by Sam Fryman
Introduction
Before we begin proper our latest work, we wish to engage in some self-defence. Though we were well aware that we were going to tread on some very sensitive toes indeed in attacking Richard Dawkins’, whose philosophy literally props up millions of frail, insecure reality-denying egos worldwide, our articles not only brought out criticism of these particular works – which we now intend to complete with this final piece in our trilogy, which is in fact to likely give Dawkins far more attention than he deserves – but revealed in at least a few cases a general underlying contempt for our works and therefore their author in general, which of course is hardly a new experience for us, either in terms of our writing or in real life.
If any of us were to surrender to the critics – either in terms of our writing efforts or in our everyday life – we would be finished, we would be done for, and indeed your author has spent his whole life defying the critics, defying the envious people who said that he could not do this or that, and proving them wrong. This is not of course to try to encourage a spirit of unwise foolhardiness in our readers, as in the real life case we elsewhere quoted of the man who jumped off a high bridge to prove to his “friends” he was not afraid, and broke half the bones in his body in the process.
If we are cleverer, or even braver than the next man, we definitely shouldn’t show it off in an arrogant way, and our only purpose in attacking Richard Dawkins has been that it is our belief he is a darkening and negative influence on human freedom, and a largely unwitting instrument of the power elite, which seeks to keep all its citizens as dumbed down slaves, believing or speculating about nothing other than the conventional science which forever promises to solve all their problems, but in reality seldom does, and trapped in the addictions to sex, gambling, violence, drugs and material status which keep them enslaved in the service of the aforesaid elite.
But the personal attacks we feel justified in defending were of the form: “Haven’t you seen the garbage this guy writes? How can you take anything he says seriously?”
So let us question exactly what it is we have written that these insolent and misguided critics were referring to.
And before we do that, let us in any case question what the “Comments” section on a torrent site listing is actually for.
If we look at what the torrent site owners say, they ask for things like file quality, release date, version, presence or absence of passwords, file format, etc. i.e. technical data. They don’t suggest anybody write a book or film or CD review, or start an argument or debate over whether they like the material or agree with the material or not, and they certainly don’t want such debates going on, because all that happens is it clogs up their database, making searches slower and so on – that’s why they all say keep comments short – making it bad for all torrent site users, when the proper place to make comments at length and get into debates is a forum which has proper space for replies, which the comments section doesn’t, thus making it easy for the critics to make some generally unintelligent and unfounded allegation, but hard to defend it in such a short space.
So please understand, critics who put more than technical remarks such as “this file is corrupted” or “low quality video” or “pages missing from the text” or “low quality scan” or whatever, are not welcomed by the torrent site owners themselves, and slow up the service for everybody by overloading the databases, creating those annoying “server can’t cope” type messages.
The other point is, what gives these critics the impression they have the right to be insulting, what gives them the right to feel they are justified in attacking somebody else’s torrent posting, when we, and likely none of the decent people who use the torrent sites don’t post negatively on anybody else’s torrent?
It is nothing more than intolerance of free speech, of intolerance of somebody else’s right to express a view that disagrees with their own. If they have got anything worthwhile to say, let them post an article, and have others read it, but your author has investigated several of these critics and has noticed that at a number of them have never posted anything themselves. They are all takers of the work and talents of others, and then have the nerve to be critics, but give nothing in return.
So we are going to state a policy for the benefit of all our readers now, which is, we do not wish any of our readers to take part in these comments sections, but merely register their opinions via the “stars” rating system which the torrent site owners usually provide, and obviously doesn’t place any strain on their databases unlike the textual comment input.
Let the critics say what they like. We are no longer going to dignify it with any kind of response, but what we certainly are not going to do is cease our work. We will only do that if our works are no longer downloaded in significant quantities, whereas we are well aware that virtually everything we write is downloaded at least several thousand times worldwide, and our duty is therefore to those readers who do appreciate what we do.
But let us ask in any case what possibly could have caused these critics to come out of the closet with their venomous attacks upon all our previous works, using the Dawkins articles as the excuse.
Was it perhaps that we have continually stood up for the rights of men? Not a “trendy” thing to do is it, in a world that tells us that men are inferior, immature, expendable (you know, let’s send them off to war to die and bring them home in a body bag and put a few flowers on their graves and call them “heroes”) child abusers and rapists who constantly batter women in drunken rages and refuse to pay their child maintenance?
So we were not allowed, were we not, to correct that gender-racist stereotype of men, that overlooks the countless decent men, wrongfully cheated out of access to their children, tricked into fathering children they never intended to by women they would never agree to marry, cheated out of jobs and positions of authority that have been given to women not on merit but due to the unceasing fanaticism of the feminist pressure groups, and cheated out of the right to expect fidelity from their wives, and the hope that they might be able to marry a virgin, but instead be given no other option than to get some Casanova’s second hand rejected cast off?
We were not allowed, were we not, to ask that men be entitled to be treated with respect and human dignity?
Is this the “garbage” that we were writing that they so disliked?
Or maybe it was because we appeared to attack women.
Well, our answer to that one is somewhat like Arnold Schwarzenegger’s to his wife in the movie True Lies when she found out he was a spy, and asked him “Did you ever kill anyone?” And he said “Yes, but they were all bad.”
That is, we certainly did attack women, but only the bad ones.
Some of our critics, not for the first time, had the utter insolence – once again, without any information whatsoever of our personal life – to say “this guy has got problems with women.”
Would someone like to tell us about some man who hasn’t got problems with women?
Paul McCartney maybe? Bill Clinton? Richard Dawkins maybe – twice divorced and now on his third marriage?
Our negative comments about women reflect the worldwide phenomenon of so called “women’s liberation” or “feminism”, which we have shown has rarely if ever been truly liberating to women, but on the contrary has just been damaging to men and children, and to womens’ own relationships with both.
Women have been promised happiness by the feminists through success in their careers and a more satisfying and free sex life.
But the statistics have shown that women by their own admission are not happier.
Their relationships work less well than ever, their children
are turning out with all sorts of problems children never had before, and are ending up on drugs, and in therapy in droves.
So all this, we pointed out in everybody’s interest, in the interest of true liberation for both men and women, and this was garbage was it?
So then, we are quite sure we upset a lot of scientific types with our work What is Intelligence? which was one of our most widely downloaded and presumably therefore widely read works.
This may be where the real hostility came from.
Because we pointed out that a great many modern scientists hardly deserved the title at all. We said that they wrote irrelevant research papers nobody ever read, and they simply hid behind their qualifications and tried to tell the rest of us what to think and do – like Richard Dawkins for example – without any real right to do so.
We pointed out that modern science arrogantly pretended it had all the answers, but hadn’t actually answered any of the fundamental problems of life or existence, and quoted an article from a leading science journal admitting the very same, so perhaps we wounded some scientific pride there.
Well, yes, that’s a strong possibility, but we would like such a likely unwitting reader who thought they were just going to get a “nice safe cosy read” that only confirmed what they already knew, making them feel more secure, but instead got an earth-shaking attack on their core intellectual belief system, that your author once felt exactly the same as they did.
He once believed in science as the cure to all ills, as they did, and arrogantly thought he was better than everybody else for knowing a little about it, just as they did, and sadly in too many cases, still do.
Your author is not some kind of sick person who enjoys inflicting insults and pain on others, he wishes only to help others to get through life in the least troublesome and most satisfying way, but the situation is like that of a troubled child who gets put into a good home for the first time in his or her life.
They can’t cope. They are used to being lied to, they are used to betrayal and turmoil. When the good parent says “I care about you” they take that to be a lie. They say “Yeah, sure. You just want to molest me or beat me for sadistic pleasure.” That is their experience.
And that is undoubtedly the condition psychologically speaking of some of our readers. They have never seen goodness, they can’t believe a stranger could care about them, so even less could they believe in the concept of a god, and of course for that we do not blame them. Everyone they ever put their trust in betrayed them, that is their experience.
Well, you know what, that is pretty much all our experience, except gladly for at least some of us in regard of our own parents.
The cruelty of parents to children is the story and history of our society. And whilst the focus has been unendingly upon “bad dads” who allegedly molest their own daughters and so on, all we have tried to do is get to the deeper reality of this situation that is never looked at by the social workers who are typically women and intent only on blaming and demonising men, which involves looking at the dynamic of the man-woman relationship, which often includes an actual battle between the parents for the affection and approval of the child.
So how crazy is that?
Two supposedly mature adults competing for the attention and affection of their little innocent child?
It’s crazy all right, but readers who have not lived with their heads buried in the sand will know that this is what is going on in families worldwide, these childish emotions in parents which obviously run counter to the proper care of the child.
So it was garbage was it for us to point that out?
Then we talked about sex in our work Understanding Female Sexuality and Porn which no doubt got a lot of people hot under the collar.
In summary all we said there, was that basically boys and men had been fed the illusion that women were as crazy about sex as they were.
We pointed out that women in their millions were buying sex aids trying to get orgasms, whereas the average medically fit man could pretty much get one any time he wanted in likely less than a minute or two requiring no further “sex aid” than that available on the end of his arm. No wonder women are jealous, hey?
We backed our view up with medical opinions and quotes from TV documentaries of ordinary womens’ – as opposed to the crazy celebrities – own free admissions on these issues, which were generally to the effect that women did not rate sex anything like as important as what the media was continually trying to tell them they should.
We pointed out that if we think rationally, instead of buying all the media propaganda and hype, it is easy to appreciate that women as biological animals are primarily interested in having babies, and not orgasms, whereas it was clearly men’s biological mission to spread their seed as widely as possible, which unlike women’s mission demanded they have orgasms, and thus is the explanation why men’s sexual desire must be far stronger than the woman’s.
We pointed out in the interests of freeing both men and women, that this sexual obsession we were mostly all in, was nothing more than for the purpose of media exploitation of us, to sell us everything in sight, capture our attention, and was not actually improving anybody’s life because it was counter to security in relationships, which for most people was the only thing that made them happy.
We didn’t ask or even worse tell anybody how to run their sex lives, we just gave advice to those who felt they had a problem, prompted by an article someone else posted, because we felt this earlier article was giving awful, humiliating, degrading and ineffective advice.
As usual, our goal was to protect the dignity of men.
So that was an unworthy goal, that was garbage was it?
Then in our work An Innocent Person’s Guide to Law we tried to give the reader a true insight into the origins and philosophy of law, and a kind of crash-course in how to use the law practically in a general way, such that they would be no longer intimidated by it as so many people are, but far more aware of the significance of it in their own lives, and thus become aware that they had to both know more about it and tread more cautiously in many respects than they perhaps had formerly realised.
This “humanitarian aid” was yet more garbage was it?
Then, disgusted by the unending fake so called “psychology” and “therapy” that the public is handed out, frequently by twenty or thirty something girls with no great understanding of life, who imagine they are wise and fit to counsel the rest of us just because they got “a psychology degree”, we showed this “therapy” and “psychology” up for the ineffective nonsense it generally is in our work How the Feminists Stole Psychology.
So to protect the public from these cheats and exploiters, like all these Hollywood therapists who charge $100s an hour, but whose clients never get “cured”, and to seek to stop children from being medicalized as “problem children” needing “therapy”, but putting the blame right where it belonged – negligent parents, especially working mothers abdicating their responsibility to nannies and nurseries – that was also garbage, was it? (you know, we gave the example of the mother who ditched her two year old girl n a nursery, but the child escaped through a gate, tripped and drowned in a pond, yet the mother blamed the nursery for its negligence, not herself).
Then we likely upset a good number of people with our discussion On Drugs and Alcohol, which we wrote because we were tired of hearing what a marvellous safe harmless drug cannabis was, when we had got around thirty years experience seeing what it did to people, which was far from harmless; and what an awful dangerous drug alcohol was, when in fact it is our own experience that used in moderation it is the only safe recreational drug, especially for people of higher development, who in our view and experience could be very damaged by any of the hallucinogenic type drugs such as cannabis, mushorooms, or whatever.
We weren’t telling any cannabis lover to give it up. We were just warning readers not to play with these things, because we have got enough evidence and ex
perience of the subject – likely about 20 times as much as our average reader who thinks they know what they are talking about – to warn bright young people to never use those drugs if they wanted to be sure that their brain would ever function as it once did.
So that was garbage was it? Well we are sure some people will think so, but they might well be permanently brain damaged now and not realise it, mightn’t they? We weren’t claiming that as fact. We were just pointing out that such people pretend to know what these complex drugs do to their brains long term, and in reality they haven’t got a clue, they have no objective way of knowing if they have irreparably fried some of their circuits or not.
So finally, we come to likely the most controversial aspect of what we have written, which we are well aware has made some of our even generally favourable readers uncomfortable or squirm a little, which is the information we have given about kundalini.
This is most unfortunate that some readers have reacted this way, because in the final analysis it’s probably the most important thing we’ve ever done.
So let us summarize what we have said about this.
Now our readers have discovered contrary to what they may have previously imagined that modern science doesn’t have any of the answers to the fundamental questions of existence – and please go check out that article New Scientist 2004 we quoted verbatim in What Is Intelligence? if you are in any doubt – surely it should not be so astounding to discover modern science does not know in particular one basic fact of our existence, that has been known to true yoga science for thousands of years?
That fact is that the whole human body is grown out of sex energy. It is the sex act that creates life, and it is this fertilized “sex energy” which grows the human organism.
It is the sexual awakening in adolescence that accompanies the transformation of the child brain to the adolescent and adult brain.
All we are saying is this same sex energy remains active through one’s whole life and continues modifying the brain, and indeed restoring and regenerating the bodily function, and this sex energy is in fact the only “elixir of life” there is, or could ever be.