Addendum to female homosexuality as shown in the second part.

The result of my theory would also mean that our females are basically bisexual. There are indications to that effect (like the tensions between them, the love-hate relationship between female friends, the constant striving to dress up mainly for the benefit of their female friends rather than other males etc) a serious scientific research must be conducted for us to be sure.

Could the same be true for the males? According to my theory no. But heterosexual males have been shown to *act* in a certain passive manner as to show admiration and acceptance to another male's superiority. It would seem that this does not go as far as penetration (which could be construed as ultimate verification of submission to the heterosexual perspective). Whereas penetration in the homosexual sense is verification of closeness and love.

Now in order to expand the natural homosexuality in humankind as per my personal theories.

Imagine a time where humanity such as it was, was divided into tribes. Tribes with their own leaderships, desires, access to food, water and dwellings and so on and so forth. Tribes with no shared identity other than similar bodies and desires. Nothing more. Not very intelligent on the whole but cunning, strength and instinct. In that level of being the most important things are self and tribal preservation through protecting what you have and getting from other tribes or nature what you do not have.

Moving on. so you needed to eat. Therefore you needed to hunt or gather. The most efficient way to go about doing that is sending your strongest (who can carry more and hurt things more). This, however, leaves behind the females and the old (females are precious, a man with many females can being back the tribe, but many men with one female are doomed). Or does it? You cannot leave behind males because they will mate against the pecking order with the females. But there is a solution you see, a very natural solution. Males who abhor women and are not interested in mating with them. So you leave behind a contingent of strong men to protect the tribe's precious commodities without any negative influence on the natural order of things (such as it was).

In this theory not only homosexuality is natural but also saved mankind from extinction. A blend of logic, efficiency and the rule of nature. Nature is single minded and has only one goal.

What about the female homosexuals then? Things get a bit more complicated here. Let's imagine us again in the same scenario as above. The men are out and away, perhaps for days hunting (at certain point science points out that we overcame our prey through tiring it out not overcoming it with bursts of speed but rather through our ability to steadily walk for long periods of time). The male guards do not care for the females as shown above.

What do we have to work with? A cave. Females. Primitive conditions. First thing's first. Are the females there weak and blushing and caring and standoffish prudes like Victorian ladies? I think not. I think they are strong and vicious filled with the same instincts as men.

Two questions come to mind.

a)Is the primitive man capable of giving an orgasm to the primitive woman?

b)Why are women multi orgasmic?

More variables are added. Let's go on. Who is the leader among the females? Every gathering has a leading figure or figures. The "wife" of the tribe's leader? The "wives"? The older ones? By older do imagine around 30 to 40 and perhaps that is going too far.

Based on all the above my theory about female homosexuality is this. Due to the necessity of having a leading figure females alone through a mixture of direct (muscles) and indirect (male companion's status) strength created a hierarchy formulated by sexual actions forced and not between the females. Extreme violence leading to death would be prohibited due to the women's inherent value and the male homosexual guarding.

That in my view that also a secondary beneficial effect. The leading women were satisfied and possibly more relaxed paving the way to easier copulation with the males which in turn increased our odds of survival.

I wanted to write this for so long . I apologize for my tardiness. As you know by now I prefer to keep things short and sweet rather than writing down essays meant to impress but being tiring and boring. I aim to continue in the same style. A well is equally deep whether it is filled to the brims or having just a few drops.

Now a)Is homosexuality natural?

-Yes, yes it is. It is natural.

b)Is homosexuality ethical?

-As much as any sexuality is. Remember ethics are in their own zeitgeist. Also, remember many ethical persons decide to impoverish and/or outright kill hundreds daily.

c)Is homosexuality a sin?

-It depends on your religion. As far as I am concerned it is not because no God would condemn their own creations to harassment, insults, beatings, and death unless of course they were given that burden in order to reach sainthood. So either all homosexuals are saints to be or God is evil. The safer bet, however, is that it is not a sin in any and all religions.

Do try to understand that all written material through the ages gets altered in order to reflect the personal views of the Editor at the time. It is logical. Even and perhaps especially holy texts.

d)Is homosexuality a choice?

-Despite it being in bad form I will answer that with a question. Did you choose to be straight? Sexuality is not a choice.

What is ideology?

a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, organization is based.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ideology

Ideology for me is like searching for gold in a river in an old cowboy flick. You will find some specks after a ton of work. Immensely valuable specks but still specks and only after a lot, A LOT, of work separating the unprocessed nuggets from the rest of the detritus.

That is how hard we should work and think before accepting an ideology. Especially a political or religious one that has the power to span the globe.

The use of mercury in gold mining nowadays makes the metaphor only too apt. The mercury is highly toxic as is the fast food ideology that we are being subjected to. Easy, fast and addictive. And those poor people processing the mercury-infused gold nuggets, suffer from even more of its toxicity than the miners themselves.

Ideology has become something to drown in, something to be absolute about, something to copy with an ape-like mimetism. How poor have we become by only mimicking rather than thinking. Especially when mimicking thinking and believe ourselves, thinkers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMqeQiXtK8U

I would like to take the chance to comment on two things Mrs. L. said. And I would also like to distance those two things from her person as this is not a critique against her but merely a more in-depth commentary on those two things and nothing more.

The first is regarding the requirement of being a politician in order to be a president and the second is how some 20-year-old people who approach her for advice are so beloved by their parents that think everyone cares about them. "I don't care".

The first is possibly the single most destructive mindset in this Earth right now. Politicians are routinely liars, cheaters, cowards, power mongers and influenced by wealth for all of their decisions, logic be damned. And so you think such a person is the only person that should hold the most important place in a nation. Let's be more scientific though by asking a simple question. What effects have such thinking on our neighborhood, city, nation and the world? In fact, it is so much crystal clear that you need to be totally immersed in the fantasy of modern politics to be incapable of processing this simple truth.

The second now. The phrase "I don't care" has become the motto of this world. Why should I care? Who cares? I certainly don't care. Of course, there are variations of caring. For example, some people care about animals more than human beings. Some care for machines more than human beings. Some even care for political parties more than human beings. My personal opinion is that caring for everything and even more for the young adults of this world is a necessary cornerstone for the evolution of humankind. Caring hurts perhaps and leaves you drained at times, but the only cure for that is for all people to care about each other than no one caring for anything beyond the microcosm of what is in their faces (and all too often even less than that).

It is my personal belief that the basis of all good and bad in a society start and finish with its teachers, Suffice to say, take any one person that has left an impact on all our lives and history and you will see an absolute, direct correlation with his/her teacher.

Could someone make the argument then that with better teachers we would have better persons? I personally believe that it's true. Parents are certainly to blame to some degree but parents are simply the results of previous teachers aren't they?

Not all people are made to be teachers and we certainly lack in the screening process of creating a good teacher in all levels of education. Those in the University for example only care for the money they make and to keep the chair they are holding. Principals in lower levels care only for the money the government provides hounding the tree and losing the whole forest. Instead of schools being a place of nesting, of caring, of knowledge they have become a cesspool of excuses, cowardice, political mingling and personal ideology.

"We don't have enough money"

"They don't pay us enough (to care)"

"No one appreciates us"

"We are powerless to change anything"

"The students don't care"

More than anyone else, you teachers of all levels, have failed humanity.

Universities have become temples of money and status. Temple of political idolatry. Places of spiritual prostitution. And teachers have become whores.

We all know the so-called chasm of the generations. People of differing ages have different approaches about virtually everything, For example, imagine the outcome of a vote to go to war from the perspective of a parliament of people of the age of 65 and a parliament of the age of 25.

It is conceivable that a governmental body of similar ages would be much more efficient and productive than one with varying ages inside it.

will return with ideas and suggestions in a future continuance of this post.

I will admit right here and now stipulate to my limited knowledge of the economic and banking system. But quite not surprisingly I have some thoughts on the subject of Interest.

Banks have some money and they tell you we will give some of our money to you if a) you can pay it back b) with interest c)have some assets to guarantee we will take our money back if you fail to pay.

My problem is with b) Interest. I assume they require interest because if they did not give you the money then they would invest it and therefore they would actually lose money if they did not ask for interest. The thing is without the gold standard is that still true and acceptable as an excuse?

Should banks actually make money or simply facilitate the movement of the true economy? Keeping a standard equilibrium of their funds?

In this Earth, we seem to have quite a problem with organized religion. For example, we have too many. Then some of them just want to kill or proselytize as many as possible for brownie points for their God. Also, all of them are used to change or support the political-economical status quo or a political radical change for X or Y benefits.

And on the other hand, we have the atheists who say everything is mumbo jumbo and let's keep the magic in games and cartoons. Let's just keep political ideas and political parties to influence the people to change or support the political-economical status quo or a political-radical change for X or Y benefit. And of course the more people you bring into the political ideology the more brownie points you get.

Let's continue with the nonreligious view. Let's say all religions poofed out of existence from the beginning of time. The primates hyper-evolved without believing the fire is a god and volcanoes will not go boom with virgins thrown inside regularly. We would certainly gain more virgins, also witches. We would not have religious wars, just all the other kinds of wars. Would the cumulative IQ or scientific progress be higher and faster? Possibly. We would lose of course some pesky things like the Parthenon and some such ruins. Just their maintenance must cost a fortune.

Anyway enough with the uplifting silliness.

The real question in this post is not if there is a God/Gods or not. But whether or not we as a humankind are the result of intelligent design or not. And whether that matters.

Greetings to all, Happy Holidays.

Today I am writing about a very simple - in its core- subject. It has been written of course again and again but I promise I will not draw this out in an effort not to bore you.

To oversimplify things, Creation says that an Omnipotent being God willed us into existence. Willed the whole existence into existence actually.

Evolution as the word states is the scientific theory that we human beings, as well as everything in this planet, come to be in our present form as a result of nature's evolution of beings in order to recompense for various changes.

Now what I am saying is this. Assuming there is a God and that he is all-powerful and timeless aka he is at all dimensions as the same time. Also, we assume that he created human beings with free will so that they would reach him with their own will, without being slaves. That's why supposedly he is not appearing and fixing all wrongs with this world.

In that theoretical instance wouldn't it be the opposite of the free will assumption, to create something "magically"? Wouldn't it make more sense to create a world that his creations can live within it without being forced to become slaves to a miraculous creation? To make a universe or multiverse with such laws as for us humans to be able to analyze, understand and comprehend it without outside influences?

In fact isn't the natural evolution the way for an omnipotent being to go, keeping his creations free from any intellectual shackles at all?

*The God as a male is just a reflection of the writer's sex, nothing more*

What is criticism?

Criticism is the practice of judging the merits and faults of something."

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism

That it has negative connotations is no surprise. That some people consider it positive, however, is indeed mind-boggling. This stems in part due to people not understanding-realizing how criticism works, especially not against a faceless institution but rather a human being. Usually, criticism stems from the ego of the judge who sees something wrong in his/her opinion and decides to do something about it.

Fault A. Criticism is a marathon, not a sprint. It must not be something in the spur of the moment if you ever hope to have a positive outcome, especially for the other person. For some despicable people, the act of criticism itself empowers them and makes them feel superior to the rest. Those are truly dangerous.

Fault B. Ego. The feelings of the person judged must come before the feelings of the judge - critic. If you don't care about the other persons feelings, make that crystal clear so that the other person can filter your vocal excrement as it comes.

I will continue this subject another time, for the time being, keep in mind:

A) Go prepared. Have time. Think things through. Move only to have a positive (FOR THEM) primarily outcome.

B) Do not use criticism for your betterment but for the betterment of the other person. Know yourself. Do you do it to help them or help you? Care for their feelings.

People believe that in order to get married you need to find that special someone that you want to spend the rest of your life with. I believe that a more prudent question would be "Is this the person with whom I want to die?". Life is something so vague, so tumultuous that using it to build something that will endure through time is quite folly. Death, on the other hand, is a certainty. And based on certain things you can build something lasting.

Is this the person I want to die with?

The person I want to see last before I pass away?

The person whose hand I want to hold and whose voice I want as a final lullaby?

Take for example the CDU in Germany. Its leader had a solid hand in destroying a country, raising its suicides, leaving children without parents and homes and many, many other financial relating pain giving. Unless their bible is different from the rest of the world, I see a problem in there. Or rather a conflict of interest. Interestingly enough, Jesus Christ forgave everyone from whores to money lenders-bankers with the exception of one category of people - hypocrites.

Now tell me. We have two possibilities concerning that party. Either Christ is ok until finances are involved in which case finances win or Christian nowadays is just a meaningless name just there in the party name to get more voters. Either way, it's very, very sad and very, very, very hypocritical.

Probably when looking how to live the best we can ourselves and ignore our fellow humans and when we forget that behind numbers are people and our conscience slowly withers and/or justifies everything then can we really be called humans? Or are we just another set of animals to hunt, kill and go to bed with our jaws bloody and our stomachs full?

I guess this is about self-realization. The importance of acknowledging when we don't have all the facts and when we don't care enough to gather the facts. Remember facts are not about something that may be, but something that IS. In most things, it is good to remember that we have a grasp of very few facts and the vast quantity of "facts" is actually opinions ingrained to us but people who we think they are knowledgeable and we trust implicitly. Like journalists.

Heh heh heh.

As it happens, I read today about the times of day and night that is illegal for someone to make noise. Reasonable times at that. Below the article, naturally, there had been a wide variety of comments, with two things in common to all the writers. Anger and taking sides in an absolute manner.

While I am not interested in actually presenting the two sides, I am certain you can easily imagine them.

Anger is an indulgent emotion. You present it when you afford to present it. For example, take an ad about road rage starring Evander Holyfield if I am not mistaken. One car driver gets angry with another car driver steps down from his car, he goes to the other one and then stops being angry. Why? Because he can't afford it. Because the other driver is able to kill him with one punch. What happened to that "righteous" fury we all sometimes feel? We feel anger because we can get away with it.

We should generally be less indulgent to ourselves.

Moving on. Taking absolute sides is like being in a valley between two mountains and fanatically choosing the one mountain in front of you to climb even though you haven't even glanced at the mountain behind you. Not only that but while climbing with your back to the mountain you swear at that mountain behind you because it... exists. That is what happens with all the times we choose a side from an argument to the street to a political party and that is what blinds us and stops us from being objective.

My advice? Take a step back. Check both mountains. Facts not opinions. Essence over rhetorics. You will discover something amazing if you take the time.

Both mountains turn white if you climb high enough and the clouds no longer allow you to look at the other side.

While this is common knowledge in my circles, I thought it would be interesting to write this, for people who do not know these persons.

In every country in this world, there are persons of different ethnicity and backgrounds who have been given the nickname "Kingmaker".These persons or most commonly groups of persons, identify and correlate information regarding the potential of people, evaluate an immense amount of data and streamline the process to achieve a certain result pertaining to the future placement of said people, either globally or locally, politically or financially.

Two more things. One is that most of their time are bringing down "Kings" rather than building them. The other is an oversimplified example so that everyone can understand. Imagine a soccer team. For each position imagine a series of actions that led that specific player at that placement, on that team, at that match through tradings, trainings etc. Imagine that amount of planning. Now imagine the planning starting at the moment of each player's birth.

Quite a bizarre post, isn't it. Imagination is a very potent tool, of and for, the mind and we must never forget to practice it.

It is quite thrilling for me to see a bunch  of terrorists, drug dealers, religious fanatics to a)have seemingly the support of some of the populous ( the underage, badly monitored - raised, without any paideia (as in the Greek word, wiki to the right), critical thinking -anything that makes us human beings really- what so ever) and b) to have an army formation that again seemingly is unable to be defeated by the combined power of the NATO. Which is impossible of course; NATO can defeat any country in around a week. Actually, the USA alone can do that.

So, we can safely conclude that someone desires the presence of pedophile, rapist, murderers as well as destroyers of human culture that can never reappear again ever. Because God apparently wills it. God wants for some of his children to behead other children. God wants little girls to be sold and used as prostitutes. God wants to cover the earth with blood. Leaving that God aside for a moment.

What does this say about the people who have the power to interfere and yet they choose not to do so? We can divine the purpose of maintaining ISIS and the purpose of its creation but I want to stay for this post with its religious aspect.

That aspect which is a pure and hellish monstrosity. Another genocide that the powers that be, conveniently "ignore".  I think, however, that with the constant barrage of religious based attacks (bombs, assassinations over sketches etc) there will be a backlash. Will it only stay around Islam? But someone could argue those are fanatics, those are evil, Islam - true Islam - is nothing like that. Yes, perhaps. Punishing one religion for the actions of some of its members is unjust. Could there be a backlash against all religions? Better "monitoring" of the members, a reduction of constitutional rights in order to fell "safe" again? Perhaps no more national religions? Surely eliminating religion is a step towards bringing humanity closer together. Or is it?

I am a watcher.

Let's watch the global events unfolding, keeping in our minds two questions.

1)Do I(or another human being) lose some my freedom by X event?

2)Am I being manipulated by the mass media to maintain an uninformed opinion and feel strongly about it?