Thursday, September 2, 2010


"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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.