necessary nuance

 when judging things of the past, the modern lense comes last. Nuance and understanding of cultural and environment of the time being judged is an absolute necessity with any sort of obsrvation.  

Anti-hymn

 Anti-hymn by Claudia Berdella

This isn't a hymn

There are no nephilim

keine ubermensch

woe unto the supposed masters of men

polyamorous pondering

 can polyamory actually work? it seems as if Mormons and other religious types who (as nineteensixtyeight suggested) have more of a spiritual and philosophical-- traditional-- dogma to keep the relationship[s] together and stable, and are the only ones who seem to be able to consistently do so. how does it work? what sort of dynamics are in a working relationship? what causes one to fail? are humans naturally polyamorous and nurtured into monogamy or instinctually monogamous with the capacity for polyamory?

It's probably a bit of both, it's rarely ever one or the other when it comes to the whole nature v nurture dichotomy. But, that really is just my own personal presumption, though from prior knowledge it seems to be correct already. 

don't follow this advice, even though you absolutely need to

 People who let others do thinking for them aren't worth very much, they're counterproductive drones. If you can't think for yourself, what use really  are you to yourself? Without that capability one surely wouldn't last very long in a harsher, solitary survival scenario of many imaginations. In the end there though, the strong dominate the weak and the intellectually superior subjugate those brutes. But really, if that is the case what use are you to your own life and well-being? you aren't your own thoughts and your actions are willingly mechanical. In fact, this writing you are reading is bullshit, don't take it (or this) at face value, make up your own damn mind. "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, and the only way, it does not exist."-Nietzsche 

people who refuse any sort of reading are a drag. at least some just read even if only in their own select niches. then it only becomes a problem if they morph into holy-pretentious-perspective-lacking-overzealous-hack. "A quarter of Americans say they haven't read a book in the past year, and the other three-quarters are lying."-Bill Maher 

 

Can art be constituted objectively?

 In some ways there is an objective, common standard to what constitutes a thing (or things) as being art but at the same time the line to what is or isn't art is subjective and constantly moved.

what is art?

Ed Gein, A Trans Icon

 Ed Gein was a trans icon. I see no modern trans person literally wearing the stolen skin from the opposite sex. He certainly must have had an Oedipus complex of sorts, which likely became his own form of autogynephilia. Or his Oedipus complex was so, well, it's almost like the SCUM Manifesto except it involves killing women as a fulfillment to it: he literally wanted to become his mother. 

untitled

 untitled by claudia berdella

Community is always exclusionary

A community of the excluded

still has its own excluded

until the Outsider

Sets it all on fire

But in the end,

it just turns out to be another liar

Just to start over again

Revolutionize, revolt, retard, repeat—

"Deny! Defend! Depose!"

You're all saying it for show

Yes you are pissed I know

But how far

are you truly willing to go?

"Fight, fight, fight"
Trying to prove daddy wasn't right.

 Innocence: What Is It?

An analysis and report by Claudia Berdella

"Innocent child"
Children are born through an event so traumatic that they can't remember a single detail of it. A case of legitimately repressed memories. I don't think such a bloody , painful and from a certain perspective violent process as birth can be, would produce something innocent.

What even is innocence? If we go by the standard of equating innocence with purity which connects with virginity, then innocence is a lack of sexual experience. But, the world as we know it was made through sex, none of us would be here if our parents and ancestors had stopped fucking without protection. There is no birth (in humans, naturally, without precautions) without intercourse. I guess the idea is a being who hasn't had the exposure or experience in the more raw realities of life. An interesting thing of note in this is the concept of being defiled or no longer a pure creature is essentially the same regardless of whether the act was say con-sensually taken or rape; they both remove said innocence. 

Innocence as a byproduct of ignorance to the real extent of the world, naivety seems to be what the answer to the question is. Like how kids who have lived through traumatic events are seen as having lost their innocence; or waking up to the gilded furnishings of the environment around them. 

In search of more perspectives on this, I asked a variety of people in hopes of finding differing perspectives on the concept of innocence, however instead of any differing viewpoints they all had answers which were relatively the same gist. 

Here are the responses to my inquiries:

Jason Miller: Innocence is a state of mind.

 I see it as a lack of guile or corruption; it is a purity of thought that exists untainted by the complexities of life. It’s a kind of simplicity and right to the point in understanding the world, much like the way young children perceive their surroundings.

Consider the example of a child helping to wash the car with his father. In his bliss of joy and happiness, he might use a rock to wipe the car dry. To an adult, this is a clear mistake, perhaps even frustrating because it damaged the car. Yet, the child’s intention was pure and devoid of malice. He didn’t understand the consequence that using a rock could scratch the paint. His actions were driven by a desire to help, illustrating that in his mind, there’s no discernment between right or wrong, but rather a wholesome innocence propelled by good intentions.

This blissful ignorance is often why innocence is cinematic and, at times, revered. It evokes a protective response from those who recognize it.

Watching someone operate under such pure motives can remind us of a time when our own thoughts and actions were not yet complicated by a deep understanding of societal rules and personal experiences.

Innocence holds a mirror to the notion of uncorrupted goodness. It doesn’t imply a lack of intelligence or capability; rather, it shows an unintentional ignorance of complex implications. In adults, maintaining some degree of innocence might be seen as retaining a sense of hopefulness or an unspoiled spirit, despite the realities faced over time. 

Understanding innocence means appreciating this purity and the good intentions behind actions, even when they lead to unintended results. It’s a fundamental quality of the human experience that reminds us of our inherent nature to wish well, act positively, and sometimes, quite naturally, make mistakes along the way.

David Brownlee: I never had a conventional era of innocence as a child. And then I’ve also seen people not know what killing, drug, or sex terms are up till age 17. They’re called innocent, but at that point it’s just ignorance. And I’ve seen those same people who don’t know these “scary terms” do disgusting evil. Not exactly innocent are they? And yes I might’ve knew about what a bludgeoning was, what sex was, and what drugs where when I was 7 but I was a cheerful kid. So I believe innocence has nothing to do with knowledge of these topics but rather a person with a lack of hatred for others. Innocence is loss when a child is taught to hate someone else. Whether by a parent or, well usually by a parent probably.

In other words, I don’t think watching the entire Friday the 13th series and cannibal holocaust as a 4 year old is a cause for a loss of innocence... And I don’t think it makes them a psycho either. I’m a strong anti-media makes you violent person. It doesn’t, actually I think the learning of these “scary topics” through media is extremely beneficial for a child and doesn’t make them loose innocence at all. I’m showing my child cannibal holocaust at 4. That’s just the parents trying to get away from their parenting choices.

occultusagenda: Lack of negative intent or harm [...] you wouldn't be innocent if for example you hit a random stranger.

Forever Dirt:Innocence could be being stupid in a good-hearted way, like Elwood P. Dowd… Or being a virgin. I think it doesn't have a clear definition and people just say shit... It's this idea that we start out good and get corrupted over time

Random 1: I would say innocence is a type of ignorance, they say children are pure and innocent, more children are ignorant of the stuff that are deemed by people bad,inappropriate or destructive and once you commit the crime of growing up and maturing you lose that ignorance and so lose your innocent with it.

Follow up question: So, what would be something things which you would say cause the loss of that innocence through learning and growing?

Doing “bad” things I guess. You know, stealing drugs weed alcohol hurting people for no reason causing damage

Random 2: I don't know. I would say the state of uneducation or uninvolvement with a topic to the extent you could argue whatever they do cannot be fairly scrutinized.

Is that innocence or ignorance?

I feel like nobody can be innocent without being ignorant to an extent.

So innocence is connected to awareness?

I would say yes. Awareness and involvement.

Carle: Naïveté seems to define innocence the most to me, or gullibility; having an unburdened and unenlightened mind. Innocence could also portend ignorance as has been previously established above. Really what shapes our perception of innocence are our individual values and emotional perspective... An absence of consciousness and awareness, can render something ‘innocent’.

Joe Nally: Purity. No corruption. Bystander, etc.

How would you define a pure uncorrupted bystander?

Someone who is out of the game. Out of the reality it is imposed upon. If talking about "innocence" as a virtue or value, that's more based upon knowing ethics, which requires a level of intelligence. That requires also charity and sacrifice.

What would something like “losing innocence” or an “innocent child” mean?

Corruption. Awareness. Losing the past. Transformative.

Bill M: I think lack of knowledge is a big part. The bigger problem, as I see it, is using "innocence" as a justification for things we don't want. I know that cobras are "innocent" in the sense that if one were to bite me, it's doing that not out of personal malice, but purely out of instinct and self-defense. To which I say: fine, but I still wouldn't want a cobra in my living room!

Random 3: Absence of guilt.

Random 4: Absence of the capacity for evil, i.e. lack of conscience. 

End of Questioning

When asked, Chris Korda was inspired to write her own article on the topic of innocence, it is quite a unique and very different perspective from what has been said here so far. It can be read here. An interesting excerpt from it would be this: 

"The objective truth of mathematics gives little comfort to the spiritual and religious, however. Zero’s purity does not prevent illness or death. Most of the universe can only be conjectured about, based on radiation it emitted, remnants of which collide with us billions of years later. Nonetheless..."

Innocence is a subjectively consistent idea it would seem, though Korda takes it much farther in every way. Innocence is connected to Purity, a lack of knowledge or unwilling and unwitting ignorance. More responses to my inquiring question What Is Innocence? are appreciated and I can be contacted through various means if interested or have anything to discuss on the topic. 

 Autocracy: The Enemy

By Claudia Berdella

Information is the key. Autocrats are the enemy. 

Ignorance may be bliss, but it is a disease which pains the informed and the ignorant (albeit often unknowingly in their case, they are ignorant after all). Autocrats want people subjugated to play their psychic vampire games. Power attracts the corrupted, whatever that means is subject to the empowered person(s). 

They should be contained, used as a literal think tank, like Hannibal in Silence of the Lambs but more contained, no room whatsoever for escape. 

Knowledge is power. Both a library and theatre should be put in every neighborhood. Three digit intelligence agencies must be obliterated. Autocracy will always exist, but autocrats can be combated.

 Dependency

By Claudia Berdella

Technology in the first world is an incessant part of everyday life. There is quite literally almost no way to completely escape from our modern advancements for even a single nanosecond. 

This begs an important question: could the majority of people in the first world actually survive if they were suddenly without the vast majority of technology available to pamper us today? Certainly, it is likely a large lot of the population would have quite a difficult time adapting to such an alien environment. 

If human life wasn’t overly pampered and needlessly artificially subsidized, then people would have a better chance. Say what you will about him, but RFK Jr. is absolutely right about how despite living in the most medically proficient time period in human history, we are sicker than ever. Ailments left and right, everyone has one thing or another it seems. Constant advertisements for some magic fixer upper— though this is nothing new. 

It could all just be psychosomatic illnesses induced by constant propaganda from drug companies causing people to fear/think they have a certain condition of a lack of health in order to make more of a profit. Edward Bernays proves such a possibility. 

The natural balance in people’s lives is incredibly disrupted. Sure, the health care is great (overpriced too) and helpful (in theory), but at the same time coddles and weakens our natural abilities of regeneration. 

Maybe a reset like mentioned earlier is needed. A Return To Nature, so to say. Let the Earth heal from the extensive and near relentless attacks we’ve besieged on it.