as occurred in a video interview I just watched on the Internet), "Do you and your husband have any kids?”, one can be fully assured that the lowest point in the history of humanity has been reached. The fact that both the aforementioned so-called priests are American men, is not coincidental, since the most decadent religionists seem to be of Western/first-world origin. I don't believe I have come across a single Western Buddhist monastic who is not at least slightly left-leaning (“leftism” being a common term in the English-speaking world for “adharmic”).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible – that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) – is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies.
According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.).
In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving!
Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness – although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent).
Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual.
APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it.
Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities).
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace – and you are, quintessentially, that!
This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness).
HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements – pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances.
Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” – everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that – an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief.
Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors – our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism.
As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous.
Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency – the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment.
There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature:
1. Guilt
2. Blame
3. Pride
4. Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future
These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above – that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.”
The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above.
Cont...
1
-
@ernestcote3398
sex:
gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️
gender:
sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration – firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population – mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”.
Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition.
Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret – do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male – not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking.
N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning.
Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Basically, the worst of the non-monarchical governments promote, or at least permit, ALL things contrary to God’s perfect and pure will (or contrary to objective morality and dharma/dhamma, for those who disbelieve in the Deity), such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, transvestism, pornography, homosexuality, gambling (even running lotteries themselves), illegitimate abortion of poor innocent unborn children, irreligion, drug addiction, disrespect for authority, and advancing materialism and nescience via a powerful network of institutions of miseducation (so-called “kindergartens, schools, colleges and universities”).
Their aim is to produce a population of indoctrinated citizens who have been conditioned to serve the state and its perverse agendas.
Even though non-monarchical leaders are committing a criminal act by ordering the persecution of its citizens, or instigating war on another nation, the police and military personnel who execute their orders are equally (if not MORE) guilty of their dirty deeds. Even if a non-monarchical government punishes a criminal, that in itself is a criminal act, because it has absolutely no authority to do so. That is akin to a baby punishing its mother for theft, when it is actually the role of the infant's father to enact disciplinary action upon the woman in question.
For the past few centuries, most of the earth has been controlled by a CABAL of men comprising of extremely wealthy businessmen (particularly bankers) and so-called religious leaders (those who command a huge following). Ironically, some of these elite businessmen instigate a pseudo-socialist government within their nations, so that they themselves can control the financial system for their selfish goals.
This planet is surely doomed, unless the most pernicious institutions ever known to man (democracy, socialism and communism), are replaced by the ONLY legitimate form of government (monarchy – ideally a holy monarch, though even a mediocre king is preferable to being ruled by an elected official or a sociopathic megalomaniac, who could almost never be a righteous ruler).
Let it be known, however: non-monarchical rule can not and will not endure. Once society has devolved to such a debased level where it can no longer survive intact, the natural-born kings of the earth shall arise and regain their rightful place at the head of each and every nation.
The truth shall surely triumph (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit).
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
Samuel Langhorne Clemens (AKA Mark Twain),
American writer.
“I would rather obey a fine lion, much stronger than myself, than two hundred rats of my own species.”
François-Marie Arouet (AKA Voltaire),
French Writer and Historian.
N.B. This is an appropriate place to make mention of a potentially contentious topic:
The above Voltaire remark replaces a quotation by an American spiritual teacher who formerly “worked” as a prostitute. I, the author of this Holy Scripture was criticized for quoting a prostitute, implying that her words were invalid due to her being a former harlot. Firstly, the accuracy of any statement is not dependent on the relative holiness of the person making that statement. Secondly, none of the persons I have quoted in “F.I.S.H”, including the Divine Incarnations, were totally blameless in all their actions, despite what many believe. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quote Voltaire, despite his antipathy towards the Holy Priesthood, towards religion in general, and towards certain monarchs.
1
-
sex:
gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
♂♀♂♀♂♀♂♀♂♀♂♀
gender:
sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatozoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans).
A female is an animal who has the necessary physiological capability (or would have the capability, if not for some genetic or developmental abnormality) to produce large gametes (eggs).
Conversely, a male is an animal who has the necessary physiological capability (or would have the capability, if not for some genetic or developmental abnormality) to produce small gametes (spermatozoa).
Some animals, such as molluscs and earthworms produce both male and female gametes, and are known as “hermaphrodites”.
Some animals, such as amphibians and turtles, are able to change their gender/sex due to certain environmental conditions.
An extremely minute percentage of Homo sapiens are of indeterminate gender (that is, their sex/gender being difficult to determine via a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two sexes/genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his-her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate “him-herself”). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads (a condition known as “agonadia”), the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration – firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the deoxyribonucleic acid of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus” is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population – mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”.
Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition.
Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret – do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male – not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking.
N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning.
Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ezbody
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SouthernGntlmn
🐟 21. THE MONARCHY:
A KING (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is a man who has a divine mandate, via his counsellor (i.e. his spiritual preceptor), to govern an area of land (and sea) and the population within its borders. He should be the head of the military, and courageously lead his army into battle if necessary (as opposed to cowardly scampering into a bomb shelter under the Pentagon building, as Presidents of the United States of America are apt to do). A king should be a natural leader among men, and be willing to sacrifice his life to protect his subjects. A good monarch will take heed of astute advice from his spiritual guide (ideally, the wisest prophet in his kingdom), as well as his ministers, in order to build a just society.
A LEGITIMATE monarch will endorse holy and righteous edicts, such as absolute freedom of speech*, homeschooling of children, free markets, and private ownership of all goods and services (even such infrastructure as roads, water and sewerage systems, health care, and education). He will enforce taxation of the profits of businessmen alone (and not of any other class of society), provide material support to members of the Holy Priesthood if necessary, establish a monetary system using (or at least backed by) precious metals, and avoid interfering with the private matters of his citizens (unlike evil governments, which meddle in such things as sex, marriage, and discipline within workplaces and families).
There are only two kinds of persons who would POSSIBLY object to the institution of monarchy:
By far the greatest number of objectors are those who have very little idea of what constitutes a LEGITIMATE monarchy, as defined above. The usual arguments are either “I don’t want to be ruled by a tyrannical, despotic dictator” or “I don’t believe monarchy should be hereditary”. Obviously, neither of these arguments is applicable when the institution of monarchy is properly understood. Any man can call himself “King”, but if he lacks saintly (or at least noble) qualities and doesn't have the best interests of his people at heart, he is naught but a fascistic dictator.
Just as a priest is, by definition, a holy man, so too should a monarch be a righteous, wise king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit). After all, a king’s primary duty is the protection of his nation (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit), so how could a person fulfil his duty of care if he was evil and uncaring? Just as a family must be protected by its head (the father), every nation requires a good patriarch. Unless a man has the natural proclivities to do so, he ought NOT follow his father’s occupation. Therefore, a prince isn't necessarily qualified to assume his father’s role upon the demise of his sire.
The only “valid” objection to monarchy could possibly be from those miscreants who wish to destroy society via an ILLEGITIMATE system of government (see Chapter 22) or those who are simply too stupid to understand how monarchy is the most beneficial form of governance.
Any form of governance OTHER than monarchy must be, by definition, controlled by either workers or by businessmen (or rarely by priests or spiritual leaders), and therefore is intrinsically evil, since they are unqualified to rule a nation. If there is no aspiring monarch extant within a nation, then the best alternative is a priest (a prophet, to be more precise), but only until a monarch arises and retakes power.
Although WAR is unfortunate, it is sometimes necessary to defend oneself from aggressors. In certain circumstances, it is legitimate for a ruler or aspiring ruler to overtake another (evil and corrupt) ruler and usurp his sovereignty. Unfortunately, in the modern era, it is nigh impossible for an aspiring king to seize power, since he will be easily defeated by sheer military might, as opposed to the state of affairs in ancient times, where two opposing monarchs would fight in hand-to-hand combat (or possibly lead their respective armies into a battle for the kingdom).
Being a soldier is a legitimate and necessary occupation in this wicked and perilous world, mainly for the defence of a local population or nation, but unfortunately, not all soldiers serve a good master. Not all world leaders are righteous in all their ways. In fact, you who are reading this Scripture, are almost definitely being oppressed by a corrupt, tyrannical regime. The reason why you may not realize this fact is due to either abject ignorance, or because, just like your illegitimate government, you have little desire for society to be organized according to holy and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). Just as a newborn child has absolutely no conception of what is most beneficial to its welfare, the vast majority of citizens have very little idea of what benefits society most. Hence the decadent state of contemporary culture.
Whenever there is a CONFLICT in this world, whether that be a conflict between two persons, or a conflict between two groups of persons (such as political wars), it is absolutely certain that one side is more righteous than the other. Both sides can not be equally right, because equality is non-existent in this phenomenal sphere. Equality exclusively exists in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably on the sub-atomic level. Unfortunately, it requires an above-average intellect to be able to comprehend such truthful concepts.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
George Carlin,
American Comedian and Actor.
1937-2008.
“I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. ...
That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple, to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen...patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government.”
Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, English Author,
“The Weight of Glory”.
*Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one's speech. For example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he or she ought to be punished for that sinful deed. A genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12). Of course, the best advisor to any monarch is his spiritual master, as defined in Chapter 19 (ideally, the most holy and wise member of the Holy Priesthood within the kingdom), so the need for him to require advice from anyone other than his guru would be scarce, at least in regards to matters of morality, which is the secure foundation of society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SB-mr2nk
🐟 27. MARRIAGE & THE FAMILY:
Matrimony is the contractual union of a man with one or more women, primarily for the purpose of PROCREATION and child-rearing.
The couple should be brought together by their respective parents, and if practical, some sort of nuptial ceremony performed. Once a couple has been engaged to be married, they should not break the agreement, unless one party has been proven to have lost his or her virginity with a third party. OBVIOUSLY, after the wedding, the marriage contract cannot be broken, unless one or both parties has committed adultery, or one party has chosen to no longer carry out his or her marital duties (for instance, if the husband refuses to materially-support his wife/wives, or the wife refuses to perform domestic chores for her master, both of which are legitimate grounds for divorce).
A RESPONSIBLE father will objectively evaluate the unique characteristics, virtues, idiosyncrasies, and shortcomings of his child from a relatively early age, and thereafter, seek a compatible spouse from the available pool of persons in his social circles. Unless his nation faces extinction, the potential match should not be any closer to his child than a cousin. If a prospective couple do not belong to the same clan (and thereby do not share the same family name), it is probable that their genetic code is sufficiently divergent to create healthy offspring. As implied above, incestuous marriage should only be condoned if the human race is in danger of extermination, or possibly in the instance where an entire race or nation is on the verge of annihilation.
If one’s parents fail in their duty to select a suitable mate, one should very carefully choose a COMPATIBLE spouse. The recommended criteria used to evaluate marital compatibility are as follows: physical characteristics (such as relative height and sexual attractiveness), personality type, intelligence, emotional temperament, diet, cultural similarities, political ideology, religious affiliation, and life goals.
One of the major causes of conjugal breakdown in recent decades has been due to the couple selecting each other based solely (or at least predominantly) on sexual attraction and/or amorous attachments, with little consideration given to the other guiding principles, listed above.
Romance rarely lasts more than a couple of years. Marriage is an institution based largely on PRACTICAL considerations, not on lustful feelings or on fleeting sentimentality. Without firm, practical reasons for a couple remaining conjugally-bound, they are susceptible to marital divorce.
Generally speaking, women have the potent desire to raise children, and require a man with which to mate, and then protect and support her and the offspring, during the fifteen-plus years (for EACH child) of child-rearing. Most men also desire to have a family, and additionally, possess a very powerful libido, which, if not channelled in a legitimate fashion, can cause a great deal of social misbehaviour (e.g. rape, etc.).
There is no such thing as a nun in the eyes of God. Therefore, unless a woman is seriously disabled, either physically or psychologically, or else a lesbian, she is lawfully OBLIGATED to marry the man preselected by her parents (or if her parents are deceased, by her extant master, whether that be her grandfather, an uncle, or an adult nephew). Ideally, women ought to be betrothed as soon as they reach adulthood, to avoid a childless existence. Quite understandably, very few men have aspirations to mate with a post-menopausal female.
Marriage is mandatory for men too, apart from missionary priests, those unfortunate males who are unable to support a family for reasons of mental or physical incapacity, men who are simply passed-over by hypergamous females due to being perceived as low-value suitors, homosexuals (meaning, men who are not at all attracted to the opposite gender. Bisexuals are not exempt from marriage), and men who reside in jurisdictions where ILLEGITIMATE feministic governments enact so-called “laws” which abrogate the lawful rights of married men.
In my particular case, despite being a model husband and father, my first wife, with the support of the dirty, demonic, democratic Australian government, literally kidnapped my three precious children, whilst my second wife, with the assistance of the equally-wicked, violent, corrupt, murderous Filipino government, stole my presbytery (the house of a priest).
The recent exodus of men in Western countries from the dating pool (or at least from formal marriage) is more than understandable.
The man should be approximately ten to twenty years OLDER than his wife/wives. Some of the reasons for this are:
It is natural for women to be attracted to older men and for men to be attracted to younger women. There is a good evolutionary reason why women reach their sexual peak between the ages of about fifteen to twenty-five and why a man's sexual market value peaks in his thirties to fifties. The female matures earlier (physically and socially), so if she mates with a man of similar age, she may find her spouse to be emotionally immature. The husband is almost a substitute for the woman's father figure, so the husband’s age gives him added authority as head of the family. Also, it gives the man extra time to establish his career, a house and home for his wife and forthcoming progeny.
The main duties of the HUSBAND are to teach his wife/wives and sons whatever beneficial lessons he has learnt from his own masters, protect his family from harm, and supply their necessities of life (that is, food, clothing, and shelter) as well as desired luxuries, if practicable. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
Marriage is not a democracy. Any so-called man who compromises with his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives or his offspring, is surely doomed to failure. Feminized western men, in particular, are guilty of such uxoriousness. Such emasculated “men” are not true men, and desperately need to regain their dignity as the head of their homes.
The main daily duties of the WIFE are to execute domestic chores such as to cook, clean, sew, take care of the children, and to keep the husband sexually satisfied so he doesn't look at other women.
The wife should submit to the will of her husband. She should fully respect him as her master, and should address him accordingly.
Whilst conversing, the wife should focus her attention completely on her husband. She should listen carefully to what he says, learn what he is saying, answer him, and obey his instructions. A man should never be alone with any female, apart from his wife, of course.
POLYGAMY has been taught by all the major religions. Unfortunately, the “westernized” religious cults seem to have done away with the practice for unbeknown reasons. The reason for polygamy is simply due to the fact that every woman needs a husband. Also, a certain proportion of men are destined to die as bachelors due to female hypergamy, which is a natural trait of women (even if it may seem unfair).
When a woman marries, she LITERALLY joins the family of her husband.
She takes her master's family name, and the husband's parents become her parents, which is why they are called “father/mother-in-law”, that is, “father/mother according to the law” (the one and only law of God, or more accurately, the Universal Law, as propounded in Chapter 12).
Cont...
1
-
@gipsybauski8971
🐟 27. MARRIAGE & THE FAMILY:
Matrimony is the contractual union of a man with one or more women, primarily for the purpose of PROCREATION and child-rearing.
The couple should be brought together by their respective parents, and if practical, some sort of nuptial ceremony performed. Once a couple has been engaged to be married, they should not break the agreement, unless one party has been proven to have lost his or her virginity with a third party. OBVIOUSLY, after the wedding, the marriage contract cannot be broken, unless one or both parties has committed adultery, or one party has chosen to no longer carry out his or her marital duties (for instance, if the husband refuses to materially-support his wife/wives, or the wife refuses to perform domestic chores for her master, both of which are legitimate grounds for divorce).
A RESPONSIBLE father will objectively evaluate the unique characteristics, virtues, idiosyncrasies, and shortcomings of his child from a relatively early age, and thereafter, seek a compatible spouse from the available pool of persons in his social circles. Unless his nation faces extinction, the potential match should not be any closer to his child than a cousin. If a prospective couple do not belong to the same clan (and thereby do not share the same family name), it is probable that their genetic code is sufficiently divergent to create healthy offspring. As implied above, incestuous marriage should only be condoned if the human race is in danger of extermination, or possibly in the instance where an entire race or nation is on the verge of annihilation.
If one’s parents fail in their duty to select a suitable mate, one should very carefully choose a COMPATIBLE spouse. The recommended criteria used to evaluate marital compatibility are as follows: physical characteristics (such as relative height and sexual attractiveness), personality type, intelligence, emotional temperament, diet, cultural similarities, political ideology, religious affiliation, and life goals.
One of the major causes of conjugal breakdown in recent decades has been due to the couple selecting each other based solely (or at least predominantly) on sexual attraction and/or amorous attachments, with little consideration given to the other guiding principles, listed above.
Romance rarely lasts more than a couple of years. Marriage is an institution based largely on PRACTICAL considerations, not on lustful feelings or on fleeting sentimentality. Without firm, practical reasons for a couple remaining conjugally-bound, they are susceptible to marital divorce.
Generally speaking, women have the potent desire to raise children, and require a man with which to mate, and then protect and support her and the offspring, during the fifteen-plus years (for EACH child) of child-rearing. Most men also desire to have a family, and additionally, possess a very powerful libido, which, if not channelled in a legitimate fashion, can cause a great deal of social misbehaviour (e.g. rape, etc.).
There is no such thing as a nun in the eyes of God. Therefore, unless a woman is seriously disabled, either physically or psychologically, or else a lesbian, she is lawfully OBLIGATED to marry the man preselected by her parents (or if her parents are deceased, by her extant master, whether that be her grandfather, an uncle, or an adult nephew). Ideally, women ought to be betrothed as soon as they reach adulthood, to avoid a childless existence. Quite understandably, very few men have aspirations to mate with a post-menopausal female.
Marriage is mandatory for men too, apart from missionary priests, those unfortunate males who are unable to support a family for reasons of mental or physical incapacity, men who are simply passed-over by hypergamous females due to being perceived as low-value suitors, homosexuals (meaning, men who are not at all attracted to the opposite gender. Bisexuals are not exempt from marriage), and men who reside in jurisdictions where ILLEGITIMATE feministic governments enact so-called “laws” which abrogate the lawful rights of married men.
In my particular case, despite being a model husband and father, my first wife, with the support of the dirty, demonic, democratic Australian government, literally kidnapped my three precious children, whilst my second wife, with the assistance of the equally-wicked, violent, corrupt, murderous Filipino government, stole my presbytery (the house of a priest).
The recent exodus of men in Western countries from the dating pool (or at least from formal marriage) is more than understandable.
The man should be approximately ten to twenty years OLDER than his wife/wives. Some of the reasons for this are:
It is natural for women to be attracted to older men and for men to be attracted to younger women. There is a good evolutionary reason why women reach their sexual peak between the ages of about fifteen to twenty-five and why a man's sexual market value peaks in his thirties to fifties. The female matures earlier (physically and socially), so if she mates with a man of similar age, she may find her spouse to be emotionally immature. The husband is almost a substitute for the woman's father figure, so the husband’s age gives him added authority as head of the family. Also, it gives the man extra time to establish his career, a house and home for his wife and forthcoming progeny.
The main duties of the HUSBAND are to teach his wife/wives and sons whatever beneficial lessons he has learnt from his own masters, protect his family from harm, and supply their necessities of life (that is, food, clothing, and shelter) as well as desired luxuries, if practicable. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
Marriage is not a democracy. Any so-called man who compromises with his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives or his offspring, is surely doomed to failure. Feminized western men, in particular, are guilty of such uxoriousness. Such emasculated “men” are not true men, and desperately need to regain their dignity as the head of their homes.
The main daily duties of the WIFE are to execute domestic chores such as to cook, clean, sew, take care of the children, and to keep the husband sexually satisfied so he doesn't look at other women.
The wife should submit to the will of her husband. She should fully respect him as her master, and should address him accordingly.
Whilst conversing, the wife should focus her attention completely on her husband. She should listen carefully to what he says, learn what he is saying, answer him, and obey his instructions. A man should never be alone with any female, apart from his wife, of course.
POLYGAMY has been taught by all the major religions. Unfortunately, the “westernized” religious cults seem to have done away with the practice for unbeknown reasons. The reason for polygamy is simply due to the fact that every woman needs a husband. Also, a certain proportion of men are destined to die as bachelors due to female hypergamy, which is a natural trait of women (even if it may seem unfair).
When a woman marries, she LITERALLY joins the family of her husband.
She takes her master's family name, and the husband's parents become her parents, which is why they are called “father/mother-in-law”, that is, “father/mother according to the law” (the one and only law of God, or more accurately, the Universal Law, as propounded in Chapter 12).
Cont...
1
-
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia). In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning – a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
nation:
a population, normally residing in the same geographic region, in which most all the citizens share a common race, religion, language, and culture. This word is VERY often used erroneously in the stead of the term “country”. Therefore, it is highly suggested that one refer to the Glossary entry under “country”, in order to understand the distinction between a “country” and a “nation”.
Unfortunately, an enormous percentage of the population has been indoctrinated by leftists to regard NATIONALISM as a malevolent ideology, when in fact, the adherence to a nationalistic framework is beneficial to both the citizenry of a nation and to the world as a whole. Multicultural societies are constantly fraught with conflicts, due to the incompatibility of competing ideologies and practices.
Imagine, if you will, that the million most conservative men from an Islamic nation in Middle-east Asia, such as Afghanistan, and the million most feministic women from a liberal country like Canada, were taken to some barren island and asked to establish a new civilization. How harmonious and prosperous do you believe such a mismatch of persons would be? TOTALLY discordant!
Furthermore, a variety of national identities is intrinsically beneficial, for nobody would want to travel to another nation if that nation was fundamentally identical to their own nation, except to experience the unique geographical features, diets or climates.
I, for one, am glad that I can visit a nation such as Japan in order to experience its unique culture and language, then choose to visit or reside in nations such as Ireland and Egypt in order to experience the unique languages, food, art, dance, cinema, music, religion, and customs of those two nations. Of course, if I decided to reside in a nation where the language and culture differed radically from my own, I would need to adapt. For example, if I were to migrate to a Middle-east Asian nation, such as the one mentioned above, I could not openly criticize the Islamic faith (and especially its founder) without putting my very existence at risk. Upon moving to the Philippines over a decade ago, I found it EXTREMELY easy to acclimatize to its culture, since it is very much a Westernized nation, not dissimilar to the country of my birth, The Southland (that is, “Terra Australis” or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue).
“Nation” was first recorded in the thirteenth century, from the Middle English, from Latin “nātiōn-” (stem of “nātiō”), meaning “birth” or “tribe”, equivalent to “nāt(us)” (past participle of “nāscī”, meaning “to be born”) + “-iōn-”. “-ion” a suffix, appearing in words of Latin origin, denoting action or condition, used in Latin and in English to form nouns from stems of Latin adjectives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JMillion , respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ag7075 , I apologize for shattering your illusions, Slave, but Lord Jesus DIED a couple of millennia ago. 🙄
First of all, Mr. Deluded Religionist, there is no TANGIBLE evidence for the claim that Lord Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to some mythical place called “Heaven”.
Words in a book can not prove anything that has occurred in the phenomenal sphere.
Words, at best, can only prove abstract concepts. 🤓
Secondly, even if He did, in fact, rise after one and a half days, His body was not the same as the one He had at the time of death (assuming what was written in the Gospels is accurate).
In fact, it was SO different, that at least some of His closest disciples were unable to recognize Lord Jesus, even after conversing with their master for several hours.🤔
“After this he appeared in ANOTHER form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.”
Mark 16:12.
And, obviously, a person IS the physical body (plus consciousness).
There is absolutely no evidence of such a thing as a “soul” or a “spirit”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
racism:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or a people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized; the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another; belief that certain races of people are by birth and nature superior to others; discrimination or hatred based on the race of a person or of a people (that is, a group of persons).
The term “discrimination” is of paramount importance in dealing with the topic of racism. According to the above definitions of “racism”, the term “discrimination” has invariably been used in a negative way in public discourse for the past two centuries or so.
Although many methods or motives for discriminating are unfair and undesirable (or even immoral), the verb itself has a NEUTRAL history. English speakers borrowed it from the past participle of the Latin verb “discriminare” (meaning “to distinguish or differentiate"), which, itself, is derived from the transitive verb “discernere”. The verb “discernere”, in turn, was formed by combining the prefix “dis-” (meaning “apart”) and “cernere”(“to sift”), and thus, “to filter out or sift apart”.
Firstly, there is no doubt whatsoever that certain races are superior to other races in specific aspects (sometimes so VASTLY superior, that only the most rabid leftist would refuse to accept the facts of the matter). For example, some races have a far higher average intelligence than others, some are far taller, stronger and more physically beautiful than others, some are (on average) greatly more dharmic (religious) than others, some are naturally more quiet and gentle in temperament than others, et cetera. I cannot imagine anyone (even a negro) who would, while walking alone at night in a metropolitan area, prefer to walk in the direction of a group of young negro men instead of a group of young Japanese men. If that makes one a racial bigot, then so be it, but personally, that accusation will never persuade me to walk in the direction of the negroes! Therefore, one ought to be extremely discriminatory (in the original and most etymologically-accurate sense of the word) when presuming to make charges of racial bias towards another.
To be clear, in the above example, the reason for my choice to avoid the band of negroes is due not to any inherent HATRED towards those originating from sub-Saharan Africa, but simply because, in my vast experience of residing in a multicultural country and by watching news reports, the chances of my physical safety being threatened late at night are far far greater by walking in the direction of the black men, as opposed to the Japanese gentlemen. In the United States of America, for instance, despite comprising about six percent of the total population, Negroid males are disproportionally responsible for about half the violent crimes in that country. So, discrimination can be dharmic (beneficial) or it can be adharmic (sinful) and one ought not fear discriminating on the basis of race.
In summary, racial discrimination (again, by the ACTUAL definition of the term), like sexism and speciesism, may be either immoral or it may be moral, depending on the intentions of the actor and the consequences of the act.
1
-
@khemingw
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters – he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler – they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
1
-
1
-
11:11
authoritarian:
essentially, a synonym for “dictator” (see that entry, below). Just as in the case of the term “dictator”, this word is most often used as a descriptor for a leader or a ruler who imposes his or her own will upon a population, almost exclusively in a NEGATIVE way.
HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the term “authoritarian” originates from the root “author”, which simply refers to one who creates or originates something, via the word “authority”, which entails the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Therefore, genuine authoritarianism is a dharmic concept, because when one exercises his or her authority over his/her subordinates, it contributes to social cohesion. Indeed, human society cannot survive without proper authoritarian systems in place. It is absolutely imperative to very carefully read the Glossary entries for “dharma” and “authority” in this regard.
Therefore, it is strongly suggested that English speakers use words such as “fascistic” and “tyrannical”, instead of using the unfairly-deprecatory terms “authoritarian” and “dictator”, in reference to rulers who exercise ILLEGITIMATE dominance over a populace.
authority:
the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. See the Glossary entry for “author” for the etymology.
The notion of AUTHORITY is intimately connected to the person or body that originates something. The author of a novel is, by definition, the preeminent AUTHORITY over his work. He has the AUTHORITY to dictate how his book ought to be published, promoted, and distributed. Furthermore, he has the AUTHORITY to delegate such rights to another person or company, if he desires.
Likewise, a mother has full AUTHORITY over the children she (pro)creates. No sane individual would ever dare presume that a mother has no AUTHORITY over her own offspring! Similarly, as the head of his family, a father has the AUTHORITY to direct the actions of his wife/wives and his children. Of course, that father is not the ultimate authority on earth – he has his own masters, such as his own father, his uncles, his employer (if he is a worker), and most importantly, his spiritual master, all of whom should exercise their authoritative positions in relation to that father. Similarly, a true king (as defined in Chapter 21) has conditional AUTHORITY over his people, even if not every single one of his edicts is perfectly in accordance with dharmic (righteous) principles. A monarch’s AUTHORITY is compromised only in the event that his rule sufficiently devolves into some kind of unholy, fascistic tyranny. And if a king’s dominion was to devolve into such a tyranny, it would robustly imply that he was never a genuine monarch in the first place.
Unfortunately, authority is often conflated with the notion of power , by both the masses, and in most dictionaries. Theoretically, any person or organization can display a force of power over another entity, yet that does not necessarily signify AUTHORITY. Thankfully, power does not always correlate with AUTHORITY. If that was the case, humble, gentle monks such as Gautama Buddha and Lord Jesus the Christ would, of necessity, have very little AUTHORITY, whereas powerful governments would have the AUTHORITY to dictate imperatives to its citizens, when in fact they do not, as they are almost exclusively illegitimate (that is, against the law, or dharma).
P.S. Read Chapters 21 and 22 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", in order to understand the distinction between a legitimate government and an illegal government.
1
-
As far as practical, newlyweds should RESIDE in the house of their father (that is, the father of the groom, who is the bride’s father-according-to-the-law). The benefits of this living arrangement greatly exceed any possible disadvantages, assuming, of course, that the father-son relationship is amiable. Women, in particular, need the comfort and support of being surrounded by extended family. When facing relationship difficulties, emotional distress, or medical problems, women require the counsel of elder females, such as their grandmother, mother-in-law, or an aunt. Although males generally do not feel the same need for close familial bonds, it is beneficial for men to maintain a strong relationship with their male kin. The storehouse of knowledge and wisdom preserved by the patriarchy is invaluable for any young man, no matter his level of intelligence or seeming sagacity. Also, if the husband dies or becomes severely disabled, his wife has a safe haven for herself and her offspring. Ideally, a widow should be cared for by a brother-in-law, or if her deceased husband was bereft of adult brethren, another male relative. Furthermore, there are significant financial advantages to an extended family dwelling in the same house (or at least in the immediate vicinity), which can never be discounted for the vast majority of families, who are not blessed with an abundance of wealth.
Just as the parents (ideally) spent decades of their lives lovingly-raising their offspring, it is the sacred DUTY of adult male children to care for their elderly parents and, of course, any of their extant grandparents. If, for some reason, the sons are unwilling or unable to properly look after an ageing parent/grandparent, that obligation will naturally fall to any other male relative. Accordingly, any adult male within the clan may take responsibility for the care of the ageing couple (likewise, a disabled couple too, of course). There are exceptions to the rule that an heir ought to care for his elderly parents, specifically in the case where the son has joined the Holy Priesthood (especially if he has become a mendicant monk). When a man dies, any property that he may own (including his family members) automatically bequeaths to his eldest son.
N.B. Above, where it is mentioned that the duty of care is placed upon a particular male relative, it should be understood that the ACTUAL daily tasks of caring for an ageing parent, do not necessarily fall upon him personally. For example, if the son is busy at work, his wife and/or daughter(s) must care for their elders. Obviously, it is quite improper for a man to bathe and toilet his geriatric mother or his grandmother!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism”, and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, “leftism” is a designation originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, crooked leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are always inventing truly inane, vacuous words in order to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and“transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”).
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their fiendish ideology throughout the school system and via folk culture. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children – something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have understood that, by selecting the finest examples of a particular breed of animal for propagation, it will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money, merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth, in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. This phenomenon is known as “hypergamy” in the field of sociology. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women, especially, have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male role models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a human being, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.
British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton’s evaluation of leftists being “Spiteful Mutants”, seems to be factually correct.
Before 1800, only about half of children survived to adulthood. Those who did, tended to be those with the fewest harmful genetic mutations. Then, within the course of a few generations, childhood mortality fell beneath one percent in most advanced countries. This meant that Darwinian natural selection ceased to operate. Children with harmful mutations began surviving to adulthood and transferring their unfavourable traits to offspring, a phenomenon known as “dysgenic fertility”. Since about 84 percent of the human genome relates to brain development, increased mutational load means that humans, in general, began to think and behave in maladaptive ways. Compounding the problem, such individuals influence those around them (who might still be genetically healthy), to behave in similarly maladaptive ways. Their behaviour is “spiteful” because it damages others, without bringing any advantage to themselves. On a purely personal level, I cannot abide the typical leftist fool, since leftist “men” invariably are emasculated pansies, whilst leftist “women” are, in virtually every instance, nasty, bossy individuals, unworthy of even a moment of my precious time.
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genotype and one’s life-long conditioning – a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. Personally, I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their births, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing tyrant!
The chief personality trait of leftists (“adharma vādin”, in Sanskrit) is SELFISHNESS. Leftists find it impossible to admit that the sole reason for them preferring lawlessness (e.g. favouring illegal abortion of innocent children, homosexuality, transvestism, thievery in the guise of economic equality, feminism, et cetera) is that it appeases their own self-centred desires. As impeccably demonstrated in the twelfth chapter of this Holiest Book of All, only by adhering to genuine morality, is it possible for human society to endure, but unfortunately, leftist criminals seem to be deaf, dumb and blind to the truth of the matter, no matter how thoroughly it is explained to them. “Dharma eva hato hanti dharmo rakṣati rakṣitaḥ । tasmād dharmo na hantavyo mā no dharmo hato’vadhīt” (Manusmṛiti 8:15) states that when righteousness (dharma) is destroyed, it destroys, but when the law (dharma) is protected, it protects. So, even though it is utterly beneficial for individuals and for society to adhere to the law, left-leaning persons are unable to grasp this truth.
Apart from wretched selfishness, probably the chief characteristic of leftists, is their willingness to sympathize with groups that are considered to be VICTIMIZED by more powerful groups. However, this support for the victimized rarely extends to the infant humans who are maliciously slaughtered by their mothers, so this tendency to fight on behalf of the oppressed seems to be highly selective. Because leftists are, by definition, supportive of communism (or at least, socialism, or at the very least, socialistic public policies), they consider the working class to be oppressed by the business class, darker-skinned human beings to be oppressed by members of European or European-origin races (even though some European nations have been colonized and/or enslaved by dark-skinned folk in the past), weaker nations oppressed by wealthy/powerful nations, women oppressed by men, disabled by the abled, et cetera.
In brief, the leftist mentality hinges on the desire to be the “saviour of the downtrodden”, which seems like an exceedingly noble aspiration, but in practically every instance, is grossly misguided, and thus channelled into objectively-immoral ideologies (Marxism).
Cont...
1
-
“Leftism” was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly”, because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters of “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence, similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or in shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you, who are reading these wise words, will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for the truth will surely conquer (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit)! Cf. “right-wing”. See “multiculturalism” and “socialism”.
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but merely that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their distinctive genotypes and the idiosyncratic/unique environmental conditioning that they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regard, it is recommended to study introductory texts on genetics/epigenetics.
In my own particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, I was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1