theadvancedape

[theadvancedape]

Like my writings? Check out more here.

[theadvancedape]

Nothing’s Fucked Here, Dude – The Parable of the Pancakes

Despite the deafening roar of cynicism that announces our unfolding obliteration, existence is pretty awesome and most of the evidence supports that.

The Parable of the Pancakes

Two wise men did come to dine within a Village Inn

The den of antiquity and patriot of pancakes

Upon finishing their meals the first wise man was gazing upon the second

Who was busying himself with an act of tidiness

The first wise man saw that the second wise man

Was dipping his napkin in butter

And using it as though it were a cleaning solution

Upon discovering the success of the solution

The second wise man did cryeth out – “Eureka!”

“The butter cleans up the syrup.”

Hearing this, the two wise men were enlightened

The Parable of the Pancakes originally appeared in The Malcontent’s Manifesto.

Nothing’s Fucked Here, Dude…

You cannot swing a stick without hitting a doomsayer these days. Not that the behavior is new. Armageddon seems to be the most pervasive virtue signal throughout history. It is just that there are more of us now and our environment is saturated with a media frenzy of eschatological opportunism.

Even the high priests of materialist science have joined the cries of the end of times, as if this untestable prediction is any more relevant than when made by other kinds of priests citing an ancient book.

So how does this kind of Chicken Little-ism continue to be perpetuated?

How does cynical fatalism & apocalyptic pessimism become such a persistent virtue signal?

Intelligent people have always struggled to make sense of what seems to them a mass of willful human ignorance. As such the intelligent often are often cynical, Or at last would appear to be to those who did not understand the complexity of their criticism. A further consequence of this is that intelligence and cynicism are often equated.

When people believe cynicism and intelligence to be equivalent and want to appear as intelligent, whether they are or not, it becomes expedient to signal cynicism, for the simple reason that it is far easier to be cynical than smart. And so cynicism becomes a signal for the virtue of intelligence. But as it requires no intelligence to either be cynical or fetishize it by signalling, anybody can do it.

At this point cynicism begins to hold a social function in which it affirms and validates members of a group of signal-sharers. Competing signal tribes begin to escalate the intensity of their signals to drown out the others. And this feedback loop grows into a situation in which almost everybody puts on blinders against any evidence that does not confirm their bias towards our inevitable destruction.

However there are massive amounts of evidence that the world is actually an incredibly beautiful place in which even the greatest of disasters often give rise to something wonderful.

The epidemic of abusive sexual behavior that has marked the entirety of American history is being exposed and responded to at long last, likely a result of the election of Donald Trump. I think the fact that a man with a known history of sexual abuse could achieve the highest ranking position in our society really rankled a lot of women and inspired them to start sharing their own stories of abuse so as not to feel so powerless.

While there is no doubt that Trump has tilled up massive amounts of dormant racism, hatred and ignorance that most of us had thought somewhat extinct, if it also brings about the end of such emboldened sexual abuse and serves as a cautionary tale against handing power to narcissists in the future, it may well be worth it.

It was recently discovered that climate change has assisted in the repair of the ozone layer. And that dreaded global warming might get a cooling assist from the earthquakes and volcanoes that are predicted for 2018.

It was also recently discovered that modern human activities, which doomsayers are quick to connect to our impending annihilation, have helped to created a second magnetosphere which will protect us and the electrical systems we have come to rely upon from solar radiation events.

[I will continue to add to this article as more ‘natural countermeasures’ pop up.] {Will the sinking of the seafloor ease coastal flooding?}

The butter doth clean up the syrup indeed!

If you continue on with this mindset, and try to gather evidence that existence is awesome even when fraught with comic tension that can sometimes get a bit uncomfortable, you will find much of it. Growing pains are not evidence of the end. They are harbingers of growth, adaptation and evolution.

It feels good to score dopamine hits via cynical virtue signals. Feeding into the nihilism that underlies modernity has its rewards. But it is also irrational and tends to traumatize rather than inspire. If you think exchanging fatalistic symbols for social status is worth a lifetime of self-righteous dread, horror and anxiety – well, I hope that works out well for you.

However if you wish to walk through your days in admiration of the beauty, mystery, possibility, humor and joy all around you then drop the Chicken Little act. Even if the sky does fall, it will probably cause something totally awesome to happen.

[theadvancedape]

Narrativism – A View of Reality Unburdened by Materialist Science

Introducing a perceptual filter for thinking about reality without absolutes; and a call for a new basis of investigation of phenomena based on experience.

The dominant ideas about reality which have arisen from the western world are incredibly problematic. They contain leaps of faith that convert subjectivity into objectivity and are teaming with multitudes of obfuscating abstractions.

These two previous articles contain supporting evidence and logic for the following claims and ideas, and should be read before continuing on:

Philosophical Materialism & the Spook of Solipsism & Almost Everything You Think You Know Is Merely An Abstraction & There Is No Such Thing As Gravity

When you peel away all of those layers of faith and abstraction there is only one thing known for certain – you are awareness having experiences.

Physicalism, materialism, naturalism, objectivism, positivism, scientism, literalism or naive realism – whatever you want to call the collective set of erroneous modern beliefs – all work from the backward assumption that reality lies outside of our experience of it. This intellectual error has become so persistent that we are apt to dismiss an individuals experience simply because it does not align with our models or preconceived ideas, even when the individual has clearly been affected by their experience.

Take for an example some sort of miraculous event. Five thousand people see an angel crying above a church, and although they describe it in numerous ways, they are all essentially having a shared experience of something that lies outside of conventional beliefs about reality.

Modern scientists would immediately assume that their experiences were not real, and then set up experiments to discover why all those crazy people had a nearly identical unreal experience. They are immediately burdened by an error in their logic, and that is their belief that there is such a thing as an unreal experience.

Because of that error, modern science goes barking up all kinds of wrong trees. The fundamental metaphysics prevalent in materialist science, unacknowledged due to philosophical illiteracy, have become an enormous barrier in understanding how our experiences are generated. And since science and the empirical method contain philosophically-derived justifications as their foundational premises, materialist scientist’s arrogance and errors are products of willful ignorance.

Imagine that instead of ignoring evidence due to metaphysical pretensions, we were to take all experience as equally valid and real, and try to understand the phenomena that arise within them from that perspective.

Let’s go back to our miraculous angel spectators. What are their beliefs? Are there common threads of similarity in the basic ways in which they view the world? Are there common experiences among them? Can the differences in their accounts be attributed to some correlating common factors within their beliefs, expectations and experiences?

There are so many questions to be asked that would be ignored by materialist science out of hand simply because a prejudice against those lines of inquiries exist. Or where they do exist they are relegated to the ‘soft’ or ‘social’ sciences, often derided for their inability to conform to the myth of objectivity.

I present to you that these unreasonable restrictions and pervasive dogmas are in fact a hindrance to our understanding of our existence. And furthermore, understanding how experience is generated could help us create a method of generating our own experiences consciously. A waking version of lucid dreaming.

As it is we are still sleepwalking through the halls of deterministic absolutism; whose walls are constructed of irrational faith and excessive abstraction.

Before we begin to recreate science and our collective belief system through reforms in methodology, it may be useful to create an ideological framework in which to consider everything. And in order to do so I have developed yet another abstraction, one that conveniently fits my intuitive predilections as a writer, which I have decided to call Narrativism.

Abstraction Loophole Alert: Because I am aware that this is an abstraction, and because the abstraction contains no absolutes, I am in little danger of coming to believe that the abstraction exists outside of my own experiences. But nonetheless I should maintain a vigilance in preventing myself from misusing it just to be safe, as is central to all critical thinking.

Narrativism 101

Take all of the following with a grain of WHAT IF…

Consider that you are living within a story that is currently being written by the sum of the characters within it; and in which each individual tends to push the narrative in a way that makes the contents of their own will more possible.

The frequency by which a phenomena is experienced is proportional to it’s consistency with the rest of the narrative which it exists within. A thing that already seems possible within the plot as it is known so far will be far more likely to occur than those things that would seem out of the place in the story.

Every individual human being – and perhaps even some or all other living beings – is a character and co-author within the narrative of our existence and reality.

The experience, or lack thereof, of any phenomena may be related directly or indirectly to an individual’s own beliefs, ideology, expectations and/or current situation. Groups of individuals may be contributing to their experiences collectively. Individual experiences may be dependent on some mixture of one’s own experiences and that of a specific group of individuals or the sum of all human beliefs, ideologies, expectations and the current situation in which the narrative is unfolding.

Those things which we consider to be absolute laws of nature are basic defaults which have been useful for generating experiences and facilitating understanding of the method by which experience is generated and a reality made apparent – but they are not absolutes which exist as a result of some cosmic hand outside of this narrative.

Consider training wheels on a bike or bumper pads at the bowling alley. They are temporary means by which inexperienced practitioners learn to eventually operate independent of. Their purpose is not to illustrate how to bowl without (ride without) them, but to facilitate the ability by providing supporting experiences from which to eventually master the skill of bowling. It has just been so long since the training wheels were put on the bike, we can’t remember doing it.

A method of investigation of reality based on Narrativism should be explored for the purpose of exploring which parts of existence are malleable, and if possible, to learn how to transform them with our conscious will; or making peace with what can not be known and/or changed, and learning how to value the experiences we do have.

If this narrativism idea is to stand up to any scrutiny and be considered by the scientific materialism it opposes, it must be falsifiable, and I have devised an experiment in which it may be tested.

If narrativism is incorrect then the number of experiences in which a phenomena is supported by an individuals range of beliefs, ideologies, expectations and current situation will be outnumbered by experiences of phenomena in which the range of the individuals beliefs, ideologies, expectations and current situations were unsupportive.

You can try that out in a laboratory if you like, but the evidence of everyday interaction should be enough to tell you that what is happening to us is always more or less what we believe could possibly happen to us, albeit sometimes with exciting exceptions.

And those exceptions may contain the key to understanding exactly who we are and why all of this is happening – and exploiting it our mutual benefit.

Just as I have dispelled objectivity, abstractions and the other appeals used by scientific materialism, I must now dispel one final argument that inevitably will be made.

“But Joshua, materialist science produces results, so how can you doubt its underlying assumptions?”

Many things that “shouldn’t have worked”, because they were not based on “correct” or accepted premises, actually do. A full list would be exceedingly long, but here are a few examples.

The Em Drive, a device which creates more energy than it uses, violating one of the most basic laws of physics. Physics will eventually adapt to accommodate and then celebrate the renegotiation of their sacred laws as a triumph.

Many scientists are perplexed about how the moon is able to maintain its orbit, as the distance from Earth and its mass present problems for the mathematics they use to model the cosmos.

Before geocentrism was toppled by a new view of the cosmos, using entirely “wrong” assumptions about the movement of the stars, people had been using them successfully to navigate for thousands of years.

Diets come and go, and as soon as a popular one is debunked by science, a new one pops up. However there are a statistically significant amount of people who did lose weight using an allegedly “wrong” diet.

If you have ever played a game with a beginner you know how infuriating it can be to be absolutely decimated by them, especially if you consider yourself a skilled and seasoned player. We call it beginner’s luck, but what it amounts to is someone performing far better at a task they know little about than someone who does.

However, for me, the most compelling evidence that it is not physical causation which generates experience, but purely matters of the mind, are placebos. In fact the evidence seems to suggest that all drugs are placebos. Pills and potions, just like materialistic science itself, are just little rituals used to generate a belief in outcomes so that they become more probable.

Stripped of all of these appeals, materialistic science is laid bare for what it is – a faith based activity. And that is not to say that faith based activity is inherently wrong or should be avoided absolutely. Some good faith could be a real boon to humanity right now.

It is the fact that materialistic science believes that it alone is beyond faith, and looks down upon those whose faith is placed outside of its method. It is a delusional hypocrisy which often manifests in intellectual bullying, and has resulted in a condescending conformity predicated on mediocre thinking.

The ideologies of our time have been symbolized by the ‘leader of the free world’ – who is an arrogant imbecile who believes himself to be unconditionally correct at all times and refuses to investigate any evidence to the contrary, or that otherwise challenges his narcissistic self-image, and would likely be unable to understand that evidence if he did.

The reason the world seems increasingly claustrophobic and destructively stubborn is because that is how our minds have become. We have projected onto the stage of our existence a manifestation of all the existential angst and fragility that results as consequence of what we believe that stage is.

In the feedback loop of hopelessness entailed by the belief in a deterministic clockwork cosmos, nihilism has become a virtue signal and cynicism is incorrectly equivocated with intelligence. The new priests wear labcoats and assure us with the same fervor and lack of irony as the old ones that we are on the cusp of Armageddon. Only by abiding their sacred proclamations will we avoid Nature’s Wrath. For Nature is a jealous and angry Nature, and doesn’t particularly appreciate you not paying it the respect it is due.

There is no nature. There is just you. So stop treating yourself like a statistic in an upcoming apocalypse and start rewriting your story to facilitate increased probabilities of more joy and harmony within it. All you have to lose is dread, anxiety and a self-fulfilling prophecy towards misery based on the kind of loathing that can only be propped up by a belief in the absolutes which are contrived from materialistic science and it’s corresponding beliefs and mistaken assumptions.

It’s just a story. You are lucky to be a part of it, but also to not be trapped in it forever. There is nothing to fear and nothing to be gained or lost. Everything is beautiful and perfect, and the story is yours alone to tell.

Seize the pen!

[theadvancedape]

Almost Everything You Think You Know Is Merely An Abstraction & There Is No Such Thing As Gravity

A consequence of being a language using species is the tendency towards abstraction, for better or for worse.

One day Sir Isaac Newton was sitting under a tree when an apple fell. In that moment he was hit with a flash of pattern recognition. What goes up must come down. And thus the concept of gravity was introduced.

It is a familiar story, one which every child learns, and which even adults who have no particular interest in science or history can basically remember. It is the cornerstone of modern science and classical physics. It was the beginning of the human endeavor to formulate the laws of nature.

Just about every protest or question you will have while reading the following article has been addressed previously in – Philosophical Idealism & the Spook of Solipsism – so you might want to read that before moving on.

Today when we consider nature, there is no religious connotation. But in the time of Newton and throughout the beginning of modern science, that was not the case. Nature was not some set of ephemeral rules that formed themselves as a consequence of the big bang. Not just because the big bang had not yet been hypothesized and wouldn’t for a few hundred years, but because the laws of nature were not considered to be absolutes arising purely from chance.

The early scientists were not, as are many scientists today, concerned with secular explanations. They were invested in the ideology which sprung up from the Protestant reformation. The mysterious universe of Catholic theology was deemed insufficient. If man were to align his interests and behaviors with the will of God, they reckoned, it was necessary to learn the rules by which God maintained His cosmic property.

When Newton described gravity, he believed that he was describing one of these God-given rules, and he would have protested heavily if he knew that hundreds of years later the functions of the divine were being bestowed on some ephemeral abstraction called ‘nature’.

Of course he would have protested even greater if you told him that gravity itself was nothing but another abstraction culled from the deterministic logic he shares with modern science.

Prior to the ‘discovery’ of gravity no question had arisen for which it was the answer. Gravity was not the solution to any known problem. It served no practical purpose and did not fill any existing gaps in human knowledge. And it did not tell us anything we did not already know. What goes up must come down, most of the time, anyway.

Nobody was jumping off cliffs because they didn’t understand this. It was an essential part of human experience that needed no explanation, and no cosmic cause.

If viewed from a narrative perspective, the functions Newton accredited to gravity needed no explanation. Nothing else in our experience would have made sense if everybody and everything was just floating nilly-willy everywhere all of the time. Staying stuck to the ground just basically makes it more practical for human beings to interact with one another and their environment.

Think of reality as a story, a story in which you are a character exercising free will in order that the story continues to be written from within. If you were to write the human story would there be any reason to have everything flouncing about in all directions? Would you feel the need to explain why objects in your story didn’t just go sailing through the air, or would that seem to burden the story – what writers call too much world-building.

Now consider this: There is no such thing as gravity.

While we all have consistent experiences of gravity, nobody experienced gravity before Newton. Because nobody questioned why they weren’t unstuck from the ground. It was only after the concept of gravity had been introduced that anybody could have been expected to experience gravity. Without the idea and the word, nobody had been able to experience it. They were not experiencing being stuck to the ground, either, because there was no reason to have ever questioned why they were.

Gravity is an abstraction. And it is not alone. Almost everything humans pride themselves as having attained as knowledge is equally an abstraction. We are not discovering reality or nature or laws, but creating them to enrich our narrative.

Abstraction is not pointless, though. Through it we are able to experience a sense of change. It is a creative tool that allows us to increase the complexity of our story. But abstractions are no more the cause of our narrative than words are the cause of Dorothy going to Oz.

A few hundred years after Newton, another scientist named Einstein reformulated the gravity abstraction. His gravity was not compatible with the old version. Nonetheless, both gravity abstractions are useful in different ways. Classical physics is considered in every engineering project undertaken today. Einsteinian physics are considered whenever quantum-level or cosmological activities are taking place.

So are both of them true or untrue? Or as mere abstractions, are they neither true and untrue, and only useful when applied to a specific category of further abstraction?

Imagine if you could talk to a fish. Would explaining to the fish that it is wet be useful to it? How would they understand what it means to be wet when they have never known anything else? And how could that concept be used to change the fish way of living?

Probably not at all unless fish were a language using species. Language encourages abstraction and profits (adapts and evolves) from its use.

As a human being you exist within a mental sea of language-derived abstractions. Even now as I am telling you that gravity and everything else you think is ‘really real’ is just an abstraction that doesn’t exist outside of itself, like the fish that is told it is wet, you are probably thinking that I am either stupid or insane.

That is what happens when somebody steps out of line and is no longer hypnotized by the same abstractions as everyone else.

If you happen to be hypnotized by the right abstractions at the right place and time, they will call you normal or a genius. But if your abstracted delusions of truth don’t fit the zeitgeist you’re in, they’ll call you a fool or a loony.

However, lest you think that this writing is itself an abstraction, yet one with no useful function, let me explain why abstraction can become problematic and should be recognized.

Have a discussion with any conservative, whether it is a Reagan-era Republican, a Kek-worshipping alt-right boi, or an anarcho-capitalist. At some point in the discussion they are going to appeal to natural laws. They will then use these natural law abstractions as a way of convincing you that their ideology is supported by the very nature of existence itself; much in the same way that Newton and the early Protestant scientists used natural laws in order to align themselves with God’s holy will.

This is the nature of all abstractions – to be used as an appeal in order to control the thoughts and behaviors of others. Not to say that this is always for the worst, but if you cannot conceive that this is happening, you become radically susceptible to suggestion and thus more likely to be deluded or harmed by it.

So the next time some slick trickster tries to get you to join their ideological cult by making you submit to “reality” because “gravity” – smile politely, nod your head and walk away and let them abstracturbate without you.

[theadvancedape]

Mathematics, Schizophrenia and the Shifting Sands of Madness

I was having a discussion with someone recently who was telling me about a friend of theirs who is a mathematician. This friend, she bragged, saw numbers in everything. Where we saw walls and colors and felt heat or heard trumpets, her friend saw numbers and formulas and complex calculations that described those experiential phenomena. She was so enamored of her friend’s ability to see mathematics in everything that I soon realized her adoration was almost messianic in nature.

Not so very long ago when humans conceived that their reality was populated by spirits and gods – those who heard voices or saw things nobody else did – were thought of as prophets or shaman or some other holy role. Today we call those people schizophrenic or bipolar and pump them full of enough chemicals to keep their visions at bay. Meanwhile people who see numbers that the rest of us do not, or geometry or other empirical modeling tools within nature itself, these folks are called geniuses. They are the new holy folk.

It seems to me that so far as madness goes, that the only difference between a mathematician and a schizophrenic is when and where they were born. In another time somebody who saw numbers and calculations everywhere would have been considered obsessive compulsive and quite likely considered to be hallucinating and dangerous to themselves and others.

In fact mathematicians would already call some people who do this differently than they do, numerologists, wackos. It is not seeing the significance in numbers or their relationships which gives mathematicians a messianic reputation in modern society, but in using the visions of numbers to validate the status quo worldview.

Here and now that worldview is materialism, and mathematics exist mostly just to model material reality. The glory of the mathematician is in their seemingly mystical connection to a deeper level of the reality modern people believe in. Mathematicians validate the perfectly normal and are hailed as visionaries for it.

When once spirits and gods were the reality belief of choice, those who heard voices or saw apparitions were holy for the same reason – a seemingly mystical connection to a deeper level of that model of reality.

The difference between madness and genius lies not in the individuals that possess them, but in what we believe reality to be. And those who validate the current consensus belief about reality through the highest form of strangeness allowed by those beliefs are considered holy or genius or whatever is preferable at the time.

If someday human beings come to believe that the universe is a complex song comprised of melodies and harmonies then they will probably also believe that anyone who constantly gets songs stuck in their head is some sort of holy genius. Perfect pitch might even make you a god.

Lesson: If you wanna be a messiah tomorrow you should start practicing madness today.

[theadvancedape]

Philosophical Idealism & the Spook of Solipsism

An inevitable consequence of discussing philosophical Idealism is facing rejection based on the perceived implication of solipsism, but what underlies that implication?

Idealism is the notion that all that exists are mental processes, and that physical phenomena are themselves only mental processes. This is really rather simple to demonstrate if one applies reason and accepts the evidence without prejudice and without regard to further consequences or implications of that evidence.

Since gravity is the most common protest of the physicalist, I will use that example.

What can you say of gravity other than having an experience of it? Can you somehow escape your own subjective perceptions and interpretations and verify gravity outside of your experience of it?

In fact, you can not.

The next trick up the physicalists sleeve will be an appeal to consensus. They posit that since gravity is similarly experienced by just about everyone, it must lie outside of experience.

The first issue here is that we really have no idea if we are having identical experiences of gravity, since we cannot see the content of other minds. We know that similar language and descriptions of gravity occur, but we do not know that actual experience is in agreement, or if consensus is just a function of language use.

The second issue is some simple math. If all individual experiences are subjective, then they all have an ‘objectivity value’ of zero. You can add and multiply zeroes infinitely and and you will never reach a sum greater than zero.

Put another way, if you have a million broken clocks, you will have one time in which more of the broken clocks have stopped than any other. However this will not tell you what time it is. The consensus of broken clocks is not an accurate timepiece.

Neither is the consensus of subjective experience and accurate indicator of anything outside of subjective experience.

If there is an objective physical reality outside of the experience of it, we would be unable to confirm it given the limitations of our subjectivity. And so it makes no sense to build any foundation of reasoning upon the abstract hypothesis of an untestable objective physical basis for reality.

It is at this point that people become prone to reject Idealism based on the concern that it might lead to solipsism. But once again, we must not reject evidence based on where it may lead. We must accept it on the strength of it’s own evidence, for such is the intellectual honesty and rigor required for making logical deductions.

My first response to the slippery slope to solipsism is that only one thing can make you a solipsist, and that is to explicitly believe that all of reality is just a manifestation of your  own individual mind. Just because Idealism might seemingly suggest solipsism does not alone make an Idealist a solipsist. A solipsist is someone who believes in and makes claims to a solipsist metaphysics specifically.

There are a few reasons why I do not believe in solipsism, and while these are based in more ephemeral modes of knowing like intuition, I do not think that nullifies them.

The greatest reason I doubt solipsism is the experience of beauty provided by creative endeavors. That so much beauty has been created outside of my own interests, talents and capabilities seems to suggest other agents at work.

While I accept that this is not a logical rebuttal of solipsism itself, it is enough to make me reject a belief in solipsism. Thus meaning that regardless of implications, I am not a solipsist. Further I would not build other ideas and beliefs upon any assumptions of a solipsist nature of reality. Thus any connection between what it is possible to know and what I believe is not relevant to solipsism at all.

And yet even as I scramble to deny the connection I must ask myself, why would I feel obligated to do so?

Why is solipsism something to be avoided at all costs?

I am not going to convince you of solipsism here, but rather try to pry open the reasons the very notion of it conjures up a strong sense of rejection.

It does not seem to be rejected on the merits of the evidence in its favor, so much as rejected as an intolerable outcome regardless of merit. Why is it intolerable?

It seems to me that it is intolerable because it denies the existence of other equal agents within reality. And so I believe we are averse to it for it because it denies either one’s own, or everyone else’s, existence.

And I can understand an intuitive rejection of that premise, but I think it also supposes something else, and that is that such a realization must necessarily lead to the belief that you are above the illusory standards of humanity and have permission to act with impropriety, ill will and complete self interest.

Basically I think we equate solipsism with some cosmic justification for selfishness. But that would be an incorrect assumption within the framework of solipsism.

If all of reality was a manifestation of your mind created to serve you, then you would be identical with the totality of reality, and therefore any harm done to other people in that reality is self-harm.

Solipsism would actually suggest that only by valuing others and treating them with dignity, respect and love can we ever be the recipients of these gifts ourselves.

Wait, why aren’t I a solipsist again? j/k

[theadvancedape]

I am a CisSoldier in the Troll War against the Gender Jihadis calling themselves 'feminists'.

#feminism #genderjihadis #trollwar

[theadvancedape]

The distraction of gadgetry.