Feminism happened because we keep alive too many weakling idiotic males in childhood.
Wolves see the steppe a certain way _as a natural side effect of their bio chemistries_ (eyesight for example). If chihuahua variants (different bio chemical combinations) start thriving from the litter, the steppe would be seen differently as a side effect of those new chemistries thriving.
Now, understand that white humans who use to die all the time throughout white history now live and thrive. These new strains are the liberals. They see the world differently as a fundamental side effect of their bio chemistries. They hate men like Chihuahua's yelp and growl at German Shepherds.
Everything else happening is unwitting exploitation of human instincts for: female sexual value, conformity or tribe protection/rallying (eg male 'honor' impulse), brain modules for wishful thinking('religion'), gullibility.
Female mammals\most reptiles are dualistically submissive --they hate you for the very display in you that they desire; ie they hate you for it 'after wards'.
The more infantile males act, the more females will be _triggered_ into not liking them and trying to dominate --grabbing for their own masculinity ("filling the vacuum" thus exposing 'equality' gibberish for the ill thought through unachievable absurdity that it is).
The more dominant the males act/display, the more females will _instinctually_ submit (with their highknees in the air --fact).
!Problem is... that in a group based species like ours, the males cap each others' sexual displays, [alpha beta gamma, coup d eta stuff] making most males Non-dominant in their displays (even or especially the 'winners' given our foppish abstract/money status system which we males unwittingly snowballed into as a direct side effect of the endless and ancient struggle to cap each others' displays/ status-/sex- bids.). This then triggers females autonomically/ deterministically into their own dominance attempt /display.
Think dog packs...
Once the runt males took over the dog pack [symptom of the males pulling each other down and _parameterizing each others' paths to ascendancy_, where runt is the only type ironically non-vulnerable enough to get to the top], the adult females of the pack --the "bitches" (heh heh)-- were the only pack members left that still had adult-like fangs.
All the "politics" and "philosophies" of the last few centuries are just the growling noises at "the kill" as the bitches (the only real adults left in the pack) nip and bite the runt males (the only type of male left at the top of the white human dog-pack) into compliance.
Then that unravels the "family" (given that the male coyote is run off the territory by the female after knotting/breeding --since she's tougher than him now or than he's allowed to be) causing the next generation to be unbreedable with (in our human 'acultured'/learned system).
Atlas shrugging...
...Now we all --the John Galt-ocracy-- wait for the worms to rot the structure.
It's the way Rome fell...
Males cap each others' masculine displays;
females become _instinctively_ emboldened: triggered to apathy towards and dominance over males;
next generation (of social incompetoids and un en statused ex-conformists) shrugs to make it [the 'corruption'] all go away.
Ya dig?
(...Hardly, I'm sure. ...Though I'll be plagiarized anyway, at the academic level by that gaggle of runts, trying to steal the 'magic' and win some dames for themselves.)
===============
Too many weak [Jew] males survived back then (city living) and then consequently SUCCUMBED to female sexual leverage.
Then that "meme" spread through standard natural selection selecting between hive strategies (with the complex fem-right cities beating simpler tribes).
And a related note...
"Morals" are bio determinism; they are not arbitrarily embraced.
As Europe became less hungry, people softened up deterministically. Success leads to "fat and happy" sappiness.
---------
Multi cellularism, might be an emergent property of the Universe itself.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Fundamentals / Prerequisites.
~>PREREQUISITE PRINCIPLES:
-The First Principle is 'cause and effect'. It means nothing acts without something acting upon it. Like domino effects or billiard ball bank shot chain reactions.
B- There is a finite/limited amount of energy ultimately [in the end]. Ie if there is more steam there is always less ice and vice versa. (Replace the words 'steam and ice' with what ever; eg force and matter, gas and solid, this or that chemical compound [tinker toy arrangements of molecules, giving off unique to that pattern hums that attract and repel other hums].) More of one thing = less of some other arrangement of stuff.
-Natural Selection. This is the Second Principle of the universe after cause and effect/limited energy Principle.
.Different baby variations form. (because of cause and effect)
.Only some live and pass on their unique arrangements.
."Environment" selects. (Environments [arrangements of energy flow] are always varying too [like cloud formations in the sky], also because of cause and effect.)
Use this knowledge for good and not evil, Grass Hopper. (I for one will be using it for evil. Hence my cry of "cull back the masses, before it's too late".)
------
->Female sexual value.
->And male combat over it. Either as individuals (eg deer) or in groups. Few males win; most lose.
-If in groups, that selects for male variations who engage in schmoozing and compromise (simply 'sharing'). (Parallels to hive social dynamics and multi cellularism (simply 'body') metabolisms then can be seen.)
-The groups are variation assembly line machines fighting (directly or indirectly) other group variants. (Natural Selection will select the winner group variant.)
-Inside the group there is an 'alpha beta gamma' hierarchy where coup d eta civil war --_and counter strategy suppression_-- is always brewing.
-If the male vs male combat becomes more display based[eg birds] than direct engagement based [eg bears], the so called female 'handicapping' principle takes over: simply females choose the 'winner' male variation rather than being chosen by the best male warrior variations.
===============
From memory...
[All this is online at reputable places.]
'super' and 'sub' affixes affect these headings...
KINGDOM
Animalia (predators as separate from photosynthesis)
(sponge, coral, and their jellyfish, worms, molluscs, arthrodpods, vertebrates, starfish; note around upper coral, self moving multicellular predators form --important)
PHYLUM
chordata [these come from mullosc-like worms (most animals are worms) --but that takes us into evolution not just naturalist taxonomy.]
(-sub: vertebrates)
CLASS
Mammalia
-sub: placentalia (also marsupials and monotremes [platypus])
ORDER
Primate (lemurs etc)
-super family: pongoid ("Apes" --tailess primates)
FAMILY
Hominoidea (biped apes)
GENUS
Homo
SPECIES
Sapiens
-----
Race (all this gets loose):
Caucasoid
Europid
Nordic
Indo European
~'Celt-Nord with vestigial Cromagnid' (=fancy talk for the skull type human females still find attractive.)
=====
I would add sexual types to that.
Namely...
.A-sexual (clone /self-splitters -most lifeforms)
.Sexual (most animals)
-hermaphrodites (sponge, coral, jellyfish, worms, molluscs)
-dimorphic sexuality (boy girl reproduction. Most arthropods, vertebrates. For these animal types, it starts with emasculation attacks symptomatic of their moving predation lifestyles).
~temperature (or energy/food acquisition)-created gender. (Reptiles/nesters etc)
~Y chrom/genetic-created gender. (Upper mammals AND through parallelism some insects [phylum: arthropods; class: insecta]!)
Note that reproduction is the most fascinating subject but least explored. Much parallelism; eg proto dimorphic sex formed in "pond scum" (one-celled specialist-breeding between multiple species in symbiosis with each other!) but modern vetebrate dim sex comes from totally different and much later branch.
=====
Firstly:
"Objective" is tough. Relativism is always lurking.
_BUT_... these are OUR relative designations and therefore valid in and of themselves!
These classifications will modify over time as "paradigm shifts".
We want them to only shift according to OUR standards and observations. We must fight to keep alien --"Marxist" --paradigm shifts out. (Last time we fought, you jebus dolts fought for our enemies. Everything has sucked ever since. You all --christers-- complain about the modern world we live in but you are oblvious to the fact you have done it yourselves. You have done it to us all. There will be a reckoning...)
Others that don't like our relative designations and classifications can go to death camps where they can grapple with the error that was their attempts to replace our relative constructs WITH THEIR relative constructs.
Secondly:
Genetic cladistics (biochemical dissection) is replacing taxonomy (study of skeleton similarities and subtle differences) to classify into groups.
=====
Final note about "parallelism" (some call it "convergence" which I dislike)...
Simply the phenom where a 30million year old dolphin (from coast-living proto-dog-thang) looks like >400million year old shark (from early fish).
This parallelism creates problems for taxonomists, since they look at morphological shapes (creature's parts) to classify: The seen similarities might be symptom of similar niches rather than family relationship. Genetic cladistics seeks to cure that classification problem.
----------
As an exercise, figure out why dolphins and sharks have similar morphologies.
(Hint-- use NATURAL SELECTION theory...
1-) Different variations are born to a litter (they look, act and feel-inside different because of their different chemical compositions); 2-) only a small portion live; 3-) the niche they live in decides life and death.
Niches change over time but some remain consistent.
The fundamental motor of the Universe is "cause and effect" --billiard balls on a table... ricocheting, bank shot after bank shot forever. That ever continuing domino effect motion creates the varying niches and varying pups o'the litters.)
------------
Use this Knowledge for good and not evil...
(And don't forget, junior...
"SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!")
=============
"Adaption" and "Evolution"
Nothing "adapts". That is not the way evolution works.
Natural selection is the way "evolution" works and it aint pretty. (There are other complexity systems too--none of them are touchy feel-y either.)
"Adaption" is classic liberal wordplay to trick people away from the truth of how "evolution" works, because liberals don't like the facts as much as christers don't.
When creatures 'evolve' from one form to another, what happens is environments change and consequently most pups die/drown, while some freaks/runts who normally didn't thrive go on to be the new top dog strains of that new niche.
_And no utopias happen in the offing._ Amphibians are every bit as cruel as the deep blue past was; And Romans were every bit a deadly as cromags; ...as the lingering cavalry fort [ie the city] is every bit as deadly and oppressive as the Indians were.
So if society IS "evolving", no one is magical adapting. We are simply creating a world hostile to certain types (ie killing strains that don't fit anymore) so that other types can thrive. The sewer, of have-n-have-not brutality called the city, is the new 'utopia'.
Welcome to what liberalism's progress really means.
And note that I don't care what your professors or pastors think: they are wrong and should be in political reeducation camps.
--------
Don't post some nonsense response about how "they aint got no profes for ebolution --and give me back my stems!"
You conservatives --ie natural born dunces-- need to get your heads out of the philosophical and psychological hole you hide in.
As an exercise towards that end, stop fighting liberalism's wars for it.
---------
>Creationist said: "And [science tech fraud] tends to indicate that attempting to construct an objective moral standard for Man based on science would not merely fail, but prove downright
>disastrous."
So you're saying that observations of other mammal social groupings are so inaccurate and lied about that conclusions drawn from those observations could never be used to understand more about the human condition from an outside looking in perspective?
And note the only people lying about mammal social dynamic (and the socio- and psycho- babble implications) are marxists (ie jews) and their fellow travelers.
_Creationism keeps fighting the wars to keep those marxists in power over science-conclusions but then complains that science says things that are dangerous to conservative values._ (Read that sentence again.)
That is why creationism MUST go as a pre requisite to stopping "Marxism" (ie modern liberalism --feminism, affirmative action, immigration etc). (NOTE marxism is NOT Russian tank armies from the 50s-80s; marixsm is american 20th century liberalism which American white males/Christians keep fighting FOR. Creationists are doing that because they are susceptible to confusion; that is the same confusion tendency that hampers their grasping the simple Natural Selection concept.)
(And note the only thing that has "proved downright disastrous" so far is the american religious zeitgeist and parliamentary democracy in general.)
=============
CHOICE CREATIONIST QUOTES
[quote]Supposing Dawkins and Darwin are impostors [/quote]
Wouldn't change a thing. (BTW, FYI to all, as far as I can tell dawkins is a feminist.)
Reality doesn't come from books.
I don't recite back what I read in some books. I understand what I do cause what I do understand is obvious.
You are congenitally predisposed to not get it and to not want to get it.
Along with chivalry, that is Western Mans' fatal flaw.
-------
[quote]
Classic Conspiracy Theory,...
[/quote]
LOL. Seriously.
[quote]
...Classic Conspiracy Theory, used to refer to Darwin, Marx and Freud as the three thinkers who’d unshipped the rudders of European civilisation. [sic] Personally I’d add the insane moralist (NB NOT “philosopher") Nietzsche into the mix.
[/quote]
And the God Fearing US/Brit nutters fought against the Third Reich which was going to right the ship (and keep the true epiphanies).
So there you go.
How's that working out for ya?...
Jesus saves?
---------
[quote]Surely the fact that a bunch of amoebas that suddenly got wise and moved about a bit and grew white skin and hair and teeth and learned to walk and talk is now giving way to another bunch that grew black skin and all the other accoutrements should be accepted as part of the great (but ultimately meaningless) progress, destiny, whatever, that results from Natural Selection?
[/quote]
"Suddenly got wise"
Imbecile.
You don't understand Natural Selection or naturalism at all and therefore mis characterize it with strawmen, that I guess work out in the stycks of that `god forsaken hell hole once called america, but it doesn't work with even the mildly lucid.
-----------
[quote]
If Dawkins is correct in deriving from his Darwinian positions the belief that “the universe that we observe has precisely the properties that we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference”
[/quote]
Well known. One of Dawkins' better observations.
"indifference"
Why don't you see it yourself?
[quote]
Then WHY should anyone bother about The Decline of the West?
[/quote]
`Cause I want to live and thrive. I don't want to be "ugly ducklinged" out of my own home pond. (Also I don't want the inherent character flaws of my females --though adaptive, as part of that grand indifference-- to get away with "it"; also the human condition regarding reproduction in general --and all it entails (mostly pain --catalystic as ever-- on one plane or another)-- needs to be solved --for the good of everybody.) Period.
=============
As for not seeing the soundness of cause and effect "materialism"...
You don't think the universe is generally as big as 'we' think it is? Same with the time scale?
You don't think weather is cause and effect on the scale of hot and cold creating currents? Same for earth quakes and volcanoes. You don't think mudslides and floods etc are "domino-effect" movements?
You can't put together for yourself how the movements of people, creatures and things --all of which are chemical composites-- are the continuations of movements from previous days and then previous days before that?
Now if the Uni is that big and old, any self aware creator entity which could grapple with all of its movements over that span must be magnifico in the extreme. Does it make sense that "red in tooth and claw" would be the cosmos-wide motor of this loving fatherly protector being?
Now you say "Satan did that red in tooth and claw jazz".
Okay but Is "God" too weak to stop `him? And didn't the great savant --who created satan, according to your particular myth (which just recently comes from a previous one called Zeus and Prometheus) --see that his throne bare-ing class was prone to pilfering?
As far as Natural Selection (which is cause and effect on the bio-chemical [carbo nitro atom] scale) --"Darwinism"...
You don't think dog breeds come from wolves through selectively picking certain traits over others? Same for horse breeds and grass/wheat/rice. _You don't think that that process of "only some traits getting to breed" applies to other organisms over more generations, as selected by the cause and effect domino effect movements of their surrounding locales/environments?_
You don't think human babies are chemical variants? You think all babies go on to do equally well at passing on their genes/ideas? (Ideas/memes are a symptom of the chemical composites we call genes.)
======
NATURAL SELECTION…
1) Different variations are born to a litter (they look, act and feel-inside different because of their different chemical compositions);
2) only a small portion live;
3) the niche they live in decides life and death.
Niches change over time.
The fundamental motor of the Universe is “cause and effect” --billiard balls on a table… ricocheting, bank shot after bank shot forever. That ever continuing domino effect motion creates the varying niches and varying pups o’the litters.
Parallelism: The phenom where a 30million year old dolphin (from coast-living proto-dog-thang) looks like >400million year old shark (from early fish).
---------
Technology and wisdom in general is the Luciferean Apple yes. (If this loving protector god of yours wasn’t an A class prick Man wouldn’t grab it so readily.)
At any rate the techno snowball and a philosophical ontological understanding (eg natural selection) are not the same things. We can destroy ourselves --or a part of ourselves-- with the crazy train techno snowball but the facts of nature we have observed can still BE RIGHT too. (We can’t just hide our heads in holes and pretend truth hasn’t been seen.)
If we are to protect ourselves from the crazytrain snowball And at the same time accept what we now know to be true too, maybe we need to shale off atavistic (obsolete vestigial) christian sentiment, see a little means and end justification and throw down in un jesus-like, undemocratic ways, Third Reich style.
-The First Principle is 'cause and effect'. It means nothing acts without something acting upon it. Like domino effects or billiard ball bank shot chain reactions.
B- There is a finite/limited amount of energy ultimately [in the end]. Ie if there is more steam there is always less ice and vice versa. (Replace the words 'steam and ice' with what ever; eg force and matter, gas and solid, this or that chemical compound [tinker toy arrangements of molecules, giving off unique to that pattern hums that attract and repel other hums].) More of one thing = less of some other arrangement of stuff.
-Natural Selection. This is the Second Principle of the universe after cause and effect/limited energy Principle.
.Different baby variations form. (because of cause and effect)
.Only some live and pass on their unique arrangements.
."Environment" selects. (Environments [arrangements of energy flow] are always varying too [like cloud formations in the sky], also because of cause and effect.)
Use this knowledge for good and not evil, Grass Hopper. (I for one will be using it for evil. Hence my cry of "cull back the masses, before it's too late".)
------
->Female sexual value.
->And male combat over it. Either as individuals (eg deer) or in groups. Few males win; most lose.
-If in groups, that selects for male variations who engage in schmoozing and compromise (simply 'sharing'). (Parallels to hive social dynamics and multi cellularism (simply 'body') metabolisms then can be seen.)
-The groups are variation assembly line machines fighting (directly or indirectly) other group variants. (Natural Selection will select the winner group variant.)
-Inside the group there is an 'alpha beta gamma' hierarchy where coup d eta civil war --_and counter strategy suppression_-- is always brewing.
-If the male vs male combat becomes more display based[eg birds] than direct engagement based [eg bears], the so called female 'handicapping' principle takes over: simply females choose the 'winner' male variation rather than being chosen by the best male warrior variations.
===============
From memory...
[All this is online at reputable places.]
'super' and 'sub' affixes affect these headings...
KINGDOM
Animalia (predators as separate from photosynthesis)
(sponge, coral, and their jellyfish, worms, molluscs, arthrodpods, vertebrates, starfish; note around upper coral, self moving multicellular predators form --important)
PHYLUM
chordata [these come from mullosc-like worms (most animals are worms) --but that takes us into evolution not just naturalist taxonomy.]
(-sub: vertebrates)
CLASS
Mammalia
-sub: placentalia (also marsupials and monotremes [platypus])
ORDER
Primate (lemurs etc)
-super family: pongoid ("Apes" --tailess primates)
FAMILY
Hominoidea (biped apes)
GENUS
Homo
SPECIES
Sapiens
-----
Race (all this gets loose):
Caucasoid
Europid
Nordic
Indo European
~'Celt-Nord with vestigial Cromagnid' (=fancy talk for the skull type human females still find attractive.)
=====
I would add sexual types to that.
Namely...
.A-sexual (clone /self-splitters -most lifeforms)
.Sexual (most animals)
-hermaphrodites (sponge, coral, jellyfish, worms, molluscs)
-dimorphic sexuality (boy girl reproduction. Most arthropods, vertebrates. For these animal types, it starts with emasculation attacks symptomatic of their moving predation lifestyles).
~temperature (or energy/food acquisition)-created gender. (Reptiles/nesters etc)
~Y chrom/genetic-created gender. (Upper mammals AND through parallelism some insects [phylum: arthropods; class: insecta]!)
Note that reproduction is the most fascinating subject but least explored. Much parallelism; eg proto dimorphic sex formed in "pond scum" (one-celled specialist-breeding between multiple species in symbiosis with each other!) but modern vetebrate dim sex comes from totally different and much later branch.
=====
Firstly:
"Objective" is tough. Relativism is always lurking.
_BUT_... these are OUR relative designations and therefore valid in and of themselves!
These classifications will modify over time as "paradigm shifts".
We want them to only shift according to OUR standards and observations. We must fight to keep alien --"Marxist" --paradigm shifts out. (Last time we fought, you jebus dolts fought for our enemies. Everything has sucked ever since. You all --christers-- complain about the modern world we live in but you are oblvious to the fact you have done it yourselves. You have done it to us all. There will be a reckoning...)
Others that don't like our relative designations and classifications can go to death camps where they can grapple with the error that was their attempts to replace our relative constructs WITH THEIR relative constructs.
Secondly:
Genetic cladistics (biochemical dissection) is replacing taxonomy (study of skeleton similarities and subtle differences) to classify into groups.
=====
Final note about "parallelism" (some call it "convergence" which I dislike)...
Simply the phenom where a 30million year old dolphin (from coast-living proto-dog-thang) looks like >400million year old shark (from early fish).
This parallelism creates problems for taxonomists, since they look at morphological shapes (creature's parts) to classify: The seen similarities might be symptom of similar niches rather than family relationship. Genetic cladistics seeks to cure that classification problem.
----------
As an exercise, figure out why dolphins and sharks have similar morphologies.
(Hint-- use NATURAL SELECTION theory...
1-) Different variations are born to a litter (they look, act and feel-inside different because of their different chemical compositions); 2-) only a small portion live; 3-) the niche they live in decides life and death.
Niches change over time but some remain consistent.
The fundamental motor of the Universe is "cause and effect" --billiard balls on a table... ricocheting, bank shot after bank shot forever. That ever continuing domino effect motion creates the varying niches and varying pups o'the litters.)
------------
Use this Knowledge for good and not evil...
(And don't forget, junior...
"SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!")
=============
"Adaption" and "Evolution"
Nothing "adapts". That is not the way evolution works.
Natural selection is the way "evolution" works and it aint pretty. (There are other complexity systems too--none of them are touchy feel-y either.)
"Adaption" is classic liberal wordplay to trick people away from the truth of how "evolution" works, because liberals don't like the facts as much as christers don't.
When creatures 'evolve' from one form to another, what happens is environments change and consequently most pups die/drown, while some freaks/runts who normally didn't thrive go on to be the new top dog strains of that new niche.
_And no utopias happen in the offing._ Amphibians are every bit as cruel as the deep blue past was; And Romans were every bit a deadly as cromags; ...as the lingering cavalry fort [ie the city] is every bit as deadly and oppressive as the Indians were.
So if society IS "evolving", no one is magical adapting. We are simply creating a world hostile to certain types (ie killing strains that don't fit anymore) so that other types can thrive. The sewer, of have-n-have-not brutality called the city, is the new 'utopia'.
Welcome to what liberalism's progress really means.
And note that I don't care what your professors or pastors think: they are wrong and should be in political reeducation camps.
--------
Don't post some nonsense response about how "they aint got no profes for ebolution --and give me back my stems!"
You conservatives --ie natural born dunces-- need to get your heads out of the philosophical and psychological hole you hide in.
As an exercise towards that end, stop fighting liberalism's wars for it.
---------
>Creationist said: "And [science tech fraud] tends to indicate that attempting to construct an objective moral standard for Man based on science would not merely fail, but prove downright
>disastrous."
So you're saying that observations of other mammal social groupings are so inaccurate and lied about that conclusions drawn from those observations could never be used to understand more about the human condition from an outside looking in perspective?
And note the only people lying about mammal social dynamic (and the socio- and psycho- babble implications) are marxists (ie jews) and their fellow travelers.
_Creationism keeps fighting the wars to keep those marxists in power over science-conclusions but then complains that science says things that are dangerous to conservative values._ (Read that sentence again.)
That is why creationism MUST go as a pre requisite to stopping "Marxism" (ie modern liberalism --feminism, affirmative action, immigration etc). (NOTE marxism is NOT Russian tank armies from the 50s-80s; marixsm is american 20th century liberalism which American white males/Christians keep fighting FOR. Creationists are doing that because they are susceptible to confusion; that is the same confusion tendency that hampers their grasping the simple Natural Selection concept.)
(And note the only thing that has "proved downright disastrous" so far is the american religious zeitgeist and parliamentary democracy in general.)
=============
CHOICE CREATIONIST QUOTES
[quote]Supposing Dawkins and Darwin are impostors [/quote]
Wouldn't change a thing. (BTW, FYI to all, as far as I can tell dawkins is a feminist.)
Reality doesn't come from books.
I don't recite back what I read in some books. I understand what I do cause what I do understand is obvious.
You are congenitally predisposed to not get it and to not want to get it.
Along with chivalry, that is Western Mans' fatal flaw.
-------
[quote]
Classic Conspiracy Theory,...
[/quote]
LOL. Seriously.
[quote]
...Classic Conspiracy Theory, used to refer to Darwin, Marx and Freud as the three thinkers who’d unshipped the rudders of European civilisation. [sic] Personally I’d add the insane moralist (NB NOT “philosopher") Nietzsche into the mix.
[/quote]
And the God Fearing US/Brit nutters fought against the Third Reich which was going to right the ship (and keep the true epiphanies).
So there you go.
How's that working out for ya?...
Jesus saves?
---------
[quote]Surely the fact that a bunch of amoebas that suddenly got wise and moved about a bit and grew white skin and hair and teeth and learned to walk and talk is now giving way to another bunch that grew black skin and all the other accoutrements should be accepted as part of the great (but ultimately meaningless) progress, destiny, whatever, that results from Natural Selection?
[/quote]
"Suddenly got wise"
Imbecile.
You don't understand Natural Selection or naturalism at all and therefore mis characterize it with strawmen, that I guess work out in the stycks of that `god forsaken hell hole once called america, but it doesn't work with even the mildly lucid.
-----------
[quote]
If Dawkins is correct in deriving from his Darwinian positions the belief that “the universe that we observe has precisely the properties that we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference”
[/quote]
Well known. One of Dawkins' better observations.
"indifference"
Why don't you see it yourself?
[quote]
Then WHY should anyone bother about The Decline of the West?
[/quote]
`Cause I want to live and thrive. I don't want to be "ugly ducklinged" out of my own home pond. (Also I don't want the inherent character flaws of my females --though adaptive, as part of that grand indifference-- to get away with "it"; also the human condition regarding reproduction in general --and all it entails (mostly pain --catalystic as ever-- on one plane or another)-- needs to be solved --for the good of everybody.) Period.
=============
As for not seeing the soundness of cause and effect "materialism"...
You don't think the universe is generally as big as 'we' think it is? Same with the time scale?
You don't think weather is cause and effect on the scale of hot and cold creating currents? Same for earth quakes and volcanoes. You don't think mudslides and floods etc are "domino-effect" movements?
You can't put together for yourself how the movements of people, creatures and things --all of which are chemical composites-- are the continuations of movements from previous days and then previous days before that?
Now if the Uni is that big and old, any self aware creator entity which could grapple with all of its movements over that span must be magnifico in the extreme. Does it make sense that "red in tooth and claw" would be the cosmos-wide motor of this loving fatherly protector being?
Now you say "Satan did that red in tooth and claw jazz".
Okay but Is "God" too weak to stop `him? And didn't the great savant --who created satan, according to your particular myth (which just recently comes from a previous one called Zeus and Prometheus) --see that his throne bare-ing class was prone to pilfering?
As far as Natural Selection (which is cause and effect on the bio-chemical [carbo nitro atom] scale) --"Darwinism"...
You don't think dog breeds come from wolves through selectively picking certain traits over others? Same for horse breeds and grass/wheat/rice. _You don't think that that process of "only some traits getting to breed" applies to other organisms over more generations, as selected by the cause and effect domino effect movements of their surrounding locales/environments?_
You don't think human babies are chemical variants? You think all babies go on to do equally well at passing on their genes/ideas? (Ideas/memes are a symptom of the chemical composites we call genes.)
======
NATURAL SELECTION…
1) Different variations are born to a litter (they look, act and feel-inside different because of their different chemical compositions);
2) only a small portion live;
3) the niche they live in decides life and death.
Niches change over time.
The fundamental motor of the Universe is “cause and effect” --billiard balls on a table… ricocheting, bank shot after bank shot forever. That ever continuing domino effect motion creates the varying niches and varying pups o’the litters.
Parallelism: The phenom where a 30million year old dolphin (from coast-living proto-dog-thang) looks like >400million year old shark (from early fish).
---------
Technology and wisdom in general is the Luciferean Apple yes. (If this loving protector god of yours wasn’t an A class prick Man wouldn’t grab it so readily.)
At any rate the techno snowball and a philosophical ontological understanding (eg natural selection) are not the same things. We can destroy ourselves --or a part of ourselves-- with the crazy train techno snowball but the facts of nature we have observed can still BE RIGHT too. (We can’t just hide our heads in holes and pretend truth hasn’t been seen.)
If we are to protect ourselves from the crazytrain snowball And at the same time accept what we now know to be true too, maybe we need to shale off atavistic (obsolete vestigial) christian sentiment, see a little means and end justification and throw down in un jesus-like, undemocratic ways, Third Reich style.
"Success comes most swiftly and completely not to the greatest or perhaps even to the ablest men, but to those whose gifts are most completely in harmony with the taste of their times."
[quote from vox popoli page, christian site]
That is absolutely correct.
It is very important for all everywhere to understand, now that humans are so purposefully in charge of the "tastes of the time".
What we breed for will be made by our own hands now not god's nature. Man must come to terms with that.
[quote from vox popoli page, christian site]
That is absolutely correct.
It is very important for all everywhere to understand, now that humans are so purposefully in charge of the "tastes of the time".
What we breed for will be made by our own hands now not god's nature. Man must come to terms with that.
One little, two little, three little waves of feminism...
The acceptance of so called '1st wave feminism' is dangerously confused. It is our condoning of 1st wave that led _INEVITABLY_ to so called 2nd wave, 3rd, and ad nauseum feminism.
Economy types frame the issue incorrectly --like liberal utopians and creationists. Therefore they [all] don't see it accurately.
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 poltical 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.
Then even worse, giving the status positions to females (rather than say Jackie Robinson) --earned or not-- causes females to raise "the price"[tm]. Thereby causing even more men --who weren't immediately pushed into the loser pit-- to become losers too in comparison to the ascended presumptuous --now untouchable-- females.
...Giving princess even more mattresses between her and the pea causes her to be even more of a self entitled colicky bitch.
This increase of fem sexual value (fem sexual mobility) causes men then to have to do even more to win female positive attention (given her flaws and hypergamic instincts).
But... our culture has specialized in keeping men from fighting each other directly. So the way men now try to win and balance out ever increasing female sexual value (made possible by 1st wave and its precursor prerequisites) is to defer to (and often rally around, ala Stockholm syndrome) female egomania and discriminatory caprice even more. (Male _display_ as 'mano a mano' combat: See bird social dynamics --with their well known female-run infidelity.) This creates a vicious snowball of "waves".
And here we is now...
Do you understand?
And none of this even addresses female aptitude shortcomings --and the necessary accommodations imposed by the _lucky_ typically en-hubris-ed elite men left, trying to be useful to an untouchable colicky princess. Accommodating these feminine "issues" has mad-ing-ly convoluted the previous political conceits of "equality" and constitutionality, causing mass malaise and Nihilist hopelessness.
---------
And note, replacing males of the hive-vs-hive caste structures with female mediocres in everything has proved itself to be more economically successful than anything in history not less. So trying to stop "2nd and 3rd etc wave" by saying it's bad for business is wrong.
Europe and diaspora has the most successful cup-runneth-over hive structure ever on this planet (excepting multi cellular bodies). I declare that untethered female hypergamic 'right' (made possible by their economic/education/political leverage) is inseparably connected to that hive success story...
...Snowballing male fear mixed with their parametrized hyper competition:
Gilligan peddling his treadmill bike ever faster in a desperate bid to still get laid (trying to catch a carrot that moves ever one step faster than him) ...and Professor's radio consequently going louder and louder and blender going faster and faster. Europe's entrepreneurial inventive success in a poetic nut shell there.
But western culture's economic win-fall is still bad for men. (And one shouldn't need to be Valerie Solanece to see that.)
Economic arguments are a losing pony at stopping social change in general and male marginalization specifically. Just like capitalists' strip-mining and individualism arguments have always been. So at least capitalism's losing political record will be unblemished.
And the angry lower males will try to unseat the 'winners' with even more civil war coup urgency. And disenfranchised pit males will shirk civic comportment all together. So therefore keeping men down now is much better for business and "conservatives" than stopping females. Easily.
Until the worms arrive.
All made possible by simply gullibly falling for boopsy's pouty face and the cries of "she just wants to [pretend] she's a doctor too; golly." 1st wave nonsense, where achievement is a "right" [political conceit] rather than a competition side effect. ...Competition over boopsy's pouty little bullshit ever one step ahead.
Economy types frame the issue incorrectly --like liberal utopians and creationists. Therefore they [all] don't see it accurately.
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 poltical 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.
Then even worse, giving the status positions to females (rather than say Jackie Robinson) --earned or not-- causes females to raise "the price"[tm]. Thereby causing even more men --who weren't immediately pushed into the loser pit-- to become losers too in comparison to the ascended presumptuous --now untouchable-- females.
...Giving princess even more mattresses between her and the pea causes her to be even more of a self entitled colicky bitch.
This increase of fem sexual value (fem sexual mobility) causes men then to have to do even more to win female positive attention (given her flaws and hypergamic instincts).
But... our culture has specialized in keeping men from fighting each other directly. So the way men now try to win and balance out ever increasing female sexual value (made possible by 1st wave and its precursor prerequisites) is to defer to (and often rally around, ala Stockholm syndrome) female egomania and discriminatory caprice even more. (Male _display_ as 'mano a mano' combat: See bird social dynamics --with their well known female-run infidelity.) This creates a vicious snowball of "waves".
And here we is now...
Do you understand?
And none of this even addresses female aptitude shortcomings --and the necessary accommodations imposed by the _lucky_ typically en-hubris-ed elite men left, trying to be useful to an untouchable colicky princess. Accommodating these feminine "issues" has mad-ing-ly convoluted the previous political conceits of "equality" and constitutionality, causing mass malaise and Nihilist hopelessness.
---------
And note, replacing males of the hive-vs-hive caste structures with female mediocres in everything has proved itself to be more economically successful than anything in history not less. So trying to stop "2nd and 3rd etc wave" by saying it's bad for business is wrong.
Europe and diaspora has the most successful cup-runneth-over hive structure ever on this planet (excepting multi cellular bodies). I declare that untethered female hypergamic 'right' (made possible by their economic/education/political leverage) is inseparably connected to that hive success story...
...Snowballing male fear mixed with their parametrized hyper competition:
Gilligan peddling his treadmill bike ever faster in a desperate bid to still get laid (trying to catch a carrot that moves ever one step faster than him) ...and Professor's radio consequently going louder and louder and blender going faster and faster. Europe's entrepreneurial inventive success in a poetic nut shell there.
But western culture's economic win-fall is still bad for men. (And one shouldn't need to be Valerie Solanece to see that.)
Economic arguments are a losing pony at stopping social change in general and male marginalization specifically. Just like capitalists' strip-mining and individualism arguments have always been. So at least capitalism's losing political record will be unblemished.
And the angry lower males will try to unseat the 'winners' with even more civil war coup urgency. And disenfranchised pit males will shirk civic comportment all together. So therefore keeping men down now is much better for business and "conservatives" than stopping females. Easily.
Until the worms arrive.
All made possible by simply gullibly falling for boopsy's pouty face and the cries of "she just wants to [pretend] she's a doctor too; golly." 1st wave nonsense, where achievement is a "right" [political conceit] rather than a competition side effect. ...Competition over boopsy's pouty little bullshit ever one step ahead.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Affirmative Action and female competence.
Even if fems are capable, that doesn't make AA any less treasonously, criminally unconstitutional (not that I would lower myself down to that shit rag).
It simply is not "justice" to have these over-seeing bate-and-switch elites do this to society when the dumb ass buffoons of the military throughout our history did NOT fight for any of this! (I'm looking at you 'band of dingbats'.)
Nor did the dumb ass voters vote for any of this.
It is all fiat, imposed from power-posts achieved through relying on protectionist demagoguery (coming from all quarters not just politicos) which got under the skin of the cumbaya jebus continent** and also effortlessly "triangulated**" against the easily demonize-able capitalist strip-mine greed vision.
[**cumbaya jebus continent = ...jebus cult is marxism v1.0 --created by the same race of wandering trouble makers then and now -- and its followers are sappy blushy Nords bred by it into simple/dunce cumbaya-ites. Is it any wonder modern marxism was so easily able to find ear with it?]
["**triangulated" = big-tent coalition stuff --chimps picking bugs off each other.]
---
AA is not about fem aptitude. Spinning it that way doesn't address the points I made (_very clearly_) in the 'waves of feminism' post:
Achievement is not a Right. It is competition side effect _over_ girls (sneaky as ever they were).
If girls _are_ being picked (for positions they DON'T need) boys are _not_ being (for positions they DO).
And that is a double bad because of female instincts (we live in ignorance/denial of); eg 'shit test' --which the males fail now-- and hypergamy.
Once again the issue is framed wrong.
"They don't need to worry about the answers if they get you to ask the wrong questions."
-------
I find females competent. But note the new roles are easy to handle (alas 'tis civilization's goal). Bob Cratchit use to do every thing the modern world uses a room full of gossiping chicken heads to do now -- except he didn't have any coal!
And further the dysgenic population explosion of dopey males makes many females seem more desirable in positions.
Parliamentary democracy has created a world of labrador males vs female border collies --with the male border collies being marginalized to the homo sovieticus** gulags.
["**homo sovieticus" = like that Full Metal Jacket scene at the lime trench.]
Female border collies are still border collies and as such are smarter than male labradors. But we are replacing male border collies (smarter still) to create this unasked for utopia.
Note though I'm looking forward to the military and police being over 50% female soon. ;-)
(My screed against parliamentary democracy is wrong. My Jacobin spite for parli-demo blinds me. It actually is civilization itself that is breeding for female border collies and male Labradors at the expense of the male border collie. Civi itself, unfortunately.)
===========
"could should" fallacy/conundrum...
I think military guys are absolute dunces. It is much easier to bring some liberals over to your view --if you have the gift (I do [haughty snort]) -- than a conformist dog on a leash; the dog waits for popularity to make the decision for him then he conforms to that.
But...
Once I was watching the boob tube. A military general was being asked by a congressional panel whether or not he could train females to be effective soldiers.
He hee'd and haw'd and they said "listen can you train a female --take your daughter for example-- to be a [femme nikita] or not?"
He pauses then goes "Yes. But why would I want to? Why would society want me to unleash that on it?"
They said "thank you, you're dismissed."
It is a "could should" issue.
We can replace males with females now (for the reasons I gave above-- "females competent enough now") but why should we?
Implications of the females are 'competent enough' approach:
A little pantomime to make it fun...
One day humans are brains in bubbles. I'm sure the females make fine brains in bubbles. But that is not the point. The point is if the male is still a male, he is going to have his brain-tongue hanging out for the female's medulla oblongata. Now 'being as all other things are equal' in bubbles, the female brain will, nature graphically tells us, lead him a popcorn trial back to her black-widow's spider web.
In a bubble.
....
So what is actually being advocated by the west?...
Should we vote on replacing males with females now since the females are so competent and all? ...It's not like they would use this new leverage to give men and boys new obstacles. [sarc]
Can the voting horde --and their media shyster handlers-- understand simple female-value and male-redundancy principle snowballing along to praying mantis social-dynamic parallels?
Can the masses contemplate that the only _real_ solution then is so called "transhumanism"? (Specifically getting rid of gender or etc to protect the next generation.) [...And for each new Promethean solution a new Pandora's box opened... snowballing along, Luciferianly over the roses of an imagined Eden.]
Is this what was fought for in any war or revolution ever?
[I guess I've snowballed into Luddite-ism now... But what are ya gonna do...]
It simply is not "justice" to have these over-seeing bate-and-switch elites do this to society when the dumb ass buffoons of the military throughout our history did NOT fight for any of this! (I'm looking at you 'band of dingbats'.)
Nor did the dumb ass voters vote for any of this.
It is all fiat, imposed from power-posts achieved through relying on protectionist demagoguery (coming from all quarters not just politicos) which got under the skin of the cumbaya jebus continent** and also effortlessly "triangulated**" against the easily demonize-able capitalist strip-mine greed vision.
[**cumbaya jebus continent = ...jebus cult is marxism v1.0 --created by the same race of wandering trouble makers then and now -- and its followers are sappy blushy Nords bred by it into simple/dunce cumbaya-ites. Is it any wonder modern marxism was so easily able to find ear with it?]
["**triangulated" = big-tent coalition stuff --chimps picking bugs off each other.]
---
AA is not about fem aptitude. Spinning it that way doesn't address the points I made (_very clearly_) in the 'waves of feminism' post:
Achievement is not a Right. It is competition side effect _over_ girls (sneaky as ever they were).
If girls _are_ being picked (for positions they DON'T need) boys are _not_ being (for positions they DO).
And that is a double bad because of female instincts (we live in ignorance/denial of); eg 'shit test' --which the males fail now-- and hypergamy.
Once again the issue is framed wrong.
"They don't need to worry about the answers if they get you to ask the wrong questions."
-------
I find females competent. But note the new roles are easy to handle (alas 'tis civilization's goal). Bob Cratchit use to do every thing the modern world uses a room full of gossiping chicken heads to do now -- except he didn't have any coal!
And further the dysgenic population explosion of dopey males makes many females seem more desirable in positions.
Parliamentary democracy has created a world of labrador males vs female border collies --with the male border collies being marginalized to the homo sovieticus** gulags.
["**homo sovieticus" = like that Full Metal Jacket scene at the lime trench.]
Female border collies are still border collies and as such are smarter than male labradors. But we are replacing male border collies (smarter still) to create this unasked for utopia.
Note though I'm looking forward to the military and police being over 50% female soon. ;-)
(My screed against parliamentary democracy is wrong. My Jacobin spite for parli-demo blinds me. It actually is civilization itself that is breeding for female border collies and male Labradors at the expense of the male border collie. Civi itself, unfortunately.)
===========
"could should" fallacy/conundrum...
I think military guys are absolute dunces. It is much easier to bring some liberals over to your view --if you have the gift (I do [haughty snort]) -- than a conformist dog on a leash; the dog waits for popularity to make the decision for him then he conforms to that.
But...
Once I was watching the boob tube. A military general was being asked by a congressional panel whether or not he could train females to be effective soldiers.
He hee'd and haw'd and they said "listen can you train a female --take your daughter for example-- to be a [femme nikita] or not?"
He pauses then goes "Yes. But why would I want to? Why would society want me to unleash that on it?"
They said "thank you, you're dismissed."
It is a "could should" issue.
We can replace males with females now (for the reasons I gave above-- "females competent enough now") but why should we?
Implications of the females are 'competent enough' approach:
A little pantomime to make it fun...
One day humans are brains in bubbles. I'm sure the females make fine brains in bubbles. But that is not the point. The point is if the male is still a male, he is going to have his brain-tongue hanging out for the female's medulla oblongata. Now 'being as all other things are equal' in bubbles, the female brain will, nature graphically tells us, lead him a popcorn trial back to her black-widow's spider web.
In a bubble.
....
So what is actually being advocated by the west?...
Should we vote on replacing males with females now since the females are so competent and all? ...It's not like they would use this new leverage to give men and boys new obstacles. [sarc]
Can the voting horde --and their media shyster handlers-- understand simple female-value and male-redundancy principle snowballing along to praying mantis social-dynamic parallels?
Can the masses contemplate that the only _real_ solution then is so called "transhumanism"? (Specifically getting rid of gender or etc to protect the next generation.) [...And for each new Promethean solution a new Pandora's box opened... snowballing along, Luciferianly over the roses of an imagined Eden.]
Is this what was fought for in any war or revolution ever?
[I guess I've snowballed into Luddite-ism now... But what are ya gonna do...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
