A Fragment On The Natural Sciences And History

     I

    In my field of work, before I developed my own ontological theories of involuntary celibates, I took many thinker such as Arthur Schopenhauer, Emil Cioran and various unknowns like Philip Mainlander at face value, believing insoasmuch that the theories posited by them were basically the utmost truth in that most inceldom was caused by and endless will that never could be extinguished and the best course of action was to dissolve any material attachments to the world at large in order to reach inner peace, much like Buddhism teaches, unfortunately, we cannot ourselves detach ourselves from the universe as that would mean extinction and many of my subjects undoutably believed this was the escape route from a life that treated men as the expendable gender so in order to reduce suffering, one must take ones' own life in order to be peaceful since society obviously was not going to go back to keeping the behavior of the fairer sex in check any time soon, however, I decided that it would be in my best interest to abandon the ontology of incel discourse on that subject, since the entire philosophy pertains that men should not exist either, and that, at least to me, is self-defeating. We must try to exist beyond women, for our own good, not die alongside them because of a utilitarian reasoning that in order to reduce pain and suffering, less people should exist or be brought into this world. a lot of theorists who cling to these theories, whether Ernest Becker, Magnus Vinding, David Pearce, et al, have additional theories that imply that man should be also predisposed to veganism, should seek to have all of his body parts replaced with machinery, what have you, which at least to me, is unnatural and inconductive to man as a primal being, which is living among nature and taking down beasts of burden as part of an initation rite towards manhood. most of what these theorists propose is the same kind of "live in a pod, eat the bugs" mentality that your average godless, soy-consuming, petit borgeiousie redditor upholds as "modern values". I would rather not sink to their level and would prefer to exist beyond their conception of life as merely being the composite of material wants, needs and general metaphysics that have been induced into the natural sciences since the days of figures such as Karl Marx and the Paris commune. Most of existence is just composed of opposing forces, the most primordial and fundamental component being that of negative and positive energy that situates itself around the universe and appears to us, through perception as concrete objects, like toasters, refrigerators, roads, cars, houses, walls, trees, animals, and even various kinds of vegetative life. I had an argument recently with an actual physicist over a dialectical conception of the concept of plasma cosmology and one of the reasons I don't take Wikipedia articles without a grain of salt is because much like history, almost all documentation on everything in the universe throughout time, is written by the victors, and it just so happens that the victors of modern society are scientists and other assorted "bugmen" of materialism, hence, they decide what is science and what is not, so henceforth, I do not take the opinions of people who hold up master's degrees and PhDs seriously as its a symbol of Nietzsche's last man, the very kind of people someone like Saloth Sar vehemently despised and sought to reduce during his rule of Cambodia in the 1970s until his state fell to foreign forces.

                                                                                                    J./Adolf Stalin