#moral darwinism

[wyrmrynd]

Wake Up You Luke Warm Pussies

Modern life is war and our parents didn't tell us, their parents didn't tell them and so on, back through to the time when tribute was recorded on clay tablets.

The battle ground has been shifting for thousands of years from physicality to abstraction. Morphing, mutating, permuting. All this time spent developing this abstract polysaccharidal gelatinous matrix and we are only 3 days away from its complete dissolution at all times.

We hide in these sugary dreaming structures. How do we emerge and rebase from our true nature without getting left behind by the barbaric nerds forging us deeper and deeper into these dreams? Where is the balance?

The battfield where our fate is decided is in the hands of people we've never met or hardly know they exist. Why do we honor them by accepting their rules? Because we fear their violence.

Do not shirk the fear a single day longer. Let its mortal poisonous barbs sink deep to inject and feel it burning. The pain reveals the truth.

Piss on the ashes of your heroes. So many wasted efforts only to reveal the same dreamless truths of power. Doubtless, with their sacrifice I believe we are not without nothing.

We fear the world so much that we are willing to enslave ourselves to the most ruthless of intellectual financial war lords available. Begging "please Papi don't let nature hurt me" and Papi abides since you pledge your life. You will have all the necessities if you only work for him. He will give you imaginary numbers and you'll still have to fend for yourself, fighting your peers for the scraps of the capable. Let them fuck our weak and dumb luke warm pussies just to stay alive.

[sleepyghostmp3]

Kendrick really brought out everyone to The Pop Out

[aluminia]

Me playing AC: Syndicate: Who is this guy with the beard, Darwin? Lol

And then it actually turns out to be Darwin

[bleakbeauty]

We live longer now than we ever have. Modern technology can increase human well-being. We can say that modern technology is good and that humans are good for having invented it. We can also ask why it's good that humans should flourish. It's good for humans, certainly, but can humans abandon pro-human bias? Whether we consider morality or not, it's easy to determine that we don't want to suffer and die. However, the claim that it's moral for me to get what I want, no matter how defensible, demands skepticism.

I assert that the reason humans don't want to suffer and die is Darwinian and that we're being intellectually dishonest when we claim that the reason is moral. Of course, it's worth noting that morality is an invention. Before there was anyone to define morality, whether something was moral didn't matter. Such judgments depend on the existence of certain social minds, and they're meaningless to everything else.

Like other conscious creatures, we have an inclination toward self-preservation. Unlike other animals, we attach morality to survival.

It makes sense for humans to value human flourishing, but nothing else in the world needs that human beings continue to live longer and build more. In fact, it may be that the only conscious creatures that wouldn't benefit from human extinction are humans themselves.

[edsonjnovaes]

“Será” que mudamos muito de lá pra cá? 1.2

Charles Darwin quando esteve no Recife, se impressionou com a brutalidade das pessoas e escreveu: “É uma terra de escravidão, portanto de decrepitude moral!” Messias Xavier – 15 nov 2022 Em sua travessia pelo norte fluminense, Darwin deparou-se também com os horrores da escravidão. Dois episódios lhe marcaram profundamente. Um deles aconteceu na Fazenda Itaocaia, em Maricá, a 60 km do Rio, no…

[menlove]

honestly i think a HUGE part of the issue is that most of the left doesn't really understand antisemitism

after wwii it became wildly Unpopular to be blatantly antisemitic. obviously, it still happened. but the result of this is that instead of antisemitism being studied as a historical and pervasive form of oppression that has been around for thousands of years & has many many precedents BEFORE the holocaust.... it became:

something just simply Rude to say or do. if you're a polite liberal/conservative or a leftist, it's just something that is socially unacceptable. there is no real weight to this.

something when FIRMLY believed is ONLY held by people like nazis and white supremacists. who, as we know, are The Enemy and none of us can ever be like them at all ever by the virtue of... not being them. no need to watch your own behaviors, bc you are not a nazi! only nazis could ever be Actually antisemitic

something that erupted out of the ground in germany in the early 20th century, culminated with the holocaust, and ended after. antisemitism did not exist before that and it was solved after when the saving grace of the united states and england liberated the jews from the nazis out of the goodness of their hearts

however absolutely none of this is true. antisemitism stretches back thousands of years and it has not, for the most part, been only "fringe" conspiracy theorists and white supremacists who perpetuate it

antisemitism has been, by and large, presented as very logical. throughout, again, the thousands of years of history of antisemitism, very regular people have been antisemites. and most of them had reasons they felt were perfectly logical and understandable and most of all just. jews were trying to kill their children, of course they hated them! jews were purposefully trying to keep them poor, of course they hated them! jews believed Wrong Things and were morally and spiritually corrupt, of course there was something wrong with them. jews betrayed their country, lost them a war that ended with their husbands and brothers and sons dead, and now were living among them and taking advantage of social benefits out of the goodness of the hearts of the german people, of COURSE they hated them! and the nazis themselves were backed up by science at the time. scientific racism was THE science at the time. charles darwin was a scientific racist. it was all very logical.

and did jews actually do these things? no. but these people saw enough proof that aligned well enough with their morals and their beliefs and their fears & so to them it was completely logical and justified. it wasn't a fringe theory that only an insane person would believe in, or something impolite. it was true to them. to their morals, to their fears, to their core beliefs. it was true.

and so now we see a LOT. a lot of leftists being dragged ass first into antisemitism. because they don't even think they CAN be antisemitic. THEY aren't nazis and THEY aren't white supremacists, of COURSE they aren't antisemitic. but... well. the jews are doing things that go against their morals. they're doing things that validate their fears. the jews are violating things that go against their core beliefs! so of COURSE it is LOGICAL that they should hate them. of course, it is still rude to say "the jews are evil" so it gets replaced with "zionist". (and before you ask yes i am anti-zionism and do deeply believe what israel is doing is unjust and cruel) but even that is slipping.

it is getting all the more popular to go that one step further and instead of just making posts like "spam the hanukkah tag because the Zionists need to learn what their religion stands for" that are blatantly just replacing "jews" with "zionists", they are logically moving to being mask off. if zionism is wrong and half the world's remaining jewish population lives in israel, what about the rest? aren't they suspect? would they not ALL commit atrocities if given the chance? aren't they all racist for believing they're an ethnicity? aren't they all complicit? aren't they all threatening our deeply held leftist beliefs? it's a little weird and everyone has been too quiet for too long bc it's been rude to say but now you can get 300k notes for posting blood libel so why would you keep quiet anymore?

why WOULDN'T you just say "thank god someone finally said it i was worried about stepping on toes" when someone makes a post full of antisemitic conspiracy theory. why WOULDN'T you say "i don't care if all of israel gets bombed and every single person dies after this lmfao they deserve it"? (which would wipe out, again, half the world's population of jews- many of whom living there are anti-zionist and actively protesting their government. or. you know. children.) why WOULDN'T you make posts about how jewish identity is just nazi aryanism? why wouldn't you make posts about how the jews are privileged in america bc they run hollywood and the economy? why WOULDN'T you say the star of david is a hate symbol to you now and that you mistrust anyone using it? or that you find anyone speaking hebrew suspect?

these are all perfectly logical. to you. and YOU are not a nazi or a white supremacist. so it can't be antisemitic.

[quasi-normalcy]

The important thing to note about corporate calls for more and more "STEM" education is that they really don't want scientists like Einstein or Darwin or any of those guys who revolutionized the world with their discoveries while being great humanists and moral, compassionate, philosophical, or even intellectually curious human beings. They want technicians. They want people who will code apps. They want people who will thoughtlessly invent new fracking techniques while being secure in the knowledge that their work has value because, hey, they can get millions of dollars doing it. The model "STEM professional" isn't Einstein; it isn't even Tony Stark; it's Edward Rolles Weston.

[machine-saint]

yeah i fundamentally just don't gel with posts like this that imply that nature "loves" us or anything. it's a strange kind of love when hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanos exist. when there are bacteria and viruses that will gladly kill you to produce more of themselves. and of course there's the cosmic threats like stray asteroids or a gamma ray burst.

"nature" doesn't love or hate because only minds can do that. nature just is. and the moralizing that you can only avoid being environmentally destructive by animizing nature in this way really chafes.

like, okay, look at this:

We will tell the students that it would have been weird even among "environmentalists" of the time to think of trees and insects as your family. I mean, well, yes, we knew that everything was related, but we thought Charles Darwin was the first to come up with that.

the implied presupposition here is that something being family means that you should have warm fuzzy feelings towards them and that's, uh, not how I feel about some of my own family! conversely, evolutionary "we are all related" is a factual statement about common ancestry. if it turned out that animals, plants, and fungi underwent abiogenesis separately that wouldn't change our moral obligations. "family" as "people you care deeply about" vs. "biological relations".

[juicybeetz]

Here are all of the newspaper headlines in Beetlejuice Beetlejuice:

CASE WORKERS STRIKE CONTINUES: 7 Days of Strikes

Exorcism at Record High!

Workers Wrongly Assigned Suicide At Death

62% Spike in Waiting Room Complaints

Morality Police Embroiled In Unlawful Termination Suit

Davis Digs Himself a Deeper Grave

Ouija Board Curfew Implemented

Wraith Taunted By TV Crew

Ectoplasm Leak at Plant Number 10

Til’ Death Do Us Part: Or Not?

The Ghost Hell-bent on Social Justice

Renovation of The Pearly Gates Scheduled

Shape Shifting Seminars Planned

“I’m so Flattered” says Woman Hit by Truck while Accepting Award

Pest Exterminator Exterminated by Pests

Ballerina Dances With Death

New Dating Service That’s Dying To Take You Out

Ghoul Scares The Living Daylights Out of Solar Panel Salesman

The Ghost Wanted: Unauthorized Soul Swap

Bone Appetit: Former Chef Opens Restaurant

Car Crash Victim Goes on to Win Formula 666

Man Who Sold His Soul Wants It Back

Stairway To Heaven to be Repaired

Petrol Bomb Creator Enters with a Bang

Serial Killer Arrives, Comes Face to Face With His Many Victims

America’s Ghost Wanted List Updated

Dead Cert for Player of the Year

There are six headlines that I can’t read because Michael’s hand is in the way or he opens the paper too fast. I can only make out the words of one of them: “Bones” “Wreck” “Score”. Another one talks about something reaping total havoc (the Grim Reaper?) and doing something to 2 men (halving them?).

I was hoping that each of these headlines would have fully written articles, but oddly enough, all of the small text underneath each of the headlines is copy-pasted from Charles Darwin’s “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.” Interesting choice of placeholder text!

I’m going to make another post about the obituary section, specifically about Charles’s obituary. It looks like most of the obituaries have information under them instead of placeholder text, but the one that says “Dead Beat Dad Instant Local at Dive Bar” has the Darwin placeholder text under it.

There’s also a horoscope section (horrorscopes, heehee) of the paper as well as a personal ad section. I can barely read the horoscopes, but I might attempt to decipher some of the personal ads later. Why did they make all of the fun stuff so blurry in this movie?! 😫

Also you can buy the paper for $.25! Inflation hasn’t hit the afterlife yet! 😆

[techramonic]

The Culture in Morality: Dylan Klebold Journal Analysis, 2.

Below is a quote from Dylan's journal that stands out to me. The first part: the evidence of desperation to cleanse impurities. With this, I can garner that Dylan seems to have a deluded sense of morality. Second: It looks like he is trying to blend in with the general population. It’s not only him who thinks this way, so do other individuals. It’s as if he is trying to attain unity or solidarity from the act of “cleansing himself morally”. Moreso, attempting to be "human". 

Humanity: Ethics and Morality

According to Emile Durkheim, one of the founding fathers of sociology, morality reflects the organization of society and binds it together. It serves as an agent that bridges the divide between individuals. Morality, in essence, consists of principles distinguishing between good and bad.

Charles Darwin’s "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," published in 1871, asserts:

“I fully subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between man and the lower animals the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important.”

Since then, an influx of questions has arisen regarding the relative importance of culture and biology in determining morality. Whether the moral sense is derived from either of two aspects:

the moral rules humans accept as behavioral guides (assessing right or wrong); or

the biological basis of ethics (consciousness of actions and consequences)

Ethics has an established difference from morality. It is the notion of doing a rather practical or pragmatic action, while morality is the idea of being driven to do good. An ethical code does not have to be moral to be justified, but must be feasible or convenient. This means that as long as an idea is practical, whether it is considered to be good or bad, it is ethical.

In an essay by Francisco J. Ayala titled "The Difference of Being Human: Morality," he proposes that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature, while moral codes are products of cultural evolution. Ethical behavior is a byproduct of man's intellectual prowess—a nurtured quality fostered by natural selection. Morality did not emerge as an adaptation but as an exaptation, developing into a function different from its original purpose. This is explained by the presence of three biological conditions for ethical behavior that allow humans to have a moral sense: ability to anticipate the consequences of one’s actions, to make value judgments, and to choose between alternative courses of action.

Moral codes, compared to Ethical codes, are outcomes of cultural evolution, accounting for the diversity of cultural norms among populations and their evolution over time. People accept standards according to which their conduct is judged as either right or wrong, good or evil. These norms vary, however, some norms, such as do not kill, are widespread and perhaps universal. This explanation suggests that while it is inherent to be ethical, morality arises from cultural and sociological factors created out of normative behavior. From this, we can assert that humans all inherently have the ethics that guide them throughout their lives. What makes them interconnected however is the presence of morality that acts as a framework to keep them bonded together and functioning.

Moral Exclusion

With that, it is easy to say that humans are human because of biological factors that distinguish them from the animalia kingdom. However, we can also observe that humans also deny others of the capability of being human even if we are from the same species. Time and time again, we can observe that humans are susceptible to dehumanizing others. So really, why is that?

Most cases, we confer personhood upon each other when we criticize others using a sort of check-list: morality. It is technically a learned culture that allows us to be bonded together and function as an entire whole. What I do, you do, and vice-versa. However, not always can it unite us because other times it can also alienate others. Sometimes, distorting morality itself by using it as a tool to exclude those who do not fit into certain categories of moral preference.

Since it is a culture that evolves through time, there are aspects of it that are different from individual to individual and culture to culture. This means that what can be bad can also be good to others and vice-versa. Not everything is in one standard that's applicable to all because not everything is practical for everyone. Ethically speaking, when we acknowledge other people’s complexities outside the standard black-and-white "good or bad " spectrum, we feel more connected. We realize that we are human because we have the ability to rationalize and do what is pragmatic.

Dylan’s Difference and Indifference

Dylan believed he was outside the norm, devoid of humanity, and different from everyone else. He was ethical in the sense that he understood the consequences of his actions and could make determinations about them. He knew the consequences of taking lives and taking his own life. With this, it is already enough to consider him as human. He could rationalize, therefore he is human.

One of the reasons why he does not feel that he is human is because he lacks the connection others have. Morality being a culture has brought people together and as I have previously stated, also excludes others. I believe that he subscribed to the belief that to be human, one must be moral so they could fit in with society. This creates an internal conflict. Humans are no strangers to latching unto vices because to them, it is pragmatic. We smoke, we drink, and we do things others consider immoral because we think it helps us.

With morality, a tangible framework is provided for achieving a purpose. It is an established system that offers a good reason to quit vices in exchange for acceptance. Dylan sees this difference as a weapon hindering him from being included. He acts like others to be accepted and, supposedly, be happy with this acceptance.

[ms-boogie-man]

Ahem…

I am going to say this again and I will keep saying it until everyone* gets it

Censorship — like what we are experiencing here on Tumblr and all other social media — comes from the liberal left. Censorship is a tool of authority, and no one covets authority more than the left-wing: communism, socialism, fascism, Marxism, Nazis. These are all far-left ideologies, heads on the same Hydra

Forget all of that support for the liberal arts. Forget all the virtue signaling for marginalized blah blah blah. Forget all the garbage about freedom from conservative moral majority types The liberal left is nothing but virtue signaling and smear campaigns

Remember, the PMRC was headed by Tipper Gore, the wife of a Democrat… and her husband, Al Gore, is one of the biggest climate alarm, globalist shills there is. Dee Snyder was a paid shill, in on the grift. Think pageantry, fauna and flora, window dressing yo

The left IS the KOOL-AID

Censorship IS the left

Go to automattic.com… censorship is their game Automattic.com owns Tumblr Automaittic.com is owned by Alphabet, Inc., which is owned by commies. Sergey Brin founded Alphabet, Inc/Google. Sergey Brin is a commie Now go back up to the meme

If ya wanna argue with me:

Karl Marx was a shill for globalists

Charles Darwin was a shill for globalists

Fascism is a version of socialism

the Nazis wrote their playbook off fascism

Nazi stands for Nationalsozialismus, national socialism, and it is not right-wing

Alt-right is a bullshit, Democrat made-up term

All the ideologies in the meme shill(ed) for globalists despite what they espouse(d)

Same goes for antifa… antifa IS fascism

Ya done been played, son!

— checkmate

Angie/Maddie🦇❥✝︎🇺🇸 +🎃

[superkooku]

Favorite character from Greek mythology + favorite myth from Greek mythology?

Favorite characters

I'll turn this into a tag game : @margaretkart @dootznbootz @sarafangirlart @aliciavance4228 @katerinaaqu @hermesmoly @go-rocksquadsfan @sanska @vint-knight .

And @anon (you can give your answer in another ask 😉).

So, I have a loooooooot of faves. This list is long.

Here are mine :

Nobody. Yeah, in reality, I hate mythology and just pretend I like it. Or I just love making puns about my favorite lying war criminal. Who didn't cheat btw.

Penelope. These two are soulmates, no ifs or buts. I always found her underrated and @dootznbootz 's ramblings on her confirm that. Cunning and sassy half-naiad queen.

"The delian twins", as I like to call them. Idk I really love their multifaceted natures of protectors and deadly huntress/inflictor of illnesses (with an affinity towards plague). And their familial bond is precious. And I like them both equally, even though I talk about Apollo a bit more ig.

Leto. She's precious. They're always ready to defend each other. Like when Apollo and Artemis killed Niobe's kids because she was disrespectful to Leto. Or when Leto came in to save her son from being thrown in Tartarus by Zeus. Or when baby Artemis helped her mother deliver her brother. She fought for her children and now they fight for her.

Hestia. Too bad there isn't more about her because I relate a lot to the concept of chilling at home and staying away from drama.

Ariadne. Because of her family's tragic history, her healing from it with Dionysus (in most versions) and overall, she's great. Also, it's funny how Theseus wanted to marry a child of Zeus but his ex girlfriend actually succeeded 😂. Speaking of her family tragedy...

Asterius. I bet most adaptation authors don't know who I am referring to 🤣. He's a man-eating monster, yes, but he grew up isolated, trapped and unloved. I feel so bad for him.

Perseus. The GOAT. Partly thanks to @sarafangirlart. I already liked him since I always knew he wanted to save his mother, but he genuinely grew on me since I read her posts. That and when I learned of his war against Dionysus. Extremely underrated story.

Athena. Idk I don't think I need to elaborate on why she's cool.

Hades. In retellings, I often hate him because he's either woobified or made into "Greek Satan" (at least in Disney he's fun), but he's genuinely cool in mythology. Morally gray Hades save me.

Hermes. From birth, he was always a little trickster. I love how many functions he has (messenger of the gods, god of merchants, thieves, communication, also a psychopomp btw). A very energetic and helpful god.

Asclepius. I think I should make a post explaining why he's great because, yeah, I don't talk much about him even though there are things to say (yeah it's because I did a lot of research on him).

And... finally... Dionysus 🤣. Of course he made it in this list. I dedicated a whole essay series about this god, come on !

Honorable mentions : Hector, Andromache, Menelaus, Demeter, Telemachus, Hephaestus, Hippolytus, Danae, Ares and many others.

Favorite myths/plays/poems

I already answered that but can't find the post. So I'll do it again, with some new answers in mind. Basically "the myths with the characters on the list".

It's either because they're that compelling or just hilarious.

The homeric cycle. Ok, an easy one.

The Bacchae by Euripides (mandatory reading if you want to understand Dionysus imo. No excuses).

The frogs by Aristophanes. Because it's funny.

Asclepius' story. Seriously I'll elaborate on it one day.

Hermes' birth story. Him stealing Apollo's cows and Apollo getting mad at his scallywag of a brother 🤣🤣. And then just him winning Apollo over with the lyre.

Pirithous and Theseus getting their asses stuck on a chair (yes this is my title for this story). I love to mock these two, especially Pirithous because... give this man a Darwin award please. No thoughts and no survival instincts in his brain 😂.

Orpheus and Eurydice. Simple but powerful.

The Argonautica. Aka a huge crossover. Seeing more interactions between all these heroes would be awesome (especially if we take every version into account 👀. So many faces...). It's funny how I love the Argonautica but never talk about Jason himself 🤣🤣. The embodiment of the protagonist who's less interesting than the other characters.

Perseus' war against Dionysus. A potential retelling about this myth would go so hard !! Especially since we could get a scary Dionysus. Hopefully it doesn't get ruined :(

Edit : some English mistakes I had to correct.

[communist-manifesto-daily]

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Part 1

[ Table of Contents | Next ]

1892 English Edition Introduction - 1

General Introduction and the History of Materialism

The present little book is, originally, part of a larger whole. About 1875, Dr. E. Dühring, privatdocent [university lecturer who formerly received fees from his students rather than a wage] at Berlin University, suddenly and rather clamorously announced his conversion to Socialism, and presented the German public not only with an elaborate Socialist theory, but also with a complete practical plan for the reorganization of society. As a matter of course, he fell foul of his predecessors; above all, he honored Marx by pouring out upon him the full vials of his wrath.

This took place about the same time when the two sections of the Socialist party in Germany — Eisenachers and Lasselleans — had just effected their fusion [at the Gotha Unification Congress], and thus obtained not only an immense increase of strength, but, was what more, the faculty of employing the whole of this strength against the common enemy. The Socialist party in Germany was fast becoming a power. But, to make it a power, the first condition was that the newly-conquered unity should not be imperilled. And Dr. Dühring openly proceeded to form around himself a sect, the nucleus of a future separate party. It, thus, became necessary to take up the gauntlet thrown down to us, and to fight out the struggle, whether we liked it or not.

This, however, though it might not be an over-difficult, was evidently a long-winded business. As is well-known, we Germans are of a terribly ponderous Gründlichkeit, radical profundity or profound radicality, whatever you may like to call it. Whenever anyone of us expounds what he considers a new doctrine, he has first to elaborate it into an all-comprising system. He has to prove that both the first principles of logic and the fundamental laws of the universe had existed from all eternity for no other purpose than to ultimately lead to this newly-discovered, crowning theory. And Dr. Dühring, in this respect, was quite up to the national mark. Nothing less than a complete "System of Philosophy", mental, moral, natural, and historical; a complete "System of Political Economy and Socialism"; and, finally, a "Critical History of Political Economy" — three big volumes in octavo, heavy extrinsically and intrinsically, three army-corps of arguments mobilized against all previous philosophers and economists in general, and against Marx in particular — in fact, an attempt at a complete "revolution in science" — these were what I should have to tackle. I had to treat of all and every possible subject, from concepts of time and space to Bimetallism; from the eternity of matter and motion, to the perishable nature of moral ideas; from Darwin's natural selection to the education of youth in a future society. Anyhow, the systematic comprehensiveness of my opponent gave me the opportunity of developing, in opposition to him, and in a more connected form than had previously been done, the views held by Marx and myself on this great variety of subjects. And that was the principal reason which made me undertake this otherwise ungrateful task.

My reply was first published in a series of articles in the Leipzig “Vorwärts”, the chief organ of the Socialist party [1], and later on as a book: "Herr Eugen Dührings Umwalzung der Wissenchaft" (Mr. E. Dühring's "Revolution in Science"), a second edition of which appeared in Zurich, 1886.

[1] Vorwärts existed in Leipzig from 1876-78, after the Gotha Unification Congress.

[ Table of Contents | Next ]

[certifiedlovergirlsstuff]

💐: “Don’t forget this: I made you. I can easily break you if I wanted to.” 

maybe with spider person!reader and miles morales (platonic ofc) where reader was sort of like a mentor to him but now they're evil(?)

love u loads!

gn!reader (1.5K celebration)

“i- i thought we were friends! you- you used me!” miles was shouting over the particle accelerator. the one that was supposed to be shut down a minute ago.

the broken goober crumbling from your palm as it disintegrated, a twisting smirk over taking your lips. “oh kid,” the tone of a disappointed parent, “just cause i’m a spider doesn’t mean i’m a good one. some of us have a venom inside.” shrugging off your treacherous act.

“your- you’re killing us! them, me!” you could see the desperation bleeding in his eyes. you huffed, annoyed at this predicament.

“kid, i don’t really care. this is probably my-“ you pretended to count on your fingers, “i don’t know! hundredth reality. it’s like darwinism, the strong survive.”

you noted the way miles’s demeanor changed, his breathing getting heavier and nostrils flaring. “i’m not letting you do this. you’re not taking my home or family!”

a sarcastic pout at his heroic act, “oh that’s really sweet, but remember kid. i made you.” voice getting dark, “i can easily break you.” a monstrous growl slipping from past your lips.

miles straightened his shoulders back, trying to tower over you. his eyes were set and mouth straight, he stared down his nose at you and it brought your blood to a boil.

this child was trying to make a fool of you.

“bring it.” a taunt as he pulled his mask, covering his face as his hands started to spark.

chuckles erupted from your throat, “stupid boy. a student should never fight the master, i’ve taught you all your moves. i know how you tick, break you down piece by piece.” there was an air of casualness surrounding you, “too bad you couldn’t say goodbye to your family. it doesn’t matter anyway, you’ll all be gone in a few minutes.”

in the snap of your fingers miles threw a punch aimed for your face, which you stopped with an open palm. giving his arm a twist, you snarled at his composure. “you know, there’s been many before you. and i’m the only one still standing.” bringing your knee to his stomach causing him to hunch over.

“you’ll just be another speck of dust that vanishes from my mind. and i shall repeat this cycle over and over and over again, and i’ll never be satisfied.” throwing the young boy around like a rag doll, cackling as a crazed witch.

[transmutationisms]

In what way are phrenological principles still foundational to research psychology & neurology, and science in general? Asking out of ignorance and wanting to know more.

so, phrenology throughout the 19th century was a broad program of research principles, self-help advice, and social-hygienic prognostication. we tend to think of it now as being reducible to a craniometric chart and a crank trying to divine personality traits from a person's skull shape—this did happen, but phrenology encompassed much more than that. it was a driving force in the increasing acceptance of ideas like brain localisation (that the brain did not act as one, but had distinct parts that could behave differently and independently to one another), the related position that human psychology and personalities could be classified / taxonomised / measured (like, 'attention' as being a faculty distinct from 'judgment' or 'reason' or so forth), and the belief that organic derangements of the brain accounted for a person's individual social / economic / intellectual success, as well as social phenomena like crime, delinquency, or addiction.

by about the 1890s, the word "phrenology" had become more or less dismissed in mainstream french and british scientific circles, and it was portrayed as a pseudoscientific perversion of respectable craniometry / anthropometry. this happened for many reasons, including that british and french medicine were professionalising over the course of the 19th century and that phrenological practitioners were often unlicensed and operating more in a marginal self-help space (akin to many of today's astrologers) than in institutionally sanctioned scientific circles. additionally, after world war ii, phrenology's association with eugenics made it even more unpalatable; it was now seen to be politically dangerous even to those who had previously endorsed eugenics. the same happened to many other theories and disciplines of social-hygienic or degeneration-theory ideas.

however, the rejection of phrenology that began in the late 19th century and intensified in the late 20th has been largely superficial, and 'modern' science has never really grappled with the phrenological roots of so much neuro-deterministic and anthropomentric thinking, from psychiatry to a great deal of moralistic public health to the incredibly deeply entrenched, yet blatantly prejudicial in every way, idea that a person's appearance is indicative of their character or morality. fundamentally phrenology was a major driver in the acceptance (in many different fields) of scientific 'naturalism', a general rejection of prior christian teleological thinking and search for universally deterministic scientific laws instead. rendering mental action into the category of 'natural thing governed by natural laws' was foundational, for example, to darwin's conception of evolution and his effort to distinguish his own theory from the teleological evolutionary theory of robert chambers.

none of this is to say that scientific naturalism ought to be inherently rejected, or replaced with christian metaphysics; however, failing to grapple with the fuller legacy of phrenology, and eugenics more generally, because we don't want to upset what philosophical boundaries we think we've erected between religion and 'modern' science allows such eugenic thinking to retain its centrality in current scientific practice.

it is also always worth emphasising that phrenology, like a lot of scientific theories of self-improvement, has frequently been employed as a vehicle of liberal ideology, particularly in britain. although phrenological practitioners have at various times tried to ally themselves with a superficially radical sort of 'common man's' rejection of the élite scientific institutions, phrenology has at the same time followed a general trajectory whereby it emphasises more and more an idea of personal responsibility for one's own neuro-biological traits and associated character flaws. this is often seen as more palatable than outright hereditarian thinking because, rather than tacitly endorsing the expurgation of the biologically 'unfit', the liberal phrenologist affirms that people simply need to overcome, tame, or temper their own neurobiological defects in order to live productive, socially desirable lives. cf. 'negative' versus 'positive' eugenics.

if you're interested in this i would recommend roger cooter's 'the cultural meaning of popular science: phrenology and the organisation of consent in 19th-century britain' (1984) and philip rehbock's 'the philosophical naturalists: themes in early 19th-century british biology' (1983). cooter was an avowed marxist and his account of phrenology, science, and their relationships to industrial capitalism—while not flawless—is markedly different from any other prior literature on the topic. rehbock's book is less politically daring and less focussed on phrenology specifically, but clarifies some aspects of scientific naturalism and what is meant by distinguishing a 'modern' scientific episteme from earlier practices and principles.

[camisoledadparis]

HIS DAY IN GAY HISTORY

based on: The White Crane Institute's 'Gay Wisdom', Gay Birthdays, Gay For Today, Famous GLBT, glbt-Gay Encylopedia, Today in Gay History, Wikipedia, and more … January 1

I hope you are enjoying This Day in Gay History. It was started out as a reposting of White Crane's daily newsletters in early 2011 has gained a life of its own and grown out in many directions, in particular, gaining a international identity. The postings now come from many sources, some of them credited in the masthead, but also from tips and suggestions from members. As we move into a new year, you will find you have seen many of the postings before, but always check them out, because there will always be something new, especially as so many public figures are now coming out of the closet. Your Admin

1533 – Italy: Michelangelo writes a love letter to Tommaso de Cavalieri, devoting "the present and the time to come that remain to me."

Rare snapshot of Charles Kains Jackson

1857 – Charles Kains Jackson (d.1933) was an English poet closely associated with the Uranian school.

Beginning in 1888, in addition to a career as a lawyer, he served as editor for the periodical the Artist and Journal of Home Culture, which became something of an official periodical for the movement. In it, he praised such artists as Henry Scott Tuke (to whom he dedicated a sonnet) and Henry Oliver Walker. He also befriended such similar-minded contemporaries as Frederick William Rolfe, Lord Alfred Douglas and John Addington Symonds.The homosexual and pederastic aspects of the Artist declined after the replacement of Kains Jackson as an editor in 1894. The final issue edited by Kains Jackson included his essay, 'The New Chivalry', an argument for the moral and societal benefits of pederasty and erotic male friendship on the grounds of both Platonism and Social Darwinism. According to Kains Jackson, the New Chivalry would promote 'the youthful masculine ideal' over the Old Chivalry's emphasis on the feminine. Jackson's volumes of poetry include Finibus Cantat Amor (1922) and Lysis (1924).

Kains Jackson was a member of the Order of Chaeronea, a secret society for homosexuals founded in 1897 by George Ives, which was named after the location of the battle where the Sacred Band of Thebes was finally annihilated in 338 BC. Other members included Samuel Ellworth Cottam, Montague Summers, and John Gambril Nicholson.

1879 – E.M. Forster (d.1970) was an English novelist, short story writer, essayist and librettist. He is known best for his ironic and well-plotted novels examining class difference and hypocrisy in early 20th-century British society.

Forster was born into an Anglo-Irish and Welsh middle-class family in London. England. He attended the famous public school Tonbridge School in Kent as a day boy. The theatre at the school is named after him, and later studied at King's College, Cambridge, between 1897 and 1901.

After leaving university he travelled in continental Europe with his mother. He visited Egypt, Germany and India with the classicist Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson in 1914. By that time, Forster had written all but one of his novels. In the First World War, as a conscientious objector, he volunteered for the International Red Cross, travelling to Alexandria, Egypt.

Why didn't EM Forster write much of anything in the second half of his life? According to a new biographer, Wendy Moffat, who has had access to Forster's private papers, what knocked him off track was losing his virginity in his late 30s.

He slept with a wounded soldier in Egypt, in 1917 - "losing R [respectability]" he called it in his private diary. After that, he set about making up for lost time. "I should have been a more famous writer if I had written or rather published more," he later explained, "but sex prevented the latter."

Back in England Forster divided his time between his mother in the Home Counties and gay friends and bisexual boys in his London flat. Homosexuality in Britain was aggressively persecuted then and Forster wisely centred his affairs on officers from Hammersmith police station.

One of them, Bob Buckingham, became the love of Forster's life. Bob was bisexual and soon married, however, he never abandoned Forster. As for writing novels that stopped with the development of his homosexual life.

Forster developed a long-term loving relationship with Bob Buckingham, and his wife, and included the couple in his circle, which also included the writer and arts editor of The Listener, J.R. Ackerley, the psychologist W.J.H. Sprott, and, for a time, the composer Benjamin Britten. Other writers with whom Forster associated included the poet Siegfried Sassoon and the Belfast-based novelist Forrest Reid.

In the 1930s and 1940s Forster became a successful broadcaster on BBC Radio. He was a humanist, homosexual, and lifelong bachelor.

Forster had five novels published in his lifetime. Although Maurice appeared shortly after his death, it had been written nearly sixty years earlier. A seventh novel, Arctic Summer, was never finished. The earlier novels are Where Angels Fear to Tread (1905), The Longest Journey (1907), A Room with a View (1908), and Howards End (1910).

Forster achieved his greatest success with A Passage to India (1924). The novel takes as its subject the relationship between East and West, seen through the lens of India in the later days of the British Raj. Forster connects personal relationships with the politics of colonialism through the story of the Englishwoman Adela Quested, the Indian Dr. Aziz, and the question of what did or did not happen between them in the Marabar Caves.

Maurice (1971) - his one novel to deal head-on with homosexuality - was written some years previously, though it was published only after his death. His posthumously-published novel tells of the coming of age of an explicitly Gay male character.

Maurice is a homosexual love story which also returns to matters familiar from Forster's first three novels, such as the suburbs of London in the English home counties, the experience of attending Cambridge, and the wild landscape of Wiltshire. The novel was controversial, given that Forster's sexuality had not been previously known or widely acknowledged. Today's critics continue to argue over the extent to which Forster's sexuality, even his personal activities, influenced his writing.

Forster's two best-known works, A Passage to India and Howards End, explore the irreconcilability of class differences. A Room with a View also shows how questions of propriety and class can make connection difficult. The novel is his most widely read and accessible work, remaining popular long after its original publication. His posthumous novel Maurice explores the possibility of class reconciliation as one facet of a homosexual relationship.

Sexuality is another key theme in Forster's works, and it has been argued that a general shift from heterosexual love to homosexual love can be detected over the course of his writing career. The foreword to Maurice describes his struggle with his own homosexuality, while similar issues are explored in several volumes of homosexually-charged short stories. Forster's explicitly homosexual writings, the novel Maurice and the short-story collection The Life to Come, were published shortly after his death.

Forster died of a stroke in Coventry on 7 June 1970 at the age of 91. at the home of his policeman friend and his wife, the Buckinghams.

1895 – Although never elected to any office, J. Edgar Hoover (d.1972) wielded tremendous political power in the United States government for almost five decades, and through eight presidencies, as head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Under his leadership, the Bureau developed from a weak and ineffectual collection of political appointees into one of the most efficient police agencies in the world.

It also developed into an undercover secret police that frequently used illegal means to gather damaging information, not only on criminals and political dissidents, but also on political leaders as well. Although Hoover was always in the front lines of government attempts to harass homosexual liberation movements, rumors that he himself was gay followed him throughout his career.

Hoover went to work for the Justice Department in 1917 as a clerk, but moved up quickly by virtue of his efficiency and his vigorous action against Communists and radicals during the late 1910s and 1920s. He supervised the deportation of foreign-born radicals in the great strike wave of 1919.

In 1924, he was appointed head of the Bureau of Investigation of the Justice Department (renamed Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1935). Hoover immediately began to tighten up the slack Bureau. New agents were hired and promoted based on merit and strict performance reviews. He used his library experience to re-organize records and files, and he began amassing his famous "secret files," confidential information, often illegally obtained, which he kept to use against anyone who might threaten his power or tenure.

Hoover soon became both famous and feared for his zealous campaigns against such criminal and "subversive" groups as the Communist Party and the Ku Klux Klan. During the prohibition era, his "G-men" hunted down and caught many prominent gangsters, such as Al Capone and John Dillinger.

During the 1950s, he participated fully in the McCarthy witch hunts, zealously seeking out Communists and fellow-travelers.

Along with pursuing Communist sympathizers, Hoover also led a campaign of harassment directed at the new "homophile" groups such as the Mattachine Society, which sprang up to protest mistreatment of gay men and lesbians. F.B.I. agents took pictures and license plate numbers at demonstrations and infiltrated meetings and conferences of the fledgling homophile groups.

Many believe that Hoover took this anti-gay stance to cover his own homosexuality. Although he constantly (and violently) denied it, whispers about his sexuality followed Hoover throughout his career. For example, a 1943 internal F.B.I. memo reported claims that the director was homosexual.

Hoover's lifestyle fit many gay stereotypes: he was a sharp, dandified dresser, known for his white linen suits and silk handkerchiefs, who collected antiques and lived with his mother until her death when he was 42. He was never known to have even one date with a woman, yet he had several intimate relationships with men, notably a more than forty-year relationship with the handsome Clyde Tolson, his second-in-command at the F.B.I.

Hoover and Tolson rode to work together, ate lunch and dinner together most days, and took vacations together. Many observers described their relationship as marriage-like. Although some commentators believe that Hoover's rigid morality and strict religious beliefs would not have permitted him to have a physical relationship with a man, the rumors of his homosexuality were accelerated by the appearance, after their deaths, of photographs of Hoover and Tolson in drag, photographs that were allegedly Mafia blackmail pictures.

If Hoover and Tolson were homosexual, as seems more and more likely, their roles as persecutors of other homosexuals casts into bold relief the nightmare-like quality of the McCarthy era's war on homosexuality.

Hoover remained in charge of the F.B.I. until his death from a heart attack on May 2, 1972.

1927 – Maurice Béjart (d.2007) was a French born, Swiss choreographer who ran the Béjart Ballet Lausanne in Switzerland. He was the son of the French philosopher Gaston Berger.

Perhaps the preeminent descendant of Sergei Diaghilev and Serge Lifar, Maurice Béjart was a significant presence in late twentieth-century and early twenty-first century dance as an innovator with a radical vision. Central to his reinvigoration of classical ballet was his creation of palpably homoerotic dances that celebrate male beauty.

After studying with Léo Staats, Lubov Egorova, and Madama Rousanne (Sarkissian) in Paris, he performed with Mona Inglesby's International Ballet and the Royal Swedish Ballet and sealed his reputation as industrious and disciplined before creating dances for his own path-breaking companies.

Symphonie pour un homme seul (1955, with a score by Pierre Schaeffer and Pierre Henry), featuring the first electronic score to accompany ballet, established Béjart as an innovator with a radical vision.

After presenting an electrifying interpretation of The Rite of Spring (set to the classic Igor Stravinsky score) informed by myth, sexual heat, and stage flash in 1959 at the Théâtre Royale de la Monnaie in Brussels, he founded The Ballet of the Twentieth Century, a company that had a major influence on the European Dance Theatre movement.

Nijinsky: Clown of God (1971, set to a score combining music by Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky and Pierre Henry), a dreamlike meditation on Vaslav Nijinsky and his legacy, is only one prominent example of Béjart's personal identification and connection with his choreographic subjects.

Many times that connection, as in Nijinsky: Clown of God, was palpably homoerotic. In addition to reimagining Ballets Russes classics such as The Firebird (to the original Stravinsky score), Pétrouchka (to the Stravinsky score) and The Specter of the Rose (to a score of a piano piece by Carl Maria von Weber, orchestrated by Hector Berlioz) to spectacular effect, he also derived inspiration from such gay icons as Prometheus, Dionysus, Orpheus, and Saint Sebastian.

Collaborating closely with many extraordinarily handsome men (Argentine Jorge Donn and Italian Paolo Bortoluzzi among them), Béjart consistently created dances celebrating male beauty and eroticism, not the least of which was the all-male variant of his Boléro (1960, to the throbbing score by Maurice Ravel).

Audiences and critics were either enthralled or enraged by later offerings such as the celebratory Ballet for Life (1997, set to a score combining classical Mozart with pop-rock Queen), in response to the AIDS-related deaths of his friends Jorge Donn and Freddie Mercury of the rock group Queen; and Bolero for Gianni (1999, set to his all-time-favorite Ravel score), a tribute to the murdered Gianni Versace, who had designed the eye-popping costumes for that 1997 dance.

Although beset by kidney problems and other illnesses in his final years, Béjart continued working until the very end of his life. He died on November 22, 2007.

1944 – Eloy de la Iglesia (d.2006) was a Spanish screenwriter and film director.

De la Iglesia was an outspoken gay socialist filmmaker who is relatively unknown outside Spain despite a prolific and successful career in his native country. He is best remembered for having portrayed urban marginality and the world of drugs and juvenile delinquency in the early 1980s. Many of his films also deal with the theme of homosexuality.

Born in Zarauz, Guipúzcoa into a wealthy Basque family, he grew up in Madrid. He attended courses at the prestigious Parisian Institut des hautes études cinématographiques, but he could not enter Spain’s national Film School because he wasn't yet 21, the minimum age required for admission. Instead, he began to study philosophy and literature at the Complutense University of Madrid, but on his third year he abandoned it to direct children’s theater. By age twenty he had already written and directed many works for television sharpening his narrative skills. He established himself as a writer of children's television programs for Radiotelevisíon Española in Barcelona.

De la Iglesia made his debut as film director when he was only twenty-two years old with Fantasia 3 (Fantasy 3) (1966), adapting three children’s stories: The Maid of the Sea, The three hairs from the devil and The Wizard of Oz. While doing mandatory military service, he wrote the script of his second film, Algo Amargo en la Boca (Something Bitter Tasting) (1968). Algo Amargo en la boca, a sordid melodrama, and de la Iglesia’s next film, Cuadrilatero (Boxing Ring) (1969), a boxing story, faced problems with the Francoist censors and failed at the box office. His films did not attract widespread notice until his fourth effort, the critically acclaimed thriller El Techo de Cristal (The Glass Ceiling) (1970).

The dismantling of the Francoist censorship allowed Eloy de la Iglesia to increase sexually charged tones in his works. This approach became apparent in his films: Juego de amor prohibido (Games of Forbbiden Love) (1975) and La otra alcoba (The other bedroom) (1976). In the late 1970s Eloy de la Iglesia, associated with journalist and screen writer Gonzalo Goicoechea, tackled former taboo subjects in Spanish Cinema. Los placeres ocultos (Hidden Pleasures ) (1977) focused on homosexuality. El diputado (Confessions of a Congressman) (1979), follows the story of a politician who is blackmailed due to his secret homosexuality and El sacerdote (The Priest ), also released in 1979, deals with a conservative catholic priest whose sexual obsessions leads him to self-mutilation.

Like many of the young protagonists of his films, Eloy de la iglesia became addicted to drugs such as heroin and he stopped making films for fifteen years. Claiming that his addiction to cinema was stronger than his drug problems, de la Iglesia eventually kicked his habit and resumed his career making Los novios bulgaros (The Bulgarian Lovers) (2003), a film based on the novel of the same title written by Eduardo Mendicutti.

Stricken with kidney cancer, he died on March 24, 2006, age sixty two, after surgery to remove a malignant tumor.

1959 – Fidel Castro seized power in Cuba after leading a revolution that drove out dictator Fulgencio Batista. Castro then established a Communist dictatorship. Although homosexuality was illegal under the Batista government the laws were largely ignored in fun loving Cuba. Since Castro, tens of thousands of gays have been rounded up and imprisoned.

1967 – The Los Angeles Police Department raid the New Year’s Eve parties at two gay bars, the Black Cat Tavern and New Faces. Several patrons were injured and a bartender was hospitalized with a fractured skull. Several hundred people spontaneously demonstrate on Sunset Boulevard and picket outside the Black Cat. The raids prompted a series of protests that began on 5 January 1967, organized by P.R.I.D.E. (Personal Rights in Defense and Education). It’s the first use of the term "Pride" that came to be associated with LGBT rights and fuels the formation of gay rights groups in California, well before the Stonewall Riot.

The popular notion that the Stonewall Riots marked the very first time that LGBT folks "fought back instead of passively enduring humiliating treatment,” is false. Other critical moments in LGBT History that pre-date Stonewall include:

New Year's Ball Raid in San Francisco (1965)

Gene Compton’s Cafeteria Riot (1966)

Cooper Do-Nuts Riot (1959)

1968 – Joey Stefano (d.1994) was an American pornographic actor who appeared in gay adult films. Born Nicholas Anthony Iacona, Jr., Stefano grew up in the Philadelphia area (Chester, Pennsylvania). His father died when he was 15. After several years of prostitution and hard-core drug use in New York City, Stefano moved to Los Angeles and quickly became a star in gay pornography. In addition to his good looks, his persona as a "hungry bottom" (sexually submissive but verbally demanding) contributed to his popularity.

His image and success caught the attention of Madonna, who used him as a model in her 1992 book Sex.

During his lifetime, he was the subject of rumors (some of them spread by himself) regarding his relationships with prominent entertainment industry figures who were known to be gay. At a May 1990 dinner and interview with Jess Cagle (Entertainment Weekly) and Rick X (Manhattan Cable TV's The Closet Case Show), Stefano discussed an alleged series of "dates" with David Geffen, who at one point implored Stefano to quit using drugs. After the videotaped interview appeared on Rick X's show, OutWeek Magazine "outed" Geffen, who went on to announce his homosexuality at an AIDS fundraiser.

He was HIV positive. According to a subsequent biography Stefano died of speedball overdose (cocaine, morphine, heroin, and ketamine) at age 26 in the shower of a motel on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood, California. His body was taken back to Pennsylvania where he was buried next to his father.

Stefano's life is chronicled in the book, Wonder Bread and Ecstasy: The Life and Death of Joey Stefano by Charles Isherwood. His life is also the subject of a one-man-play, Homme Fatale: The Fast Life and Slow Death of Joey Stefano, by Australian playwright Barry Lowe.

1976 – (Daniel L.) Dan Kloeffler is an American television journalist. Since 2010, he is an anchor of ABC News Now, a cable-news channel of the ABC broadcasting network.

He worked at WSTM-TV - an NBC-affiliated television station in Syracuse, New York - prior to joining MSNBC, a cable-news channel. While at MSNBC, he anchored overnight MSNBC Now news updates as well as MSNBC's First Look and broadcast network NBC's Early Today, both early-morning news programs; Kloeffler left MSNBC in 2009. In 2010, he became a freelance anchor and correspondent for ABC News, where he anchors on its ABC News Now channel.In response to the news that actor Zachary Quinto had come out as gay, Kloeffler publicly came out on the air in October 2011.

In a statement on the ABC News website, he wrote that a series of suicides by gay youth also led him to hope his being publicly out would help encourage young gay people struggling to accept themselves.

2008 – Queen Elizabeth II makes actor Ian Mckellen a Companion of Honor, one of only 65.