Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[Aeneas]

Thank you for this thread, which I only now got around to. Very disturbing to say the least. I wonder if it is a natural devolution on the STS pathway where it returns to matter again. Having cut off the spiritual dimensions, many materialists are like fish floundering after having accidentally gotten out of the water. It is as if creation is turning in on itself. Soul disintegration or sould smashing could perhaps be the ultimate result, in the instances where a soul was present to start with.

 

[Beorn]

I've been trying to wrap my head around the ideologies of the left and found this video by Stefan Molyneux. He takes a while to get into his main points which occur towards the last third of the video.

https://youtu.be/b8oMY1sF-E0?rel=0

I'll add a few excerpts if you don't have time for the video.

[quote author="Stefan Molyneux"]You work to add the value that you're not born with. It makes you a better person. So for homely women they become better people in order to get resources. What happens when the Government gives them resources instead? Well, when the Government gives plain or unattractive women resources, they don't have to become better people in order to gain those resources. They're not in competition anymore.

Virtue is pursued, often to make up for lack of beauty since either path is valid in the pursuit of resource acquisition. If you're gorgeous people will bring you stuff. Maybe you can get really smart, be really productive and so on, and get stuff that way.

If women get resources without having to attract men then physically unattractive women have no direct incentive to improve their personalities. Or even to make themselves more physically attractive to men. It even becomes cool to make yourself even more unattractive to men. You know the blue hair, strange piercings, weird tattoos, obesity and so on.

If you want to exploit someone you have to denigrate them. You have to set up the situation where success equals exploitation. Which is why mental illness, depression and dysfunction have become a badge of honour among the left because it means that for sure they're not exploiting anyone and therefore they're good people. They're on the receiving end. If you're a victim you're virtuous in a system where you have set up all success as exploitation. If you're a victim, if you're helpless you become virtuous.

Remove people from reality, particularly from economic voluntary reality and they seem to shift from surreal to unreal in just a few short years. Now what are we left with? Left. An entire phalanx of women ugly in both body and spirit.

The freedom to fail is how we find, or at least approach, perfection. These women are broken and it is our pathological altruism that has broken them. These women could of had great lives, loving husbands, children, if they wanted them. These women could have grown old in the loving embrace of kith and kin, anchors of kindness and charity in their communities. They could have been, after they had died, lovingly recalled by dozens. Soon enough they will be remembered by none.
[/quote]

It seems like such a sad reality. I have to keep reminding myself that not everyone is like this. There are those who are driven by an internal fire to better themselves regardless of the external situation.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Thanks for the excerpts from the video, Beorn. Important points. The thing is that there IS exploitation, but the reaction of some of these types is so black-and-white and so dysfunctional that it actually obscures the crux of the matter, so to speak. Then, there are the very prominently pathological types that are using ideology to mask their real agenda, as usual.


I read the paper by Peterson entitled "Self Deception Explained" several days ago, and started reading his book "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief" yesterday (I'm 60 pages in). I highly recommend them both. Can't wait to get deeper into the book, as the Table of Contents points to the later chapters being the most interesting in the context of this forum / The Work.

 

[Hindsight Man]

I've been trying to wrap my head around the ideologies of the left and found this video by Stefan Molyneux. He takes a while to get into his main points which occur towards the last third of the video.

https://youtu.be/b8oMY1sF-E0?rel=0

I'll add a few excerpts if you don't have time for the video.

[quote author="Stefan Molyneux"]You work to add the value that you're not born with. It makes you a better person. So for homely women they become better people in order to get resources. What happens when the Government gives them resources instead? Well, when the Government gives plain or unattractive women resources, they don't have to become better people in order to gain those resources. They're not in competition anymore.

Virtue is pursued, often to make up for lack of beauty since either path is valid in the pursuit of resource acquisition. If you're gorgeous people will bring you stuff. Maybe you can get really smart, be really productive and so on, and get stuff that way.

If women get resources without having to attract men then physically unattractive women have no direct incentive to improve their personalities. Or even to make themselves more physically attractive to men. It even becomes cool to make yourself even more unattractive to men. You know the blue hair, strange piercings, weird tattoos, obesity and so on.

If you want to exploit someone you have to denigrate them. You have to set up the situation where success equals exploitation. Which is why mental illness, depression and dysfunction have become a badge of honour among the left because it means that for sure they're not exploiting anyone and therefore they're good people. They're on the receiving end. If you're a victim you're virtuous in a system where you have set up all success as exploitation. If you're a victim, if you're helpless you become virtuous.

Remove people from reality, particularly from economic voluntary reality and they seem to shift from surreal to unreal in just a few short years. Now what are we left with? Left. An entire phalanx of women ugly in both body and spirit.

The freedom to fail is how we find, or at least approach, perfection. These women are broken and it is our pathological altruism that has broken them. These women could of had great lives, loving husbands, children, if they wanted them. These women could have grown old in the loving embrace of kith and kin, anchors of kindness and charity in their communities. They could have been, after they had died, lovingly recalled by dozens. Soon enough they will be remembered by none.

It seems like such a sad reality. I have to keep reminding myself that not everyone is like this. There are those who are driven by an internal fire to better themselves regardless of the external situation.
[/quote]


That's both interesting and sad.The bit at the end really got me there.

 

[kalibex]

These women could of had great lives, loving husbands, children, if they wanted them. These women could have grown old in the loving embrace of kith and kin

Does that mean that Molyneux has backed off from his deFOO rhetoric lately, then?

 

[Beorn]

These women could of had great lives, loving husbands, children, if they wanted them. These women could have grown old in the loving embrace of kith and kin

Does that mean that Molyneux has backed off from his deFOO rhetoric lately, then?

It's only recently that I discovered his videos but this is from the deFOO website

Molyneux’s position on DeFOOing hasn’t changed. He and his wife, Christina Papadopoulos, went through a painful DeFOO of their parental and sibling relationships. DeFOOing was one of the primary topics of Freedomain Radio in the early days. Though, as Molyneux’s audience has grown, he has had to be less forward about his position on associating with abusive parents. It is a highly volatile topic. Most listeners do not have the moral courage to DeFOO from clearly corrupt parents. Rather than accept their moral hypocrisy, these listeners will ‘fog’ and avoid thinking about the topic.

There was a time when Stefan Molyneux would call them out on this, insisting that they acknowledge their hypocrisy. That day has long passed. Molyneux’s primary goal is the spreading of peaceful parenting in the world. If avoiding pushing the issue of DeFOOing will keep more people listening and spreading peaceful parenting, he would consider that a necessary compromise.

Molyneux will often say that he doesn’t advocate just leaving your parents. He tells you to get close to them, and talk to them. To See what happens. This is not for their sake, but for your sake. The truth is that if your parents abused you, there is ZERO potential for a relationship with them. Talking openly and honestly with your parents is solely for the purpose of achieving your own certainty. There is no restitution possible for child abuse.

I read the paper by Peterson entitled "Self Deception Explained" several days ago, and started reading his book "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief" yesterday (I'm 60 pages in). I highly recommend them both. Can't wait to get deeper into the book, as the Table of Contents points to the later chapters being the most interesting in the context of this forum / The Work.

Thanks SeekinTruth, I'll check them out. I've signed up for Self Authoring so I'm looking forward to going through that program over the next few weeks as well.

 

[Seamus]

I think I don't have a lot to add to the discussion, but I wanted to share this video (I haven't seen it posted here before). It's a parody that depicts what this politically correctness is bringing to education... and how grim the future looks if this really continues to expand.

https://youtu.be/iKcWu0tsiZM

Apart from that, I think that this quote from Political Ponerology is very relevant regarding this topic:

[quote author=Political Ponerology]Dreams of a happy and peaceful life thus gave rise to force over others, a force which depraves the mind of its user. That is why man’s dreams of happiness have not come true throughout history. This hedonistic view of “happiness” contains the seeds of misery and feed the eternal cycle whereby good times give birth to bad times, which in turn cause the suffering and mental effort which produce experience, good sense, moderation, and a certain amount of psychological knowledge, all virtues which serve to rebuild more felicitous conditions of existence.

During good times, people progressively lose sight of the need for profound reflection, introspection, knowledge of others, and an understanding of life’s complicated laws. Is it worth pondering the properties of human nature and man’s flawed personality, whether one’s own or someone else’s? Can we understand the creative meaning of suffering we have not undergone ourselves, instead of taking the easy way out and blaming the victim? Any excess mental effort seems like pointless labor if life’s joys appear to be available for the taking. A clever, liberal, and merry individual is a good sport; a more farsighted person predicting dire results becomes a wet-blanket killjoy.

Perception of the truth about the real environment, especially an understanding of the human personality and its values, ceases to be a virtue during the so-called “happy” times; thoughtful doubters are decried as meddlers who cannot leave well enough alone. This, in turn, leads to an impoverishment of psychological knowledge, the capacity of differentiating the properties of human nature and personality, and the ability to mold minds creatively. The cult of power thus supplants those mental values so essential for maintaining law and order by peaceful means. A nation’s enrichment or involution regarding its psychological world view could be considered an indicator of whether its future will be good or bad.

During “good” times, the search for truth becomes uncomfortable because it reveals inconvenient facts. It is better to think about easier and more pleasant things. Unconscious elimination of data which are, or appear to be, inexpedient gradually turns into habit, and then becomes a custom accepted by society at large. The problem is that any thought process based on such truncated information cannot possibly give rise to correct conclusions; it further leads to subconscious substitution of inconvenient premises by more convenient ones, thereby approaching the boundaries of psychopathology.

Such contented periods for one group of people – often rooted in some injustice to other people or nations - start to strangle the capacity for individual and societal consciousness; subconscious factors take over a decisive role in life. Such a society, already infected by the hysteroidal23 state, considers any perception of uncomfortable truth to be a sign of “illbreeding”. J. G. Herder’s24 iceberg is drowned in a sea of falsified unconsciousness; only the tip of the iceberg is visible above the waves of life. Catastrophe waits in the wings. In such times, the capacity for logical and disciplined thought, born of necessity during difficult times, begins to fade. When communities lose the capacity for psychological reason and moral criticism, the processes of the generation of evil are intensified at every social scale, whether individual or macrosocial, until everything reverts to “bad” times.

We already know that every society contains a certain percentage of people carrying psychological deviations caused by various inherited or acquired factors which produce anomalies in perception, thought, and character. Many such people attempt to impart meaning to their deviant lives by means of social hyperactivity. They create their own myths and ideologies of overcompensation and have the tendency to egotistically insinuate to others that their own deviant perceptions and the resulting goals and ideas are superior.

And I think the editor's note no. 23 is relevant too:

[quote author=Political Ponerology]23 Hysteria is a diagnostic label applied to a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. Here it is being used to describe “fear of truth” or fear of thinking about unpleasant things so as to not “rock the boat” of current contentment. [Editor’s note.][/quote]
[/quote]


Thanks for sharing this!

 

[Seamus]

Rebel Media, again. About a FOX tv show trailer wiped out from the whole internet, Salon's article and interview with a 'well-meaning pedophile, and why it's the Left who defends and promotes that insanity. Oh, and after "I, Psychopath", now we apparently have also "I, Pedophile" documentary.

How the Left pushes pedophilia
Faith Goldy of TheRebel.media looks at the latest outrageous attempt by Hollywood liberals to sexualize children.

https://youtu.be/vJZWNkJrKJc

"...The marriage between pedophiles and the Left is born of the moral relativism that underpins the radical left-wing thought..."

Concerning what she was saying about this guy, Ben Leven (Ontario, Canada), who was prosecuted for child pornography. I was astounded to hear her say that he was also responsible for the sex education curriculum in Ontario from grades 1 to 8 - still being taught.

The host said the media shied away from the Ben Leven story originally, by the sounds of it.

This Bill 16 amendments in Canada, seems to contain a sly framework for future acceptance of 'anything goes,' and for the networks involved in this pedophilia/pornography rackets and their customers (many high up) who have there computers loaded with this depravity, they will welcome this change. This all seems to be happening under everyone's nose, embedded in law structure, and by the time TV shows (as shown in this clip) make their rounds, societal ponerization among the populations will be more set.

Yep, they are pushing hard in many western countries (also in germany) to make pedophilia not only an acceptable thing but legally not punishable. In fact it is globally pushed. I think that this is partly the driving force behind this gender insanity. They even try relentlessly to educate the children and youth themselves, into thinking in that direction in schools (no kidding!). Without much resistance and in fact a lot of support and ignorance instead... One can only imagine what the next generation will do (and will become) after this "education" has gone into full swing. We are in the middle of it and it doesn't look good.

This push of theirs is incredible to witness. It's sickening how people can even act like this is up for debate and that the 'consensus is not in'. This universal taboo of normal people, though universally practiced by sickos, is pretty much the last moral barrier for them to break. If they succeed and seemingly normal people start to accept pedophilia as being just a part of the sexuality spectrum, it's all over for humanity. The comets won't be able to come fast enough.

I have to say that this is really sending chills down my spine!

What a living hell.

Just watched this video, it was hard to watch the guy in the middle talk about how pedophiles want to "protect children" and how life is so hard for them. Shocked and horrified don't quite cover my feelings about this trend toward normalizing pedophilia. Can't.... I dunno. :(

 

[Hindsight Man]

I recently came across this video on Shirley Temple https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrjvifKXQy4.
It seems that the pedo agenda has been in the works a long time.

 

[Niall]

https://youtu.be/hrKvLO523oM

https://youtu.be/VSMJKKoza8A

I'm very late to this thread, which I had read before now, but didn't yet throw in my two cents' worth!

In general, I agreed with what Peterson said in the above presentation, though I had some minor criticisms.

As he frames it, 'equality of outcome theory' was first applied in the USSR and Mao's China, then 'we' (the West?) near torched the world to ensure that that philosophy didn’t spread, and millions of people died to protect freedom of expression. There's maybe some truth to that, but in terms of a 'broad strokes' characterization, I think it's a very misleading picture of the 'American century'. It's the picture the US and others deceived themselves with while doing what they did.

That powerful rant at the end about telling the truth – “which is really the core idea of Western civilization” – struck me as the plea of a man on the cusp of coming face-to-face with the horror of 'Western civilization'. He's *this close* to seeing it as it is, and fervently wishes for it to not be so, and instead be what it is 'meant' to be.

On the positive side, I thought Peterson's dismantlement of the gender pronoun thing and the wider 'PC'/liberal atmosphere stifling dissent and free speech, was brilliant. He made the for developing 'being', something that is echoed by Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, who suggested that whatever 'ideology' replaces liberalism should be based on Dasein – be-ing, as Heidegger described it - rather than the superficial, atomized, selfish individual. Many threads from all directions seem to be converging in this direction: the necessity for the growth of being.

 

[Laura]

I've been trying to get more into all this subject lately because it really seems so important. I didn't realise things were so upside down already so reading this thread has been such an eye-opener for me.

This is all very fascinating and challenging for me as someone who was socialized in the die-hard liberal milieu.

It's pretty interesting for sure. I'm sure it also gives you an insight into the nature of ideology, and how easily and more or less subconsciously one can be adopted. Kind of scary when you really think about it.

My thoughts exactly. I'm am in awe by this discussion because I too was socialized in the progressive liberal postmodern milieu and plus, I'm young, so I'm among the "millenialls" age range. Since the beginning of this discussion I have been remembering different ideas taught to us at school (which was a progressive school) and also many ideas that were starting to be held by my peers and seemed a bit awkward at the time but everybody was taking them because you were supposed to agree with them if you were to be accepted as a progressive person. I always thought about this regarding these people. I'm surrounded by all these nice people who are supposedly doing a lot for others, and I admit they do some interesting stuff, yet, I always wondered why they seem to not be able to discuss topics that are labeled as "politically incorrect". So they keep themselves in the "politically correctness" by promoting ideas that are established as "good", i.e.: global warming, vegetarianism is good for the planet, inclusion, multiculturalism, equality, etc... While some of these ideas have multiple angles from which to analyse and they can have a "good side" too (OSIT), they promote the established view of them, which is the "politically correct" view... i.e: "I must be a vegetarian if I care for the environment, even though I don't really know if that's true."

Not so long ago, I had a conversation with an old leftist friend who I think keeps his mind straight still, even though he is right at the centre of one of the biggest universities' students' council and is always involved in young adults social movements and debates. We were talking about how it has become some sort of a rule that if you are to be "progressive", you ought to have a strange sexual orientation, and that if you don't have such, you are retrograde, not really liberal, or just no too self-aware to know it. This is particularly interesting because it reflects a view that is basically black and white. It's the "with me or against me" type of thinking, and that's certainly disturbing. When it comes to all sorts of minorities, you have a bunch of people driven to a fight against everyone for just about anything. I picture Quixote against imaginary windmills. And that also shows a huge level of hysteria, because people are basically living in a fantasy world and fighting fantasy enemies.

As others said in this thread, I think that the way in which Peterson addressed this issue, making it much greater than just the gender pronoun thing has prompted us to see how deep this goes. For me, we are seeing a society turn voluntarily to lalaland, and this ideology is making it right to live in a fantasy, even good, something to admire and to be proud of... you know, "just be yourself and don't listen to what others think". I think this is import too because even though there is some truth in the idea of "being oneself" it has become something exagerated where people are self-absorbed and loose any possibility of growing because they simply can't accept any criticism.

I think I don't have a lot to add to the discussion, but I wanted to share this video (I haven't seen it posted here before). It's a parody that depicts what this politically correctness is bringing to education... and how grim the future looks if this really continues to expand.

https://youtu.be/iKcWu0tsiZM

Apart from that, I think that this quote from Political Ponerology is very relevant regarding this topic:

[quote author=Political Ponerology]Dreams of a happy and peaceful life thus gave rise to force over others, a force which depraves the mind of its user. That is why man’s dreams of happiness have not come true throughout history. This hedonistic view of “happiness” contains the seeds of misery and feed the eternal cycle whereby good times give birth to bad times, which in turn cause the suffering and mental effort which produce experience, good sense, moderation, and a certain amount of psychological knowledge, all virtues which serve to rebuild more felicitous conditions of existence.

During good times, people progressively lose sight of the need for profound reflection, introspection, knowledge of others, and an understanding of life’s complicated laws. Is it worth pondering the properties of human nature and man’s flawed personality, whether one’s own or someone else’s? Can we understand the creative meaning of suffering we have not undergone ourselves, instead of taking the easy way out and blaming the victim? Any excess mental effort seems like pointless labor if life’s joys appear to be available for the taking. A clever, liberal, and merry individual is a good sport; a more farsighted person predicting dire results becomes a wet-blanket killjoy.

Perception of the truth about the real environment, especially an understanding of the human personality and its values, ceases to be a virtue during the so-called “happy” times; thoughtful doubters are decried as meddlers who cannot leave well enough alone. This, in turn, leads to an impoverishment of psychological knowledge, the capacity of differentiating the properties of human nature and personality, and the ability to mold minds creatively. The cult of power thus supplants those mental values so essential for maintaining law and order by peaceful means. A nation’s enrichment or involution regarding its psychological world view could be considered an indicator of whether its future will be good or bad.

During “good” times, the search for truth becomes uncomfortable because it reveals inconvenient facts. It is better to think about easier and more pleasant things. Unconscious elimination of data which are, or appear to be, inexpedient gradually turns into habit, and then becomes a custom accepted by society at large. The problem is that any thought process based on such truncated information cannot possibly give rise to correct conclusions; it further leads to subconscious substitution of inconvenient premises by more convenient ones, thereby approaching the boundaries of psychopathology.

Such contented periods for one group of people – often rooted in some injustice to other people or nations - start to strangle the capacity for individual and societal consciousness; subconscious factors take over a decisive role in life. Such a society, already infected by the hysteroidal23 state, considers any perception of uncomfortable truth to be a sign of “illbreeding”. J. G. Herder’s24 iceberg is drowned in a sea of falsified unconsciousness; only the tip of the iceberg is visible above the waves of life. Catastrophe waits in the wings. In such times, the capacity for logical and disciplined thought, born of necessity during difficult times, begins to fade. When communities lose the capacity for psychological reason and moral criticism, the processes of the generation of evil are intensified at every social scale, whether individual or macrosocial, until everything reverts to “bad” times.

We already know that every society contains a certain percentage of people carrying psychological deviations caused by various inherited or acquired factors which produce anomalies in perception, thought, and character. Many such people attempt to impart meaning to their deviant lives by means of social hyperactivity. They create their own myths and ideologies of overcompensation and have the tendency to egotistically insinuate to others that their own deviant perceptions and the resulting goals and ideas are superior.

And I think the editor's note no. 23 is relevant too:

[quote author=Political Ponerology]23 Hysteria is a diagnostic label applied to a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. Here it is being used to describe “fear of truth” or fear of thinking about unpleasant things so as to not “rock the boat” of current contentment. [Editor’s note.][/quote]
[/quote]

Just caught up with this thread. The video is really scary because it seems to be rather close to the truth. What the heck has happened to education?

And the quote from PP is especially a-propos.

 

[GRiM]

Fresh new debate about Bill C16 in Queen's Law School.
Jordan makes some very good arguments that is more refined then the first debate he attended. This one is a bit different because the opposing law-professor is playing devils advocate (fitting for a law-professor I guess) because they could not find anyone who would genuinely represent the opposing side. Quite telling in itself.
It turns into a discussion half-way though, and is very constructive and contains many profound ideas and logical conclusions, many interesting psychological experiments and studies referenced. I found it very thought-provoking and rewarding to listen to.
If you are familiar with the debate already, you would not miss much if you jump to the Q&A session: https://youtu.be/TAQlleqDgbI?t=2566


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAQlleqDgbI

(...)The Runnymede society approached six different law school professors, trying to find someone who would debate me, without success. Professor Pardy played devil's advocate.

 

[Voyageur]

Fresh new debate about Bill C16 in Queen's Law School.
Jordan makes some very good arguments that is more refined then the first debate he attended. This one is a bit different because the opposing law-professor is playing devils advocate (fitting for a law-professor I guess) because they could not find anyone who would genuinely represent the opposing side. Quite telling in itself.
It turns into a discussion half-way though, and is very constructive and contains many profound ideas and logical conclusions, many interesting psychological experiments and studies referenced. I found it very thought-provoking and rewarding to listen to.
If you are familiar with the debate already, you would not miss much if you jump to the Q&A session: https://youtu.be/TAQlleqDgbI?t=2566


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAQlleqDgbI

(...)The Runnymede society approached six different law school professors, trying to find someone who would debate me, without success. Professor Pardy played devil's advocate.

That was a good Q&A session, thanks for posting it.

Couple of lines of force, osit: Pardy - Changing language by statute; it's now in the purview of the state. Pardy – (the individual) the world has to response to your needs, to validate your identity.

Peterson - Bad legislation will be co-opted by people you detest and despise – bad people rush in to enforce it – people who want this type of power will rush in and take it. And finally, he discussed categories without limits i.e. LBGT… an impossibility, the argument falls apart.

 

[luc]

Thanks for sharing, I watched this the other day and the discussion at the end was really interesting. This stood out for me as well:

Peterson - Bad legislation will be co-opted by people you detest and despise – bad people rush in to enforce it – people who want this type of power will rush in and take it. And finally, he discussed categories without limits i.e. LBGT… an impossibility, the argument falls apart.

Peterson used the example of the authors of the US constitution: they imagined the worst possible guys exploiting the constitution in the worst possible ways when coming up with all the checks and balances and what have you (well, if they were sincere to begin with, they certainly couldn't imagine where we are now!).

Thing is, imagining such twists by bad people is notoriously difficult for the good guys, so there's a huge trap that leaves the door wide open for pathological elements. I'd say that writing any form of criminal law without a deep understanding of pathology and psychopathy can only lead to disaster - the best you can hope for is that it takes a couple of decades until everything gets twisted and the worst people end up in power. So I think Peterson made an important point here - even if this whole gender nonsense protection was well-intentioned (which I believe it was in a sense), this doesn't make it any less dangerous, probably even more so.

 

[hesperides]

Watching the above video made me think by association of something I don´t know whether it´s relevant to this gender discussion or if my imagination is going too far off track.

I suddenly recalled this droning chips implant project in humans, which I read was already officially approved by Obama in 2015. Could it be that the use of unlimitted genders among individuals might accelerates the process of people more willingly surrendering to this particular project as well? This gender new law will have quite a huge psychological effect on population in that what has been called neurosis until now converts itself into their very dear identity, only this time with their own signature. Nothing to worry about anymore, just create or identify with an abstract and/or dear gender image, and authorities and peers will likely respect you "for who you are".

Once they´ve gotten there, everything in life and themselves included can only explain itself with things being alive on their own, just put a name on it and you´ll be their god. Nothing I say here sounds new, I know, but doesn´t this gender law play another important role in leading the mass willingly towards one of the ultimate step ensuring the loss of any bits of freedom, while these people won´t offer the least resistance to chips incorporation in their body because of them being so absorbed in designing their new image?

Of course, there are many programmes awaiting for us in theses chaotic times, but this one in particular gives me the chills.