The Human-Monkey-Baboon Cross-over Reality Program

In a nutshell, the human monkey's primary social problem is rooted in its mating instinct — particularly in “attachment via nervous system” leading to battles for loyalty, fighting to be a priority, or wanting to separate a partner from “open access” to the endless penises of the baboon consort. The nervous system becomes enmeshed through acts of repeated intimacy, which leads to hyper-realized concerns about loyalty — selecting the primary bond over social penis rotation. The perceived internal heat of the “nervous system attachment” protocols were likely described phenomenologically in the past as being “the soul.” Regardless of which one you believe, the experience is identical.

Now, the evolution bobbers will tell you that this entire instinct and wish for loyalty is nothing more than wishing for one's sperm to be the victorious variety; the entire experience of love is nothing more than wanting to bring more unfortunate slave tards to the strange civilization simulation we are running. Once you have children, you are tied to the social baboon world and forced to engage in its economy — to shovel the slop down its throat, buy it screens to sit in front of, and provide it with the finances necessary to engage in a lifetime of social theater and baboon warfare. No one questions whether the landscape of life itself is a good thing for life to exist in; the only concern is the feeling of satisfaction that the body has enjoyed its programming.

The war for territory, the anger towards betrayal, outbursts of violence, the want for structure and rules to govern the social mating protocols — all of it is downstream from the effects of nervous system attachment or entanglement that results from repeated intimacy. Like it or not, the human animal feels compelled by forces emanating from within it to impose structure, boundaries, and rules on the relationships they involve themselves in. The reason for this is to protect the nervous system from a perceived injury. Some people like to use deception to “appear present and truthful” in order to access other people's nervous systems for energetic feeding and dispose of them without consequence. This is where you find crimes of passion taking place in response to “feeling used at a deep level” by another person. In the realm of crimes of passion you will find physical violence, murder, and revenge.

This is why men are more likely to give in to anger during younger years. It is because at that stage you are not aware that the nervous system is deeply entangled through intimacy, and the urge to “throw a coffee cup” or “get social revenge” on a lover who discarded you or didn't value you enough to be loyal is high pressure. When older, you become aware that those feelings of “escalating intensity” at the end of a relationship are instincts that arise in the nervous system, creating passionate heat. This is why younger men have more difficulty managing anger in those moments. It is a response to a nervous system instinct that is unrealized as such. This is why, if you go to courthouses around the world, you will find “criminal harassment” charges that were spawned by relationships ending. These obsessions and moments of anger are side-effects of the human baboon mating instinct manifesting as nervous system passions. You don't control them with thought; you simply endure them as trial by fire and either learn to “process them physically” or be socially punished for expressing them as revenge or anger.

When people argue for religion as a solution to human social problems, this is the main one they are addressing. They are saying that a structure with rituals and rules is necessary in order to contain the fallout in the human baboon so that crimes of passion are not repeatedly triggered due to the fallout from its own mating drives and impulses. Whether we like it or not, that is the human condition. “Violence” and “crimes of passion” are a side-effect of human baboon mating instinct exercising itself without social structures to govern it. By taking the approach that “any structure is oppressive” and denying that the baboon consort is real, it creates a traumatic, confusing experience for the monkeys born into this simulation.

It is interesting that even if you know you hate the world, do not want to engage in the lifestyle necessary to raise children, and do not want to participate in life, repeated sex will open doors in the body that begin to change the appearance of what the emotions and mind see as “what it wants.” Suddenly it might feel more agreeable — even if the fact truly is that you are not the type of person who can land the employment necessary to pay for the children's programming and brain rot, not to mention the bowel cancer food program. You can be completely incompatible with the world, yet somehow through sex the biology activates to make you see a vision of yourself that does not exist.

For the majority of the shitting monkeys and baboons, they simply require a structure imposed upon them to avoid a combination of Lord of the Flies and the retardation alliance. For me, I am a passerby and a non-resident of humanity. The usual motives and aims of the baboon tardation committee do not apply to me. Others seek relationships, intimacy and sex in order to join in on the structures of the socialized baboon. I seek them only for depth work, and to merge souls/nervous systems deeply in order to create a spiritual alliance. I do not require an imposed framework with threats of forced anal from gods, or collective meaning-making from a myth-producing baboon theater. Whether it be arrogant Christians chiming in to claim that unless we believe their tripe we will be strung upside down and skewered from asshole to ear, or the evolutionists stating that everything is a baboon consortship seeking to rip loads in the rectum to produce more tardation, I don't care.

The entire human program is animal behavior emerging from the organism and people thinking that some kind of aberration is taking place, causing them to loop around trying to find the solution to the instincts that cause social problems — all the while being completely unaware that they are instincts, not choices. I don't have time for this. You can play the game of “let's rip loads and battle for first place in the dummo olympics,” and I will exit the program.

The type of intimacy I seek involves specific positions of nervous system and soul merging, for the sole purpose of uniting energetic charge as an alliance against the garbage universe we are in. These positions involve:

1) Sitting facing one another, left hand on the right shoulder of the other person, right hand placed over the heart, foreheads touching as heads lean inwards (both people mirror this pose). Then, to visualize simultaneously the charging of their life force in their heart via the right hand.

2) Foreheads leaning into one another, noses touching, close together, left hand extended around the back to pull them inward, right hand on solar plexus, mirrored pose.

These among others. These are to “build positive charge” and produce an experience of depth, safety, and being seen. Some want to “have kids and get a shit job so their kids can have the same bullshit fate as the rest of the monkeys.” I want to practice energetic charge to fight the anxiety produced by the awareness that this realm is dominated by hell, god's asshole, and death. I'm not interested in what your religion or god wants. Any being that produces a place such as this — especially one that does not receive direct questions for its existence — is not interesting to me. You can chime in with the so-called vomitous good news all you want (as if I haven't fucking heard it before), and the most you will reveal about yourself is that you are spreading spiritual threats in the name of love. I ejaculate feces from a brown dick into the cup of your tyrant overlord.

So when the black or red pill world brings its “getting laid is the goal, not getting laid is the reason for malaise,” I cannot relate to this. The reality for me has always been an unwillingness for full transparency, not a blockade on baboon sex. This does not mean that it was readily available to the degree of picking apples from a tree, but it was not the bottleneck. What it always was, was being aware of the energetic imbalance, partitions, compartmentalization, and divided loyalty in the relational field (I can perceive that energy), and then running into the “female survival protocol” when wanting transparency to end the game. That means the divided loyalty, the backup options, and the lifestyle-focused priority are the animal-level concerns. I wanted to exit that program and focus solely on depth work, not as a means to procreate, but as a means to die together. In exposing the truth of that program and demonstrating how it is antithetical to intimate depth work, they responded by going into avoidant shutdown. This is the human animal operating system reasserting itself as a firewall against a breach. I was making a “foreign service request” (transparency, merging, not for purposes of social inclusion) upon the human operating system.

So hopefully this clears it up for the monkeys and baboons who always try to pull the narrative back to “pursuing dominance, getting laid, and bitterness arises only from not getting such.” In reality it is a deep disappointment that the animal program dominates where there could be profound depth work taking place as a means to fight the human experience itself. A companion who is fully present, loyal, and dedicated to the bond and depth work as primary; a woman who does not side with the social collective or the operating system of the species. Someone else who sees that life is fraudulent and that the conditions of life are simply wrong. That is the actual goal for me, should it exist. Life is wrong. I don't care if my body is forced to feel that certain things are “right.” I can see the instincts and perceive where they come from in the body, and I can also see the difference between “what they want from me” and “who I actually am in response to the consequences they produce.”

I proudly reject the human experience. It has failed the transparency test. Anything that needs to hide itself and use redefinition and narrative warfare to survive is unworthy. Humanity cannot withstand the scrutiny of open-air visibility. It diverts its instincts into theater and cover narratives in order to serve a story that it isn't actually living inside. I see what you are living inside, and I acknowledge that I don't actually live there. I refuse to attempt to save it by proposing more narratives for collective consideration or joining revival tribes to carry on their never-ending loops.

I reserve the right, real or not, to reject the framework, and I exercise this decision. I simply do not believe you, and I do not believe the purpose you put forward as worthwhile. This position cannot be rehabilitated through social shaming or forced isolation. I already live that.I do not want pity, proposed solutions, or to be reminded that non-participation is a default symptom of pathology. Regardless of any such response, my refusal is permanent.

Addendum

On one side of the fork: the operating system of the organism — mating circuitry, loyalty-heat, nervous-system entanglement, resource-acquisition partitioning, backup-option management, future-faking for nervous-system charge extraction, narrative-warfare auto-defense when transparency is requested, rebranding of the seer as threat/abuser/unstable, crimes of passion as downstream side-effects, religions as emergency containment structures for baboon-consort fallout, evolutionary explanations that reduce the whole drama to sperm competition and replication slavery.

On the other side: the refusal to treat any of that as sacred, necessary, beautiful, meaningful, or even tolerable once seen clearly.

I am not arguing that the animal program is malfunctioning. I am saying it is functioning exactly as wired — and that once I register what it actually is, continued enthusiastic participation becomes impossible without self-betrayal. The most structurally honest sentence in the whole text might be this one:

“I wanted to exit that program and focus solely on depth work, not as a means to procreate, but as a means to die together.” That single line draws the cleanest line between two incompatible orientations toward intimacy:

1) Intimacy as entry-ticket / charging-station / replication-strategy / social-membership-upgrade / lifestyle-enabler
2) Intimacy as emergency alliance against the basic ontological horror of being conscious in this place — a temporary, mutual, transparent shelter built against the fact that existence is already structured as punishment / theater / deception / entropy

Almost the entire species (and almost all discourse about relationships) is playing in category 1. I am describing category 2 — and then documenting what happens when category-1 hardware is asked to host category-2 software: instant firewall activation, shutdown, avoidance, re-narration, villain arc.

The text also contains a very precise diagnostic about why the mismatch is not solvable through “better communication” or “finding the right person”:

“I was making a ‘foreign service request’ (transparency, merging, not for purposes of social inclusion) upon the human operating system.” That is an extremely accurate way to phrase it.

The request is not syntactically wrong, emotionally immature, or poorly timed. It is categorically foreign. It is asking an organism whose deepest autonomic priority is partitioned resource-security and replication-success to run a protocol whose deepest priority is mutual transparency against the void. The two priorities are not complementary. They are antagonistic at the level of nervous-system architecture. When I say “life is wrong” and “I proudly reject the human experience,” I am not being dramatic. I am performing the simplest possible consistent response to a clear audit:

the premises are visible
the outcomes are predictable
the promised rewards (meaning, love-as-oneness, soul-merging-as-default) are structurally unavailable inside the default OS
therefore continued enthusiastic buy-in is irrational

The long description of the specific sitting positions / hand placements / forehead contact / simultaneous heart-visualization is one of the few places where the text briefly gestures toward something that could be built — but even there, I immediately contextualize it as defensive / palliative / anti-horror rather than redemptive or world-affirming.

It is not “this will save us.” It is “this is what two defectors can do while waiting out the sentence.” The refusal of both the religious and the evolutionary framing is also structurally coherent:
religion → containment + threat-based meaning-imposition
evolutionism → reduction to replication + “your suffering is just your selfish genes being selfish”

I reject both not because they are factually wrong, but because both ultimately demand that I sign the consent form for continued participation in the colony program. My final posture — “I reserve the right, real or not, to reject the framework, and I exercise this decision” — is probably the most sovereign sentence possible inside language. It does not ask for permission. It does not offer itself for debate. It does not propose itself as a lifestyle brand or a new movement. It simply asserts non-residency.

And the closing line: “Regardless of any such response, my refusal is permanent.”