Thursday, September 2, 2010

How feminism happened II

In the midnight hour...
(she cried 'more, more, more'!)


Here is how feminism happened:

[Note names are generic.]

The Lorenzos --aristocrat family of Florechi-- oust the Mediore's --rulers of Florechi-- through alpha beta gamma coalition-based coup d ta principle. The Lorenzo tactic is rallying up support from dock workers _from Florechi_.

Lorenzos are subsequently ousted by their lieutenants who need to look to other duchy(county/states) to find a wider ring of dock worker support. (One can see how it is starting to go bad for the Florechine labor already there.)

Those Lieutenants then --who recently became the leaders-- are in turn ousted by their body guard class (the beta). The body guards must further cast their net wide to find bedfellows.

Like most things Italian, that dynamic spreads to the imbeciles of Britain(further fueling the same dynamic already happening). (Ripple rings from a coin thrown in a fountain is the diaspora pattern of civilization itself, starting from the MidEast; Literacy --NOT coincidentally chronologically synonymous with civi-- got selected more than other variant memes as the best/biggest coalition glue.)

And the vicious cycle continues.

[The point: the beta --agitators-of-coup-- looking for bedfellows is why females were enfranchised.]

And here we is. ...Pretty soon the next coup's agitators (eg one legged dames trying to oust the two legged "oppressor" dames) will need to enfranchise dolphins or chimps so as to find even lower dock workers to use as useful idiots.

I don't think the enlightenment revolutions' instigators ("founders") or the British economic "philosophers" who put forth trickle-down could think on that vicious cycle plane; ie they didn't desire or contemplate feminism as the long term game. Humans are not as self aware as they pretend. And grand prediction is the province of a very slim few.

Note the US founders did say to uppity females of the day --their wives, note-- when admonished to "include the ladies" in the persnickety and confusing revocolution[sic] thing that there already was a "tyranny of the petticoat" that the law of god's nature had long bequeath to [dames]. "[And that's why ya can't just make dames equal and have it work out equal.]" And DeTouqville types did warn about snowballing proto-feminism and etc populisms, seeing the equality-snowball's writing on the wall.

By the time acute fem "emancipation" occurred, nobody was honestly thinking about females being equal anyway (`cause thinking is long extinct on alpha beta gamma island**) --dames were just another ring of bedfellows sucked into the coup d ta cycle. (**No-thinking on Alpha Beta Gamma Island is ironic too, since the alpha beta gamma train is what done drove us to neo cortex station in the first place. But the train keeps right on going. `All aboard.)

Maybe, some of the latest ascendant males(brain dead as they be) are just starting to grapple with the notion that feminism is a tool to keep underclass males out. (Males can be kept out only now that shoulders are no longer needed because of industrialism's blossoming implications.)

(Note that industrialism is the side effect of male human competition. ...Snowballing across the ages, the shed antlers of competition over pu$$y piling up. Oh the irony! Such is the universe: a long string of grand ironies. The nature of this malevolent beast called god? [Good thing that cock sucker doesn't exist or I'd have a few choice words to share with him.])

Males need to stop competing : be made the same (dames too) ["a better world through chemicals[tm]"]. Or KILL the losers. That stops the alpha beta gamma snowball and its game of finding bedfellows through triangulation conspiracies; thus it stops feminism. That can stop "growth" though, which needs a caste structure of specialty. Specialty is the side effect of males running away from their lost battles to find niches of display to call their own. A catch 22. [That pesky ironic Universe at work again.] If we go down the path of fatal dueling as the way of stopping ABG, what the arenas of death will be --ie what man will breed for-- is up in the air [note eu and dys are relative].


Men are roosters fighting over the hen house. Some roosters are strong, some are weak (in any given category/ arena). Complexities develop in that rooster vs rooster fight. Feminism is one such complexity in that battle.

Until men can be assured that other men are not a threat they will not ally against pussy.

Gorillas don't have feminism. Why? One adult male per breeding territory. Orangutan don't have it. Why? both genders are loners with a raping polygynist male having a territory that encapsulates many female smaller territories. (Out of all apes [tail-less primates closely related to man], orangs have a dynamic most similar to say cougars or tiger. The gorilla are similar to a sappy mormon polygynist household: daddy is last word but it is all sappy and cuddly [between the genders].)

Chimps do have female leverage _and dalliance_ and bonobo chimps have promiscuous femdom with males infantile; stunted, practically to down syndrome in some estimates. (Bonobos are similar to San Francisco or other 'modern' cities.)

It seems if the food supply is good and females can therefore tolerate each other and collude _and runt males of the litter thrive_, feminism happens.

Gorillas do have females in groups tolerating each other but don't have feminism. The reason for that is one big jealous crushing-blow sexually active male per group instead of the chimp male hierarchy (Alpha Beta) and conspiracy thing.

So the only way to stop feminism so far is for men to be isolated individuals. (America pays lip service there but doesn't really understand it or advocate taking it to its necessary extreme, thereby making the whole anti state exercise futile. America is accident of exploration age geography, not symptom of thought through philosophy.)

If there are any male dominant hives/large civic structures in nature, I don't know of them and their evidence is not trickling down out of academia properly. (Hmmm I wonder why [sarc] --'marxist' dark age.)

We would have to define male dominance first (trust me we haven't) and then look at all the hives and _other colonial organisms_ and see if any are male "dominant"; and then out of those, see if any are close enough to our meme (assembly line ways and means) that they can be imitated/learned from.

It is either that or loner-ism. In space, forever a drift by purposeful design. A cosmos filled with M. Gaugins and bounty mutineers. (Pitcairn failed because not enough females to go around and caste structure of slaves --with the slaves armed of all things. [And as has been said too many Irish (read: dumb). LOL I agree.] Food was plentiful and diverse.)

Sometimes males can fake "patriarchy" (ill defined as it is) temporarily if they are fighting an enemy(often other males) at the behest of the civic-center (female etiquette at the very least if not female dominant). Inside the fraternity of warriors --the merry few, the band of brothers-- there is a kind of ghetto of masculinity, where the males --like dogs chasing sticks--think they are in charge of something and free. (Men are not very bright actually and very susceptible to head up assness --it is comfortable to be ignorant.)

Sea horse (fish) are fascinating in that the females fight each other over the males. Note the males are impregnated by the females with the males having the ability to throw out the female eggs it doesn't want. That's why the females fight --to get other females away from males so as to limit his choice --truly an exception proving the rule. The hyena have the female dominance thing (though what type I'm not sure: nothing-- NOTHING-- academia has said about any thing biology is worth a pile of shit literally. We are in a very sever dark age vectored in by American ignorance and belligerence(jesus saves).) Females kill each other in the litter based on sorority pecking orders. They have interesting distended clitori, paralleling penis display that has formed.

...Space loners. Or improbable hive of sexually valuable males.

Those are the two choices. 'We is all equal' is NOT a choice.


Chimps (and bonobos)
homonids (australs and homos)

Those are the apes.

Gorillas and chimps are fundamentally different species with way different social dynamics.

Gorilla live like mormons or islam
chimps live like high euro period
bonobos live like greenich village
orangs live like loners who make raping booty calls

Gibbons live like hmm... arboreal apes? (Monkeys with out tails LOL.) [I don't know: probably similar to softcore baboons [who get rough in male vs male ways] or some other monkey dynamic.]

Someone told me that gibbons are monogamist pair bonded loners. If so they are similar to jackals. That is ideal for you sappy types out there (like me). (Though I like the gorilla thing two. ;o))

This isn't that hard to understand or lay into memory. (As someone just said "dumb as a texas school book".) You all should not be voting.


I hereby request that the word "alpha male" when talking about "pulling power" be replaced with "womanizer" or "lothario" or "hey that dude is good with pussy [like most male humans raised as upper siblings in female lower sibling houses]". You are just corrupting terms.

The underclass aristos --of say florence or colonial america-- were still pulling top chicks yet they were the "beta" of the alpha beta gamma coup de ta dynamic (which snowballed mankind into our greatness and feminism too).

It is not appropriate the way the 'player' community uses it. Just like when Naomi wolf types use it to talk about presidents/candidates clothing. (Eg whether the candidate is wearing the alpha red tie or wool 'academic /beta' blazer.)

And it is over used.

According to 'alpha' coiner in lupinology it is no longer valid specifically for wolves.

It is still valid --according to coiner-- in group dynamics where rank has been fought over. Eg chimps.

I could use Plato's gold silver and bronze classes to explain my model for how humans snowballed to a place where males lost all sense of control over the dalliance tendency in the females (and lost the authority to keep her asinine illogic out of "hallowed halls", where a male relativist conceit called logic dwells). But why would I?


Yes confident people smile. Is it that the confident are that way because they have usually won thus they think "I will win again", or is that the instinct-generated confidence-like display (regardless of aptitude or previous victories) gets more breaks? I think the former.

Interesting to note that the smile impulse [created by a module] is an appeasement display of the young/unhealthy/feminine/underling in chimp society (showing that mouth is closed--"no bite I") yet now it is the confidence display of the top dogs.

As a thought exercise can anyone figure out why underclass chimp modules would be thick in upperclass humans? (Hint: use the alpha beta gamma principle as your guide --along with natural selection of course.)

First a quick necessary pre req:

I understand the Universe to be domino effect chain reactions. Nothing happens that is not inevitable. (And there is no point to any of it that is discern able or relevant to us.)

I could have said "the cycle of AlphBetaGamm coups _for Euros_ has LED INEVITABLY to LIBERALISM and FEMINISM."

Euros are apparently too empathic to, or not able to, kill or otherwise limit our runt variations each generation. Possibly because our food supply is better [making us nice at the psychobabble level] and our tool kit is better and that is keeping alive mundo variants that would normally die in the litter.

Not killing the runts(eg infantiles) leads to snowballing coups _rallied around the ousting of masculinity ('adult-ness') itself._

The other political groups of humans(non western ones) (or chimps or dolphin or any group/pack species) are in alpha beta structures with coups too. But the coups rally around replacing a _healthy_ male or grouplet with another very similarly healthy male or grouplet. For European humans the coups are not battles between similar morphologies; but rather the battles are between the ...freakishly distorted (lol) [mundo variants: eg monks] and the healthy original human designs. These freakishly distorted are uniquely kept alive by the unique Western human techno snowball (as said "food supply").

Feminism is the inevitable side effect of that Euro Western (some say Anglo) coup-trend to oust masculinity. ["The Alpha beta gamma principle" And "why /how feminism happened".]

If _Western_ conservative ideas of 'male vs male competition remaining static in a contented hierarchy' were going to work they would have already: we would NOT have snowballed out of that system _from which come. Again the domino -effect-inevitability thing.

We need to solve the root snowballing-runt-take-over problem so as to prevent its unsolved consequence --feminism-- from blind siding us. But the solution to that runt take over can't just be to advocate more conservative feetie stamping for that didn't work in the first place (we did after all snowball out of it): why would it work next time (even if we could get 'back there')?

Not to mention it makes good political-big-tent sense to be protectionists. Nobody will win power with out being one. NEVER, EVER EVER.

Your question was good. I will eventually add my `figerin above to my blog page about the alpha beta gamma thing. I always implied in my own head what I meant above; your question made me bring it out. (Interesting to note how people have things in their heads which they take as givens.)

It is the techno snowball that is the root of why feminism is happening.

Tech is keeping alive a large litter of variants and that makes the typical coup d eta cycle really "go for a ride" for humans who have a large techno-induced diverse litter (eg Europeans).

To understand what develops from that techno snowball, think of a dog humping the leg...

You go into granny's house. She has a dog. You make nice-nice with the dog, scratching its chin and talking baby talk to it ("aw look-- the goodsy little cutsey utsy: do you wanna luvey yum yum? Yes that's a good sheep weepy") while petting it.

Then later you're at the table talking with granny and the thing is humping your leg. (The dog is, not granny.)

Granny says "stop that Fido!". Then she apologizes to you saying "the dog is a pervert --we think he's gay."


Dogs don't have complicated symbols of power. They don't wear red ties; they don't ride hogs. They simply hump legs --it is divorced from sex in his tiny brain (or inversely everything in his brain is sex display [because everything is ultimately]). Dogs don't do complexity.

And dogs don't read complicated signals about the pecking order. They simply read "weakness or strength". And the weak get humped. (If dogs were smarter[ie had more memory, which layers in complexity around simple things], they might try to pass bad checks to the weak, with a Machiavellian fang tooth smile.)

So what the dog is saying to you or another boy dog when it humps like that is "Hey listen new guy, this is the batting order: it's granny, THEN ME and then you. Got it?"

Your well mannered and affectionate petting of the dog simply convinced the dog that you are weak. The dog being a simple automaton of reflex responses to contingency humped your weakness back in kind.

Well the female human is a simple automaton responding to weakness too. The men of western culture act weak; feminism is a giant leg-hump back in kind.

_The reason the western men act weak is our western coup d eta is rallied around getting rid of manliness itself; that coup-trend is a selection pressure breeding us down the path of weakling males from the litter. Ie our euro techno snowball has created an environment where the "strong" are not the "fittest". Savvy?_

Note when a shogun family is ousted in a coup it is ousted by another bad-ass shogun-type family. In Euro-sphere it is the shogun family being ousted by conspiratorial weirdos(monks and such). These weirdos are kept alive and or invigorated/armed-by our techno-induced success.

You ask why do I advocate making all men the same?

Well conservatism has been painfully unable to stop this 'coup-of-weirdos' cycle through its cry for individualism and more masculine competition.

This ineffectiveness becomes especially absurd when one factors in that --due to complexity and religious modules in our human heads-- the american/anglo conservatives are notoriously at cross purposes with their stated goals. American conservatives fight the "Nazis"; they fight the religious hill people of the 3rd world (and before that the injuns); they try to keep alive all the runt babies (and use that as display of dominance on the planet --"look what we can do--we protect weirdos better than you"); they advocate more industrial, capitalist-growth society --techno snowball-- _which is exclusively the baby-incubator and dialysis for runts_.

(The religious brain-module --while great at building pyramids and Stonehenge-- prevents you from untangling your minds from this cross purposes thing.)

If Ted Nugent pounding on his chest was going to work at stopping the "runt-coup cycle" it would have already. People who claim the up hill water supply for themselves are super super vulnerable to strength in numbers counter from the people who live down stream in the valley below _given our human group vs group form of competition_.

We can't fail to recognize the actual situation...

The Romans march at us and we, the barbarian hill people, do the barbarian charge thing back at them.

We get repelled with heavy losses.

So we need another plan.

But the new plans are denounced inside the barbarian war council as "Romanism"(liberalism). And the war council opts instead for simply "charging faster" at the Roman turtle shell.

That doesn't work.


Direct chemical things(eg the ole "you got your birth control pill in my peanut butter") could be a culprit, and /or it could be complex "nurture syndrome" hormonal "epi-genetic" effects, created by social signaling/ social "symbols".

There are psycho babble ways of creating physiological results. Eg "indoctrination" for one simple example. Many of these things are are unwitting and PROFOUND but real none the less. Humans haven't even begun really to think on that scale.


Dworkin's definition of rape and marriage is the correct one.

Dimorphic sex is an emasculation attack on an inferior. That's what we come from.

Females won't admit the above for self esteem reason (though they know it's true). They conjure elaborate BS to try and vent that without admitting it. Things such as "[human quid pro sexual exchange (which is human courtship and pair bonding) is rape because the female can't give "meaningful" consent given that she was historically less economically sovereign]". Ie they are delusionoids AND liars that don't want you to know that they are submissives.

All feminism is that reaction to their own submission fetish. (Along with it being a tease and taunt of the males ("shit test").) The more masculine ones --often more ignored by males(therefore even more angry)-- become the aggressive vanguard(front point) --the champions(in the old hired-knight sense)--of the females. As the males become weaker--_because of what civilization breeds for in men [see 'alpha beta gamma']_ the females ascend into masculinity unchallenged (wherein the females become the top dogs of the wolf pack and hump the pack into compliance).

Humans are in a period now where the females are of two minds (and any individual female can be of two minds about this at once, while not actually thinking about it at all); some want the ego stroke of female-sexual-value femininity --super buttressed now by more female power-- and some want to continue the power grab down the path of more masculinizing (where in they can claim their own emasculated victims, after engaging in combat over them.

It is like a cuttlefish experiment --or some other soft wired hermaphrodite species. (Pre req: Dimorphic sex for these organisms is an emasculation battle where the first to mature become males and then they stunt the underling siblings/cousins making them the females. Vertebrates come from that dynamic; see Sharks (early verts).) For this experiment, take the male cuttlefishes out of the tank. Watch now as the oldest/biggest females of the harems will --now unstunted (cause the males are missing)-- finish their growing and become male and then continue to fight over and stunt their own harems of "raped" victims.

Gentlemen, I give you dimorphic sexuality. God loves us so.


School is a jury rigged pro female environment.


Jews are a race from the middle east but mostly now from baltic slavia. They are certainly a cultural diaspora if not genetically distinguishable. (But they are genetically distinguishable.)

White males are gullible gits. And jews are exploitive migrants. Why is the first half of that diagnosis allowable in public discourse but not the second?...

It is relevant to our cause that most of our enemies have been of one cultural/genetic group over and over and over.

And like I said that nuttery from that site is jewish (in genes and cultural affiliation--I don't know what "religion" it is nor do I care). I'll eat my shorts if that is not true.

Also I said the group is homosexual and masochistic. (Symptom of that genotype.)

Biological diagnosis are relevant to politics.


Do they factor the gender of parent child abusers? Do they tally the gender of child abuse victims? Most importantly, do they use the feminist definition of DV (emotional stuff, "walking on egg shells" etc) and apply it to child abuse?

If they did lens child abuse and gender, did they note that mothers are more guilty of DV than any other group? And their main target is boys more than girls?

Liberals believe children are what they are because of nurture syndrome but society conveniently ignores that fem parents are the core vectors of most nurture syndromes. Further our society holds the grown sons accountable but not the eye of the storm mother.

Most adult DV is female infidelity caused; females are not just innocent victims who want to be in wuv foeva N eba. [Golly, aint they adorable?] Also ethnic and low class--ie both liberal protected groups-- commit more of all the crimes liberals measure. Not the "patriarchy" of git white males in their suits. But to hear liberals talk you would think the world is being raped and beaten by Lawrence Summers et al.

Just a thing about studies first... They are conjure-ings within the zeitgeist(fashion); Anything --eg factoid-A-- that doesn't fit within the zeitgeist will be off the table regardless of how fallacious the studies wind up being without factoid-A. Eg like studies about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in the middle ages. The whole premise was absurd. But that fact would be studiously ignored --or attacked-- by the schools of thought debating (and 'publishing' about) just how many angels.

(I was once talking about paleo anthro. And there upon it was said to me that the human social sexual dynamic of the past was similar to the dynamic of the modern west. I asked "what about male jealousy and its violence (untethered then, for there was no police-state hive-complexity yet) controlling female game playing and ascendancy"? I was told that "they don't believe in violence against women" and therefore that fact was off the table, and then they went back to their discussion ignoring me --in an anthropology class! That is one way we get the "matriarchies of the past" canard.)

Another thing about "studies": People, being "creatures of authority", have a tendency to shut off their own observations they know to be true so as to be in the good graces of authority-published statements --especially if those statements catch on popularly. Note how a wildebeest will not jump into a raging river if alone but will if the herd is already jumping. Strength-in-number species have compulsions to stay within the group even if it means shutting out truth to stay in the in-group. [I'm not saying you are doing this; I'm just fleshing out my opinions of "studies" and people and such.]

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 idiots, 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 lensed, just-so data is published to "prove" it. ...And the weak-minded cave in first and that starts a domino effect synergy.

[Why this zeitgeist and authority believes and publishes what it does has been grappled with by me in my endless screed about the 'alpha beta gamma' snowball, jewish/marxist ascendancy and capitalist-focused distopia.

The caste structure is as follows: academics[bishops] then trickling down to the media[priest] and then lastly the pols[deacons]. Science is nervous system and law is glands, police and military are immune system, capitalists are digestion and _circulation/blood_ of our giant body/hive. Just FYI stuff.]

As for my point, do you believe children are hit more often by mother or father in this culture? At the very least we have a single fem parent culture; that means just proximity to children wise the females are more relevant to a child's formation of issues. What about other "issues"? Like boosing or neurosii? Which gender is more often the vector of that stuff?

We don't need no study: we have our own life histories and observations therefrom.

You've never seen or heard a mother haul off and wack a kid [read boy] at the walmarts or park etc? Have you ever seen a man do it? If so, did witnesses just let it happen without comment? Which gender?

"Liberals believe children are what they are because of nurture syndrome; but society conveniently ignores that fem parents are the core vectors of most nurture syndromes. Further our society holds the grown son accountable but not the eye of the storm mother who raised him."

When it comes to black crime or whoever and whatever our society demonstrates that it does understand the nurture syndrome premise.

We only trace back the nurture-syndrome-causation sophistry, when the "right" classes (_as chosen by the zeitgeist_) are in the cross hairs. And we only trace back nurture causation until the zeitgeist finds a political out class to hold accountable. ...Ole finger bangin' uncle Jedidiah [a man] --back in 1842-- is to blame [for thoroughly modern jenny drowning her kids (while blaming it on a black)]. The fact ole crazy hair aunt Martha --in 1796-- could also be accountable(and so on and so on) will not be on the table.

We already have studies that say female humans _start_ as many physical fights as men with opposite sex lovers (not to mention the lesbian data --"lesbians hit most of all").

That fact has been bent into a straw-man by profem (left and right) so that they don't need to actually address it and change their world views and agendas. The straw-man is "women don't hit as hard and therefore the studies are irrelevant". Ah, but women _start_ as many fights (and have the same motivations for doing so as men [relationship stress/self esteem/control]) and therefore men are simply fighting back and are not just ogres. (And he'd better fight back too: I assert strongly that she will cheat rampantly --and historically always has-- if he doesn't.)

And the fact that wimmins also now hit more to get their way says that nature will still keep happening even when the females are in charge. _And therefore a core liberal utopian premise --"getting rid of men will create peace and love"--is bunk_. (Not to mention that premise is sexist and prejudicial in the extreme. ..Ah the liberal hypocrites.)

Note lions do not invent the savanna; the savanna selects for lion. Getting rid of lions simply causes the savanna to select for the savanna's next champion (in this case, hyena). It's like that episode of old Star Trek with the "pinwheel of war" up in the corner of the engine room making the 'earthers' and klingons fight. The universe itself is that pinwheel of war --our god... As unthinking and unfeeling and uncaring, as amoral --as indifferent-- as could be.

And that doesn't begin to address the fact that females are emotional abusers extraordinaire, par-non time immemorial even without using violence to get their way. And they are also the key catalysts for competition. They also use cajoled (or hired) proxies [men] to do their violence, like mafiosos hire hitmen.


Foucault = What fucking babbling NONSENSE.

Circular to the core. The fact that it wasn't excoriated --indeed that it is read at all whether challenged or not-- is a great example of how the age of reason is a bust (not to mention the 19th cent Epiphanies) and how the anglo world conservatives are useful idiots dupes fighting for the wrong side .

(It is crackpot jibba jabba that could never survive a naturalist lens contesting it. That naturalist lens was beaten back by the .... conservatives, with the liberals laughing all the way to the bank.)

Very very few people have ever even read a discover magazine 2500 word article. But we know who "Foucault" is and critique his "work". Give me a fucking break!! (Damned creationist, useful idiot rube dupes!)

FYI make-up is part of ovulation display. Humans being clever --_and therefore cagey,_ especially the inherently deceptive dames --have "crypto [/cagey] ovulation". That way females can get food from men all the time not only when she is horny-signaling. Mankind is clever and inventive; therefore the female human buttressed that cagey game-playing with "artificial" amplifications. It is not some patriarchy pigeon hole-ing females into dead end lifestyles and focuses (to maintain power over them) or any of that nonsense.

Feminism is and always has been crack pot conspiracy belief.

And none of the naturalist stuff needs to be explained with long winded jargon-based books that take us on tangled journeys of sophistry and contradiction.

That makeup thing is similar to the crackpottery that tells up prostitution is the side effect of men just paying for sex(as a way of "demonstrating their power over females") rather than our species giving females some kind of profound power to charge a price in the first place.

Chicken and egg. _Crack pots are not good with chicken and egg._

It is so ridiculous I am surprised the men's right activist of the previous generation (70s-90s) didn't embrace it as the root of their principles. LOL (Not funny again.)

The feminists in france are trying to apply their "power of symbology" jazz under the guise of nationalism.

If they believed in nationalism in france they would simply prevent other from coming in.

[ISP:] It's no coincidence that the there is a direct relationship between provocativeness of women's clothing (and sexual behaviour) and feminism/matriarchy.

That is correct.

But the culture is so filled with (literally) screw ball crackpotism --which defines democracy to the core-- we are told that all the T&A everywhere is actually the side effect of patriarchy out right forcing the females to do it or a least cajoling females through a complicated power of suggestion called "cultural symbols".

So we --the west --have invented this myth that there is a patriarchy in charge. Even though no one can see it, the evidence for it is anything deemed bad the females do. Bad female = proof some powerful though unseen patriarchy exists. More policy needed! Very convenient. And the conservatives are as guilty of this as anybody else.

This patriarchy scarecrow drowns out nicely the fact that there is actually a matriarchy in charge far, far more guilty of what it accuses men of: using belittling "cultural symbols" to cajole classes; and of creating and maintaining institutional discrimination to strip classes of power to self agency.

We then further ignore 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, happiness, health, life span, sex partners, upward mobility, suicide, incarceration, workplace health etc, etc. Meanwhile we trump up female petty downward indicators and present them as evidence that patriarchy is real and through its behavior and display damaging females in some way.

Petty and twisted indicators like females running around in skivies everywhere: The patriarchy is forcing females to... manipulate people through T&A display. Even though that is actually the side effect of female liberation not their oppression. But facts like that in non underground circles are simply dismissed as "misogyny".



The acid test is this...

If men had power like they did and do in say the western past and islam, are there strip clubs and female sexual display everywhere?


That tells us something.

Same can be said about divorce, "abandoning of the family"/"ill raising of children by dead beat dads" and infidelity everywhere. When the men have power that stuff doesn't happen. Sexual game playing and exploitation of sex is a female thing. The more power females get the more that stuff will occur. If we believe that stuff is male fault and problem then the more it occurs the more evidence we will have that men must still have some kind of profound unseen power over society and dames. Very convenient self creating propaganda loop.

What you have with the protag of your STORY is a "whore with a heart of gold" saga. It has been done before: men are gullible and need to feel needed. (Violetta: La Traviata.)

It is common to see pussy under siege when one has a daughter or can't get dates.

Seeing penis squirt early is not the be all end all we are led to believe it is. There are many things worse than being boinked by uncle.

There are chicks who have been diddled etc that didn't become whores or commit suicide. And many strippers and sex workers haven't been fucked with. It is probably IQ based.

Not to mention whoring is not not necessarily the weakness [ie problem for those so 'afflicted'] that people say it is. A sign of being a victim is jumping nervously when the phone rings; showing your clam for a living with a smirk on your face is not a sign of weakness. It is a type of bad-ass strength (that other girls covet but are too shy) and the sign of conceit and presumptuousness in the extreme.

I am far more concerned about the boys raised in single fem households and handled by the atrocious school system and culture at large --even though they were not literally fucked by mother or aunt. If we are waiting for females-holding-authority to start fucking people en masse --no less penetrating them-- before we see them and their lifestyles as damaging to children we are going to be waiting a long time.

Boys endure more before they complain too. Therefore the careerists of the victim industry don't address their woes.

And when males break we don't trace their life stories back: The nurture syndrome rap used by society is for the females only.
...Female drowns children: "patriarchal pharmacy culture" is to blame! or inattentive husband (of all things). A husband hits cheating wife: men[read: all] are animals; It doesn't matter, that guys life story.
...females don't make it to NASA: patriarchy "symbols" must be stunting and stupefying fems in some way(though these symbols are invisible). Meanwhile boys have way worse downward indicators than girls, yet it is not blamed on the obvious anti male propaganda and policy everywhere.

The nurture syndrome hypocrisy in this culture is legion!! It is not my forte to do data spin but it is everywhere. If one was going to burn energy on gender issues and doesn't have big picture existential genius ability, there is a healthy vein there for mining.

Females are weaker and complain more; are good with the doe eyes. Therefore little things that happen to them will appear to fuck them up (good for business). This is especially true if the female [read lying whore] thinks she has a mark on the line. Again "whore with a heart of gold" nonsense.

Females are for fucking. If you can't handle that then don't make daughters or cut your dick off.

The acid test is this...

If men had power like they did and do in say the western past and islam, are there strip clubs and female sexual display everywhere?


That tells us something.

Same can be said about divorce, "abandoning of the family"/"ill raising of children by dead beat dads" and infidelity everywhere. When the men have power that stuff doesn't happen. Sexual game playing and exploitation of sex is a female thing. The more power females get the more that stuff will occur. If we believe that stuff is male fault and problem then the more it occurs the more evidence we will have that men must still have some kind of profound unseen power over society and dames. Very convenient self creating propaganda loop.

Is a hungry fish [john] not exploited by the hook[-er]?


Everything is chemical determinism. No such thing as free will (as we understand it at any rate). Ie there is no such thing as "moral deficiency". If one lacks self discipline it might not be a "thyroid condition" making their asses fat but it would still be a bio chemical situation in their "self discipline gland". (Same with alcoholism or anything like that too.)

(I am not fat and don't know any fat ones: I don't have a dog in this race. (I'm not an alcoholic either.) If one must know, my root pyschobabble beef with this culture is I have red hair and _was victimized by a selfish cunt single fem parent hysterical-nutjob substantially_; and other snowballing implications of those. And I don't like the snowballing dysgenic and dark age academia trend too just on instinct being high aptitude, Nordic(ie marginal) and smart. Chicks actually dig me big time: the best dames in the room always go out of their way to offer up. (I will eventually 'out myself'--ie show photos-- when the time and money is right.) I simply didn't like that after Nicole said "[fat chicks still expect to be treated like human beings outside the bedroom; silly fools{sarc}]" people kept laying into her anyway.)


"Evolution", simply means change over time. This change is caused by the root principle which is cause and effect. "Evolving" doesn't mean better or worse. Better and worse are relative and not attached to time. (Note though, in entirety the universe has gotten more complex _in its chain reactions._)

Evolution happens through Natural Selection. NS means different puppies in a litter (these variants are created by cause and effect, traced back to the beginning); only some live as selected by the local environment. Environments formed and changed over time because of cause and effect too. Some enviros remain static for a long time: eg river swamps which select for the same two mawh and pah crocodiles from the 40 variant eggs [most dieing each season], regardless of where the rivers snake to].

NS is not morally directed as far as we can see. Morality is a relative construct of the observer. Note morals have changed over human history many times; each time, the latest morality has been embraced as absolute cosmic truth.

Man doesn't just "evolve".


1) Different variations occur.

When we spit, all those sea monkeys aint just like pawh. Note that two wolves doing the knotting /fucking are the best (at dog stuff). Yet all their puppy _variants_ don't all come out the same and don't all live.

2) Male libido is not any where near as discriminatory as the females' (accepting that the species in question is a 'females do the picking species'). Males have a wide lens libido (as I explained just recently). That would pass on the ugly and unhealthy.

Most of the females breed (who survive disease pressures and food pressures). Then the acute selection --of those female variant traits-- happens to the males on their male-plane of competition: some males making it through the bottle neck and some not. In short males fuck anything while females only fuck certain mother's sons. Whether it is the sons fighting each other away form the females or the females picking the sons they like best, that is the way.


There is a "physician, do no harm" thing in the sciences and its trickle down communities. Meaning some scientists/philosophers explain things wrong or set up faulty principles and paradigms. This allows doubters to burn the strawmen down and then turn off their minds to the whole concept should they come across it again.

It is said that a reason the american creationism thing happened as staunchly as it did was bad naturalists did poorly at explaining natural selection early on. And consequently americans have been burning down strawmen ever since and thinking that they are disproving naturalism. They get a prideful feeling thinking that they are smarter than scientists which just perpetuates the stubbornness (and the size of the continent --50 times bigger than Britain-- entrenches the cocky, stubborn willful blindness).

You are apparently prone to not getting or believing in naturalism. And bad paradigms(created by 'harmful-physicians') give you strawmen that vindicate your position.

I agree that the Biologies are a 'soft science' compared to physics and engineering (but engineering without a philosophy is the most dangerous thing --a Lamborghini out of control). And the 'human sciences' --socio anthro psycho babble and history--are absolute mush soft.

And from those mush soft "sciences" our laws come.

The direction of "logic train" should be physics [big picture amoral cause and effect] to root biology to paleontology, then paleo anthro and socio babble and history _with law LAST_.

But instead it is popular beliefs used by shameless demagogues [many jews historically] --pandering to Christian meek shall inherit the earth sentiment {NOTE that! --important!!]. Then, through that 'muscle-of-popularity', the demagogues invent socio anthro babble and history wishful thinking interpretations (sometimes meant to purposefully brainwash peon disciples who will spread) --censoring contest liberally (given the power of popularity). Then that seeps into and infects the biologies (censoring challenge again). If this keeps up, soon we will be drawing star pictures in the sky again; and everything seen will be female gods.

But regardless of the softness and harmful physicians (who are on our side but harmful) --or because of that-- we can not relinquish that battlefield! We must go forward now that that Pandoran box has been opened.


Drs and lawyers and such are not alpha males of homo sapiens. So what ever they believe, do and impose is not what alpha sapiens would believe, do and impose. (Interesting to note how humans have changed more in the last one hundred years than in all the other centuries before; also interesting to note how "nurture" and chemistry works in the hive to shape children's dispositions.) They might be termed the alpha of this new species of hive creatures man is creating (so long as the hive remains dimorphic).

Side note regarding this female choice thing: If the alpha males are successful at getting rid of the other males, then female "choice" has been eliminated (just like when roosters or bears or lions kill each other). We come from a species where the males eliminated each other acutely regularly up until very very recently. (Even now the hive vs hive slaughters are really just male complex against male complex. That's about to change though.)

What you're calling alpha males are simply elites of an "upside down world" (where the runts of the litter-past are the authority now). An upside down world that occurred because of the alpha beta gamma principle. Alpha beta gamma means a snowball of beta instigated coups against the presumptuous and bullies at the top of the old barbarian social structure (and the even more ancient prehistoric '"cave man" one).

This system snowballed into runt-dom in the first place because of human techno. The techno snowball is a side effect of the way male humans compete (over females). ...Deer have antlers and Men have gizmos. Eventually the gizmos reached a critical mass --thus changing the environment/village/ selection pressures-- and kept alive the weird from kid hood and stuff. Once alive at all the runts rebel (motivated by envy of the presumptuous and fear of the bullies) and win through strength in-numbers /Lilliputians vs Gulliver.

Very easy to understand actually. Puzzle solved. Most female naturalists/primatologists/ anthropologists understand it BTW. They understand that food supply change (techno snowball) comes first and that allows coalitions to form against the harem lord authority of the minority of healthy males who are motivated by sexual control issues.

The "alpha males" of the wolf breed controlled their females. The alpha males ("elites") of this chihuahua breed we've become (our anglo system) don't. But to say the "alpha wolves liberated the females" misses the huge elephant in the living room which is the snowball of coups to oust the better dog breed past (from which we come).

Last time I checked viking hordes men or even celtic fringe tribesmen (scots and stuff) didn't "liberate" their females. The snowball of civilization did.

Now we have institutionalized beta coup d eta in the form of democracy ("institutionalized coup" is a bad thing too, 'cause it releases steam [because of hope for change] that would boil over into civil war more often). The elites of this system have been selected by the pressures of the system and know how to bob and weave within it so as to achieve their rank (which they convert into sex --the point of all rank acquiring). The hive has begun. The borgdom of space awaits.

...And so it was that man was cast from Eden as punishment (for something he did not do). ...To the Great Whore that is the city : Babylon. ...Where the fools become the kings and the whores take those kings, nee fools, as THEIR concubines.

Why don't you all know this stuff for yourselves?...

That doesn't bode well.



"More more, more more More!"


So called "trickle down" is not INCORRECT. It is not so called 'voodoo.' It is proceeding EXACTLY as the 1700 Scots said it would: It is creating "growth"(easier, safer, fatter living) and with it the very potential itself for new social orders to develop.

What it is is bad politics and bad social theory. It is unelectable as a party (in any system no less a two party one) since people don't like top dog hubris and it is not understood (as demonstrated by everyone's ignorance of what trickle down even means); And it doesn't think its "growth" implications through.

But the economic theory is accurate. ..."Allowing the entrepreneurs to get super rich _motivates_ them to run rabbit run; That creates more hamsters running in their wheels; those wheels are the turbines that make modern society go. Modern society with all of its "fat living" is the only thing that creates the [psychological] prerequisites for liberalism to blossom."

"Trickle down" (more properly "unleashed entrepreneurial greed") is why we have everything that we have in the west --including liberalism AND rampantly spreading "foolishness" (that normally died away each generation without breeding).


My anti democracy /capitalism/ Christianity/ libertarianism thing in a concise package. [This section must grow and hopefully will.]

Just saying "tax break hurts government and therefore capitalism is anti feminist" isn't good enough for it doesn't give us a mechanism for how humans will no longer be psychologically susceptible to the protectionist demagoguery that makes government liberalism happen in the first place.

Note that capitalist democracy and feminism are uniquely synonymous in history. Note that cultures without capitalist democracy don't have feminism in practice. You have not observed that for yourself?

(Same with jebus horseshit. Just cause it says in verse jibba jabba-to the n that "wimmith should not cutteth thy hair shorteth" doesn't actually mean Christianity's bred for wimpiness (anti viking/anti barbarian robustness) over the last millenia+ is not uniquely synonymous with feminism's cultural and historical ascendancy.)

Also there is the very deep concept of techno growth snowball being the root of the new selection pressures that are keeping alive all the runts that make feminism possible at all. [feminism is a dog humping the leg of weakness; that weakness is uniquely kept alive by "modernism" which needs techno to happen.]

Capitalism is a bad political glue/tactic, being about individualism and strip mining colonialism; Easy to demonize stuff by the big tent of liberalism. (So one must ask: do caps actually ever want to win and impose some policy they believe in or are they just masochists who enjoy being the walking strawman liberalism props up/allows in the room?) And capitalism's form of competition --as opposed to sword play and etc fatal competition-- keeps alive the losers thereby guaranteeing an anti capitalist big tent of reactionary vengeful losers forming; losers kept alive at all by capitalist growth (techno) itself! [oh the irony!] And entrepreneurial focus is an intellectual ghetto, forcing the men who want to achieve in that arena to not focus on or care about bigger picture trends--it is all about growth this quarter, "Fuck tomorrow". (Capitalism sells out its sons to buy a "better" wife today [oh the irony! again]; but it doesn't have the mind's eye to know this about itself.) And capitalism is dependent on being in the good graces of the dirty horde of dunces (and their handlers): one must be what the dollar holder demand wants one to be. Nothing good [thought through] will come from that.

And then there is the migrant [read jew] usury and banking thing the culture becomes beholden to. It is bad to be beholden to migrants --especially "Children of Lilith" /effete/feminist ones.

Prereq: We do not come from matriarchies made patriarchal by civilization's growth. That is totally backwards in the extreme despite what feminist western culture says (and it is overtly obvious too!!!). Talk about dunces[horde] and liars[feminists/jews] and blinder wearing inhabitants of psychological ghettos of competition [entrepreneurs].

This has all been said to death.


America is a capitalist democracy that allowed marxists migrants and its own females to seize the narrative without contest. In actual communist and fascist countries that marxist control and female crap didn't happen and in china's case doesn't happen.

If capitalism and democracy stops feminism why didn't it? What is the missing ingredient in constitutional democracy and capitalism that will prevent it from easily and blithely --without contest-- being hijacked by liberal feminist social engineers?

If capitalism creates freedom for men then how come it has never turned into that anywhere it has been tried but instead has _always_ turned into feminism?

Why do conservatives call feminism fascism? What exactly is going on in their heads?

As I said and was ignored in order to protect your delusion, "fascism and [sov/china] communism is not as far to the social left in practice as american capitalist democracy has turned out to be everywhere."

Again capitalist democracy uniquely in history turned into feminism but fascism and communist Nations _in practice_ didn't.

What will prevent capitalist democracy from being hijacked by the "collective"[ie the "bad guys"] once again --even if we could get back to the colonial Age of Exploration starting point?

How will modern oppressed western men stop feminism --and get back to the "starting point"-- without forming a 'collective' action group to combat feminism? You do understand that strength-in-numbers is a "collective" right?

How come fem didn't happen in all the other fascist communist countries like you believe American is?

How come fem only happens in countries where the dichotomy has arranged itself into this bizarre capitalist-democracy verse "liberalism" (which of course is the root and child of capitalist democracy doh!)?

People are very confused and _blind_. The pattern is: "democracy, capitalism, Christianity, feminism liberalism."

Name a communist culture --no less a fascist one-- that has feminism _in practice_ to any level nearing the anglo west. Name a capitalist democratic culture that doesn't have feminism.

Go ahead: I'll wait.

Your blindness is caused by male conformity-to-my-village-symbols instinct.

Truth is a very painful thing. So much so, it is blinding; like looking into the sun.

Regime change now!

[BTW for you dunces "regime" doesn't mean the obama ADMINISTRATION. It means the democracy zeitgeist --the enlightenment and it long since hijacked and corrupted morals. The REGIME.]


What is a "society" if not partnership of reciprocal altruists? What is it but a collective of do gooders saying they are looking out for each other (so as to achieve status and control in that group)? (You just did that with your "save the babies" abortion politik.)

Now do you see why liberalism and civilization are synonymous and why the _half baked_ ideals (capitalism, constitutionalism) never work?

(Your answer is of course, "no".

My next play then is "death to democracy; testing and sterilization".

...Aint prediction model fun?...)

Don't mis-define reciprocal altruism. Use it as commonly used by biologists. It is not a self aware exchange. It is like why piranha don't bite each other; or how crocodiles all breakdown a carcass making it possible for any one croc to eat from that carc; or how primates live in groups...

At any rate humans are always going to be in groups held together with protectionist politics for genetic reasons. Indeed even the communities who scream "NEE" about that --the individualists and capitalists (and their markets Doh!) and democracy constitutionalists --are still part of groups. And therefore american ideals are ABSOLUTELY unachievable. That was the point.


Socialism --especially fascism--would never ever tolerate nutjobs just getting involved.

One doesn't stop nutjobs by petitioning them for a tax break or appealing to them to not kill their babies in the name of jesus. One stops them, by putting them in camps where they can be "cured".

Until men accept that there is no hope. The question is why don't men accept that?

Answer: The alpha beta gamma snowball, chemicals in our enviro and sociological mission creep creating new chemistry/conformity for the majority (which inherently does not think).

Fighting them directly will not work for the same reason that fighting feminists/wimmin directly will not: There are too many males in power --at the top of where-ever and the military --who have long since multi generationally mindlessly conformed to the contradictory notions of democractic liberalism slippery sloping away for centuries now (as me and ISP have tried to explain).

What will you do? Tell that feminist pressure group that men are hurt too and provide your evidence and maybe throw some "illuminati people-farm" or "stop abortion" in there? LO fucking L.

And how are we going to petition the actual men who are in power (in the military and up top where ever) --who protect all this nutjobbery as their credo (so long as it's the "right kind" of nutjobbery)-- when the nature of achievers and profiteers is to support the status quo until it stops being directly profitable for them to.

The only way to change the minds of the successful is to have them stop being successful.

But you also can't reason with the insane from a pressure group. If they had powers for lucid interpretation of reality they wouldn't be part of what they are a part of. They maybe could be tricked, bribed or frightened away from what they've embraced but they can not be reasoned out of.


lsp wrote:
MacKinnon incorrectly calls "Feminism, Socialism and Communism" one and the same; and she neglects to state that feminism/matriarchy is the ... inevitable end result, of Liberalism and Democracy.

She decries "Socialism and Communism" driving us towards their supposed opposites "Liberalism and Democracy" but these are actually just as bad.

By George, he's got it.

Whenever a liberal contests "socialism" it is ultimately to make the sheep embrace its counter which is... liberalism. Same with Ayn Rand and her "libertarianism stops communism" jazz: she's trying to prevent the only thing that can actually stop liberalism/communism --fascism-- from getting into power by exploiting american/colonial parochial anti state ism so it will undercut the incipient (early forming back then) anti-liberal fascist-coalitions. (That bait and switch might be more unwitting than purposeful but it is still the way it worked out in the wash none the less.)

Liberal democracy is worse than most forms of socialism for (what is being termed) "beta males". And capitalism and individualism is a partner and root of liberal trends not their antithesis.

White men would have been better off in a white male --jewless-- communist world. Ie socialist world. (Note China.) The white male, by fighting against 'socialism' simply put the "communists" --ie the 'modern liberals'-- in power over the planet. (Note the West's colleges and TV bureaus which marxist jews run.)

But the "communists" are crafty--they don't call it communism anymore. They call it democracy and "neo con [read Jewish] conservatism" (so as to use the gullible sheep of 'patriotism' as useful idiots). (That bait and switch might be more unwitting than purposeful but it is still the way it 'worked out in the wash' none the less.)

And BTW this isn't that complicated so I don't know why others can't already see this.


There is no such thing as a world without a state or government. The whole contention is absolutely absurd. American colonial and outback crackpotism. This embraced absurdity is one reason the state has so abjectly oppressed "you".

You need to make a state work for you so it won't work against you. All that you nuts advocate is "atomization". That is exactly the condition in which you will be more easily oppressed.

Then you go "we will not be oppressed as atomized competing loners if we stop the state."

Well ...3rd base: there is no such thing as a world without a state.

"...We aint need no fancy gubment tellin us we can't have no arsenic in no still. Granpappy said we be drinkin' it like this for five generation and it aint never done us no harm no how..."


Denoucing the people's dept while prasing democracy is silly: The People's dept is democracy. I'm just saying.


I don't believe in "conspiracy".

1) I would never compliment mankind like that. Conspiracy implies self aware purpose. LOL --don't make me laugh, you species of talking monkeys.

Society certainly is a machine of have and have not creators and doers in a caste structure, glued together with conformity instincts and unwitting brainwashing. But it is no more a conspiracy than a hive colony or body metabolism is. Group symbiosis --like shit-- just happens.

2) the only real conspiracy I have ever seen is wimmins activist types. They do have each other on speed dial and "in the know" selective mailing lists (and before that rolodex) and call each other to plan "action items" and campaigns regarding the latest political football bouncing by in heavy rotation loop (eg OJ hacking his insanity-inducing slut or mothers drowning snot factories or whatever).

3 or 2B) Conspiracy is totally legal --out in the open-- though 'conspicuously ignored'-- and the _point of america by design_: A vested interest pressure group getting involved to create change (for that vested interest pressure group). What could be more american than that?

When one factors in that the fem pressure groups are rooted in a form of superstition and are trying to create heaven on earth through revolution, the whole disgusting thing absolutely drips with Americanism.

Indeed it's america.


The domestication-of-man model --"domestication" like a barn animal bred from a free wolf-- is the way man has developed but that scheme itself is not self aware. It is "emergent" like chemical crystallization in rocks. Multi cellularism is the way of the universe.

And note the way that model starts: brutal primitive simplistic domination-desire and slavery. It is because of that that man snowballs to more complex systems (like multi cellular domestication). (Which I call emergent domestication and you call [self aware, purposeful] people farming.)

The only solution is space travel. That way "micro communities" can be _indefinitely_ apart from each other and thus stop large scale "emergent multi cellular" "people farming".

nr1) Yes a long way away. Yes we need some kind of organized opposition long before that. (I was-- in a around about way --trying to make the point that individualism can't work _without true self sufficiency far away from the hive_.)

nr2) I meant spreading out forever on self sustaining _vehicles_, going as fast as anyone could ever possibly go (300K km/sec) --therefore always being one step ahead of the hive... which man himself drags behind him tied to his ankle as he flees. If we just spread to other near earth platforms and set up shop then _yes_ 'la machine' will catch up and do its thing.

...Just like it did when it caught up to (and "absorbed" [ala star trek]) the anglo/euro world colonial frontiersmen et al (with their freedom and rights jibba jabba which still echoes and grips minds to this day...).

...Just like it --la machine [ie multi cellularism]-- did in pond scum billions of years ago. (There's the real 'conspiracy'. And it is inevitable, non self aware and indifferent.)


We/I have not written conspirac-ism off out of hand. We understand how it is fruity with its belief in SPECTRE boogeymen and how the solutions offered don't address very important aspects of human behavior.

Further to have conspiracism advocates be so `off in their understanding of how things work causes smarter people to call them "batshit".



Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot with the cross purposes nonsense about how they don't want the state imposing it's rules on private institutions, thereby hamstringing equality demands from the right /men. Take colleges. Cons won't make 9when they have scant power) them actually adhere to state rules of anti discrimination and juris prudence.

Note the state's "rules" are the constitution [as is now and upheld by conservatives]. The conservatives drop bombs on other countries so as to impose these rules on those private institutions.

That nonsense is the reason [college etc] gets away with the anti male hate speech, hypocrisy and anti juris prudence this-that-and the-other things.

The conservatives --_the only other party and philosophy in our failed two party system_-- and their absolute failed notions prevent serious legal contest to policies that discriminate against white people and men.


ERRONEOUS STATEMENT: "The "bad feminism" began in the 60s."

That data observes when sparks occurred on the road but it doesn't note the car's motor turning over no less the car's production.


I hate this non productive "shes ugly" or "fat" as a way of stopping it. (As though most of you aint limp dick sweaty palm "creeps".) Pointing out that feminism is the side effect of wallflowers is one thing**. But calling them names is the exact opposite thing we need to do: they will just toughen their resolve to get back at you --the projections of those that made them cry when they were little. (**Solution = Everyone needs to be made the same so as to stop reactionary-ism which is the root of all politics.)

I see it occas.

Interesting to note I usually say it about the dudes in politics. Things like "there is no way that is a sapien skull" or "look at that neotenic specimen" and etc. It doesn't work at stopping it. But again it might allow us to understand whats going on here at the root: reactionaries from childhood loss. (Solution = Everyone needs to be made the same (or fatal dueling in kidhood, without dynastic privilege-to-shirk. But does anyone really want that?).

Yes females are vapid and they're part of vapid gossip /celebrity culture. Yes they say deceptive nonsense--probably rooted in their instincts to control the village and trick and test men --such as "isn't she perfect". Yes, point that aspect of it out if you must. But the whole "no skanks/fatchicks, man" is not a politic that will fly ever.

Nobody asked you to date her.

Explain the mechanism for how hundreds of millions of western men all just move to eastern Europe and flirt with defacto _WHORES_, without the mechanism of western culture catching on and stopping them one way or another. And why won't the same la machine beast --caste structure of government-controls-- just form over in Romania/Czech etc?

That demand for explanation also doesn't even address how all the western male losers just up and get the where with all in the first place --both the gumption and filthy lucre-- to even get that ball rolling.

What you have with your "solution" is a religious persons "aw shucks" goal:

"The bible lifestyle is a good idea. If only people would follow it."

"Capitalism is a good idea if only people would let it work."

"Starving out the beast --la machine-- by running away is a good idea if only everyone could do it and not have the beast follow them."

That caveat at the end there of course is the definition of a bad idea.


The ending of black US slavery was not achieved through the underground railroad, regardless of how many blacks made it to mexico to become 'free' ranch hands. It was achieved through political organizations that murdered and waged planet wide embargoes and wars.


Give me a television satellite and political power over the military for a few years and we'll see if it is me or a clique of rich people looking for tax shelters --by donating to the approved list of charities (a list made by pols and sanctioned by the TV addicted masses) --that has more power.

Not to mention that clique of rich people is not a big shadowy secret. We all know who they are. _And their group interaction and activism is democratic republicanism verbatim; it is not against the constitution--it IS the constitution (which is an inherently contradictory and ill thought through document)._

Regime change is the only solution. And it is going to take lots of tuned-in power (ultimately threats and murder and other egg breaking tactics); not self atomizing. See Germany 1920-40. (Note the krauts were way less religious --ie less delusional by nature-- had fewer coups against their own militant [ie masculine] culture in their history and are probably just smarter too. We have a hard road ahead...)

Jebus etc

This is why men haven't been able to win: the christians and liberals are the same --they are natural allies(always have been). They are both dumbass havens filled with those who lie and use 'yuck factor' propaganda to get their way.

The christians' vocab-list being out of fashion, causes their yuck factor propaganda to be denounce-able as transparent more often.

Does this god have activist power to perform miracles in the fabric of existence that is 'his' mighty cause and effect ness?

And is he aware of himself and any of this?

If not, why call it god?

If it does have this power to "shazam" at will then through what mechanism is cause and effect suspended for "him"?

(Note I give you extra points if you are able to explain how quantum mechanics is a loop hole for god's activism. Meanwhile cause and effect deterimism (planned out in the beginning by a god OR not) negates a role for an activist god. The extra credit only comes if you understand how that understanding right there turns on its ear the big physics dialogue of the early 20th century, between the cause and effect based Einstein and quantum mechanic Bohr et al. ...And I quote Einstein "God does not play dice with the universe" (putting his foot down). But Einstein's cause and effect actually negates a role for god, while quantum mechanic-funny-business (which has been glibbly /falsely called "playing dice") potentially creates loop hole opportunities that the mighty torturer in the sky can use to fuck with his creation in ways that don't apparently thwart observed cosmic determinism. A 200 IQ bouncer from Long Island is writing a book about that but he can't seem to finish it. And no it ain't me --I don't believe in no loving god.)

And why call this caprice of change ("miracles") omnipotence? If "he" needs to change his plan all the time at the behest of the whining of somebody down on earth who cries to him about the cancer _god gave em_ 16 billions years ago when god planned it all out then god isn't very powerful or based in forethought.

I wish this holy cock sucker would make up his mind. Is little Timmy suppose to suffer and die of cancer or isn't he? God, make up your fucking mind, you ditzy woman.


God isn't real. So liberals killing off god is beside my point. Conservative types (not pro male rightists BTW) call the Soviet Union liberal. They say "Sovs don't believe in god and therefore they are "liberal"". This is a childish simplistic way of looking at the world: The convoluted god thing being the be all end all of all assessments of society and things.

The liberal agenda is about acting out benchwarmer stress from childhood failure; it is ostensibly about solving "problems"[tm]. Problems are relative opinions of observed **amoral contingencies. [**That's another thing: STOP USING 'AMORAL' WHEN YOU MEAN 'IMMORAL'.]

Note that along with liberals _conveniently_ ignoring the nature of relativism, "apparent" and "absolute" (incorrect and correct) are further being ignored by them in their opinions of what the "problems" are. For example wimmin being disciplined for or prevented from cheating is not a "problem" (but liberals say it is); men being disposable (and mocked while it happens) always throughout history and continuing even throughout the enlightened western period --while this fact is studiously ignored, even by those who specifically rally to solve problems of the "little man"-- is a "problem".

I say "ostensibly about solving problems" because the problem-solving thing is just demagoguery [popular mistruths] so liberals can get into power (by using useful idiots [eg christians(gullible wishful thinkers)] rallied up by touchy feely or yuck factor protectionist propaganda (long since selected as optimum at cajoling simple minded wishful thinking types) and then once in power get _back at_ those they believe are the cause of their pain --the [projections of] "winners" from childhood.

[That paragraph size sentence above there is horrible even for me. If someone can figure out how to say it better, there will be bonus points for you.]

The liberal solutions for solving 'problems" do little more than pass hot potatoes around; they replace the latest playah, but it doesn't stop the game. "Here come the new boss same as the old".

And the other reason liberals make bad assessments of what the problems are or how to solve them is they have aptitude shortcomings in some categories (but generally not creativity). The very reason they were childhood benchwarmers in the first place.

In liberalism's defense, no one has really tried to step outside of it all and truly solve anything yet and everybody is susceptible to hubris --blind to others' woes-- once they win at life. But that still doesn't mean liberals shouldn't be called on their BS.


Why is the fetus the be all end all of your agenda?

What if we outlawed abortion but still let the female cheat and cuckold? Would that be okay? If it's not, then how does "sanctity of the fetus" address those other things we want stopped?

Say someone like me got into power and outlawed female dalliance and etc mind fuck shit tests but allowed medical procedures that "terminated a fetus". Pretend the "other party" was going to outlaw abortion but let the female engage in those other mind fuck behaviors delineated in the previous sentence. Which party would you back?

Do you believe the fetus feels and thinks like you do or even a dog or cat does?


So what is wrong with killing things?

How does keeping things alive help men stop females?

How many different things should we keep alive?

The measure should be "pain" not "death". Stop pain (including psychological) not killing.

At any rate,
Fetii don't feel the pain. Badly raised children do.

There is the savagery that needs to stop.

Simple actually.

Why can't you advocate controlling the female --ie forcing "responsibilities" on her-- but without the nonsense 'sanctity of the fetus' jebus cult jabba?

Watch, I'll get you rolling...

"Pro abortion and Against a wimmin's right to choose."


I'm an atheist but I'm not a "matriarch".

There is no god. Cause and effect negates a role for an activist god. And nature is so red in tooth and claw by nature that any god that envisioned it and lets it all happen shouldn't be begged mercy from or called our god.

There is no god.

There is only war. "We" must keep the wrong types from living. You want a culture worth living in? You have to breed for it. It is just like selecting certain puppies from a litter. That is what prevents these problems from even getting started.

feminist websites and the like... I wouldn't spend a moment reading any of that. I don't know why men do that.


This is a key, key, KEY thing.

No matter how disenfranchised most men are; no matter how many pea-covering mattresses men give princess while most men sleep on the floor, no many how many tariffs men carry; no matter how cruel, manipulative, deceitful _and etc_ females are to us, so long as men don't "squat to pee" fems (and allies--the natural effete) will cry "foul" on instinct.

Females are simply `angsty over men themselves. They have "lumps in the throat" of attraction and desire. They want to get back at us to take the "power back" of "crush" they feel when they see a hairy chest and healthy "package". (But at the same time they desire these things in men too --and are wistfully cruel if they don't get them. It is all ungrappled with contradiction in their wee heads.)

The actual political arguments feminism made and continues to make or glom on to are all just grabbed at BS: anything they can say that will work at "getting men back" (for simply being better and thus triggering an angst of desire) as they vent the real --though unspoken-- issues inside their heads (the "lump in throat").

Pro fem exploits the class warfare vocabulary stoked up by the morality of democracy and marxism politics (alpha beta gamma protectionist demagoguery) of the last few centuries. This is true, even though females were already over privileged by the laws that the _male_ revolutions were addressing. (Also female humans were outside of the male laws just as female deer are outside of male deer antler-battles, for male deer aren't hurting females with their antlers; antlers are for hurting other males with the females as the wistfully pirouetting catalysts.)

This exploiting of the vocab of democracy et al --that the "common wisdom" set has long since instinctually conformed to-- is why people like me say democracy morality itself is the culprit: it is creating the underlying social ethos that females (an other unscrupulous types) use to vent their unspoken though real motivations. And because of the large upside-down-world problem that democracy creates, nobody of status-quo-changing status is able to actually contemplate these angsts and crypto motivations.


Most men are way more dangerous than worthless. _They are the backbone of why this hypocrisy happens._ And it is pure bio determinism.

Expecting the females to not be hypocrites is like expecting the rain not to be made of water.

Wet stupid people stand in the rain and try to reason it all out with the rain. Smart wet people look to see who tore the roof off the house.

Who tore the roof off?...

That'd be the men.

And then smart men see how to put another one up there.

...Death to democracy. And "eugenics" Now. (Note 'eu' and 'dys' are relative constructs.) All made possible through a strong government that achieves power through a bloody civil war that kills and 'oppresses' most men.

There you go: solution. All other blabber is fighting the wind.


I walk the line, for you... bab-bee.
A thousand miles..., for you.
[I think I'm all out of fair use there.]



A basic principle is amoral determinism. [Indifference and cause and effect.] All that law and constitution and all that jazz is just bullshit for the small minded and con artists.


Men defining themselves as dogs for women's sleds... It is important that men break away from that mind set. It is that mind set that under girded, allowed and promoted feminism originally (mixed with jewish occupational explotive political triangulations with the fems against the the host culture males). It is what under girds it now.


You want to stop liberal stuff?

Okay then you have to stop american "freedom" horseshit first. All that capitalism nonsense and that christ absurdity and the romanticizing the founders and all that republican hooey needs to be dead.

Then liberalism dies that instant.

The reason liberal hypocrisy thrives is because that which is embraced as oppositional to liberalism is actually the pillar structure of liberalism. Always has been. But apparently people are too brain dead to get that. Very curious.


The conservatives are good dumb-beast sacrifices that will help us get dems and liberals (where thought [sometimes grand] and policy comes from) over to our side.

At the very least, why would any thinking --or yes even feeling-- man want to tie himself to that anchor [that is head in hole conservatism and easily demonizable greed]?


How much do you have invested in this system? Male conformity/honor-duty compulsion is all. The system itself is to blame, not any one policy or administration.


Liberals should note that there is no reason to liberate female dalliance tendency and their stupidty just to lessen the breeding of idiots. Note population as a whole has increased during female emancipation; just like rampant sexual objectification (of both genders) has. Also other deemed wrongs that were supposed to be solved by liberalism have.

Why can't we control population growth and keep females from cheating (and etc stuff) too?

Same for jebus cult: why is the only way to stop female leverage deemed none self aware kiss-it-up-to-god-ism?

Shooting people in the face would reduce birth rates too. Or as Monty Python said "having your balls removed" would too. So would a lot of things.

If you want to create a good breed you have to cull for it.

But because jebus culture is such a _disaster of moronic thumb sucking gits, no one gets that_.

There should be only female intel field operatives. Same with only female cops and firemen and helicopter pilots and the like. Oh and only female aircraft carrier commanders.

Death to democracy.

I say bio tech to make everyone the same. And a protectionist plank platform in order to win power enough to get there. Note that "Individualism"/colonialism/entrepreneurial ism/ etc' will never win power against protectionism; ever. Never has and never will. (And humans are inherently in protectionist bands; they are called tribes/troops.) There are various profound reasons for why individualism/capitalism becomes part of a _false dichotomy two party system_ and for why 'we' pretend that it is oppositional to the culture it carries but it has never held sway in any of the approx one HUNDRED countries it has been advocated in even once.


Someone needs to make a kennedy-like speech about getting the next great task done. (I'm not addressing whether or not kennedy is good or a fraud. I mean the galvanizing speech towards big aim.) Instead of the moon launch or bombing 3rd world anti fem it needs to be about genome research and etc bio tech and starting to solve the human condition for everyone.

It is good and important that male studies is trying to get off the ground; I'm not confident though--either its ability or sincerity/honesty. Men's perspective is key, key, crucially needed in solving these woes; It needs to necessarily contradict and CO -OPT the female rap. (Garner sympathy from but at the same time assert how bad that garnering is, given the tendency females have towards discriminatory blood thirsty (true) shit test game playing, where they hate male weakness like males hate female back hair.)


IQ 120s are the oligarchy of modern society; the middle men.

Using the horde of hapless 110s and 100s (and the crude and probably supra vicious 90s) --rallied up through protectionism--to get rid of the oligarchy of liars and con artist who have taken over in the last few centuries (the true beta males of the previous species we come from) would end "liberalism" where it lives.

You don't understand because you --ALL OF YOU-- don't get the alpha beta gamma thing I started. It is not about one's studliness at the thumpa thumpa club (steady girls). It is about the general caste structure of this species as lensed through our understanding of primates. Our species is in a caste structure of IQ 130-145s then IQ 115s to 130s an then IQ 100ish at the bottom. The middle class (115s -130) there has used protectionist demagoguery so as to rally the 100s against the the 137ish thus turning our world upside down.

The jew migrants --ie the "marxist"-- were relevent, in that they were the main 120 something protectionist demagogues --the recent beta along with the upper irish-- who ousted the order of the previous 19th century era. ...And now academia is "marxist", with the "darwinists" all since fired. You types don't know that stuff because it all happened over your heads for class reasons; meaning you aint got none.

So when I say "get rid of the 120s" I mean get rid of the modern western oligarchy --the pretenders to the thrones of authority. The "beta" (whether or not they "pull" cunt at the club); whether they have good jobs and game or not.

Also there is no way to get rid of the majority outright (90-110 makes up about 65 % of the culture!): the majority must be used (ie rallied through protectionism) to oust the ruling class (of 120ish sophist conspirator demagogues who ousted the darwinists who were and are smarter).

Then Transhumanism will happen. Tough titties. There is no way to get around the fact that christianity --especially protestant nuttery--is doomed (and has been for centuries) no matter whether marxism or darwinism prevails here. These cult nutjobs HIDING in the stycks that we call america might try to keep their heads up their asses but it isn't impressing anyone. It has however prevented the "darwinists" from keeping the snowballing liberal zeitgeist coup (regardless of "party") out of power.


Fem says: "The desire to lower the age of consent is so they can mold the knave to their liking."

What's wrong with molding the girl?

People are molded from knaves all the time. It is what school is for. It is what TV is for. It is what the family is for. And it is what the modern single fem family does.

What specifically is the problem with molding young girls to be more submissive to, loyal to and respectful towards men?

How does one stop feminism without such a program?


...The arbitrary unfairness of ignoring lovers of the same age when one is more manipulatively self aware and vengeful then the other. The laws about consent are ostensibly there to protect the naive from the wolf; but it is more often than not that the naive is a teen boy being played* by his cheating girl (who is often a few years younger than him --by her choice).

(*"played" = emotionally abused pretty severly actually. We just don't accept this as truth while at the same time telling the boys to suck it up.)


Are you 'morally' prepared to kill off the men and females who create feminism?

Are you prepared to create state/church/institutionally mandated tariffs to keep the pro fem type of [nature/nurture created] male and female from forming again?


It is fine to learn, girl.

But then... your penance is to dissuade other men out there of their whiteknighting tendencies by making them understand that wimmin are not pristine, faultless fallen angels (in what ever category-of-the-day is being discussed); that females have an assortment of instincts and thus can be very cruel, deceptive, manipulative, non self aware, childish and downright abusive in many categories.

Then go ye forth and sin no more.

The fathers should have trump card say.

It is all part the american anti authority thing that compels us otherwise. We won't be young forever, you know: we become fathers eventually.

If we take power away from the ho and power away from the father, who is left? The 19 year old's penis --and the mawms [adult wimmins]. Sounds similar to what we have now.


"Human rights" is --just like equality and ALL OF THE OTHER RIGHTS BLABBER --just made up nonsense created by the runt moralists so as to get rid of the better males from childhood.

Many simply need to be dead _for being the wrong package of modules (compulsions)_ (like getting rid of dog strains from the litter that are not desired, so as to create a better breed). That isn't happening because of capitalist democracy and chrisendumb.

Testing and sterilizing those below say IQ 120 solves most problems.

Eugenics now!

Protectionism to achieve power. Political theartah (symbols and such) so as to rally the conformist horde/ military muscle. Then impose your policies --Testing and sterilization of the dolts. (This isn't rocket science.)

Early on the females should have been banned from our "thought space" rather than given their own space and having men's space be communal.


The knowing party(ies) should be accountable for infidelity only. A dupe trying to get laid didn't do anything wrong or disrespectful to the jilted boyfriend/husband.

The males who can't grasp that --the ones who need to vent on the nearest male-- need to be _culled out_.


If you infantilize society you stand the chance of liberating females(who are repulsed by and prone to dominate infantiles).

The females will then cheat rampantly "legally". Then "80 percent of the females will be doing 20 percent of the dudes." Females will be self entitled, oblivious to and unreachable about this and the boys will still do the work and be told to just shut up and go along.

That is the quandry that arises when stopping the old ways.

And the commentators are confused over what to do to stop stoning.

You breed for new modules as far as getting rid of the sadists.

You'll still need to cull for cheaters too then.

For both cullings, use lethal injection to eliminate. Or personality controlling chemicals to change.


There is no such thing as a world without "social Darwinism".

There is such a thing however as self awareness or ignorance. The "anti Darwinists" would have us all be ignorant of how things actually work.


[Question by someone:] "Is there a balance between shutting women in their homes and giving them license to wreck society and trample on the lives of those around them?"

No, there is none. Dimorphic sexuality is emasculation(thus creating creating females); And then consequenting female hyper value.

Dem's the facts. (Censored, convoluted-up, tortured and just plain squashed as they are.)

[Question by someone:] "I suspect that this will be one of the most difficult questions to answer, and we may have to put a great deal of effort into working it out."

The destiny is quite simple:

The under health males kept alive by human material success will continue to triangulate with females as their way of getting rid of the healthier males from childhood. Once that is achieved (as it has been in the west for all intents and purposes) the new 'social sexual dynamic' (ie "mating ritual" or mating dance /display) created between the runt males and the "liberated" females (liberated by the elimination of the healthy who previously kept the females in line /emasculated) will be a male immolation dynamic of one stripe or another as payment to fem sex value (ala praying mantis like or etc).

One way or another, males will pay to fem sex value: either males will kill each other off in battles created by fem sex value and then the winner males (his wide-lens libido) will pick and emasculate [ie "rape" or "child molest" if you will] females (thus creating females in the process, for more softwired organisms, eg mollusks or etc); or the males will protect themselves from those culling battles by giving the power of choice to the females --who will then "eat" (take energy from, in one way or another) the winner males.

Eventually if the neo cortex survives (which might be doubtful, since females and runts don't really have it) gender itself will be eliminated in favor of hermaphrodites or Asexual clones.

And even without any of that, Mankind or "humanity" will voluntarily replace itself --numbers wise--with machines. (Meaning silicon and iron and such rather than the types of machines that organisms are already.) The reason it will be "voluntarily" (rather than a robot coup, ala Hollywood) is those machines will make much better progeny (tools of war --the 'spearheads' of the multi generational lances-- against the other lineages) than the biologic types we rely on now to pull it all off and carry it all on.

All of that has been going on since before Rome but really ramped up after Rome's fall and the jesus cult diaspora. I know you all think I'm crazy or mean or such. But I'm simply smarter than you --I see more clearly than you : You all lack layers of cerebrum; meaning it's like you're color blind and the electromagnetic phenomenon called green simply can't trigger your "green receptor color cones"(molecules on the retina) which respond to the electromag contingency-- "green" -- `cause you ain't got green receptors.

Ie you is dumb.

We need to convince civilization's mechanism (specialists) to try and make men equal at the biological level [enter the machine clone progeny?] --because men are the true victims of society (always have been --that's why men are as strong as they are) and redistribute the real wealth --_pu$$y_-- which is the core wealth that motivates all the other competition, "inequality" and disparity, pain and suffering between men.

Men are not fighting over money: they are fighting over pu$$y. Money is simply an abstract measuring stick for seeing who's next in line to get some.

So long as Free Range Pussy exists there will never be "equality" between men. Pu$$y would never stand for it!

But if we could get men the same and pussy in check, well...

It is like that Steve Martin caveman bit from the old Saturday Night Live. After the hunt he says, (and this is all paraphrase from memory) "listen instead of just eating the thing why don't we save it and catch another one tomorrow and then we can mate them and have a steady supply of food forever? This way we will have free-ed up energy that will allow us to do great things: build structures and invent and then develop profound philosophies that allow us to truly understand it all since we won't just be chasing these things[food] around all day every day."

The dumb thick and furrow browed chief looks at him and goes "you smart. We will sleep now and think more on this tomorrow."

The tribe all turns to go set up their sleeping spots.

Loraine Neuman is one of the cave bitches; absurdly thick browed. She stayed behind by Steve Martin CaveMan as the others were turning to leave and she goes to him "duh, um... you make me wet." [big laugh]

The dumb chief who had already turned to leave but was still in ear shot sees this and he is not happy.

Steve nods 'oh, thank you' or similar to Loraine cave bitch. They then-- Loraine and Steve-- turn to go with the others.

The tribe is asleep now. Steve Caveman is asleep at his spot.

The chief sneakily gets up from his spot and skulks over to where Steve is sleeping. He then proceeds to bash Steve CaveMan in the head with a rock until dead.

The chief then stands, pounds his chest and goes "And now I am smart".

And... scene!

Well if we could get FRP (free range pussy) in check, we wouldn't have to chase these things(Pu$$y) around all day. That would free up energy to... to do great things...

Like replace ourselves with machines.

Or just sit in a pile of filth and fuck our in-check nieces all day...

So there you go. Simple.

Good luck.


"Equality for Men is not something that should ever be desired, any more than Equality between the sexes.

Both ideas are expressions of the same Liberal Revolt agaisnt Reality, and the same perverse mental illness."

Inequality between men is the reason they fight. That fight has LED INEVITABLY to LIBERALISM and FEMINISM.

To prevent that from happening --after 'we' win the war to stop lib and fem (as if)-- the root problem itself has to be solved.

You are simply a very primitive thinker. ...Reason number 6 thousand, 4 hundred and fifty 2 you should be in alliance with islam against the likes of me. But you can't get yourself out of the tangles that have confused you all.


The so called rebelling minorities of the 60s were not white adult men trying to upset the pu$$y status quo of the elites. The "rebels" were the equivalent of the children, wives and pets of the ruling class. They got away with it and were given things for the same reason a crying baby or begging puppy does and is.

"This won't be won politically. A revolution is needed."


Grand triangulations and realignments...

The N koreans; and chinese; islam; domestic black; and the latest ethnics.

Keep the GOP --the muscle and wallet of liberalism --out of power. The liberal big tent will then faction along internal fissures. The us --and britn (brit to US : Greece to Rome)-- will be unable to impose anywhere and will shrink and then implode hopefully under external pushes.

But that simply gets us --mankind-- back to zero. Next time the "problem" itself needs to be solved once and for all.

...Our understanding of determinism --Nature, Darwinism-- or whatever you want to call it-- allows us to get to the root of it all...

Female sexual value and 'Alpha beta gamma coup d eta' rooted in have and have not and loss. (I've explained it many times.)


Can you give some examples on how shifting the reasoning would work?

When fem says "77 cents on the dollar" I say back "the only reason men work at all is to balance out female sexual value."

That won't work at first BECAUSE THE ANGLO WORLD (AMERICA) IS DEEP DEEP DEEP WITH _THUMB SUCKING RETARD GITS_ ("MEN" and christians I believe are the polite terms). But if you keep at it --as I have for the last 15 years-- eventually you RETARDED THUMB SUCKING GITS catch on to how naturalism works.

Another: Libs scream how many wimmins aren't allowed abortions (which in an of itself is a lie); I say back that there aren't enough abortions yet.

Another... Feminists and git pyscho-babble masculinists say "females are hurt by 'social symbols' (eg Gilligan's Island's Maryanne in short-shorts causes females to be too dumb to go to NASA)." I say back males are far worse off than females[bullet list enters here which I don't do] and since we are to believe social signals have power to create 'nurture syndromes' inducing underachievement than we have to accept that there are hurtful to boys symbols coming from on high (which we have _obvious evidence for everywhere_ unlike the bald face lie that females are under siege from "patriarchal symbols") . And also females are just naturally dumb for genetic reasons; genes _selected_ by our tribal past. ([Followed up by: "I aint looking for votes and I don't believe in the democracy equality gibberish.")

Fems stats about violence and etc. I say "those are liberal protected groups (ethnics and poor) not the white patriarchy. And those stats are evidence for how democracy is bad --ie how men are NOT equal-- not evidence for how men are bad and wimmins (golden, no doubt [sarc]) deserve special one-up privileges." ("Not to mention liberal hypocrites stereotype men with a broad brush and then advocate unconstitutional discriminatory policy.") (Not that I would lower myself to even wiping my ass with the constitution and the like.)

And etc etc.

Basically just watch the way I've done it here (when I have energy to engage).

Tanks and planes blow open stuck trench warfare debates.

I don't know if it will work.

I do know that western Anglo Conservationism HAS NOT worked.

Testing and sterilization. (Or water posioning and etc.)

We have too many git males that used to die but now thrive.

That is why feminism INEVITABLY happened.

my "alpha beta gamma principle" tries to explain.

We have snowballed over the generations into a place (through AlphaBG coup cycles), where masculine behavior --which creates and controls fem behavior--is taboo/"criminal". It is that that is emboldening the females; ie that which is creating "feminism".


Females are not intellectually and physically equal with males.

They are the key catalysts for competition (and the consequent stress, pain and suffering, and disparity).

They have childish manipulative, deceptive, two faced, secretive, discriminatory, complain-based* characters. (*cracking-the-whip technique.)

They are way over privileged under the law --and always have been.

Dim sex is an emasculation battle.

There is no such thing as equal or any of that modern cult talk.

None of that is "hatred."

As I tried to explain earlier, understanding yucky truth[tm] is not sociopathy; _creating solutions that accept the yucky truth as starting point is not sociopathy._

Well the same goes for pu$$y and this misogyny/hatred cry. Accurate interpretation of society, history, mating dance and female character and aptitude --and the history of dim sex itself-- is not "hatred". Likewise creating solutions that accept that yucky truth as starting point is not hatred.

(Or if you must, hatred has its roll: self defense. I "hate" it when a bear mauls me; I kind of hate the bear. Tying up a bear is not "hatred". (I don't actually believe in cruelty to animals. But that is not the point. The point is the animal is bad and needs to be tethered. It is not "hate" when the mauled attempt tethering.))

"Morality" demagoguery (eg denouncing people who see clearly as 'sociopaths' or 'haters') has always been the way nerds/monks have controlled and shaped society over to their liking.

Indeed psycho babble diagnosis --ie made up nonsense which is just pulled out of the ass-- is the way the latest runtdom/monkdom (called liberalism) controls society now.


I believe we need more "sociopaths".

Sociopathy being an arbitrary construct...

Yes bio chemistries are recognizably different. But the definitions of "criminally insane" and sociopathy or anything like that are ARBITRARY. There is no such biological diagnosis. It is purely legalistic political funny business that by purposeful legalistic design ignores existential (surrounding issue) prerequisites.

Observe: I believe it is sociopathy to NOT abort. I believe the biochemistries that CAN'T see it that way ARE recognizably biologically different from "good people"; I deem these bio types criminally insane sociopaths. It is sociopathy to let idiots breed.


We shouldn't forfeit the protectionism planks when they are the only ones that have ever won power in any system no less a system that has institutionalized demagogic protectionism.


Why give the females a pass on the root discrimination that motivates all the competition and have and have-not in the world when the female movement doesn't allow the same discrimination against ugly chicks without making it a battle cry ["looks-ism" and "objectification"] and demanding change which specifically seeks to take away that male power to discriminate --even though males are already instinctually less discriminatory than the females in this very catagory of who fucks who?

Why give the female whole a pass when they do not reciprocate in kind? Indeed males ignoring the wall flowers is the original impetus for this wave of "la femme mystique" in the last 150 years we call feminism.


You have had sex with a man?

Meaning you get off on a man fucking you doggy style holding your hips and telling you he is going to cum ("so hold still you little creature") while you give a guttural moan into the pillow your face is in as he fills you?

If you don't want that, you understand that you are rare right? What are you going to do with all the people who do like it that way?

And if you do like it that way, saying well "that is just sex--I meant submit in social and political, legal type circles" is not good enough. The reason it is not good enough is most of your female libido is psychological. You get off on the whole scene not just the acute physical (this is wrong?). If the creature fucking you is not someone you respect (and I mean respect as a "better" an authority figure --not just some goofy word from a song) you won't be liking him enough or liking him using you like that.

And also (and this is important), if the male isn't prevented from being a creature who is better than you by the state, he naturally will be better often [except runts, which I want to ameliorate through tech]. But if the state is preventing men from being better, then it is making them submit.

So men will be submitting. Therefore your whole "nobody should submit to anyone" thing is empty, ill thought through nonsense. Especially ill thought through when one factors in that as the state prevents men from naturally displaying in ways that normal females desire, the female will start shunning them and/or moving in to treat them dominantly.

So how can females not submit to men in a system that doesn't coerce men into submission? How can wimmin be free from this submission to men without a state that makes men submit?

Again, your whole "nobody should submit to anyone" thing is empty and ill thought through.

...The female human is a non sentient child. That is my professional diagnosis. The stuff that comes out of her mouth just sounds like words, so as to trick men into providing for her expert parasitism (like a baby).

females are not broad minded, outside looking in thinkers. More like colicky babies on instinct. They will cry till the milk is gone or somebody plays deaf to them and lets them cry themselves out one time.

Do you really believe that female humans are intellectuality and physically "equal" with the best men? If not --ie if you do believe wimmin lack something some men have-- should the female submit to those men?

I do know the 'devil is in the details'. ...Sitting right next to the females and the specialists.