Saturday, January 14, 2012

To feminist males who denounce submissive females as "sick"...

You are an adult male mammal who has more of a developed lordosis reflex than intromission reflex.

["Lordosis is mammal female butt in air reflex; intromission is mammal male thrust reflex; testosterone regulates.]

The sub chicks have a hyper expressed feminine lordosis reflex. (…Hyper expressed because of “nurture” contingencies that multi century old wasp liberalism simply deems bad. And that "deeming" is rooted in the ascendent untermensche morality. Ascending because of the "alpha beta gamma principle"[coup snowball toward runtification].)

You are actually more “sick”. (…Made “sick” by contingencies liberalism simply deems acceptable. Eg single fem household, “socially engineered”/anti male school system, female orchestrated serial infidelity (humiliating to males), pop culture at large etc etc –-all of which affected you like _Stockholm-syndrome_ affects its "victims”.)

Thursday, January 12, 2012


Pregnant women can, with total impunity, permanently damage their fetus with fetal alcohol syndrome. No legal sanction for that, not even societal shunning.

Pretty neat huh?

Democracy and capitalism must be stopped; then a _strong government_ created so as to prevent them from ever developing again.

Obviously trickery and other political tactics will have to be used to get there.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

On and on...

“Materialism” means cause and effect determinism –- all movement/change is domino effects/ billiard-ball chain reactions –- rather than miracles. Even if god started it all –with the Big Break–he conforms, negating a role for an activist god (along with freewill).

But that begs a question: why believe in and pray to/beg a “loving” creator who made all the ‘red in tooth a claw’ pecking order determinism of it all.

Natural selection is real. Get over it. Denying it/facts doesn’t make it any better.

“Secularism” HAS been a disaster.

But that is because…

YOU –-the disease called democracy-– DIDN’T LET US FINISH THE JOB.

“…We offered the world order!”

(Eugenics solves all problems.

One of the problems it solves is it gets rid of the people who mis define eugenics …and determinism …and materialism …and their own god.)

I did not mean religion is the disease OF democracy. I meant democracy itself is a social disease.

But maybe… if we got rid of the stupid/religiously delusional (be that religion jesus cult or feminism /infantile liberalism) a kind of democracy would be tolerateable between the intelligent (130+ IQ).

We study "materialism" -- the material universe and all its stuff in ever bank shot-ting chain reactions-- through a cause and effect dissection exercise -- and thus a prediction model creator-- called "science". (...We look both ways before we cross the road, running between the observed billiard balls.)

And yet anyway, yes, again, secularism has been a disaster.

But -- again-- that is because...

The caste-structure-held-together-by-wishful-demagoguery (ie religion of ONE STRIPE OR ANOTHER including "liberalism")-- didn't let us take 'secular reason' to its "logical" --ie its cause and effect processing-- conclusion.

That conclusion --after civil wars at the 'top' (where the demagogues there wouldn't be able to hide behind the masses they hold together through protectionist demagoguery)-- would have been more control of environmental contingency/events not less. Ie less 'freedom' (which is a religious conviction).

This control would have included controlling reproduction.

...Down with free range pu$$y.

Up with the Neo Cortex ...The road crosser.

The dolts do not understand the full expanse of cause and effect and man's understanding of it. Ie they argue from ignorance as all religious people do. They would not have started the “free will* train” of thought if they did; nor the “a-bio genesis [life forming] is impossible" train. [*Don't start with the "quantum effects allow freewill and activist god". I understand it better than you; Hell I'm one of the inventors of the train of thought. It doesn't apply on our scale -- just like quantum effects trying to trump general Newtonian cause and effect mechanics don't.)

As far as god hitting me with a hammer to make me sharper… Thanks but no thanks[grabs wrist]– I’m sharp enough.

And as far as god wanting us to ‘get up off the couch’ and fight in the Natural Selection (“Darwinist”) arena as part of his plan… what kind of monster are you giving thanks to? (Not to mention: that is horrible politics/coalition-glue -- you will never win power that way.)

I will use my god given freewill (heh heh) –- ie my cause and effect analyzer /prediction creator/neo cortex -– to think a way around such a monster.


women are not paid less than men.

Fine old chestnut but long since roasted.

Indeed women are conferred many educational, legal and grant privileges men are not; unconstitutionally. And since most men are not high status, that is important. Woman instinctively cheat on, use or discriminate against low status men, "equality" tween the genders (read: special privileges for females) in education, jobs, law and status doesn't just stop there. It never did.

I'm amazed that western culture did not and can not get its collective mind around how biology and gender works: Males are competing --where few win and most lose -- _over female sexual value_ [read fickleness/infidelity/discrimination].

"Jobs" educations etc are not some conspiracy to keep females from working. They are the competitive arena where-in males try to have enough value to balance out boopsy's natural value. Biology 101. There already were not enough status positions to go around; hence the revolutions men fought (and still fight) to be more equal with top males and thus with the females.

As I said any "advantage­" or even parity leads to more female discriminatory callous infidelity. (And that leads to even more male competition and disparity between the have and have not males; not to mention it leads to more 'growth' and environmental degradation.)

The goal of females achieving status is not to buy mates like it is for males but rather to have more license to engage in antagonizing.

How did you and most of the West miss that fact of nature for the last few centuries? Seriously.

women dress to have multi male suitors all court them at once. This way they can tell the guy she DOES choose "hey up your game(give me more)" at her whim. It is a way of wielding leverage in the relationship. (The females don't need to be self aware in this. Therefore when they say "we dress for ourselves" they may be sincere. ...Though inaccurate.)

And it is not in the clothes since fashions change. It is in the social butterfly personality power of the females in question. _That_ is what will lead to multi mate choices and thus leverage over the guy she is with (regardless of the fashion of the day).

In agreement with some of the article though I say: Female 'hip swivel' IS the equivalent of male 'shoulder swagger'. Our society caps/limits male shoulder swagger display but not female hip swivel. That is why we have strippers and escorts but not vikings. That is why we have a matriarchy.

The dudes who say man up(become better gamers) and enjoy it(the social butterfly dalliance scene all around us)...

(In the old days, the winners instead of saying "become better gamers and enjoy the show" would have said "make more money and buy yourself a June Cleaver [loyal doting 50s housewife].")

Problem: All men can't achieve rank in that system; say 70-90 % can't.

So that triggers a thing similar to the capitalist individualism, vs socialism thing... The loser/ socialist big tent will always win and prevent the winners from consolidating their victories (because protectionism works better politically than selfish-ism in a troop species --always has). Therefore it is incumbent on the top 10 percent (the winners) to prevent this all from happening so as to prevent the big tent of losers from throwing a wrench into the victory party.

That is something the winners of capitalism or gaming(or how ever one says winner in the past) can't seem to get. Thus they always lose the _big_ battle/the war vs the super coalition of losers.

...And thus society snowballs into the next fashion /competitive arena (but then with even fewer vikings and even more strippers --matriarchy).

I'm against competition. And it is not because of simplistic liberal BS like "the hurt feelings of the losers". It is because in [real] competition... there will always be winners and LOSERS (usually more losers).

Then you have a problem… You can suppress the losers or let them counter attack and try to overthrow the game/rule set that benched them.

Democracy chose the latter solution [allowing and crowning rebellion] and look where it led… Feminism, ‘race replacement’ and etc, etc political problems (eg snowballing normalization of oddball-ness/runtiness which ultimately gets rid of the “normal”/ye olde victors).

The reason for intellects who can think it all through to big picture CONCLUSION being in favor of ending real competition (not vid game comp), is because in [real] competition there will always be winners and LOSERS (usually more losers): a giant caste of have and have not.

The very things everyone here complains about (eg femocracy taking over sports etc) are the very things the losers have done to get back at the perceived winners.

If one thinks it all through... man needs to have: fatal competition (ie dueling), or rigorously controlled caste structure --ie no freedom to rebel, or no competition. The other option of just saying "well the losers will learn a little about themselves" doesn't reckon with the FACT that the losers HAVE learned... They learned that holding themselves together in action pacts of losers rallied around utopian demagoguery allows them to have unchallenged power as they imposes species-changing polices on the winners to get back at them.

Again... losers need to be killed, or suppressed, or the winners and losers dance needs to be stopped in order to stop the pre conditions that --history shows-- inevitably led to liberalism/feminism and etc political problems.

One way or the other the old system of maleness for humans is done (after this little fall of Rome a coming, which could cause a temporary neo primitive a la fight club). It is a question of who is gonna be in charge of what we become. We have seen what the feminists offer: rampant infidelity (normalized by new fancy words, despite the FACT that we would never tolerate it if the genders were reversed, calling it “emotional abuse” at the least and the “catalyst for all manner of damaging problems”) and or variants of femdom.

Again what are you gonna do with the losers/bench warmers?


It feels good when some people abuse others.

Should they be allowed to do it?

Since your answer is probably no, we now know that your policy of 'license for all' is really an expression of your ignorance about how domino effects works.

Ie cheating is not a victim less crime... even if it feels good to the cheaters.

The problem with "do what thou whilst be it hurts no one" is _MOST_ things we do affect others somewhere else in some way. (It is just a question of how many "degrees of separation" can your mind grapple with.)



"[poisonous bile frpm a viper given more venom]" (Ie Greek for an article by an educated female.)

Nonsense (otherwise called journalism) from a little girl. (All females are ultimately.) Indicative of their controlling and malicious characters too.

And whatever they say they want from men this time will change next time. "Boxers vs briefs" back and forth over the generations. As said, indicative of their controlling and malicious characters.

Where are the articles where ADULT men critique and try to conform females they feel don't measure up?

Oh that's right: there are none. (Note men being [mindlessly] enamored [and hypnotized/controlled] by "hot chicks" on TV and in mags and movies is NOT the same thing as adult men getting together and making fun of chicks they don't think measure up; And then trying to force those deemed unacceptable chicks into roles through mockery. ...Not the same thing.)

The Greeks said it best: "educating a woman is simply giving more venom to a viper."

Unfortunately the absolute morons that make of democracy and the jews too need to learn that lesson the hard way for themselves, TWO THOUSAND YEARS LATE FOR CLASS.

Men and women are not equal, regardless of what books say. Further "equal" is a santa claus pipe dream. (Humans are prone to delusional wishful thinking and political cajoling.)

And further any notion that says these gendered studies are more besmirching to females than males is obvious delusion. (The differences are framed as though boopsy is advantaged, yet pro-female types complain anyway.)

...Poor boopsies even under siege when people frame things as though she is better than boys.

And the notion that any morality or political consideration should be the deciding factor in any research here is counter the revolution's ideals of enlightenment and is Orwellian (as most people are ultimately). Also the attempt to impose this political academic and media blinder artifice exposes to the astute that the class(es) that seek to impose these blinders are not oppressed(as they claim) but rather the oppressors.


“[sarcasm:] yeah, one man who gets raped by a woman makes rape a gender-neutral crime, one woman who beats her husband makes spousal abuse a equal-female opportunity, oh wait… “

Rape IS a “gender neutral crime” (your term). And not for the strawman reason you gave. The reason is that one person (a man most often) rapes another person or persons. But all men certainly haven’t. To have solutions to rape or punishments for rape be directed at any other GROUP of citizens other than the actual one person accused would be unconstitutional and sexist bigotry.

"Spousal abuse is about asserting power and control over the spouse being abused. "


But another manifestation of "asserting power and control" is what this society has done to men and boys across the board in education, employment, family court and social and family relationships generally --unasked for by a majority and not constitutionally sanctioned.

And regarding some comments:

-"Nothing justifies domestic violence"
Plenty of reasons to assert power and control over a spouse through personal or state coercion; and to pretend that coercion is not backed up by threat of violence" is santy claus cult.


-"I am against violence in all situations"
That is patently untrue; unachievable. At the very least you advocate violence to pull him off of her and keep him in jail. So it is just a question of who you believe the violence should be directed against and whom should perpetrate it.

Further if the perp was a female, we would hear about how the perp was simply acting out their woe at being hurt previously by the other party (victim) or had some issue from childhood.

Tarring all men--which is what the next DV policy initiative will do when it uses this story as part of its policy push-- with what this one ethnic damaged/abused lower class man did is an example of stereotyping/ painting everyone with a broad brush; when liberals do that, it is hypocrisy (since they are the ones who pushed the movement of not stereotyping). (Also like I said to have this perp's previous history of potential bad nurture syndrome not be relevant here is further hypocrisy on the part of liberalism since liberalism prides itself on its complexity environment arguments. To have that hypocrisy be gender motivated [which it ultimately is] is "sexism".)

Also not issuing a previous restraining order is NOT evidence of "women being hurt by a patriarchy that won't protect them". (Not to mention, if wimmin are equal why do they need this state protection?...) It is evidence that there was not enough evidence previously that a restraining order was needed. Given that the denying of a RestrainOrd happened in Florida--notorious for their draconian anti-DV initiatives--what I said is especially true: no evidence that he was a danger (yet); the previous court would have needed a time machine to rule otherwise.

The same people who believe in demonizing all men for what these couple of rapists do are the same people who resist attempts to prevent prison convicts and etc from breeding.

And also the same people who look to "nurture syndrome"/environmental excuses when wimmins commit crimes are the same people who believe in demonizing and dis powering ALL men for what a COUPLE of rapists do (rapists who could be called 'victims of nurture syndrome').

Bullying is NOT a "gay or "gender discrimination" issue. To frame it that way, shows how corrupt our political machine is --how bad democracy is ultimately. Meaning every law that comes done the pike trying to deal with some human condition issue(like eg bullying) has some special rider in it for the special protected classes; special classes who might not even be the most debilitated or targeted classes.

Bullies can and do have bully parents. Ie it's hard to get the parents to stop it since they have caused it (and are probably a little proud of it).

The rash of suicide people might be prone to suicide. Ie bullying is just one facet of their lives'; other people who are bullied more severely don't commit suicide.

Three B...
The media's recent obsession with yoots who commit suicide after being gay bashed is typical media game playing / brain washing.

That makes me sound like I'm being anti gay and I'm not. I am simply saying that the media puts only SOME stories into the loop for the masses for its media reasons. ...Lots of people get bullied, are not gay and don't commit suicide. But that isn't deemed news to the News.

To the people saying the victims should toughen up... While that is glibly true, it is more easily said than done in modern western culture. The mod west prides itself on single fem parenting, alternative lifestyles/small households(no or few siblings), leisure/softness/ease of life(exercise etc is hard), protective medical environments (meaning we keep alive all manner of pups who normally would have died that can't just fight back) and zero tolerance for violence (which ironically hamstrings victims rights at scene of assault).

(And that last one there--"zero tolerance", which is inevitably selectively enforced-- is some real hypocritical Assery. "A world without violence where in people who would not normally be victims of violence get to be the victims of violence a world without violence." ..sigh... politics...)


Thursday, October 27, 2011

The Soviet Union as suspected matriarchy.

Welmar's site(an anti feminist "magazine") has a thread about Soviet Russia.

Typically the anti statist obsessoids pipe up claiming that Soviet Russia is a matriarchy. They present "evidence" of "totalitarianism" and --to them-- that translates into so called "matriarchy." (In my matriarchy section --top right-- I talk about "this means therefore that" logic.)

I have posted numerous responses to the thread. All but one small one have been censored by that insufferable cowardly git welmar.

I post the  censored responses here...


This first one is my response to a litany of copied statements from early communist revolutionaries and breeding data from modern Scandinavia and Iceland.

SM October 26, 2011 at 21:02
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Everyone knows that early communism’s goal is liberalism and feminism –-you are not enlightening anyone by quoting pages from books and documents [eye roll].

I know far more about it than you: welmar simply keeps censoring my posts(3 now) to quash my supposed antisemitism.

(Again, everyone knows that early communism’s goal is liberalism and feminism. But that begs a question: why does american capitalist democracy fight the wars that put communism in power over countries? And two: why did the west allow the “communist fellow travelers” to infiltrate and take over american media, “civil rights” pressure groups(race and gender demagogues), law and academia if capitalist democracy is a system that prevents matriarchy?)

And _everyone knows_ that non Russian countries after WW II –eg Iceland, Sweden etc–that are “socialists democracies” [ie capitalist democracy liberal-states] are way liberal.

That doesn’t AT ALL demonstrate that Russia (or china etc) _turned out_ to be more to the left (on race and gender issues) than the west did.

You have a western/american anti government cold-war obsession and that’s what it all comes down to. You are not looking at reality; you are looking at propaganda and pages of old books which do not denote reality accurately.

Showing –-in your copied documents-– that a country has state sponsored chivalry doesn’t mean that that country is more of a matriarchy than ours with our conventional/traditional(non govt based) chivalry for dames --especially since our conventional chivalry has long since been codified/institutionalized into law anyhow –right under the nose of the capitalist democracy[eyeroll]. It simply demonstrates that other countries have a “state”.

That is your real sticking point and all the matriarchy vs patriarchy stuff is just mis defining of terms motivated by your american anti statism.

(Note that Christianity demands largess towards the poor, weak and feminine too.)

And while you didn’t post this next stuff explicitly it is important to cut you off at the pass before you regurgitate out more pages from more decades old books…

Capitalism beats communism at creating more stuff(tm), true. Again _well known._ BUT THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF MATRIARCHY VS PATRIARCHY.

Also putting men in gulags, and having spys vs spy shenanigans is not the definition of matriarchy and patriarchy. I don’t care if life was harder for men in the soviet system than western democracy. That is not the definition of matriarchy vs patriarchy. Life is harder for men in the Amish system too.

And a novelist (gorky) can “acknowledge” what ever he wants in the 30s. It tells us nothing at all.


And to "Anonymous Reader"…

1) – Sticking point. East Germany was an occupied zone of hated enemies. That must be kept in mind when pointing to it as example of Russian communism (no less Chinese et al communism).

2) None of that spy vs spy /stark winterscape-living scene is germane to matriarchy/ patriarchy definitions.

You are obsessed with cold war western propaganda that has blinded you. It is some kind of clinging to masculinity through being good western patriots (and the anti state zealotry).

Nobody denies that the red revolution –starting in 1850– was liberal demagoguery (matriarchy sophistry included).

BUT after the MILITARY COUP to achieve it in Russia and the patriotism or death of the WWII period, the soviets had done away with those crackpots.

Somehow you missed that trend.


Nobody is denying matriarchy. I am saying that you mis-defined it.

I define it again:

The definition of matriarchy is not whether or not a country offers a tax break–or has something called “growth”.

Or whether there are spies in occupied zones ratting each other out (if that is even true), with bleak winterscape backdrops.

Nor is it whether or not men are burdened and beaten. Males –for biological reasons– will always have more burden than females until if and when gender is eliminated.

_The definition is in part ‘are the females enhareming males’; polyandry or polygyny? Who’s racking up lovers? And how easy it for the respective genders to achieve that racking._

And finally, again, if liberal communism is so odorus to you, stop fighting wars to put america into power everywhere. America –by your ilks own testimony–was infiltrated and subverted by “communists” in the early and mid 20th century through their control of media,”civil rights” activism, academia and law. That cabal there defined the american value set (affirmative action, homo politics, feminism, immigration, race politics, etc) not some half baked notions about apple pie, frontiersmen-ship and individualism from the sticks.

SM October 25, 2011 at 20:09

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

PeterTheGreat, et al, you understand that the west has long since been taken over by these, ahem, infiltrating "communists" right? That most western social patterns were and are created by the western media and civil rights groups which are the, ahem, "communists"?

If capitalism and or democracy is good at preventing the "communist way" than how come it let it take over without a fight in the west?

How come capitalism fought and still fights to put western style media, civil rights groups and "values"(which are media and pressure group created) in to power over other countries?

When is capitalist democracy going to fight the, wink wink nudge nudge, "communists" who have long since migrated into and infiltrated most american institutions such as media, law, academia, politics and-- hypocritically-- the Hamptons and Californian hills and coastlines?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0


SM October 25, 2011 at 15:14

PeterTheGreat October 25, 2011 at 10:03

    SM @
    “From the review by WFPrice:

    “there was no matriarchy in the Soviet Union. Feminism played no part in Soviet power politics, and it appears that nobody took it seriously in any event. “”

       [PeterTGreat:] As I stated, feminism was the defacto family state, even if the Soviet State itself was primarily male, due to the loss of so many men to liquidation and gulag imprisonment.

        feminism was part of the Bolshevik program, but rescinded in the Soviet Union BUT NOT OUTSIDE OF IT. It remained a part of the Communist/Bolshevik program to undermine other States – which it has done in much of the West.


I understand very well that the migrant jew liberals--what you call "communists", the so called "fellow travelers" and "red diapers"-- are feminist activists (along with other forms of revolutionary activism). (I also understand that liberal agitation is, in part, a tactic by them--the migrant liberals-- to destabilize the host cultures cohesiveness. [The other part is it might be unwitting that it is their tactic to destabilize --jews might just be more liberal by their natures. ...Bio natures _selected_ by a history of migration and expulsion.])

I understand that they first took over media and law in Manhattan and then NY state in the early 20th century and then spread.

I understand that they are the backbone of most liberal revolutionary movements, including feminism, "Civil liberty unions", academic professoria and both lawyers of defense (with extremist cockeyed sophist arguments) and now, hypocritically, prosecution. Hypocrisy because the old civil liberty defense arguments they use to make demonstrated that relativist prejudice is inherently rife in state run and social institutions. ...But now as men are railroaded its cricket silence. (Also silence by the "Civil liberty unions" and academic professoria as men are demonized by society at large.)

I understand that the "labor protectionist" wing of the fellow travelers is hypocrisy: Once in power over a host culture's nodes of influence the 'communists' (ie jew liberal activist types) advocate and impose things which are in visceral opposition to host culture laborites (though laborites are too stupid --and thus easily distracted-- inherently to get that).

But that does not demonstrate that the communist states (most of which are actually non-white nationalist movements rallied around expelling Euro colonizers: eg cuba, vietnam even china to certain degree) are actually more matriarchal than western democracy turned out to be.

1) If jew liberal philosophy --so called communism-- is so odorous to you STOP FIGHTING THE WARS TO STRENGTHEN IT. Every time america fights another country it is on behalf of those that have defined america for a century. The jewish media and pressure groups ("civil rights" umbrella) have been that defining force for a good 50 to 75 years; more in certain urban areas (more important than rural areas).

The definition of matriarchy is not whether or not a country offers a tax break--or has something called "growth".

Nor is it whether or not men are burdened. Males --for biological reasons-- will always have more burden than females until if and when gender is eliminated.

The definition is in part 'are the females enhareming males'; polyandry or polygyny? Who's racking up lovers? And how easy it for the respective genders to achieve that racking.

To welmar:


Sunday, April 24, 2011

girls, relationships and tests

loveless relationships...
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 1:37am.

"I have friends who grew up in loveless marriages that have battled with relationship problems."

Loveless marriage and relationship problems would be symptom of the new society. Meaning men and females aren't displaying "properly" because of new social "condition-ings" and that is destroying attraction, desire love. (Thus the relationships are "loveless".)

Jeez. You don't pay attention well. Also you are willfully blind most likely motivated by a lifetime of political condition-ings which profit you. (You respond to someone who says "divorce was caused by feminism" with... "No, divorce was caused by loveless-ness", while ignoring that the modern "loveless" condition --lacking in attraction, desire and compatibility-- was caused by feminism. Ie I accuse you of childish tautology.)

And lastly, if feminism hasn't been the one major tremendous force creating the new social "condition-ings", then what would have done it? And WHY would any honest observer choose to ignore the tremendous force of feminism as that main driving force for change in our social sexual displays?

innate human tendencies
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 1:56am.

"It's "pretty obvious" there is a market, but extrapolating innate human tendencies from the existence of some websites is ridiculous."

Pretty neat coincidence that our human porn and erotic markets mimic to a tee the most numerously occurring mammal "ethological" (social sexual) mating rituals, huh? And further, pretty neat the way our male and female human biochemistries and lower brain structures mimic to a tee the other mammals' too?

Wow... That patriarchal social engineering is all powerful: it even "victimizes" the other mammals...

like teats on a bull...
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 2:16am.

The crossing of displays and desires (including femdom) was touched on by the article. (Go read that section again about the latent potentials in both genders --like nipples on male mammal.)

It isn't that complicated. And it especially should be understandable at a psychology venue, since psychology specifically deals with the numerous varied ways that "environmental constructs" (nurture syndromes, social condition-ings, "epi-genetic stresses") effect the individual --his chemicals, glands, nerves etc --as he/she matures.

Or if one chooses to remain _conveniently_ ignorant [ie politically motivated] and simply recite the glib cant of "genes", these other crossed-role types can be said to be simply genetic "outliers" on the successful-breeding bell-curve-chart. (Ie freaks.) _They are variants that can only survive now because of the NEW and recent selection pressure niches unique to modern human civilization (just like runty dogs are outlier wolves and can only survive now because of man's unique new selection environments)._

Not rocket science people.

[equal] partner...
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 3:52am.

You are not in self aware tune with what you actually want in a man. You keep your definitions purposefully vague in your own head. (See my final paragraphs below.)

Your ill defined "I just want someone with male genitalia"...

Those male genitalia would thrust into you (with none of that pubescent fumbling around), and he would hold your hips good an tight doggy style, put all his weight on you missionary and grunt viscerally when he cums, with lotsa confident eye contact. (Lets not even get into that he should make plenty of forcefully expelled cum, and pre cum and be 6-1/2 to 7-1/2 in size --things which are testosterone generated and therefore can vary based on environmental conditions.)

Also when sex is not occurring, the male you would be attracted to and even tolerate --especially if you are high sex and /or young and attractive (ie girl with "options")-- would have an assortment of "competencies" and strengths you lack (he'll also be taller than you). [The fact that females have gender-specific strengths/qualities that males need or desire is not relevant.]

You can deny that all you want --or misdefine it by entering the vague "partner" --but I guarantee it.

_The thing that you are --and all the nay sayers--and the society at large is-- not getting --the thing the title of the article tried to convey-- is that modern socialization is [not to mention modern selection pressures such as those created by 'criminal justice' are] rendering the male incompetent, low and unattractive to females at a base level._

That is especially true during ovulation. During that time, females look for higher male "strength" and they "test" / sass cruelly to see if bo or hubby has it. If bo or hubby has been raised by modern feminist conditions --notably single female parent or modern schooling --chances are he could fail the tests, causing all manner of "loveless-ness" to grow in the relationship.

You're the only one saying "[whips and crazy role-playing]" and defining things as cat stomper vs nice, equal guy. Ie strawman.

You have simply misdefined things in your head. That misdefining protects you. (Like it would for a computer on old star trek from being tricked into blowing itself up through exposed contradictions.) This mis defining and strawman is typical of most satisfied-- ie attractive, comfortable-- young modern urban westerners. (see SWPL)

intromission's point of entry
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 11:00pm.

"[There is no contradiction. A woman might want to be ravished in the bedroom and respected in the boardroom.]"

Most are missing the point. (Here and at the anti-viagra thread.)

Ie feminism has raised men to not be able to ravish properly. That is the contradiction. It has nothing to do with what Boopsy SAYS she wants or thinks is contradictory.

(Your female-human brain is all self entitlement; that is why you don't get what I'm saying... You say to yourself "I want a man to ravish me here but let me lead there; so see, silly there is no contradiction". It is not about YOU[eyeroll] it is about society at large.)

It is not --as feminists would screech-- that men don't like strong women. It is that females don't like the incompetent males feminism's success has created over the generations.

The other article tried to grapple with it a bit: Male intromission reflex (male mammal humping instinct) and female lordosis (butt in air/'heat').

Our society's rearing process has damaged male "intromission" chain reactions. That damage is caused by feminism. (It has nothing to do with what Boopsy SAYS she wants or thinks is contradictory.)

(Now some self satisfied SWPL will challenge telling us how "he and his wife have had 10 glorious years of femdom pee sex together and therefore society is not damaging anything", totally oblivious to the concept of anecdote.

And then some damaged person in the form of a wimmins' studies grad [the true high mark of intellectual academic achievement, ehem] will screed off some litany of rape propaganda and demagoguery.)

Defiying description
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 23, 2011 - 5:56pm.

The men that are to go extinct fight back and that fighting back is not some buzz word "misogyny". It is controlling of an important resource(female behavior). Controlling fems is like say building a garden: a very thing that makes us human. Allowing the caprice of female humans to breed swaths of men into extinction would be the primitive thing to do.

Honest interpretation of female character is not some buzz word illness: "Misogyny."

And ultimately your schpeel is rooted in a utopian belief that things will "work out" to some "equal" place --rather than hyena-dom or borg hive-- after Boopsy is allowed to get rid of strains of mankind. (Ie the men she doesn't like -- today.)

Not to mention getting rid of swaths of mankind would be "eugenics." I thought liberalism was going to protect low men. Now it is going to allow females to abuse them into extinction motivated by envy.

Not to mention, most of your post, if not all, is really just... um blech (it defies description). It's just political buzz words (looking for allies)...

"Might makes right" thing.... Please. As though female "emancipation" (ie their right to engage in _rampant non empathic dalliance_ from 12 years old to 40 [along with eugenic purges per your writing]) is not also dependent on a huge might makes right _UNCONSTITUTIONAL_ violence machine that females support every inch of the way.

And what is feminism (and the female instigated and controlled "battle of the sexes" before that) if not females complaining about and controlling any male "desire/choice/path" that is uncomfortable or less than ideal for females?

(On to your next paragraph. I could go through each one like this, cause like I said, what you wrote is... ugh... It is all self entitlement parroting the schtick of the zeitgeist.)

"Looking down on females." Females look down on themselves. Men actual desire and appreciate female um... well turned ankle issues. The looking down thing (your hand eye and other short comings) is your own female self-esteem issue. Meaning a self esteem category specific to femininity itself, given that you all are emasculated creatures by nature. While that stunted reality is not pretty (for nature is NOT), it is rather unavoidable without massive oppressive unasked for change of the human species.

If you mean, that the intelligent strong willed men understand and don't shy from the _fact_ that females are lesser in male aptitudes, well yes they don't, since you have less of important aptitudes than men. Nature is not pretty.

Forcing females "into a role", simply translates to controlling female hammer-swinging behavior (eg dalliance and abusive child rearing --pathology inducing actually [shame on the psycho-babble community for not crying that from its tower!]-- and neo cortex destroying inanity and insanity) before it hurts other people.

Control is exactly what females (and the weak males that define the upper ranks of civilization) want to do to men when... any male "desire/choice/path" is uncomfortable or less than ideal for females (and the weak males that define the upper ranks of civi).

[Regarding the "weak males in charge of civi" thing... You all should go read my site: I aint screwing around here-- I am very special and I am in earnest about solving this calamity that has _befalling_ mankind.]

This controlling of females into "role" obviously wasn't done adequately in the 20th century. _So much for the 'pervasive and oppressive patriarchy' _lie_._

"hating females in one's field." Hate is a strong word; You have evidence for this "hate" right? Competitors don't want the other to win, true; such is competition itself. Females don't understand this because they are used to being given food and sex--ie the core goals of competition-- without actually fighting to the death over said. (Such is nature for men, for nature is not pretty for them too.) [If that was supposed to be some dig against me... know this: I would never work in field that would allow a female to PRETEND she is my equal. Duh... I actually intend on having "hot sex". ;-) ]

Ie Nobody hates you. But there might be some eventual [I hope] actual competition against you all once your self entitled screed starts to take more of a toll on the amount of positions in society that men NEED (unlike females).

Men fight to the death to win the kind of status females are being given on a platter. (Men --and males across nature-- must have status --where some win and most lose-- or they will not breed, unlike females who are playing at career as part of their "make it more difficulty for males to get me" test).

You actually have yet to be competed with fairly; your "strides" in the 20th cent are conference, that males would never allow each other. While you pretend you are under siege from a dark force called patriarchy, that is all a part of the big lie. That big lie is indeed part of the sexual dance of this species: females complain and sound alarms[even cry wolf] from a high-leverage sexual place and men protect and provide).

[You all should go read my site: I aint screwing around here-- I am very special and I am in earnest about solving this calamity that has _befalling_ mankind.]

Next dissection of female open callosum...

"believing that how "women should act" according to whatever world-outlook one has (religious, evolutionary, whatever...) should be forced on women regardless what they ACTUALLY want to or do act like."

Strawman. Hint don't talk to christians/protestants or americans in general. I'm deadly serious: a failed meme and race of moronic delusion-oids.

I have nothing to say to your strawman other than the general stuff I have said here.

I don't believe religion or evolution tells me how females should act. I know --from looking at nature--that the utopian cults you rely on for your "strides" --and to be taken seriously with nothing more than a self entitled litany of buzz words (while you attempt to breed portions of mankind into extinction)-- are santa claus cult and will never, ever, never work out like you suppose or pretend they will. AND THEREFORE there is no reason for me /men to abdicate. Ie there is no moral presumption that would cause me to think I'm bad for taking the swinging hammer out of boopsy's hand. And even if there was some moral presumption, Boopsy's desire to take swinging tools[ehem] away from me, would void the 'moral presumption contract' anyway.

Females are just as desirous of controlling and "role-forcing" men as men are of females. The lack of vocabulary --ie lack of human brain wiring-- for dealing with this calamity['feminism'] (for it is a selection pressure that apparently has never happened before) simply allows Boopsy's self entitled hypocrisy to hide behind male libido and the complexities that have developed in modern "civilized" male human competition (ie utopianism beliefs[wishful thinking motivated by fear] and modern democratic politics [staving off vulnerabilities by buying allies]).

"basically, MISOGYNY is HATEFUL DEHUMANIZATON OF HALF OF HUMANITY to JUSTIFY oppressing or even enslaving them trough DISCRIMINATION and VIOLENCE - and the only ones who wish this are basically socipaths and mediocre-to-loser men who realize they don't have a chance with women if women actually have no fear of them and are free to work and survive without them."

You have no evidence for that (other than "hetero-normative" "rape culture" demagoguery which might as well be from Mars).

Meanwhile our society is a giant caste structure held together with hateful dehumanization of men (wimmins studies material, pressure group rhetoric, TV and advertising) motivated by irrational [and dualistic ally desired] fear to justify oppressing and enslaving men (men work and provide more for this society, enduring more of the burdens of that and getting less profit from it (including being 'bred into extinction' while still doing the work or being mocked for shirking) despite the debunked propaganda about '77 cent on the dollar') through discrimination (AA, draft registration, court law [despite the BS that it is "gender blind"], title IX, and the profound unspoken though very real emotional /psychological plane males exist on) and violence (police and other dudes who are already cowed and brainwashed and bombs for Arabs et al) --and the only ones who wish this are basically sociopaths (lesbians and ugly ducklings) and those with self esteem issues specific to femininity (ie inherently emasculated submissive reactionaries), the ignorant dames (ie most girls who can't think things through to conclusion as they play their instinct-motivated games), and the RUNT males who thrive and profit in civilization who realize that if they don't use females/feminism as a shield and grenade to get rid of better males that they --these runts [the males you are forced to endure wherever it is over privileged upwardly mobile chicks hang]--will be the first to become extinct in a world where NORMAL healthy un-oppressed masculinity prevails (you know the very stuff you fantasize about) and the girls who fear that without special unconstitutional discriminations benefiting them and without exploiting privileges --rooted in the underlying previous chivalry of the very patriarchy that is irrationally feared -- that they would not be able to work and survive.


"When "might makes right" go out the window, the genes of males who only can get girls in an environment of violence and fear, eventually go extinct - and good riddance :D"

An "environment of violence and fear"?!

Oh you mean the boys you like the best :D

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

wimmins history month and take your daughter stuff

It is wimmins history month in March. They’ll be lotsa of stuff like that now (and again in September/October I noted too –that’s their secret newsletter “action item” time).

Regarding unconstitutional female only career drives…

If there was any real evidence that a company or institution paid a female less, the thousand and one private and govt equal opportunity commissions and lawyers would be all over it.

Society ignores the fact that males show far more downward and negative indicators in all categories liberals choose to measure (normally meant to show the class so labeled as downward is oppressed by complicated institutional “power of suggestion”): underachievement, health, life span, sex partners, upward mobility, suicide, incarceration, workplace health etc, etc. Meanwhile we trump up female petty downward indicators (eg not enough apply to NASA) and present them as evidence that patriarchy is real and through its behavior and display damaging females in some way.

How many girls in your high school and college did you see that were under siege from a patriarchy? And if there were any, what schools in what towns `cause I’m moving there. …Ie we all went to school– we all know the deal: females are liars and sub intellectual, often callous, who are running amok in a grande dalliance environment. (We’ve even invented new fancy words for this enviro to protect our deification of females _and ourselves given our instinctual libidinous desire to aspire towards them_: “serial monogamy”.) But we are told by authority that fem privilege is not the case –that the females are actually oppressed and hurt. And tunnel-vision lens-ed, just-so data is published to “prove” it. …And the weak-minded cave in first and that starts a domino effect synergy.

Willfully blind bigotry, biology, gender equality hypocrisy…

People say (especially those simpletons with daughters) “I am very pleased with what the feminists have achieved thus far. It means that if I have any daughters – that they have a chance in society.”

That’s like saying “I’m in the Klu Klux Klan and I very pleased with what the racists have achieved thus far. It means that if I have white children they have a chance.”

Problem is liberal Enlightenment Age O Reason society was not supposed to be that. (It is all “unintended consequence” snowballing along*). So if liberal society becomes an apparatus to achieve unconstitutional anti male bigotry and female pedestal-izing deification, something is very, very wrong.

(*It is INSTINCT to fight over female sexual value; it is HUMAN instinct to fight over it by displaying protector ability in a quid pro quo. And now modern civi keeps alive too many low IQ males who are simply machines of libido instinct; thus they are stuck in a groove… A very politically efficient groove.

Ie hypocrisy regarding this “gender equality experiment” was inevitable given the underlying biological truth of the human species.)

The fact you don’t perceive your belief as bigotry(and can’t/don’t grapple with the underlying biological motivations for it) says reams about YOU.

It is not a question of “right” to make “equal pay for equal work”. There is no right to work (or education, or any other pretense or political conceit humans hold dear)! Work is something men do to compete over female “hypergamy” tendencies ( = discriminatory up based infidelity ['up' is case specific/caprice]).

…”Female deer have a ‘right’ to grow antlers” : “female humans have a ‘right’ to ride a horse into battle [swords a cleaving]“. It doesn’t make any sense. [Note male deer are fighting each in headbutt suomo competition _over_ female wandering tendencies. Antlers have been selected in only males as the unwitting tool of success. It was not a conspiracy to keep females out of anything. Same with sapien competition.]

Few males win and _most lose_ –EVEN WITHOUT Feminism’s amplification of that Problem. (Note ‘problem’ is a relative construct.)

Taking status positions away from males simply pushes more males into the loser pit.

Also note:

techno roll

I do like my assumption that repro techno allows “misogyny” to reproduce in ways it hasn’t yet.

Techno got us in, and techno will have to get us out.

It is not a certainty that we will win though. …What type of creature man will be by the time “men’s” victory is achieved etc? I have not seen male dominant hives (how ever one might define “male dominance”).

(Someone once said to me about that (a dame from soc men, so it is probably one of these dames here with new nym) “is that light up ahead the end of the tunnel or the train?…)

But note we also have never seen other chimps leave orbit either. …Behold the beast man… How like a God.


We must balance –like a dancing bear– on a runaway snowball.

We can’t all just run away and “join the Amish” as our way of pulling out the plug on civi/femi. …The quilt is not big enough.

…And most crucially those that don’t run away will simply claim “eminent domain” trump card [over the Amish and other Luddites] at _their leisure_.

I’m thinking that as repro techno starts to negate female sex value it creates opportunity for “misogyny” to pass on like never before in history. Not to mention generations of children raised without female “nurturing” in their heads.

The males who can’t allow that “misogyny” –say those that make daughters etc (ehem)– have to be marginalized by more of the same techno HOPEFULLY IF/WHEN.

And that is the real battle right there actually.