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.


No comments:

Post a Comment

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